Crime Egypt tourist bus explosion: Four dead and 11 injured after blast near pyramids

[Lord Commander Palis]

Huh? How does that prove your point at all? You implied Islam came to Egypt in the 80s, that's still off by over a thousand years and your post here doesn't change that one bit. But its nice to see your ego isn't bruised by being that wrong, I guess you have high self esteem irl.

Nice reading comprehension and yes my self esteem is Kobe-like.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Nice reading comprehension.

No for real, explain to me how copying and pasting a section of a wiki article you skimmed proves your point that Islam came to Egypt in the 80s?

 

[ShinkanPo]

No for real, explain to me how copying and pasting a section of a wiki article you skimmed proves your point that Islam came to Egypt in the 80s?

80s Islam is born.

Wild Imams listening to glam rock and Michael Jackson.


Below some clips from the era.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Three Vietnamese tourists and an Egyptian guide were killed and 11 others injured when a bomb blast hit their bus on Friday less than 2.5 miles from Egypt's world famous Giza pyramids, authorities said.

The explosion took place on the Marioutiya Road in the pyramid district, one of the most famous streets in greater Cairo.


The blast is the first deadly attack against foreign tourists in Egypt for more than a year and comes as the tourism sector, a vital source of foreign currency revenue, was recovering from a sharp drop in visitor numbers since the country's 2011 uprising.

No immediate claim of responsibility was reported. Islamist extremists including some linked to Islamic State are active in Egypt and have targeted foreign visitors in the past.

Nine of the injured were Vietnamese tourists, and one was the Egyptian driver, according to official statements.

The tourists were heading to a sound and light show at the pyramids, which they had visited earlier in the day, said Lan Le, 41, who was also aboard the bus but unhurt.

Source


Egypt is a safe holyday destination. There is no reason to be tentative or even cautious. If you do you're a bigot and a racist. And an Islamaphobe.

Impossible; they only target us because of our foreign policy and Vietnamese aren't colonizing the mideast.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Impossible; they only target us because of our foreign policy and Vietnamese aren't colonizing the mideast.

They're targeting tourists to hurt the legitimacy of Sisi, the US backed dictator, so US foreign policy is not unrelated.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

They're targeting tourists to hurt the legitimacy of Sisi, the US backed dictator, so US foreign policy is not unrelated.

A stretch at best.

 

[bushman505]

I fucking hate Islam.

 

[cincymma79]

They're targeting tourists to hurt the legitimacy of Sisi, the US backed dictator, so US foreign policy is not unrelated.

I heard hey only made pyramids because they knew one day America would bomb squares

 

[meauneau]

They're targeting tourists to hurt the legitimacy of Sisi, the US backed dictator, so US foreign policy is not unrelated.

That might be one of the reasons, but the motivation comes from the Quran and Hadith.

 

[Liquidskies]

 

[Fazz]

All I claimed was that ISIS and Islamic terrorists get their ideas and motivation from the Islamic scripture in addition to the political situations of the world. You asked for evidence of this, which is a very dumb thing to ask since the terrorists claim so on videos and even publish their justifications citing Islamic scripture and literature.

We ended up discussing Mohammed and early Islam. I raised some points which you failed to address, I will list them here:

Do you suffer from short term memory loss? You started this thread by asking whether the idea for this attack came from Quran or Hadith. I responded in the negative to which you said "we know that these terrorists get their ideas and motivation from the Quran and Hadith". You then started fumbling around with ideas that you didn't understand like "dar ul harb", and I asked you to prove that scripture is behind these attacks, as you claimed.

1)Mohammed grew up among the Quraysh and even though, as we are told, Mohammed never took part in the polytheistic rituals and traditions even before he received revelation, the Quraysh never bothered with him, they tolerated his unbelief and refusal to follow the religion of his kin and folk. But when Mohammed decided that he was a prophet of the one true God, Allah, and that everyone had to follow his religion, he begun to insult and disrespect his people, their religion, their way of life and their ancestors and threatened them. He did this under the protection of his uncle and his grandfather. If the Quraysh threw stones at him or tried to beat him up it was justified because he was a trouble maker. He caused slaves to revolt against their masters and the rebellious youth to leave their families and join Mohammed.

.

I addressed your points but will do so again on the basis that you address mine. You have an uncanny ability to not see bits where you are being proven wrong.

With regards to this, the Pagans at that time had numerous unethical practices that the Prophet was against. Those social norms included the killing of girls, a version of usury where the rich were taking from the poor, the abuse and torture of lower classes, especially slaves, and prostitution. The disgusting practices of the time were criticised as were the ruling classes, and the people were called to a new system and a new way of life where those practices were banned, Islam. The pagans of the time also believed in one God but thought the various idols were a way of connecting to that entity. They were told that God doesn't need statues for you to connect with him. They were also told about Heaven and Hell and told that they still had a choice about which path they took.

Now, you claim that during this period the Prophet threatened the Quraysh - please provide evidence where there were threats of violence and war?

You have previously stated that the Quraysh should have killed the Prophet for his speech - and now you claim that people deserve to be beaten/tortured for their speech. Do you believe in murder for the wrong speech? Please answer the last 2 questions.

You claim that Mohammed became hostile because the Quraysh killed newborn females. I asked if this was the only reason. You did not respond. Also, we are to believe that female infanticide happened even though we only learn this from Muslim sources as there are no non-Muslim sources to corroborate this.

There were many reasons, some of which are mentioned above. As for the sources, if you believe they are incorrect, then prove it with a counter source. It is a logical fallacy simply to reject a source because you dont 'like' it whilst failing to bring a new one.

Mohammed claimed that the Kabba was for Allah alone and that he was his messenger. He claimed that shirk was something to fight against and he wanted to destroy all the idols that were in the Kabba. He wanted to take over the Mekka for himself and years later he returned with an army and took it.

You can repeat the same mantra about me burying my head int the sand and the other BS you keep spouting, we can all see through it. The fact is that you have failed to address a single point I raised. If anything you show us how deluded and deceitful Muslims can be when it comes to defending their religion.

The irony of calling someone else deceitful when you have been caught lying numerous times over the last few pages lmao

Since this whole debate was about terrorism, it is telling that you have totally given up trying to prove your initial claim and gone off on numerous tangents in order to avoid the topic. I asked you a few questions above, please answer them. Ill list some of the areas where you have lied or told half-truths - you can respond to them if you want tor retain any credibility.

1) You thought all Jews and Christians were expelled from Arabia from that narration you quoted. This was proven to be untrue in a number of sources - the one I gave was Asqalani. Were you deliberately lying or just plain ignorant?

2) You mention the war against Banu Mustaliq but clearly didn't know they were a Quraysh ally and at war with the Muslims. Were you trying to twist the sources or was that just plain ignorance again?

3) You claimed that "The only ones who were tortured and and killed were the slaves who rebelled against their masters because of Mohammed" - this was shown to be untrue from the stories of the Yasir, Summayah, and Ammar amongst others. Were you lying again or are you just plain ignorant?

Answer these questions as it is important for me to know who I am talking too. If you are a liar, then there's not much I can do to help you. If you are just plain ignorant, however, then I can help educate you by continuing to offer sources for you to check out. Like I did with the topic of Hadith science, I am always happy to help. Since you didn't respond to what I taught you on that topic, I assume you accepted that correction too.

 

[Liquidskies]

Do you suffer from short term memory loss? You started this thread by asking whether the idea for this attack came from Quran or Hadith. I responded in the negative to which you said "we know that these terrorists get their ideas and motivation from the Quran and Hadith". You then started fumbling around with ideas that you didn't understand like "dar ul harb", and I asked you to prove that scripture is behind these attacks, as you claimed.



I addressed your points but will do so again on the basis that you address mine. You have an uncanny ability to not see bits where you are being proven wrong.

With regards to this, the Pagans at that time had numerous unethical practices that the Prophet was against. Those social norms included the killing of girls, a version of usury where the rich were taking from the poor, the abuse and torture of lower classes, especially slaves, and prostitution. The disgusting practices of the time were criticised as were the ruling classes, and the people were called to a new system and a new way of life where those practices were banned, Islam. The pagans of the time also believed in one God but thought the various idols were a way of connecting to that entity. They were told that God doesn't need statues for you to connect with him. They were also told about Heaven and Hell and told that they still had a choice about which path they took.

Now, you claim that during this period the Prophet threatened the Quraysh - please provide evidence where there were threats of violence and war?

You have previously stated that the Quraysh should have killed the Prophet for his speech - and now you claim that people deserve to be beaten/tortured for their speech. Do you believe in murder for the wrong speech? Please answer the last 2 questions.



There were many reasons, some of which are mentioned above. As for the sources, if you believe they are incorrect, then prove it with a counter source. It is a logical fallacy simply to reject a source because you dont 'like' it whilst failing to bring a new one.



The irony of calling someone else deceitful when you have been caught lying numerous times over the last few pages lmao

Since this whole debate was about terrorism, it is telling that you have totally given up trying to prove your initial claim and gone off on numerous tangents in order to avoid the topic. I asked you a few questions above, please answer them. Ill list some of the areas where you have lied or told half-truths - you can respond to them if you want tor retain any credibility.

1) You thought all Jews and Christians were expelled from Arabia from that narration you quoted. This was proven to be untrue in a number of sources - the one I gave was Asqalani. Were you deliberately lying or just plain ignorant?

2) You mention the war against Banu Mustaliq but clearly didn't know they were a Quraysh ally and at war with the Muslims. Were you trying to twist the sources or was that just plain ignorance again?

3) You claimed that "The only ones who were tortured and and killed were the slaves who rebelled against their masters because of Mohammed" - this was shown to be untrue from the stories of the Yasir, Summayah, and Ammar amongst others. Were you lying again or are you just plain ignorant?

Answer these questions as it is important for me to know who I am talking too. If you are a liar, then there's not much I can do to help you. If you are just plain ignorant, however, then I can help educate you by continuing to offer sources for you to check out. Like I did with the topic of Hadith science, I am always happy to help. Since you didn't respond to what I taught you on that topic, I assume you accepted that correction too.

It's pretty pathetic listening to your Islamic apologetics propaganda agenda crap. Either you are a Muslim or a left wing with a palestina scarf. Anyways, trying to justify/over analyze something so primitive and barbaric as Islam is beyond ridiculous. You should read up on historical accounts on the Islamic crusades. Spoiler alert, it was not spread with a handshake and a smile. But but it was defensive wars... But but it's not true Islam... The truth is, if you send a camera back in time you would see Mohammad and his thugs basicly lived the same life ISIS is doing now. But keep it up, you fool no one, except yourself.

 

[all caps]

It's pretty pathetic listening to your Islamic apologetics propaganda agenda crap. Either you are a Muslim or a left wing with a palestina scarf. Anyways, trying to justify/over analyze something so primitive and barbaric as Islam is beyond ridiculous. You should read up on historical accounts on the Islamic crusades. Spoiler alert, it was not spread with a handshake and a smile. But but it was defensive wars... But but it's not true Islam... The truth is, if you send a camera back in time you would see Mohammad and his thugs basicly lived the same life ISIS is doing now. But keep it up, you fool no one, except yourself.

Scary post scary poster

 

[Bald1]

Scary post scary poster

Maybe, but he has a point.

If this shit behavior (terrorist bombings, beheadings) has nothing to do with Islam then why is it almost exclusively the domain of the followers of old Mo? The no true Scotsman excuse making is sooo 2018.

 

[all caps]

Maybe, but he has a point.

If this shit behavior (terrorist bombings, beheadings) has nothing to do with Islam then why is it almost exclusively the domain of the followers of old Mo? The no true Scotsman excuse making is sooo 2018.

Question - when isis claims responsibility for any given attack - who exactly is it that is sending out the press release on their behalf? Do we have a go to isis rep we dial up? How does that work

 

[Bald1]

Question - when isis claims responsibility for any given attack - who exactly is it that is sending out the press release on their behalf? Do we have a go to isis rep we dial up? How does that work

This would have been a better question before the prevalence of social media and the internet.

 

[all caps]

This would have been a better question before the prevalence of social media and the internet.

But I heard Russia hacked the election with bots and trolls though

 

[Bald1]

But I heard Russia hacked the election with bots and trolls though

I read it on the internet, so it must be true.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I've noticed Islamic Republics don't separate church and state. So violence from the state is automatically put upon religion. I really have no problem with that. It's a logical conclusion.

Whereas say here, we separate church and state. And we don't really prosecute or hold either responsible for international crimes. I think that's the plus of a peaceful religion.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Poor @Fazz , oct 2018 join date previous ban.