Grahame Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The September 11th attackers had no qualms about attacking innocent people, including almost a hundred muslims who died. What does that tell you? Condell would have you believe the ideology of the terrorists is purely religious. This is simplistic and naive. Most al-Qaeda experts seem to agree that the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia was the main motivating grievance. For bin Laden, the main goal was to expel American troops from Saudi Arabia. 15 out of the 19 September 11th terrorists were Saudi. If you wanted to set people free from murdering repressive dictators that harbour terrorism you should have really started with Saudi Arabia. Instead Iraq and Saddam were targetted, ironic since bin Laden hated Saddam. Condell is using dishonest and recklessly stupid racist language which is way off the mark factually and designed to misdirect our ire. That's why it's irresponsible. That is true and a lot of people do the same on here, it isn't only Condell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayfair Posted February 22, 2011 Author Share Posted February 22, 2011 The September 11th attackers had no qualms about attacking innocent people, including almost a hundred muslims who died. What does that tell you? Condell would have you believe the ideology of the terrorists is purely religious. This is simplistic and naive. Most al-Qaeda experts seem to agree that the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia was the main motivating grievance. For bin Laden, the main goal was to expel American troops from Saudi Arabia. 15 out of the 19 September 11th terrorists were Saudi. If you wanted to set people free from murdering repressive dictators that harbour terrorism you should have really started with Saudi Arabia. Instead Iraq and Saddam were targetted, ironic since bin Laden hated Saddam. Condell is using dishonest and recklessly stupid racist language which is way off the mark factually and designed to misdirect our ire. That's why it's irresponsible. Again you fail. Condell is not using racism as a weapon he is using facts given to him by the islamic terrorists and islamic tyrants ie saudi goverment. Osama etc etc and picking the extreme views of these people ie stoning/beheading/mass murder/suicide bombers then using them to express his views so really sections of the islamic faith /people give him all he needs to show them up for what they are. .EVIL. But again i stress to you if you actually watch pats videos its not all islam bashing he qoute hating all religon and anyone who kills in the name of there faith / beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Again you fail. Condell is not using racism as a weapon he is using facts As I've demonstrated quite a few times, a lot of what condell says is blatantly untrue, and he has never quoted Bin Laden, I've no idea where you get this from. Plus, the important distinction you've missed is that he doesn't confine himself to attacking terrorists, he extrapolates their actions in order to attack what he feels is an homogenous mass. Sweeping, misguided, dishonest racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I can understand the attraction of Pat Condell's rants, but he does put considerable strain on the truth. His attack on the supposed "Ground Zero Mosque" was particularly invidious, containing several outright lies. Given that the Ground Zero Mosque thing was a complete phantom, as the Guardian article that I referred to shows, it's arguable that Condell's whole talk on it was one big lie. His casual racism toward the entire muslim faith together with the laughably ignorant opinion that no muslim, ever, has contributed to the greater good exposes him as nothing more than a pub bore. The video is full of falsehoods and lies with the intention of using fear and hatred against ‘them.’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 When did it become compulsory to have to respect any one particular religion, even one your disagree with profoundly, and when did it become 'racist' to criticise any one particular religion? If we live in a land where people are free to fully subscribe to an ideology or religion as much as we like, then we're also just as free to harangue it as much as we like, which is what Pat does. It's just one person's opinions, one person's thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Not true. The terrorists gave a number of reasons for the attacks, US troops based in Saudi and US support for Israel among them. Do you have a reference for that? I was under the impression that no one had ever admitted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. I may be wrong, which is why I'm asking for an authenticated reference. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted responsibility under torture by water-boarding, but I wouldn't trust any statement extracted under torture. I would probably admit to it if I was water-boarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 It's basic attention seeking 101 (and seems to be working quite well, judging by the existence of this thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 His casual racism toward the entire muslim faith together with the laughably ignorant opinion that no muslim, ever, has contributed to the greater good exposes him as nothing more than a pub bore. Again you appear to be lying. Where has he been racist? And didn't you quote the other part earlier? He said that Islam has contributed nothing to justice, tolerance, and human dignity. That is very different to what you have said here. And seeing as you are the one who supplied the quote in the first place it is evident that you knew that that's not what it said, the only conclusion is that you made a conscious decision to change the meaning to try and make a point. In other words, you lied. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of this guy, I think he's a touch too angry. I watched a few of his videos a year or so ago and thought little of them. But your line of attack is ridiculous, and slanderous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 If so what do we think? found this link http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell first ive seen or heard of this man totally agreed with this link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 this is the second video ive watched from the man http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/a/u/1/IEkelAsmcf4 totally agree with this one aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.