True enough, but them crusades, in hindsight, probably weren't the best things to have happened.
Kind of built a wall in between Islamics and the restuvus.
Yes, and no.
Actually the Crusades began as a defensive response to Jihad. Highly under reported fact.
Yes, and no.
I'd be a little annoyed if a bunch of white folk just up and tried to take over my la... Oh wait.
No, he doesn't. By all appearances, he judges the whole by relatively few individuals.
I think he uses the actions of a good number of Islamists, to point out the incompatibility of Islam and the western way of life.
Yep; pretty much anything even remotely connected to Islam, including its followers.
Again, no, he's anti Islam, not anti Muslim. There is a huge difference. He's pretty particular with what he uses to show the issue he sees. I've sen him post material incorrectly, and immediately apologize or retract it when it's error is pointed out.
After years of conversing with him, I get the sense that being a Muslim, is irrelevant to him. The person is far more important.
While he has shown that the tenets of Islam are simply incompatible with western society.
I guess you could say he's pretty damned insulting to some Muslims. In so far as he thinks those tha come here and embrace or culture are pretty much being
bad Muslims. While those that bomb, murder and otherwise commit abhorrent acts, are being
good Muslims.
I get that.
He's about as anti- as EAO is, except on the other side.
Meh, I've debated Colpy many times.
1, He WILL concede to fact.
2, He never uses the same crap over and over after it's been proven erroneous.
3, He freely and openly admits his bigotry towards Islam.
4, He doesn't make stuff up.
5, In short he's just honest.
I dig that.
