i am so unhappy with life

[Sunnie Ameena]

Sorry, I meant to say that I could not have said it better. Thinking faster than I type. lol.

 

[Futuwwa]

yo pwn star, get ur facts right, the whole speech is even worse
do people need to spell everything out by posting voluminous videos for your executive blessing instead of you doing ur own research b4 looking like a troll?

It is generally accepted that the one who makes a positive statement takes on the burden of proof. Not the one who doubts.

i wont continue debating ith you lest it goes off topic like most of the threads you post on, including the one where you imply the prophet pbuh was a socialist (astaghfirullah).

If I remember correctly, I think it was Omar ibn al-Khattab I said that about. But of course, the Prophet was one too. Workers of the world, la ilaha illAllah!

here's a longer section of the speech for other readers who may havebeen unfortunate enough to read ur post.

And the part where he says any of what you think he says? All he said there was more of the same, the world is much more politically aware than before, and that that somehow complicates geopolitics.

and yes, regarding your jibe about the nwo, he clearly states his disdain for a diversified leadership and pushes heavily for a "new world order".
that man's a cold blooded serpent, he doesnt have any qualms with causing humanitarian disasters in order to get his political aims acheived:

And the part about the New World Order (TM)? ^o)

The only "humanitarian disaster" he's talking about in that video is the casualties the mujahideen will inflict on the Soviet Union thanks to American aid. If he were an Islamic ruler arming the mujahideen, you would be praising him to the skies.

 

[جوري]

It is generally accepted that the one who makes a positive statement takes on the burden of proof. Not the one who doubts.

It is also generally accepted that once one presents their proof that they're under no further obligation to convince you of it. You can take it or leave it no?

If I remember correctly, I think it was Omar ibn al-Khattab I said that about. But of course, the Prophet was one too. Workers of the world, la ilaha illAllah!

Does this not qualify under a 'positive statement' for which you're required to provide proof?

And the part where he says any of what you think he says? All he said there was more of the same, the world is much more politically aware than before, and that that somehow complicates geopolitics.

I guess this requires a certain flexibility on your cognition.. I am not sure why you singularly are missing what is obvious?

best,

 

[Futuwwa]

It is also generally accepted that once one presents their proof that they're under no further obligation to convince you of it. You can take it or leave it no?

Not really. Calling something proof doesn't make it so. Taking a rock and calling it proof does not fulfil the burden of proof. I have refuted his alleged proof, shown why it is inadequate. That means the ball is in his court.

If you disagree, let's play the game by the rules you are supporting. I have a rock here next to me which proves that you are evil. Now disprove that.

Does this not qualify under a 'positive statement' for which you're required to provide proof?

Why would it? I never made any assertion to the effect. Abz made an assertion regarding what I think, and I agreed.

I guess this requires a certain flexibility on your cognition.. I am not sure why you singularly are missing what is obvious?

If it's so obvious, you should have no difficulty proving it to be true. Go on, pwn me.

 

[جوري]

Not really. Calling something proof doesn't make it so. Taking a rock and calling it proof does not fulfil the burden of proof. I have refuted his alleged proof, shown why it is inadequate. That means the ball is in his court.

If you disagree, let's play the game by the rules you are supporting. I have a rock here next to me which proves that you are evil. Now disprove that.

I haven't seen any refutations on your part. Making a statement of assertion doesn't qualify as a refutation no matter how fervent you're in that public display of conviction.

Why would it? I never made any assertion to the effect. Abz made an assertion regarding what I think, and I agreed.

Alleging that the prophet PBUH and Umar Ibn ilkhtaab built a socialist state or were themselves socialists or promoted socialism contradicts Islamic ideology, jurisprudence, governance etc and requires proof on your part. There's no point throwing statements around, not backing them up with evidence yet by the same token rebuffing aside what is blatantly obvious to everyone else or does being objectionable garner needed attention?

If it's so obvious, you should have no difficulty proving it to be true. Go on, pwn me.

?? The difficulty is only had on your part, I don't see anyone else having the same problem, thus it is something that you need to work on, on your own private time I don't see why anyone should care to steer your very skewed beliefs when you're obviously quite happy having them?

best,

 

[Futuwwa]

I haven't seen any refutations on your part. Making a statement of assertion doesn't qualify as a refutation no matter how fervent you're in that public display of conviction.

I'll make a refutation when there is something to refute. Abz has so far only posted videos that he claims are evidence without telling us how they constitute that. I've objected that there's nothing in them that makes his particular interpretation of them inevitable. His is the burden to show that they are, which he hasn't, he simply makes a lot of just-so statements about what's in them.

Alleging that the prophet PBUH and Umar Ibn ilkhtaab built a socialist state or were themselves socialists or promoted socialism contradicts Islamic ideology, jurisprudence, governance etc and requires proof on your part. There's no point throwing statements around, not backing them up with evidence yet by the same token rebuffing aside what is blatantly obvious to everyone else or does being objectionable garner needed attention?

I didn't "throw the statements around", it was Abz who took up the whole thing as if it would somehow be relevant to the discussion. Which it isn't. I'm under no obligation to, for the purpose of this discussion, post proof for something I said in a completely unrelated thread a long time ago.

?? The difficulty is only had on your part, I don't see anyone else having the same problem, thus it is something that you need to work on, on your own private time I don't see why anyone should care to steer your very skewed beliefs when you're obviously quite happy having them?

So in other words, you think your position is so obviously true that you could easily prove it, but act on the assumption that anyone who disagrees must be a malicious brat who wouldn't accept the proof anyway and thus you won't bother. Sorry, that's not how discourse works.

And you presume much if you think everyone else here agrees 100% with the conspiratorial rants of Abz and you, simply because they don't bother to state explicit disagreement.

 

[جوري]

I'll make a refutation when there is something to refute. Abz has so far only posted videos that he claims are evidence without telling us how they constitute that. I've objected that there's nothing in them that makes his particular interpretation of them inevitable. His is the burden to show that they are, which he hasn't, he simply makes a lot of just-so statements about what's in them.

As stated previously and I so hate redundancy and taking up web-space for a circuitous journey that objections don't a refutation make! Do you actually understand what the term means? It means you bring evidence to the contrary not merely depict your own rendition to what has been clearly stated. Also as they say a picture is worth a thousand word, well in this case I think a video is worth a million for it is directly stated and not reinterpreted through a third party, which is in fact what you are doing here.

I didn't "throw the statements around", it was Abz who took up the whole thing as if it would somehow be relevant to the discussion. Which it isn't. I'm under no obligation to, for the purpose of this discussion, post proof for something I said in a completely unrelated thread a long time ago.

It is relevant in that it enables the reader to chronicle your history here and foregrounds your understanding of what is presented. You can take an Islamic shura system and turn it into a socialist system so who is to say you don't take any given point of view to your own desired rendition?

So in other words, you think your position is so obviously true that you could easily prove it, but act on the assumption that anyone who disagrees must be a malicious brat who wouldn't accept the proof anyway and thus you won't bother. Sorry, that's not how discourse works.

I don't assign a moral value to your principles but you can't expect to throw around terms like 'refutation' and not have that to be scrutinized.

And you presume much if you think everyone else here agrees 100% with the conspiratorial rants of Abz and you, simply because they don't bother to state explicit disagreement.

Then why bother all together pwn star? You can't be that lazy do you subscribe to the notion that when a professor hands you homework with which you disagree that all that is incumbent upon you to do is merely state your aversion? You always have the option of dropping out or evincing your statement with something other than 'conspiracy theory' it isn't a theory when it is a fact and you're under the sheets in lala land..

best,

 

[Futuwwa]

As stated previously and I so hate redundancy and taking up web-space for a circuitous journey that objections don't a refutation make! Do you actually understand what the term means? It means you bring evidence to the contrary not merely depict your own rendition to what has been clearly stated. Also as they say a picture is worth a thousand word, well in this case I think a video is worth a million for it is directly stated and not reinterpreted through a third party, which is in fact what you are doing here.

Actually, refutation does not require positive contrary evidence. A demonstration for how the evidence of the opponent is insufficient/invalid is a refutation as well. That's what I did, I took apart his argument. I demonstrated how what Brzezinski said does not at all have to imply what Abz thinks. I attack his argumentation and debunk it, and that's valid refutation. To refute Abz's assertion, I don't need actual positive evidence that Brzezinski is a nice guy who loves kittens and who'd never harm a fly.

It is relevant in that it enables the reader to chronicle your history here and foregrounds your understanding of what is presented. You can take an Islamic shura system and turn it into a socialist system so who is to say you don't take any given point of view to your own desired rendition?

So because I made an assertion that you consider incorrect on one completely unrelated thread, my position in this thread is invalid? Sorry, that's a non sequitur and an ad hominem fallacy.

I don't assign a moral value to your principles but you can't expect to throw around terms like 'refutation' and not have that to be scrutinized.


Then why bother all together pwn star? You can't be that lazy do you subscribe to the notion that when a professor hands you homework with which you disagree that all that is incumbent upon you to do is merely state your aversion? You always have the option of dropping out or evincing your statement with something other than 'conspiracy theory' it isn't a theory when it is a fact and you're under the sheets in lala land..

And this has exactly what to do with the part you quoted?

 

[جوري]

Actually, refutation does not require positive contrary evidence. A demonstration for how the evidence of the opponent is insufficient/invalid is a refutation as well. That's what I did, I took apart his argument. I demonstrated how what Brzezinski said does not at all have to imply what Abz thinks. I attack his argumentation and debunk it, and that's valid refutation. To refute Abz's assertion, I don't need actual positive evidence that Brzezinski is a nice guy who loves kittens and who'd never harm a fly.

You've shown no invalidity in his statements which was in large part evinced by the speaker himself- all ABZ did was bring it to the attention of the reader to which one is left to draw their own conclusion. You often conclude differently from the pack but it doesn't make you a free thinker since you have given no clause to establish that free thought with something other than the assertion itself. It makes you objectionable and no more! Your closing statement is really a microcosm of how your mind works. He can love kittens and not harm a fly all the same but be in the sports of hunting people So where does that leave your unassailable convictions?

So because I made an assertion that you consider incorrect on one completely unrelated thread, my position in this thread is invalid? Sorry, that's a non sequitur and an ad hominem fallacy.

I suggest you look at the definition of both those terms since neither is applicable here. Our conclusion has followed from your original premise with which you have a long history here, notice I haven't insulted you personally as you yourself are apt at doing!

And this has exactly what to do with the part you quoted?

Which part was difficult for you to understand?

 

[Abz2000]

let me spell it out to you pwn star, hopefully you'll understand better if i use simple language.
zbignew brzezinski, he baaad maaan
he say people waking up to injustices, he say this no good.
he thinker for u.s government policy, he suggests solutions.
he say in other video people waking up, hard to control people, easier to kill 1 million people than to control them.
u understand how to put 2x=4 together and find two?
or u see something else implied there
maybe u see xxx?

 

[Futuwwa]

he say people waking up to injustices, he say this no good.

No, he doesn't. He says that it poses new challenges.

"Poses challenges" is not synonymous or implicative of "No good". Any big change poses challenges, even if the change is inherently good.