but.......THE CRUSADES!

[crispybits]

Only if you've got your socks off...

[saxitoxin]

"Reflections on the Muslim Domination of Spain" by Washington Irving, written after a four year research trip to Spain (1842-1846) -

As conquerors, their heroism was only equaled by their moderation, and in both, for a time, they excelled the nations with whom they contended. Laying the foundations of their power in a system of wise and equitable laws, diligently cultivating the arts and sciences, and promoting agriculture, manufacture, and commerce, they gradually formed an empire unrivaled for its prosperity by any of the empires of Christendom. They diffused the light of oriental knowledge through the western regions of benighted Europe.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xK1AA ... 22&f=false

So, I guess one can either believe Washington Irving, George Washington's biographer and one of the greatest scholars in early American history, or one can instead believe the modern re-imaginings of Dr. Bill Warner, a math teacher from North Carolina with a YouTube account.

[2dimes]

Good luck getting to the moon using a Roman numeral calculator.

You need Nazi rockets too. What are you saying?

[notyou2]

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

What do you mean? The eastern Roman Empire, aka Constantinople lasted more or less until the 13th century. You are just being a snot. But that it what you are. Oh well ... Carry on then.

The eastern Roman Empire is debatable whether it was even part of the traditional Roman Empire. Was Hitler's Germany also part of the Roman Empire? Hitler says it was. Your own church didn't recognize it for fucks sake, so why are you all hot and bothered that it was part of the Roman Empire? Oh, I know, it's because you wish to buy into Bill's hate mongering like phatty does. It must be pretty tough going through life being a hate mongering bigot. Yes, I sound hateful in this thread because I have little time or patience for bigots.

[Endgame422]

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

What do you mean? The eastern Roman Empire, aka Constantinople lasted more or less until the 13th century. You are just being a snot. But that it what you are. Oh well ... Carry on then.

The eastern Roman Empire is debatable whether it was even part of the traditional Roman Empire. Was Hitler's Germany also part of the Roman Empire? Hitler says it was. Your own church didn't recognize it for fucks sake, so why are you all hot and bothered that it was part of the Roman Empire? Oh, I know, it's because you wish to buy into Bill's hate mongering like phatty does. It must be pretty tough going through life being a hate mongering bigot. Yes, I sound hateful in this thread because I have little time or patience for bigots.

Dude, ole bills video is fairly clearly biased towards Christianity but he did not just make that shit up.
Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity(politically,as well as physically) on a fairly steady basis ever since the time of Muhammad and jihad battles and crusades are definetly comparable.
Just because he is certainly biased and possibly a bigot does not make his data incorrect.

[notyou2]

Look, I am not saying he is wrong about the number of battles, or deaths, etc, I am saying I can't watch it due to the misinformation. However, all was done in the name of religion on both sides, and far worse in many other places. He is not helping the issue, he is making it worse, in essence, he is justifying it, which makes him as bad as them. I bet he calls himself a christian too. He's a hate mongering lying deceitful person which puts him barely above Isis in my books. Do you think the cleric leader of Isis is doing all the killing? No he isn't directly, but he is inciting that hatred and the murders. This guy is barely better as he is doing the same thing.

[saxitoxin]

Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity(politically,as well as physically) on a fairly steady basis ever since the time of Muhammad

Mohammed conquered an area that was inhabited by animists and pagans. There were no Christians of any significant number in Arabia during the founding of Islam. I'm unaware of any attempts by Islam to attack Christian-majority states in the last 500 years (with the exception of the Ottoman Empire during WW1, but that was politically, not religiously, motivated, and they were allied with Germany and Austria).

Islam prohibits the forcible conversion, or desecration of temples, of Christians, Jews, and Zorastrians. In fact, the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, site of Jesus' death, have been kept by the Nusaybah clan - who unlock the front door every morning - for the last 1200 years. None of the Christian sects could stop fighting among themselves long enough to decide who would unlock and lock the doors so they had to give that job to Muslims.

[Endgame422]

Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity(politically,as well as physically) on a fairly steady basis ever since the time of Muhammad

Mohammed conquered an area that was inhabited by animists and pagans. There were no Christians of any significant number in Arabia during the founding of Islam. I'm unaware of any attempts by Islam to attack Christian-majority states in the last 500 years (with the exception of the Ottoman Empire during WW1, but that was politically, not religiously, motivated, and they were allied with Germany and Austria).

Islam prohibits the forcible conversion, or desecration of temples, of Christians, Jews, and Zorastrians. In fact, the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, site of Jesus' death, have been kept by the Nusaybah clan - who unlock the front door every morning - for the last 1200 years. None of the Christian sects could stop fighting among themselves long enough to decide who would unlock and lock the doors so they had to give that job to Muslims.

Throughout the colonial period of the 17th-19th century the middle east north Africa and western India/modern pakistan(all largely Islamic) all fought against Christian European nations,particularly the British.
Is that the same as crusades or jihad? No, but the two ideologies were certainly at odds and people fought and died for both sides so i would say they were fighting.
And as i said in what you originally quoted islamic nations are often politically motivated but i had thought of it more ideologically fighting Christianity as opposed to actual wars with Christian states.
Are there Christian states anymore?
Now its islam vs the west because formerly Christian nations have abandoned spirituality for materialism but its still the same shit.
And on the Mohammed bit your correct i should have said since the time Mohammed passed to heaven(in a christian city that they are still fighting over)
Don't take me as defending anyone here because i hold both Christians and Muslims to be equals in my eyes but the facts are there that these 2 groups have been at odds for quite some time.

[saxitoxin]

Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity(politically,as well as physically) on a fairly steady basis ever since the time of Muhammad

Mohammed conquered an area that was inhabited by animists and pagans. There were no Christians of any significant number in Arabia during the founding of Islam. I'm unaware of any attempts by Islam to attack the historic territory of Christian-majority states in the last 500 years (with the exception of the Ottoman Empire during WW1, but that was politically, not religiously, motivated, and they were allied with Germany and Austria).

Islam prohibits the forcible conversion, or desecration of temples, of Christians, Jews, and Zorastrians. In fact, the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, site of Jesus' death, have been kept by the Nusaybah clan - who unlock the front door every morning - for the last 1200 years. None of the Christian sects could stop fighting among themselves long enough to decide who would unlock and lock the doors so they had to give that job to Muslims.

Throughout the colonial period of the 17th-19th century the middle east north Africa and western India/modern pakistan(all largely Islamic) all fought against Christian European nations,particularly the British.

Uh, okay.

So by "Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis" you're referring to Muslims fighting British troops who invaded Sudan, Arabia, and the Indian sub-continent. Because when you say "Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity" there's an implication a bunch of scimitar-wielding Bedouins have been regularly charging through the housewares aisle at Harrods.

Also, all of the following are also true:
- "Hindus have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Confuscianists have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Roman Catholics have been growing and fighting Anglicans on a fairly steady basis"

But I've edited my comment to make it surgically correct.

[notyou2]

Circumcised it?

[Phatscotty]

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

Come on now.
The Byzantine or eastern Roman empire lasts until at least 12th century some would argue as late as the 15th.
They are based in Byzantium or Constantinople or Istanbul or whatever they call it now,the city that the crusaders sacked in the 4th crusade around 1200.
Death of Muhammad/start of Islam is 9th century.
As far as the video calling it classical civilization i am with you that its nonsense especially considering that if goes all the way to 1920.

Well now, wait a second, let's take a look at what notyou2 is actually saying. Since the phd might have made a mistake talking about Greece and Rome, therefore, the Crusades never happened.

[Phatscotty]

Islam is a religion. You said "promoting islam".

So, therefore, since Islam is a religion, it cannot be promoted?

[Phatscotty]

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

What do you mean? The eastern Roman Empire, aka Constantinople lasted more or less until the 13th century. You are just being a snot. But that it what you are. Oh well ... Carry on then.

The eastern Roman Empire is debatable whether it was even part of the traditional Roman Empire. Was Hitler's Germany also part of the Roman Empire? Hitler says it was. Your own church didn't recognize it for fucks sake, so why are you all hot and bothered that it was part of the Roman Empire? Oh, I know, it's because you wish to buy into Bill's hate mongering like phatty does. It must be pretty tough going through life being a hate mongering bigot. Yes, I sound hateful in this thread because I have little time or patience for bigots.

it must be pretty tough deciding that, even after you change your mind that what the phd said is no longer BS and is now debatable, therefore, the Crusades did not happen. But I do understand how all the hating you and your ilk does is constantly projected on everyone else while you think you can always jump on the bus and roll away clean.

You don't just sound hateful, you are hateful, your ignorance proves it time and again. You have little time and patience for anything, which is the source of your ignorance. You might think that being arrogant in your ignorance hides your faults, but it does not.

I am not hateful of anything, I simply disagree and would like to discuss the disagreements. You however in your arrogant ignorance think that anyone who disagrees with you about issues you have little time and patience to understand, their disagreement must be evil, and that's why you feel your constant hatred is justified. And that's why you feel like you don't even have to talk about an issue or even understand it. And that's why you are so clueless about said issues. You don't even know what people who disagree with you actually think or believe because you never talk to them because you feel like you don't have to talk with people on the right, because you are comfortable with passing over first hand sources and deferring to what people who are not on the right tell you the right is. They tell you the right is evil, so you don't have to think about it because it makes your head hurt. That is the exact recipe for ignorance, add the ingredient of yourself to that mix, you come up with hate.

Sorry

[Phatscotty]

Look, I am not saying he is wrong about the number of battles, or deaths, etc, I am saying I can't watch it due to the misinformation.

And there's the proof! You did not watch it, but here you are anyways, judging it up and down. Extremely typical of you and your ilk, on every issue.

I always wondered how could the people of Germany go along with and let Hitler take them all down in his insane fantasy. After reading your posts I understand.

[muy_thaiguy]

Tzor, this guy must have received his PhD from a cereal box. He starts talking about Islam versus the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome. Those civilizations were done long before Islam was founded. I can't watch something that begins on false pretenses, its FULL OF SHIT.

What do you mean? The eastern Roman Empire, aka Constantinople lasted more or less until the 13th century. You are just being a snot. But that it what you are. Oh well ... Carry on then.

The eastern Roman Empire is debatable whether it was even part of the traditional Roman Empire.

Where's a 'cringe' emoticon when you need it? Like saying Ireland was not a part of the UK, or Texas was not a part of Mexico (along with several other Western states), or that China was once ruled by ancient, rabid, Bronies.

[saxitoxin]

Look, I am not saying he is wrong about the number of battles, or deaths, etc, I am saying I can't watch it due to the misinformation.

And there's the proof! You did not watch it, but here you are anyways, judging it up and down. Extremely typical of you and your ilk, on every issue.

I always wondered how could the people of Germany go along with and let Hitler take them all down in his insane fantasy. After reading your posts I understand.

Well, I watched it and it was a hot mess. I even kept watching it after he started talking about "the Navy of Islam." I still have no clue what that is. In summary:

- At some point in olden times, after the death of Mohammed, the Chief Muslim ordered an attack on Europe. They did it because that's just what they do. There were no economic or political reasons. Also, there were no actual nations involved, it was just Muslimland that attacked Christianland.

- Muslimland fought 500 battles against Christianland in 200 years, which, according to Bill, kinda sounds like a lot, so they're probably pretty bad dudes (I guess the US is absolutely vile in that case as the Chief American ordered 350 battles just in the 4-year time period 1861-1865).

- The Crusaders fought 23 "offensive battles" (a term Bill, who has no professional training as a historian, apparently created himself and independently decided which battles to categorize as "offensive battles") which sounds like it's not very many so they must be pretty decent fellows.

And that's literally the whole video.

Given the choice between Bill and Washington Irving, I'm still going with Washington Irving ...

As conquerors, their heroism was only equaled by their moderation, and in both, for a time, they excelled the nations with whom they contended. Laying the foundations of their power in a system of wise and equitable laws, diligently cultivating the arts and sciences, and promoting agriculture, manufacture, and commerce, they gradually formed an empire unrivaled for its prosperity by any of the empires of Christendom. They diffused the light of oriental knowledge through the western regions of benighted Europe.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xK1AA ... 22&f=false

... or Orlando Bloom!

[Endgame422]

Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity(politically,as well as physically) on a fairly steady basis ever since the time of Muhammad

Mohammed conquered an area that was inhabited by animists and pagans. There were no Christians of any significant number in Arabia during the founding of Islam. I'm unaware of any attempts by Islam to attack the historic territory of Christian-majority states in the last 500 years (with the exception of the Ottoman Empire during WW1, but that was politically, not religiously, motivated, and they were allied with Germany and Austria).

Islam prohibits the forcible conversion, or desecration of temples, of Christians, Jews, and Zorastrians. In fact, the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, site of Jesus' death, have been kept by the Nusaybah clan - who unlock the front door every morning - for the last 1200 years. None of the Christian sects could stop fighting among themselves long enough to decide who would unlock and lock the doors so they had to give that job to Muslims.

Throughout the colonial period of the 17th-19th century the middle east north Africa and western India/modern pakistan(all largely Islamic) all fought against Christian European nations,particularly the British.

Uh, okay.

So by "Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis" you're referring to Muslims fighting British troops who invaded Sudan, Arabia, and the Indian sub-continent. Because when you say "Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity" there's an implication a bunch of scimitar-wielding Bedouins have been regularly charging through the housewares aisle at Harrods.

Also, all of the following are also true:
- "Hindus have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Confuscianists have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Roman Catholics have been growing and fighting Anglicans on a fairly steady basis"

But I've edited my comment to make it surgically correct.

See that whole schmitar wielding bedouins thing was not my point,your position is to defend Islam,so you take everything as an attack. I was not implying anything of the sort or even that Islam has been the aggressor.
Your point was islam did not ATTACK any CHRISTIAN NATIONS. That may well be true.
My point (and wording) were that islam and christianity were fighting and that islam has been growing.
Denying that islam and christianity have been fighting for centuries(regardless of who is invading who) is pure nonsense.
Often it was the Christians attacking and taking advantage of the Muslims, sometimes the other way around, neither group is innocent here and there is lots of history and bad blood between them.
As far as your other 3 statements if we were comparing Christianty to Confucian beliefs or hindu beliefs in a discussion i think that the history between the groups certainly matters.

[saxitoxin]

Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity(politically,as well as physically) on a fairly steady basis ever since the time of Muhammad

Mohammed conquered an area that was inhabited by animists and pagans. There were no Christians of any significant number in Arabia during the founding of Islam. I'm unaware of any attempts by Islam to attack the historic territory of Christian-majority states in the last 500 years (with the exception of the Ottoman Empire during WW1, but that was politically, not religiously, motivated, and they were allied with Germany and Austria).

Islam prohibits the forcible conversion, or desecration of temples, of Christians, Jews, and Zorastrians. In fact, the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, site of Jesus' death, have been kept by the Nusaybah clan - who unlock the front door every morning - for the last 1200 years. None of the Christian sects could stop fighting among themselves long enough to decide who would unlock and lock the doors so they had to give that job to Muslims.

Throughout the colonial period of the 17th-19th century the middle east north Africa and western India/modern pakistan(all largely Islamic) all fought against Christian European nations,particularly the British.

Uh, okay.

So by "Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis" you're referring to Muslims fighting British troops who invaded Sudan, Arabia, and the Indian sub-continent. Because when you say "Islam has been growing and fighting Christianity" there's an implication a bunch of scimitar-wielding Bedouins have been regularly charging through the housewares aisle at Harrods.

Also, all of the following are also true:
- "Hindus have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Confuscianists have been growing and fighting Christianity on a fairly steady basis"
- "Roman Catholics have been growing and fighting Anglicans on a fairly steady basis"

But I've edited my comment to make it surgically correct.

See that whole schmitar wielding bedouins thing was not my point,your position is to defend Islam,so you take everything as an attack. I was not implying anything of the sort or even that Islam has been the aggressor.
Your point was islam did not ATTACK any CHRISTIAN NATIONS. That may well be true.
My point (and wording) were that islam and christianity were fighting and that islam has been growing.
Denying that islam and christianity have been fighting for centuries(regardless of who is invading who) is pure nonsense.
Often it was the Christians attacking and taking advantage of the Muslims, sometimes the other way around, neither group is innocent here and there is lots of history and bad blood between them.
As far as your other 3 statements if we were comparing Christianty to Confucian beliefs or hindu beliefs in a discussion i think that the history between the groups certainly matters.

okay, fair enough

[Phatscotty]

well, let's just take the comments out of it, and focus on the content.



Without getting into 'but.....they started it!' I was having a conversation with a co-worker last week, and he was confidently saying the Crusaders started it, so I asked him 'So then the first crusade...who was the crusade against?'

[saxitoxin]

well, let's just take the comments out of it, and focus on the content.



Without getting into 'but.....they started it!' I was having a conversation with a co-worker last week, and he was confidently saying the Crusaders started it, so I asked him 'So then the first crusade...who was the crusade against?'

IMO, the premise is flawed thusly:

- I've never heard anyone refer to the Crusades as being the flashpoint of some conflict with the Muslim world. But, we do know since 2002 neo-conservatives have been using "clash of civilizations" as a framing device to prime the public to receptiveness for military action in the Middle East (direct, as in the case of Iraq, and indirect, as in the case of U.S. arming of Jewish fundamentalist extremists). The Neo-liberals like Clinton and McCain are promoting the equally as ludicrous "conflict against extremism" frame, while the left and paleo-conservatives seem to both be pushing the "failed American policy" frame. Honestly, this sudden interest in defeating an argument no one has made about the Crusades just sounds like 2014-2015's rhetorical tactic to promote the "clash of civilizations" frame over the competing frames. I'm curious if this discussion of the crusades existed before last year or if it was a recent focus group product that made it into the topic suggestions the Heritage Foundation sends out to talk radio hosts.

The facts are flawed thusly:

- According to the map, there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades. While I have no idea how many battles occurred throughout the crusades (perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me here does), I have a strong suspicion more than 1.3 battles occurred in each crusade.

IMO, the data is manipulated thusly:

- Why are early battles against pagan tribes in Arabia reflected on the map as part of the "Muslim conquest" while Roman battles (after the adoption of Christianity as the state religion) against pagan tribes in Germany not reflected as part of a "Christian conquest?" The mapmaker has cherry-picked a set of data that would lead to a graphic designed to, in a stunning visual cue, support a conclusion he was trying to promote ("clash of civilizations" frame). The neo-liberals do the same thing to push their "conflict against extremism" frame by showing cartoonishly brilliant Muslim scientists (you'd think every Arab was a rocket scientist or brain surgeon) caught under the cloven hoof of big, bad ISIS (who, in some weird roundabout way, the Neo-Liberals contend, is connected to Iran ... even though they're fighting each other).

[crispybits]

Islam is a religion. You said "promoting islam".

So, therefore, since Islam is a religion, it cannot be promoted?

That's not what NASA said though, they said "engage much more with dominantly muslim nations"

(By the way, this post brought to you by the person who complained about a line out of context I quoted and then proceeds to post this line out of context despite the fact the rest of the post clearly deals with the issue supposedly still unanswered...)

[Phatscotty]

Islam is a religion. You said "promoting islam".

So, therefore, since Islam is a religion, it cannot be promoted?

That's not what NASA said though, they said "engage much more with dominantly muslim nations"

yup. "engage much more with dominantly muslim nations" ..... to do wut?

I thought the point was it's f'd up that Obama made Muslim outreach a top priority for NASA? Granted you already conceded the point you originally scoffed at, I'll grant you that 'helping Muslim nations feel good about their historic contributions' may or may not technically be 'promoting' But at this point, as you continually add new words to the quote, I'm starting to look more silly going 12 responses deep with you about 'promoting' than you look acting like that has anything to do with the context of the subject. As to what it means that you are stuck on that, I shall leave to everyone else in the appearance of the overall discussion

[Phatscotty]

well, let's just take the comments out of it, and focus on the content.



Without getting into 'but.....they started it!' I was having a conversation with a co-worker last week, and he was confidently saying the Crusaders started it, so I asked him 'So then the first crusade...who was the crusade against?'

IMO, the premise is flawed thusly:

- I've never heard anyone refer to the Crusades as being the flashpoint of some conflict with the Muslim world. But, we do know since 2002 neo-conservatives have been using "clash of civilizations" as a framing device to prime the public to receptiveness for military action in the Middle East (direct, as in the case of Iraq, and indirect, as in the case of U.S. arming of Jewish fundamentalist extremists). The Neo-liberals like Clinton and McCain are promoting the equally as ludicrous "conflict against extremism" frame, while the left and paleo-conservatives seem to both be pushing the "failed American policy" frame. Honestly, this sudden interest in defeating an argument no one has made about the Crusades just sounds like 2014-2015's rhetorical tactic to promote the "clash of civilizations" frame over the competing frames. I'm curious if this discussion of the crusades existed before last year or if it was a recent focus group product that made it into the topic suggestions the Heritage Foundation sends out to talk radio hosts.

The facts are flawed thusly:

- According to the map, there were only 12 battles in the 9 crusades. While I have no idea how many battles occurred throughout the crusades (perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me here does), I have a strong suspicion more than 1.3 battles occurred in each crusade.

IMO, the data is manipulated thusly:

- Why are early battles against pagan tribes in Arabia reflected on the map as part of the "Muslim conquest" while Roman battles (after the adoption of Christianity as the state religion) against pagan tribes in Germany not reflected as part of a "Christian conquest?" The mapmaker has cherry-picked a set of data that would lead to a graphic designed to, in a stunning visual cue, support a conclusion he was trying to promote ("clash of civilizations" frame). The neo-liberals do the same thing to push their "conflict against extremism" frame by showing cartoonishly brilliant Muslim scientists (you'd think every Arab was a rocket scientist or brain surgeon) caught under the cloven hoof of big, bad ISIS (who, in some weird roundabout way, the Neo-Liberals contend, is connected to Iran ... even though they're fighting each other).

I'll have to put this off till tomorrow when I can give this respone the time it deserves. I have 2 sleeping pills in me and I can only play word footsie with crispybits from 3 pages ago atm

[crispybits]

yup. "engage much more with dominantly muslim nations" ..... to do wut?

I thought the point was it's f'd up that Obama made Muslim outreach a top priority for NASA? Granted you already conceded the point you originally scoffed at, I'll grant you that 'helping Muslim nations feel good about their historic contributions' may or may not technically be 'promoting' But at this point, as you continually add new words to the quote, I'm starting to look more silly going 12 responses deep with you about 'promoting' than you look acting like that has anything to do with the context of the subject. As to what it means that you are stuck on that, I shall leave to everyone else in the appearance of the overall discussion

Oh I dunno maybe to try and build international bonds because no one country can really take on the entire burden of the future move of humanity into space? Maybe to try and find common ground in the sciences because there's plenty of differences to stir conflict over but both societies have exactly the same science, maths, and engineering and that's as good a starting point as any to start the spirit of co-operation in what is most likely now (thanks to climate change deniers) our only hope of long term survival cos we fucked this planet up royally thinking Jesus is gonna come back tomorrow?

This was the point you made on page 3 word for word:

Our own president is all about pushing Islam everywhere he can, and all the power that comes with it, I mean it's so bad, he made our Space program NASA declare it's first and foremost priority is to promote Islam. Go ahead and doubt that, I'll show you the NASA directors saying that exactly word for word.

Then we got this quote from NASA word for word:

...and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

So tell me, which words have I added? You have constantly tap-danced and tried to change the meanings of words in order to justify a frankly unjustifiable and flat out factually incorrect point. You're not starting to look silly, you've been making yourself look ridiculous for some time now.

By the way I'm more than happy to move onto number 2 of "9 Ridiculous things PS claimed" (that should be a Buzzfeed thing so the whole internet can have a good laugh btw) whenever you want, I'm not "stuck on one point". In fact it was you that said on page 4:

Alright CB, lets go through these one at a time til it's done.

[saxitoxin]

I have 2 sleeping pills in me and I can only play word footsie with crispybits from 3 pages ago atm

That's a new take on Ambien sex.