Shooting at Connecticut Sandy Hook Elementary School

[RevolutionThroughReason]

who cares about the bibliography, we need the book and where it gets the info from and we need primary sources. Your attempt is grasping at best.

um the Bibliography contains the sources ...I'd think you'd care since your contention was where he drew his sources from, it's not a waste of tinme ...You'll just have to DIG and do some foot work.

You know where he gets his sources now and that he's not just making it up as he goes along. Nor was I> The evidence is there ...you're either going to have to accept it or disprove it; those are your only options .Your attempt to look for an excuse to discredit it has been falsified.

[khushal]

Im not asking for the whole book but I am asking for more than half a sentence. I mean your giving me a sentence that is not even complete.

And all those sources in the bibliography, not one of them are primary. Why is that, why did they not use one primary source. This is getting fishier and fishier. Now your just reaffirming Dagarwals assumption, that the guy is hindu so therefore he refuses to use primary source to fabricate.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I understand; but none the less, since I did present evidence, my stance has been made and supported. Now of course you can doubt my evidence or its level of veracity; but you cannot deny that I presented evidence. The next step now is for you to demonstrate whether or not my evidence was valid. Therefore the ball's in your court champ.

by all means debunk this.

[khushal]

debunk what? half a sentence not supported by primary source. This is called self debunktation-- the process of debunking itself.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Hhaa that's your opinion; but as long as my evidence remains undebunked it holds. You can claim I'm quote mining (actually I wasn't, that's all google books shows). But the fact that OTHER sources AFFIRM that sentence demonstrates that it is corroborated.

Now like I said ...refute it by debuinking the claims; not trying to side step the sources.

if you side stepped THAT would be a logical fallacy.

until then ...I claim my victory with sweetness.

[khushal]

Ya you won with half a sentence. good job just like you think physics knowledge trumps economic principles to guide humanity. So has the supreme court decided whether to ban knives yet??????

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Khushal, you have every opportunity to rebuttal me, if you aren't taking it, then you're handing me victory.



Anyways the point is simply to refute the claim that Muslims and in our case Muslim Pashtuns have never done any evil, wrong or immoral crime in history which compares to what the Europeans/Christians or Atheists have done. We're all to quick to point finger and ignore out faults; thus we delusionallly think that the solution for everyone else's problems is to be more like us; when we're pretty bad too.. So now can we stop being so arrogantly self righteous and start solving the world's problems like first getting our children better educated so that future Pashtuns stop repeating the mistakes we continue to do because we glorify bogus heroes?