69 million page views

Taqiyya Amin strikes again, and again, and again

Reader comment on item: Arabist Snobs
in response to reader comment: Beginning of the End

Submitted by Peter Hall (Australia), Jan 6, 2012 at 00:17

Well Taqiyya Amin, I have read your your first sentence again and again and I still cannot make out what you are trying to say.

What you had previously alleged - as per usual did not bother to answer but mere nothings - even in these you are wrong.

Can you please translate into English?

Are you saying my allegations are not an answer? And my nothings are wrong? What are you trying to say Taqqiya Amin, take your time, take a breath. Please try and be clear.

The you say this little gem;

Here you lie again. Another one to the elongating list - you lack of Arabic knowledge is to do with your defining Arabic as weak.

Where am I lying Amin? Do you understand what a lie is? What is an elongating list? Have you been trying to use big words again trying to impress?

Well Amin, I am surprised you do not understand what the word lies means since you are such a natural at it.

For someone to lie they need to know what they are saying is wrong, and intend to deceive others by telling this untruth. So clearly your claim in this case cannot be lie. I believe Arabic is weak !

As to your next claim;

What has other articles got to do with it? What an answer.... as usual aim at something else and not at what is under discussion.

Now tell me Taqiyya Amin, you cannot be that stupid, have you not noticed the title of this article is Arabist Snobs? The Article I am referring to is this article stupid !! Duh !! It is not an other article, it is this article. Do I need to spell everything out for you Taqiyya Amin??

Then you show again you do not understand what a lie is when you state;

Print runs at a time - is different than simply calling it print runs. You wanted to emphasise 10,000 copies

Where even the author started with "It is rumoured..."

These types of article clearly do not constitute as evidence. As the author is admitting to not having any evidence. Hence the lie.

Firstly Amin, you are really lying here, print runs is correct, what you said is trying to mislead. An obvious lie by you. How pathetic. Tell us Amin, what is the difference between print runs of 10,000 to print runs of 10,000 at a time? Well? Both indicate multiple runs, and both mention 10,000 and in the same order? What is the difference except the latter is poor English. The correct alternative would be printing runs of 10,000 copies at a time. So much for your superior English. Where did you get you linguistic qualifications, did you buy some of those fake degrees they sell on the internet Taqiyya Amin?

I did mean to show 10,000 at a time, because print runs of 10,000 copies would never add up to millions of sales. Am I moving too fast for you? Again, how is this a lie? I am quoting a source. When you say I am lying, I now understand what you are really saying is "I have no answer to what Peter Hall says so I will call it a lie". I can see no other explanation.

I have stated I cannot find any facts to support or disprove your claims, and as a matter of fact neither have you. I have used a source that clearly stated it was a rumour. If your Author had written a book all of Europe has read, I would expect to find print runs in the hundreds of thousands. Yet, I state again, I can find no evidence. I have asked you for facts, and all you do is lie because you are full of hot air Taqiyya Amin.

Tell me Taqiyya Amin, how have I lied? I have been honest, and used available evidence. If I had presented this as a fact you may have a case for me trying to deceive, but this is not the case. Therefore there are only 2 conclusions to draw from this;

1) You are trying to deceive people into thinking that the Author we are discussing is more successful than he actually was with no facts to support you. Therefore you are lying !


2) That you are ignorant of what a lie means.

So Amin, are you ignorant or a liar? Please let us know.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)