[Stuart]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I said two things, and you were not clear on which of them you where disputing, so I pointed out, that as a matter of common sense both premises were true. 1) The people attending are not the problem,

You stated "The people attending the camp will not be the ones deemed 'most likely to bomb' and therefore forced to attend."

I asked "How do you know this?"

To which you answered "a) Where does it say that attendees are selected and forced to attend. It's not some form of rehab."

I merely replied "You were the one who bought up forcing people to attend. I didn't, and neither did the article on the BBC."

2) What brand new arguments could be used that haven't been available before?

Without knowing what arguments have been used before, I could not even begin to guess. I would suspect, however, he will be teaching different ways to interpret the Qu'ran though.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

The people attending aren't going to be listened to. There was no new magic argument that couldn't have been used before.

Do you actually know this, or are you assuming? You can argue it's common sense, and it may be, to you. It's common sense to me to let this guy try this.