“The details in the article are more compelling than your suspicions they’re fabricated.”
Er, they’re not exactly minor details are they? He posts a story claiming that two Christian women are executed by Muslims, very quickly it becomes blindingly obvious that not only were the two victims not women but were probably not Christian either. Now if he can’t get such absolutely fundamental facts correct how can we treat anything else in the story as accurate?
So what are we left with? Two men, probably Muslim, might have been killed by other Muslims in some God-forsaken Third-World hellhole, because they weren’t sufficiently pious. In other words, YAWN!
I dare say you get a bit of a thrill reading atrocity porn about scary Muslim men killing Christian women, me I prefer accurate information and well-written news stories, this drivel of a story does not meet my rather more stringent criteria. You can continue reading such nonsense if that’s what turns you on.
I will treat your last question with the contempt it deserves. Our discussion is at an end.
>> atrocity porn about scary Muslim men killing Christian women
That’s an odd description for the ongoing attack Islam began centuries ago.
You complain the “women” killed were not women at all; however, the article describes the woman (singular) killed had the first name Sadia. You go on to say the victims were “probably” not Christian.
Are you an Atheist?