Islamic arguments fall short of rational

In the islamic apologetic scene, or in debates I've seen, there appears to be a pattern to the arguments made by Musilms.

When presented with direct questions the Muslim apologist answers with the "yeah, well so are you" debating principle--as in "other religions have their violent sects too."

Another useful technique seems to be one many politicians like to use...mind-numbing details about totally irrelevant subjects. A good case in point is the recent speech by President Im-on-a-jihad at Columbia University. Presented with some hard-hitting questions, he responded with a lecture on the wonders of science and knowledge.

Appealing to the kuffar's sense of fairness and gullibility is heavily relied on. Frequent use of common terms and names that carry different meanings to a Muslim can confuse or mollify the kuffar.

• "We honor Abraham, Moses, and Jesus" . When the names they use are not the people we know by those names.
• "We respect the Jewish and Christian Scriptures" Without saying they believe the Scriptures to be 'corrupted' and invalid.
• "The Koran teaches us to love the 'people of the book'" Without saying it also tells them Jews and Christians are apes and monkeys or that they should be killed.
• "Islam is peace" Well, Islam means submission....and they are saying everything will be peaceful if you only submit - to islam. Hmm, doesn't seem to be working between Sunni and Shia very well. I think I'll take my chances on my side.
  

When all else fails, ad hominum attacks, yelling, screaming and burning flags or buildings are employed generously. To the more sophisticated islamist, instead of yelling and screaming, indignant accusations of islamophobia are often helpful to set the kuffar on uneasy ground.

Of course, we can always be cut off at the knees by references to the crusades. Oh my goodness, don't bring up the crusades!

It seems to me, the least used, and probably least understood by islamists, is rational thought based on facts.