I can see how it may look like that, so apologies for reflex downvotes. It's Reddit, forgive them.

Either way, his starting point was Islamic terrorism and he used a source that is as unreliable as it is right-wing.

They're known for walking around and provoking muslims, then editing out the parts where they provoked them (or just take any content and take it out of context).

So if he says "it's about islamic terrorism and this is why", answering "that's not why because you were lied to/lied to us" is acceptable.

Turning around and completely ignoring that reply by just reiterating "yea, but what about islamic terrorism!" misses the point because he misused sources.

Easier example: Imagine someone walking up to you, telling you rapture is coming and these pictures are proof. When you point out that that person is showing you crayon drawings that person starts yelling "yea, but the rapture is still coming".

It doesn't matter whether that person is right or wrong at the very core because they are wrong right now.

Even if the rapture comes they're still wrong because they showed you crayon drawings as proof for their argument.

You can be wrong while being right. He was 100% wrong.