Terrorist Attack in London

Even though I understand the argument of cultural relativism and the idea that terrorists are just as vicious as our military, only with fewer resources, which results in a cruder, imprecise result. However, I believe Druff is correct in pointing out that drone strikes at least have the intention of killing a specific person or group of people, as opposed to terror attacks, which are becoming increasingly random and less specific.

The factor that has really started to differentiate Islamic terror groups from groups like the IRA or PLO is that they have been attacking people for things as petty as drawing cartoons or, more recently, just driving into crowds in major cities, seemingly to reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror before essentially committing suicide.

This is a very different thing than Catholic terrorism or even genocidal Sikhs. I honestly think all religions are ill-advised and I know there are socio-economic factors at play, but to overlook the fact that ISIS, and the many groups that comprise ISIS and Al-Quada, find legitimacy in some of the strongest underpinnings of the religion (jihad, death to apostates, women owned by father/husband, etc.) is telling and we can't just continue to exoticize Islam as some "religion of peace.'

It is actually quite racist to treat Islam like some pure, untouched culture that, without that provocation of the horrible white man, would be free of this hyper-violent religious turf war. We treat Africa the same way. As a liberal (not a Progressive), I am fucking tired of it. By the way, both Muslims and Africans had slave trades that pre-dated the European slave trade and any historian will tell you that these were much more brutal as well. Sorry, correction, some still have continuing slave trades... and they cite their holy book to justify this, only they don't really need to stretch too hard to make that claim, as no reformation of any slavery claims exists widely in Islam.

This isn't to say that Western culture hasn't committed some of the greatest atrocities in history, but be very careful of the soft bigotry of low expectations, as well as the soft bigotry of broadly assuming the infallibility of people, based primarily on a misplaced sense of guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Even though I understand the argument of cultural relativism and the idea that terrorists are just as vicious as our military, only with fewer resources, which results in a cruder, imprecise result. However, I believe Druff is correct in pointing out that drone strikes at least have the intention of killing a specific person or group of people, as opposed to terror attacks, which are becoming increasingly random and less specific.

The factor that has really started to differentiate Islamic terror groups from groups like the IRA or PLO is that they have been attacking people for things as petty as drawing cartoons or, more recently, just driving into crowds in major cities, seemingly to reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror before essentially committing suicide.

This is a very different thing than Catholic terrorism or even genocidal Sikhs. I honestly think all religions are ill-advised and I know there are socio-economic factors at play, but to overlook the fact that ISIS, and the many groups that comprise ISIS and Al-Quada, find legitimacy in some of the strongest underpinnings of the religion (jihad, death to apostates, women owned by father/husband, etc.) is telling and we can't just continue to exoticize Islam as some "religion of peace.'

It is actually quite racist to treat Islam like some pure, untouched culture that, without that provocation of the horrible white man, would be free of this hyper-violent religious turf war. We treat Africa the same way. As a liberal (not a Progressive), I am fucking tired of it. By the way, both Muslims and Africans had slave trades that pre-dated the European slave trade and any historian will tell you that these were much more brutal as well. Sorry, correction, some still have continuing slave trades... and they cite their holy book to justify this, only they don't really need to stretch too hard to make that claim, as no reformation of any slavery claims exists widely in Islam.

This isn't to say that Western culture hasn't committed some of the greatest atrocities in history, but be very careful of the soft bigotry of low expectations, as well as the soft bigotry of broadly assuming the infallibility of people, based primarily on a misplaced sense of guilt.

---

Terrorists from every religion have been known to target civilians and "seemingly to reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror" has always been the point of it. That includes IRA and PLO (they are Muslims btw). IRA used to blow up pubs and PLO member organizations were best known from a school bus massacre (killed 9 kids) and the Munich massacre that targeted Olympic athletes.

Pretty much every terrorist organization have sacred religious texts that give them justification for their actions. It's always some variation of end justifying the means. Usually they are the only ones that draw that conclusion for what ever material we are talking about (Quran, Bible, Torah, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf ect.).

ISIS and friends aren't some special snow flakes that are doing unprecedented things. They are very much derived from the past. They are much wealthier than previous organizations and they spend a lot more resources on spreading propaganda compared to their predecessors. But those are pretty much the only differences.

Africa and middle-east were ahead in the slave game simply because that's where the earliest civilizations were formed. Ancient Greece and Rome got their slavery on as soon as they were advanced enough. How brutal any of it was is something no one knows. Something any decent historian can tell you. No idea what slavery has to do with anything quite honestly. It's endearing that you deem it important to mention that Roots didn't invent slavery, but that has more to do with your "education system" than anything that's relevant to this thread.

I agree with Druff that drone strikes by the US are not terrorist attacks. But something ignored by folks crying out about Muslim terrorist attacks in the US are the complement to them usually conducted by majority members of a society on minority members: hate crimes. And since 9/11, Sikhs in the US have experienced both terrorist attacks *and* a rise in hate crimes. This article identifies 29 of them.

Sikhs under attack
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ist/index.html

Also, if you include documented *threats* of terrorist in with actual attacks, Druff might want to redo his calculations on who has commited such acts against targets in the US.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ats/index.html

Quote:

---

A Jewish teenager was arrested Thursday in connection with a series of bomb threats that have rattled Jewish institutions and community centers across the United States and other countries, Israeli police said.

A months-long international investigation led to the 19-year-old suspect, who used "advanced camouflage technologies" to cover his tracks, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

The suspect holds dual American-Israeli citizenship, an Israeli security official told CNN. He was arrested in southern Israel after an undercover investigation with the FBI.

...

In the US alone, more than 100 bomb threats have been made this year against Jewish community centers and schools. The threats were spread across 33 states and most came as part of five waves.

...

Most of the bomb threats were believed to have been made by one person using technology to disguise his voice to sound like a woman's, while the other threats likely were made by copycats, a New York police official said earlier this month.

---

And given the likely relatively small percentage of dual US/Israeli citizens, one could wonder how much of a terrorism risk that demographic poses to America, right?

It's a pretty simple problem. Islam's founding documents explicitly order believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers. Either keep Islam out of places you'd like to not see explode or deal with it. The western world has almost unanimously chose to deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

I agree with Druff that drone strikes by the US are not terrorist attacks. But something ignored by folks crying out about Muslim terrorist attacks in the US are the complement to them usually conducted by majority members of a society on minority members: hate crimes. And since 9/11, Sikhs in the US have experienced both terrorist attacks *and* a rise in hate crimes. This article identifies 29 of them.

Sikhs under attack
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ist/index.html

Also, if you include documented *threats* of terrorist in with actual attacks, Druff might want to redo his calculations on who has commited such acts against targets in the US.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ats/index.html

Quote:

---

A Jewish teenager was arrested Thursday in connection with a series of bomb threats that have rattled Jewish institutions and community centers across the United States and other countries, Israeli police said.

A months-long international investigation led to the 19-year-old suspect, who used "advanced camouflage technologies" to cover his tracks, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

The suspect holds dual American-Israeli citizenship, an Israeli security official told CNN. He was arrested in southern Israel after an undercover investigation with the FBI.

...

In the US alone, more than 100 bomb threats have been made this year against Jewish community centers and schools. The threats were spread across 33 states and most came as part of five waves.

...

Most of the bomb threats were believed to have been made by one person using technology to disguise his voice to sound like a woman's, while the other threats likely were made by copycats, a New York police official said earlier this month.

---

And given the likely relatively small percentage of dual US/Israeli citizens, one could wonder how much of a terrorism risk that demographic poses to America, right?

---

Sadly most Americans wouldn't even know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. To dumbass hicks, they're all just brown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Even though I understand the argument of cultural relativism and the idea that terrorists are just as vicious as our military, only with fewer resources, which results in a cruder, imprecise result. However, I believe Druff is correct in pointing out that drone strikes at least have the intention of killing a specific person or group of people, as opposed to terror attacks, which are becoming increasingly random and less specific.

The factor that has really started to differentiate Islamic terror groups from groups like the IRA or PLO is that they have been attacking people for things as petty as drawing cartoons or, more recently, just driving into crowds in major cities, seemingly to reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror before essentially committing suicide.

This is a very different thing than Catholic terrorism or even genocidal Sikhs. I honestly think all religions are ill-advised and I know there are socio-economic factors at play, but to overlook the fact that ISIS, and the many groups that comprise ISIS and Al-Quada, find legitimacy in some of the strongest underpinnings of the religion (jihad, death to apostates, women owned by father/husband, etc.) is telling and we can't just continue to exoticize Islam as some "religion of peace.'

It is actually quite racist to treat Islam like some pure, untouched culture that, without that provocation of the horrible white man, would be free of this hyper-violent religious turf war. We treat Africa the same way. As a liberal (not a Progressive), I am fucking tired of it. By the way, both Muslims and Africans had slave trades that pre-dated the European slave trade and any historian will tell you that these were much more brutal as well. Sorry, correction, some still have continuing slave trades... and they cite their holy book to justify this, only they don't really need to stretch too hard to make that claim, as no reformation of any slavery claims exists widely in Islam.

This isn't to say that Western culture hasn't committed some of the greatest atrocities in history, but be very careful of the soft bigotry of low expectations, as well as the soft bigotry of broadly assuming the infallibility of people, based primarily on a misplaced sense of guilt.

---

Terrorists from every religion have been known to target civilians and "seemingly to reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror" has always been the point of it. That includes IRA and PLO (they are Muslims btw). IRA used to blow up pubs and PLO member organizations were best known from a school bus massacre (killed 9 kids) and the Munich massacre that targeted Olympic athletes.

Pretty much every terrorist organization have sacred religious texts that give them justification for their actions. It's always some variation of end justifying the means. Usually they are the only ones that draw that conclusion for what ever material we are talking about (Quran, Bible, Torah, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf ect.).

ISIS and friends aren't some special snow flakes that are doing unprecedented things. They are very much derived from the past. They are much wealthier than previous organizations and they spend a lot more resources on spreading propaganda compared to their predecessors. But those are pretty much the only differences.

Africa and middle-east were ahead in the slave game simply because that's where the earliest civilizations were formed. Ancient Greece and Rome got their slavery on as soon as they were advanced enough. How brutal any of it was is something no one knows. Something any decent historian can tell you. No idea what slavery has to do with anything quite honestly. It's endearing that you deem it important to mention that Roots didn't invent slavery, but that has more to do with your "education system" than anything that's relevant to this thread.

---

Not everytime but very often the IRA would call ahead with a warning before the bomb went off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlunderMaker

It's a pretty simple problem. Islam's founding documents explicitly order believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers. Either keep Islam out of places you'd like to not see explode or deal with it. The western world has almost unanimously chose to deal with it.

---

Few of these examples fall into, "not in my backyard" thinking.
Words of the Koran, Bible, U.S. Constitution etc. are very old, yet many cling to portions of them as justification for their deeds.

Terrorism is a subjective term.
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Covert United States involvement in regime change
1949 Syrian coup d'état
1949–1953 Albania
1951–56 Tibet
1953 Iranian coup d'état
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1956–57 Syria crisis
1960 Congo coup d'état
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
1961 Dominican Republic
1963 South Vietnamese coup
1964 Bolivian coup d'état
1964 Brazilian coup d'état
1966 Ghana coup d'état
1971 Bolivian coup d'état
1970–73 Chile
1980 Turkish coup d'état
1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
1996 Iraq coup attempt
2001 Afghanistan
2011 Libyan civil war
2011–present Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ligence_Agency

Unfortunately not taught in US schools.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27201-the-leading-terrorist-state

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyLg-isaGhk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by big dick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Terrorists from every religion have been known to target civilians and "seemingly to reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror" has always been the point of it. That includes IRA and PLO (they are Muslims btw). IRA used to blow up pubs and PLO member organizations were best known from a school bus massacre (killed 9 kids) and the Munich massacre that targeted Olympic athletes.

Pretty much every terrorist organization have sacred religious texts that give them justification for their actions. It's always some variation of end justifying the means. Usually they are the only ones that draw that conclusion for what ever material we are talking about (Quran, Bible, Torah, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf ect.).

ISIS and friends aren't some special snow flakes that are doing unprecedented things. They are very much derived from the past. They are much wealthier than previous organizations and they spend a lot more resources on spreading propaganda compared to their predecessors. But those are pretty much the only differences.

Africa and middle-east were ahead in the slave game simply because that's where the earliest civilizations were formed. Ancient Greece and Rome got their slavery on as soon as they were advanced enough. How brutal any of it was is something no one knows. Something any decent historian can tell you. No idea what slavery has to do with anything quite honestly. It's endearing that you deem it important to mention that Roots didn't invent slavery, but that has more to do with your "education system" than anything that's relevant to this thread.

---

Not everytime but very often the IRA would call ahead with a warning before the bomb went off.

---

To newspapers or TVs stations, when there were no cell phones , thanks for the heads up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of the Fraud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RegGaymer

On the contrary it could be said that your first thought when you hear about this stuff, along with 99% of everyone else, is that these are all legit terror stories to be taken at face value.

It's like a form of backward logic, whereby you have your belief system already in place (terrorism/isis/gunman stories etc.), and look to support your belief regardless of how foolish it may be - instead of using inductive reasoning and drawing a conclusion based on the evidence right in front of you.

It's mad because you admit that several of the pictures look suspect, yet your preexisting beliefs won't allow you to follow through with your read. It's like Knish in rounders seeing the moves but not having the stones to make the plays. All that alimony and child support got you singing from the same hymm sheet as the rest of the sheep.

---

Your head must be constantly battered.


The bigger picture concerns me infinitely more than second guessing a random attack. An attack which carried plenty of plausibility anyway imo.

Discret drip-drip propaganda from those in control, laughably has us believing we're the victims in the grand scheme of the past 15-20 years.

I don't need to question EVERYTHING to know why, or how we got here. The bogeyman-like fear has already been well and truly created, especially across the pond.

The West already got their blank cheque. FF aren't really necessary... Add to the fact that Muslims are sorta mad at us for dropping a few thousand tons of munitions onto their heads, meaning it's not difficult to comprehend that sometimes they go a little nuts like that murderess cunt did the other day.

IF the MSM suddenly claimed that the attack was a hoax. It wouldn't dramatically change my position on how I view things. So I honestly couldn't give a fuck if some paranoid prick believes I shit in a field while eating grass all day.

---

Who are you calling a prick?

My head isn't battered or paranoid, because I don't follow the news and am comfortable knowing that brown people with beards aren't out to terrorise me or the rest of Western civilization as the media would have you believe.

I been schooling you on this too long you aint never gonna get it are ya. Can't teach old dog new tricks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YUUP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by big dick

Not everytime but very often the IRA would call ahead with a warning before the bomb went off.

---

To newspapers or TVs stations, when there were no cell phones , thanks for the heads up

---

A warning is better than no warning right? If they just wanted to maim and kill they would not have given any warnings.
Im sure it saved some lives.
That being said it gave the English a taste of what they had been doing to the Irish for hundreds of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

Unfortunately not taught in US schools.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27201-the-leading-terrorist-state

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyLg-isaGhk

---

LOL half of Americans believe in biblical creation, you think they'll ever understand Chomsky?

all these idiots trying to imply that the USA has ever done anything wrong seem to have forgotten that A) we are Christians B) we invented freedom C) none of the regimes listed that America "terrorized" even fought in the Civil War to free black slaves because they are RACISTS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongkonger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

Unfortunately not taught in US schools.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27201-the-leading-terrorist-state

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyLg-isaGhk

---

LOL half of Americans believe in biblical creation, you think they'll ever understand Chomsky?

---

power to the people

stick it to the man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Even though I understand the argument of cultural relativism and the idea that terrorists are just as vicious as our military, only with fewer resources, which results in a cruder, imprecise result. However, I believe Druff is correct in pointing out that drone strikes at least have the intention of killing a specific person or group of people, as opposed to terror attacks, which are becoming increasingly random and less specific.

The factor that has really started to differentiate Islamic terror groups from groups like the IRA or PLO is that they have been attacking people for things as petty as drawing cartoons or, more recently, just driving into crowds in major cities, seemingly to reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror before essentially committing suicide.

This is a very different thing than Catholic terrorism or even genocidal Sikhs. I honestly think all religions are ill-advised and I know there are socio-economic factors at play, but to overlook the fact that ISIS, and the many groups that comprise ISIS and Al-Quada, find legitimacy in some of the strongest underpinnings of the religion (jihad, death to apostates, women owned by father/husband, etc.) is telling and we can't just continue to exoticize Islam as some "religion of peace.'

It is actually quite racist to treat Islam like some pure, untouched culture that, without that provocation of the horrible white man, would be free of this hyper-violent religious turf war. We treat Africa the same way. As a liberal (not a Progressive), I am fucking tired of it. By the way, both Muslims and Africans had slave trades that pre-dated the European slave trade and any historian will tell you that these were much more brutal as well. Sorry, correction, some still have continuing slave trades... and they cite their holy book to justify this, only they don't really need to stretch too hard to make that claim, as no reformation of any slavery claims exists widely in Islam.

This isn't to say that Western culture hasn't committed some of the greatest atrocities in history, but be very careful of the soft bigotry of low expectations, as well as the soft bigotry of broadly assuming the infallibility of people, based primarily on a misplaced sense of guilt.

---

Terrorists from every religion have been known to target civilians and "seemingly to reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror" has always been the point of it. That includes IRA and PLO (they are Muslims btw). IRA used to blow up pubs and PLO member organizations were best known from a school bus massacre (killed 9 kids) and the Munich massacre that targeted Olympic athletes.

Pretty much every terrorist organization have sacred religious texts that give them justification for their actions. It's always some variation of end justifying the means. Usually they are the only ones that draw that conclusion for what ever material we are talking about (Quran, Bible, Torah, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf ect.).

ISIS and friends aren't some special snow flakes that are doing unprecedented things. They are very much derived from the past. They are much wealthier than previous organizations and they spend a lot more resources on spreading propaganda compared to their predecessors. But those are pretty much the only differences.

Africa and middle-east were ahead in the slave game simply because that's where the earliest civilizations were formed. Ancient Greece and Rome got their slavery on as soon as they were advanced enough. How brutal any of it was is something no one knows. Something any decent historian can tell you. No idea what slavery has to do with anything quite honestly. It's endearing that you deem it important to mention that Roots didn't invent slavery, but that has more to do with your "education system" than anything that's relevant to this thread.

---

1) The point about slavery was directly correlated to the tendency for Westerners to make themselves into the ultimate predator in history, while treating other cultures as these innocent, untouched people who weren't capable of such horrible atrocities until the white man bothered the beehive.

2) I sense you think you are educating me every time you respond to one of my posts, but in your condescension you've overlooked that I over-stand your position. I used to be a culture relativist too, it is an easy stance to take because you can just lean back on the subjectivity of brutality and scope while coming across as worldly, enlightened, and (most importantly) in adamant defense that no other culture is inferior to Western/European culture.

3) Yes, I know that the PLO is technically Muslim, but you to make any claim that the PLO and ISIS are the same, you merely reveal your ignorance or that you will shape your argument however best keeps you ahead (classic relativism).

The IRA terrorism was amateur compared to Palestine's operation.

Quote:

---

Since 2004, Palestinian law has explicitly mandated large monthly payments to the families of terrorists who attack Israel, as well as salaries and jobs for the terrorists on their release from Israeli jails. The PA structures the payments so as to make its incentive structure crystal clear: The more Israelis you wound or kill, the more money your family will receive.

---

Of course, this all came to light thanks to Obama's funding just before he left office.

I gotta pretty low opinion of government here there and everywhere but this actually impressed me on several levels.

Bailing Out the Palestinian Authority
National Review
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.natio...fund-terrorism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Terrorists from every religion have been known to target civilians and "seemingly to reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror" has always been the point of it. That includes IRA and PLO (they are Muslims btw). IRA used to blow up pubs and PLO member organizations were best known from a school bus massacre (killed 9 kids) and the Munich massacre that targeted Olympic athletes.

Pretty much every terrorist organization have sacred religious texts that give them justification for their actions. It's always some variation of end justifying the means. Usually they are the only ones that draw that conclusion for what ever material we are talking about (Quran, Bible, Torah, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf ect.).

ISIS and friends aren't some special snow flakes that are doing unprecedented things. They are very much derived from the past. They are much wealthier than previous organizations and they spend a lot more resources on spreading propaganda compared to their predecessors. But those are pretty much the only differences.

Africa and middle-east were ahead in the slave game simply because that's where the earliest civilizations were formed. Ancient Greece and Rome got their slavery on as soon as they were advanced enough. How brutal any of it was is something no one knows. Something any decent historian can tell you. No idea what slavery has to do with anything quite honestly. It's endearing that you deem it important to mention that Roots didn't invent slavery, but that has more to do with your "education system" than anything that's relevant to this thread.

---

1) The point about slavery was directly correlated to the tendency for Westerners to make themselves into the ultimate predator in history, while treating other cultures as these innocent, untouched people who weren't capable of such horrible atrocities until the white man bothered the beehive.

2) I sense you think you are educating me every time you respond to one of my posts, but in your condescension you've overlooked that I over-stand your position. I used to be a culture relativist too, it is an easy stance to take because you can just lean back on the subjectivity of brutality and scope while coming across as worldly, enlightened, and (most importantly) in adamant defense that no other culture is inferior to Western/European culture.

3) Yes, I know that the PLO is technically Muslim, but you to make any claim that the PLO and ISIS are the same, you merely reveal your ignorance or that you will shape your argument however best keeps you ahead (classic relativism).

---

1) And how would that matter at all? Sure it's a cute strawman and you can waste all the time you want defeating that beast but it has nothing to do with the subject.

2) You really are an idiot huh. You took handful of shots in the dark and missed them all. Better luck next time.

3) I've never said PLO and ISIS are the same. You're the one that tried to differentiate Islamic terrorist organizations from PLO. And then i refuted your every point.

Ps. Next time you could try refuting some of my points instead of trying to guess who i am or why i do what ever the fuck i do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

1) The point about slavery was directly correlated to the tendency for Westerners to make themselves into the ultimate predator in history, while treating other cultures as these innocent, untouched people who weren't capable of such horrible atrocities until the white man bothered the beehive.

2) I sense you think you are educating me every time you respond to one of my posts, but in your condescension you've overlooked that I over-stand your position. I used to be a culture relativist too, it is an easy stance to take because you can just lean back on the subjectivity of brutality and scope while coming across as worldly, enlightened, and (most importantly) in adamant defense that no other culture is inferior to Western/European culture.

3) Yes, I know that the PLO is technically Muslim, but you to make any claim that the PLO and ISIS are the same, you merely reveal your ignorance or that you will shape your argument however best keeps you ahead (classic relativism).

---

1) And how would that matter at all? Sure it's a cute strawman and you can waste all the time you want defeating that beast but it has nothing to do with the subject.

2) You really are an idiot huh. You took handful of shots in the dark and missed them all. Better luck next time.

3) I've never said PLO and ISIS are the same. You're the one that tried to differentiate Islamic terrorist organizations from PLO. And then i refuted your every point.

Ps. Next time you could try refuting some of my points instead of trying to guess who i am or why i do what ever the fuck i do.

---

This is really an interesting look at hypocrisy, considering you really didn't refute anything that I just said to refute your points.

But let me take a focus so you don't get too high on your own fumes in the confusion, as we once again reach a point where you change the goal post and then try to find small points to score while deflecting entirely from the thrust of what is being said.

"3) I've never said PLO and ISIS are the same. You're the one that tried to differentiate Islamic terrorist organizations from PLO. And then i refuted your every point."

- Yes, you never said that PLO and ISIS are the same, you just arbitrarily pointed out that they are also Islamic, which was just another example of you trying to score points while playing a different game. The PLO was/is Islamic, but what separates them from the groups that comprise ISIS is the stated goal. The PLO may have various offshoots of anti-Zionism and anti-Western views, but they are not violently slaughtering pilgrims and taking sex slaves in an effort to form a caliphate.

I must have missed where you refuted my every point, but I was booted from the site for awhile, so (for the sake of your obviously inflated ego) let's assume you refuted my every point when I was gone and everyone missed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

1) And how would that matter at all? Sure it's a cute strawman and you can waste all the time you want defeating that beast but it has nothing to do with the subject.

2) You really are an idiot huh. You took handful of shots in the dark and missed them all. Better luck next time.

3) I've never said PLO and ISIS are the same. You're the one that tried to differentiate Islamic terrorist organizations from PLO. And then i refuted your every point.

Ps. Next time you could try refuting some of my points instead of trying to guess who i am or why i do what ever the fuck i do.

---

This is really an interesting look at hypocrisy, considering you really didn't refute anything that I just said to refute your points.

But let me take a focus so you don't get too high on your own fumes in the confusion, as we once again reach a point where you change the goal post and then try to find small points to score while deflecting entirely from the thrust of what is being said.

"3) I've never said PLO and ISIS are the same. You're the one that tried to differentiate Islamic terrorist organizations from PLO. And then i refuted your every point."

- Yes, you never said that PLO and ISIS are the same, you just arbitrarily pointed out that they are also Islamic, which was just another example of you trying to score points while playing a different game. The PLO was/is Islamic, but what separates them from the groups that comprise ISIS is the stated goal. The PLO may have various offshoots of anti-Zionism and anti-Western views, but they are not violently slaughtering pilgrims and taking sex slaves in an effort to form a caliphate.

I must have missed where you refuted my every point, but I was booted from the site for awhile, so (for the sake of your obviously inflated ego) let's assume you refuted my every point when I was gone and everyone missed it.

---

So we'll just add hypocrisy to the long list of words you kinda think you know the meaning of. Cool.

Your previous reply didn't add anything to your first or refute any of my points. So there is nothing relevant that i should bother to refute. But let's get back to a condescending tone as i explain remarkably basic shit to a mouth breather.

Persons character isn't relevant to an argument outside of determining his trustworthiness when it's needed and a few other cases where it clearly is. In nearly every post i've made in these forums my character is irrelevant to the validity of my words.

Nothing regarding my character will make my words in this thread any more true or false and the same applies to you. That's why you're wasting every ones time trying to randomly guess who i am. Even if i was a culture relativist (for the sake of argument we'll assume you're not mixing the concept with moral relativism) or some random person somewhere was a culture relativist it does absolutely nothing to the validity of my/their words.

Quite a few thousand years ago different Greek faggots spent a lot of time thinking this type of shit over and ever since then this and a bunch of other basic shit have been the rules we've argued with.

Oh and let's go over your points why Islamic terrorist groups are different from other terrorist groups such as older Catholic and Muslim groups.

1) They aim to "reach the highest body count possible and to make the biggest public display of horror". This is another way of saying Islamic terrorist groups aim to terrorize their opponents. It more or less defines the word terrorist. It is what separates terrorists from paramilitaries fighting an asymmetric war. It is universal to all terrorist groups. I gave a few examples of atrocities PLO had done and i mentioned that IRA did target civilians as well. Roughly 3rd of all Provisional IRA (the IRA that was referred to earlier and the group most commonly known as IRA in relation to terrorism) victims were civilians.

"This is a very different thing than Catholic terrorism or even genocidal Sikhs" (Sikh that was referred to ITT was in relation to bomb in a passenger airplane that killed more than 300 people)

You claimed that something that is universal differentiates. I refuted that. Feel free to chime in.

2) They "find legitimacy in some of the strongest underpinnings of the religion". This is another way of saying Islamic terrorists have a justification for their actions. All terrorists have a justification for their actions. End justifies the means. We get to do what ever because we're special snowflakes destined to do special snowflake things.

You claimed that something that is universal differentiates. I refuted that. Feel free to chime in.

If anyone is interested in middle-eastern terrorist groups, you should look up Irgun and Lehi.

Irgun is best known from bombing of the King David hotel that was know as the deadliest terrorist attack of the 20th century for a few decades. Lehi had a bombing campaign in Europe and a few successful political assassinations. They tag teamed the Deir Yassin massacre where they ended up killing 100 villagers (the usual with women and children). They definitely hung some of their opponents and there was mentions of decapitations/rapes. Basically stuff that's fairly common with extended paramilitary warfare (or warfare in general even).

They both tried to set up a caliphate of sorts and they believed they had justification for all their actions in their good book. The same good book that promised them their caliphate. What makes them interesting is that they were successful in setting up their caliphate. It's been up and running sixty-odd years now.

lol todger its like 5th year students at cal state san bernardino noam chomsky la;ksdfl;sakjdf;lkasjdfl;kjsadf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

Unfortunately not taught in US schools.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27201-the-leading-terrorist-state

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyLg-isaGhk

---

I get the feeling that Chomsky might have had greater impact if born a few years later. When you watch some of his early stuff, debates, he was unstoppable. His willingness to challenge the powers that be and not lose the argument was good enough that it got him blacklisted to some degree. I don't know much about it really but he and Nadar have received similar treatment, as if they were the loose cannons.

Who knows, when you see an act like Judge Jeanine, it's clear the inmates still run the asylum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

If anyone is interested in middle-eastern terrorist groups, you should look up Irgun and Lehi.

Irgun is best known from bombing of the King David hotel that was know as the deadliest terrorist attack of the 20th century for a few decades. Lehi had a bombing campaign in Europe and a few successful political assassinations. They tag teamed the Deir Yassin massacre where they ended up killing 100 villagers (the usual with women and children). They definitely hung some of their opponents and there was mentions of decapitations/rapes. Basically stuff that's fairly common with extended paramilitary warfare (or warfare in general even).

They both tried to set up a caliphate of sorts and they believed they had justification for all their actions in their good book. The same good book that promised them their caliphate. What makes them interesting is that they were successful in setting up their caliphate. It's been up and running sixty-odd years now.

---

I'll cut through all the bullshit, because I think are too accustomed to people who haven't read books. You are recommending people look up Irgun, as if it's an author, and you assume that people don't have a basic knowledge of modern history.

It's easier to understand why you use the annoying, relativist tactic - because you clearly care more about scoring points that examining the truth. Also, I have never guessed who you are and I really could care less who you are. It's really adorable that you keep trying to ground your arguments in very formal, Socratic approach. Then, you are hypocritical again, by saying that I am making ad hominem attacks, which was essentially just one long ad hominem attack which veered completed from whatever point you are trying to make.

In terms of Islamic terrorism. I'll go back to a very simple argument so I don't get into the weeds with you about the subtleties of recent history. The news reports, as it did in the recent London attack, that multiple people were mowed down by a car in a purposeful attack, but then they don't give any information about the attacker immediately. Since we are on a site about betting... what would you say that the odds are that it is someone who is affiliated or directly inspired by ISIS, or some derivative of ISIS?

It may seem like a real "gotcha" question and I realize you would love to make the argument that the PLO used to receive the same kind of usual-suspect status, as did the IRA, but it's very different and this is on a MUCH different scale and is climbing. Trust me, I am not anti-Muslim and I am not sure why you are bending over backwards to minimize this problem, but it's a major problem - one which is a quantifiable magnitude larger than any other you have mentioned.

PS: I refuse to even respond to your nonsense "chime in" jabs, where you incoherently use the word differentiate, only to reveal a little more clutter in the attic than I am willing to sort through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlunderMaker

It's a pretty simple problem. Islam's founding documents explicitly order believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers. Either keep Islam out of places you'd like to not see explode or deal with it. The western world has almost unanimously chose to deal with it.

---

Have you heard of The Book of Joshua? In it, God calls for the Israelites to commit ethnic cleansing to take over much of the land of the Canaanites. Why is this relevant? Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel refer to those writings as justification to commit ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank to make room for Jewish settlements.

In fact, the Zionist movement was based in large part on the supposed promise "God" made to the Israelites regarding ownership of certain land in the Middle East as recorded in the Torah, which is the founding document of the Jewish faith. And Middle Eastern Arab leaders predicted pretty much the same thing bolded above about letting Jews immigrate en masse to Palestine while it was under British control post-WW I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

I get the feeling that Chomsky might have had greater impact if born a few years later. When you watch some of his early stuff, debates, he was unstoppable. His willingness to challenge the powers that be and not lose the argument was good enough that it got him blacklisted to some degree. I don't know much about it really but he and Nadar have received similar treatment, as if they were the loose cannons.

Who knows, when you see an act like Judge Jeanine, it's clear the inmates still run the asylum

---

The masses that would benefit from reading Chomsky have the attention span of 140 characters. I'm not sure how they will snap out of it. I sort of doubt they will be magically enlightened when standing in line for food stamps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlunderMaker

It's a pretty simple problem. Islam's founding documents explicitly order believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers. Either keep Islam out of places you'd like to not see explode or deal with it. The western world has almost unanimously chose to deal with it.

---

Have you heard of The Book of Joshua? In it, God calls for the Israelites to commit ethnic cleansing to take over much of the land of the Canaanites. Why is this relevant? Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel refer to those writings as justification to commit ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank to make room for Jewish settlements.

In fact, the Zionist movement was based in large part on the supposed promise "God" made to the Israelites regarding ownership of certain land in the Middle East as recorded in the Torah, which is the founding document of the Jewish faith. And Middle Eastern Arab leaders predicted pretty much the same thing bolded above about letting Jews immigrate en masse to Palestine while it was under British control post-WW I.

---

And let's not forget that evangelical/conservative Christians in Great Britian supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine based on their belief that the nation of Israel would be refounded as a precursor to the End Times as "predicted" in The Book of Revelation, which is the last of the New Testament. And nowadays, American conservative Christians are carrying that mantle, and support giving the government of Israel carte blanche in dealing with the Palestinians/Arabs.

In fact, I've had a number of futile discussions with a conservative Christian relative over this matter. Whenever mention of ethics or fairness are raised to challenge his position, he knee-jerkedly mentions his faith that it is the Word of God that the Jews should control the Holy Land regardless of the consequences to others. End of discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

If anyone is interested in middle-eastern terrorist groups, you should look up Irgun and Lehi.

Irgun is best known from bombing of the King David hotel that was know as the deadliest terrorist attack of the 20th century for a few decades. Lehi had a bombing campaign in Europe and a few successful political assassinations. They tag teamed the Deir Yassin massacre where they ended up killing 100 villagers (the usual with women and children). They definitely hung some of their opponents and there was mentions of decapitations/rapes. Basically stuff that's fairly common with extended paramilitary warfare (or warfare in general even).

They both tried to set up a caliphate of sorts and they believed they had justification for all their actions in their good book. The same good book that promised them their caliphate. What makes them interesting is that they were successful in setting up their caliphate. It's been up and running sixty-odd years now.

---

I'll cut through all the bullshit, because I think are too accustomed to people who haven't read books. You are recommending people look up Irgun, as if it's an author, and you assume that people don't have a basic knowledge of modern history.

It's easier to understand why you use the annoying, relativist tactic - because you clearly care more about scoring points that examining the truth. Also, I have never guessed who you are and I really could care less who you are. It's really adorable that you keep trying to ground your arguments in very formal, Socratic approach. Then, you are hypocritical again, by saying that I am making ad hominem attacks, which was essentially just one long ad hominem attack which veered completed from whatever point you are trying to make.

In terms of Islamic terrorism. I'll go back to a very simple argument so I don't get into the weeds with you about the subtleties of recent history. The news reports, as it did in the recent London attack, that multiple people were mowed down by a car in a purposeful attack, but then they don't give any information about the attacker immediately. Since we are on a site about betting... what would you say that the odds are that it is someone who is affiliated or directly inspired by ISIS, or some derivative of ISIS?

It may seem like a real "gotcha" question and I realize you would love to make the argument that the PLO used to receive the same kind of usual-suspect status, as did the IRA, but it's very different and this is on a MUCH different scale and is climbing. Trust me, I am not anti-Muslim and I am not sure why you are bending over backwards to minimize this problem, but it's a major problem - one which is a quantifiable magnitude larger than any other you have mentioned.

PS: I refuse to even respond to your nonsense "chime in" jabs, where you incoherently use the word differentiate, only to reveal a little more clutter in the attic than I am willing to sort through.

---

So i will just add ad hominem to the list. Cool.

"you use the annoying, relativist tactic - because you clearly care more about scoring points"-This is ad hominem.

"you would love to make the argument that the PLO used to receive the same kind of usual-suspect status"-This is a straw man.

They are both variations of trying to guess or state who i am, my character, my motives or my expected behavior. Shots in the dark. If you actually knew who i am, there's a small chance your ad hominems would be less retarded.

Bonus points for this gem "Trust me, I am not anti-Muslim and I am not sure why you are bending over backwards to minimize this problem, but it's a major problem - one which is a quantifiable magnitude larger than any other you have mentioned." WTF does it matter that you aren't anti-Muslim? What problem am i minimizing? Could we one day see some proof about this and your claim that it's a major problem? Or was the "Trust me" part the proof or maybe the non anti-Muslim part is the proof?

Also, "The news reports, as it did in the recent London attack, that multiple people were mowed down by a car in a purposeful attack, but then they don't give any information about the attacker immediately. Since we are on a site about betting... what would you say that the odds are that it is someone who is affiliated or directly inspired by ISIS, or some derivative of ISIS?", maybe this made perfect sense to you at some point but none of it comes across. Odds of what?

And once again bitching out from actually debating your claims. I can see how incoherence would be debilitating to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

I'll cut through all the bullshit, because I think are too accustomed to people who haven't read books. You are recommending people look up Irgun, as if it's an author, and you assume that people don't have a basic knowledge of modern history.

It's easier to understand why you use the annoying, relativist tactic - because you clearly care more about scoring points that examining the truth. Also, I have never guessed who you are and I really could care less who you are. It's really adorable that you keep trying to ground your arguments in very formal, Socratic approach. Then, you are hypocritical again, by saying that I am making ad hominem attacks, which was essentially just one long ad hominem attack which veered completed from whatever point you are trying to make.

In terms of Islamic terrorism. I'll go back to a very simple argument so I don't get into the weeds with you about the subtleties of recent history. The news reports, as it did in the recent London attack, that multiple people were mowed down by a car in a purposeful attack, but then they don't give any information about the attacker immediately. Since we are on a site about betting... what would you say that the odds are that it is someone who is affiliated or directly inspired by ISIS, or some derivative of ISIS?

It may seem like a real "gotcha" question and I realize you would love to make the argument that the PLO used to receive the same kind of usual-suspect status, as did the IRA, but it's very different and this is on a MUCH different scale and is climbing. Trust me, I am not anti-Muslim and I am not sure why you are bending over backwards to minimize this problem, but it's a major problem - one which is a quantifiable magnitude larger than any other you have mentioned.

PS: I refuse to even respond to your nonsense "chime in" jabs, where you incoherently use the word differentiate, only to reveal a little more clutter in the attic than I am willing to sort through.

---

So i will just add ad hominem to the list. Cool.

"you use the annoying, relativist tactic - because you clearly care more about scoring points"-This is ad hominem.

"you would love to make the argument that the PLO used to receive the same kind of usual-suspect status"-This is a straw man.

They are both variations of trying to guess or state who i am, my character, my motives or my expected behavior. Shots in the dark. If you actually knew who i am, there's a small chance your ad hominems would be less retarded.

Bonus points for this gem "Trust me, I am not anti-Muslim and I am not sure why you are bending over backwards to minimize this problem, but it's a major problem - one which is a quantifiable magnitude larger than any other you have mentioned." WTF does it matter that you aren't anti-Muslim? What problem am i minimizing? Could we one day see some proof about this and your claim that it's a major problem? Or was the "Trust me" part the proof or maybe the non anti-Muslim part is the proof?

Also, "The news reports, as it did in the recent London attack, that multiple people were mowed down by a car in a purposeful attack, but then they don't give any information about the attacker immediately. Since we are on a site about betting... what would you say that the odds are that it is someone who is affiliated or directly inspired by ISIS, or some derivative of ISIS?", maybe this made perfect sense to you at some point but none of it comes across. Odds of what?

And once again bitching out from actually debating your claims. I can see how incoherence would be debilitating to you.

---

You are just a smarmy contrarian with no actual argument. I fucking hate people like you.

But here are a couple tidbits to wet your insincere, pseudo-intellectual beak, but I am sure you'll be able to explain these away by claiming that I give a shit about who you are:

1) Continual findings, like this one in 2015 that upwards of 90% of all suicide attacks were conducted by Islamic terrorists: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id...rticleid=11361

2) Or perhaps the fact that well over 10% of all Muslims believe that terrorism is a viable and justified means of attack by Islamic fighters, which means that roughly 160-175 MILLION people believe this, according to our best polling on the subject-matter, which surely rises above your smug certainty and wish-washy relativism. http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...y-believe.html

I also couldn't help but notice that you glanced right over the question of how we can accurately assume that an attack was conducted by an Islamic terrorist merely by hearing a few scant details. This is a fact you can't refute and your unwillingness to address it speaks volumes. I'll brace myself for your thorny, yet inaccurate, response.



Edit: Actually it's 195 million that think terrorism is a viable and justified method of attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlunderMaker

It's a pretty simple problem. Islam's founding documents explicitly order believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers. Either keep Islam out of places you'd like to not see explode or deal with it. The western world has almost unanimously chose to deal with it.

---

Have you heard of The Book of Joshua? In it, God calls for the Israelites to commit ethnic cleansing to take over much of the land of the Canaanites. Why is this relevant? Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel refer to those writings as justification to commit ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank to make room for Jewish settlements.

In fact, the Zionist movement was based in large part on the supposed promise "God" made to the Israelites regarding ownership of certain land in the Middle East as recorded in the Torah, which is the founding document of the Jewish faith. And Middle Eastern Arab leaders predicted pretty much the same thing bolded above about letting Jews immigrate en masse to Palestine while it was under British control post-WW I.

---

I like how you put God in quotation marks to signal how superior you are. Yes, God did command the ethnic cleansing of Palestine when he gave the land to the Jews. If the Old Testament is true, of course. You seem very perturbed by that. Strangely you're unwilling to show the same outrage at the Islamic texts which call for the violent subjugation of ALL UNBELIEVERS OF ISLAM, which would include you and I.

Weird how liberals criticize practicing Jews and Christians for believing in 'primitive backwards religion' but are super eager to allow in millions of Muslims who strive to live (and make all of us live) exactly like seventh century arabs. All the most precious liberal bugaboos like fag marriage and loose women are forbidden in Muslim societies. Not only that, they execute those who do that shit. I wonder if liberals fail to account for this or if they just assume that once muslims set foot on American soil they will be transformed into starbucks drinking, low testosterone ant people like them. If we didn't have a major terrorist attack every 30 minutes one could almost think that was rational.

It's almost like liberal opposition to religion is just another way to signal to their yuppie facebook friends that they are superior than an actual principled stand against the tenets of any one faith. Almost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlunderMaker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Have you heard of The Book of Joshua? In it, God calls for the Israelites to commit ethnic cleansing to take over much of the land of the Canaanites. Why is this relevant? Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel refer to those writings as justification to commit ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank to make room for Jewish settlements.

In fact, the Zionist movement was based in large part on the supposed promise "God" made to the Israelites regarding ownership of certain land in the Middle East as recorded in the Torah, which is the founding document of the Jewish faith. And Middle Eastern Arab leaders predicted pretty much the same thing bolded above about letting Jews immigrate en masse to Palestine while it was under British control post-WW I.

---

I like how you put God in quotation marks to signal how superior you are. Yes, God did command the ethnic cleansing of Palestine when he gave the land to the Jews. If the Old Testament is true, of course. You seem very perturbed by that. Strangely you're unwilling to show the same outrage at the Islamic texts which call for the violent subjugation of ALL UNBELIEVERS OF ISLAM, which would include you and I.

Weird how liberals criticize practicing Jews and Christians for believing in 'primitive backwards religion' but are super eager to allow in millions of Muslims who strive to live (and make all of us live) exactly like seventh century arabs. All the most precious liberal bugaboos like fag marriage and loose women are forbidden in Muslim societies. Not only that, they execute those who do that shit. I wonder if liberals fail to account for this or if they just assume that once muslims set foot on American soil they will be transformed into starbucks drinking, low testosterone ant people like them. If we didn't have a major terrorist attack every 30 minutes one could almost think that was rational.

It's almost like liberal opposition to religion is just another way to signal to their yuppie facebook friends that they are superior than an actual principled stand against the tenets of any one faith. Almost.

---

"God" is a man-made delusion that the religious fearful cling to for comfort and the religious arrogant use to justify their heinous actions against others.



That being said, I don't ignore how *any* religious faith can be *used* to promote heinous acts against people. My objection to Islamophobia is that it paints *all* Muslims as equivalent to Islamic extremists, just as I object to extremists in *any* faith -- including the "faith" of atheism. Which is why I am *not* anti-religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

"God" is a man-made delusion that the religious fearful cling to for comfort and the religious arrogant use to justify their heinous actions against others.

---

I wouldn't say that too loudly once your new muslim neighbors move in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlunderMaker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

"God" is a man-made delusion that the religious fearful cling to for comfort and the religious arrogant use to justify their heinous actions against others.

---

I wouldn't say that too loudly once your new muslim neighbors move in.

---

Why? Because those evil Muslim bogeymen would then kill this infidel?

:lol2

 

Blunder, you really are a pussy scaredy cat, aren't ya. Go ahead. Admit it. You're secret will be safe with us.

:to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

So i will just add ad hominem to the list. Cool.

"you use the annoying, relativist tactic - because you clearly care more about scoring points"-This is ad hominem.

"you would love to make the argument that the PLO used to receive the same kind of usual-suspect status"-This is a straw man.

They are both variations of trying to guess or state who i am, my character, my motives or my expected behavior. Shots in the dark. If you actually knew who i am, there's a small chance your ad hominems would be less retarded.

Bonus points for this gem "Trust me, I am not anti-Muslim and I am not sure why you are bending over backwards to minimize this problem, but it's a major problem - one which is a quantifiable magnitude larger than any other you have mentioned." WTF does it matter that you aren't anti-Muslim? What problem am i minimizing? Could we one day see some proof about this and your claim that it's a major problem? Or was the "Trust me" part the proof or maybe the non anti-Muslim part is the proof?

Also, "The news reports, as it did in the recent London attack, that multiple people were mowed down by a car in a purposeful attack, but then they don't give any information about the attacker immediately. Since we are on a site about betting... what would you say that the odds are that it is someone who is affiliated or directly inspired by ISIS, or some derivative of ISIS?", maybe this made perfect sense to you at some point but none of it comes across. Odds of what?

And once again bitching out from actually debating your claims. I can see how incoherence would be debilitating to you.

---

You are just a smarmy contrarian with no actual argument. I fucking hate people like you.

But here are a couple tidbits to wet your insincere, pseudo-intellectual beak, but I am sure you'll be able to explain these away by claiming that I give a shit about who you are:

1) Continual findings, like this one in 2015 that upwards of 90% of all suicide attacks were conducted by Islamic terrorists: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id...rticleid=11361

2) Or perhaps the fact that well over 10% of all Muslims believe that terrorism is a viable and justified means of attack by Islamic fighters, which means that roughly 160-175 MILLION people believe this, according to our best polling on the subject-matter, which surely rises above your smug certainty and wish-washy relativism. http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...y-believe.html

I also couldn't help but notice that you glanced right over the question of how we can accurately assume that an attack was conducted by an Islamic terrorist merely by hearing a few scant details. This is a fact you can't refute and your unwillingness to address it speaks volumes. I'll brace myself for your thorny, yet inaccurate, response.



Edit: Actually it's 195 million that think terrorism is a viable and justified method of attack.

---

Yeah "You are just a smarmy contrarian", "insincere, pseudo-intellectual" and "I am sure you'll be able to explain these away" seem to prove that "I give a shit about who you are" indeed is true. Also the ad hominem thingie, you know the drill.

1) And this matters because we all know suicide bombings/attacks are the only known form of terrorism. Oh wait, no, there are other ways to skin a cat. My apologies if this wasn't another fallacy on your part where this fact was used to prove something unrelated. Maybe you just thought i would be interested in this random fact.

2) Remarkable, this has only happened nearly every single time with terrorist groups. Same shit with basques/ETA, Irish/IRA and Jews/Irgun. You get the idea. It's once again something universal that you appear to be trying to pin on Muslims.

I glanced right over your question because it made no sense. Like literally it made no sense. It just wasn't decipherable. Someone mentioned incoherent. But you are correct i am not able to refute a fact you have not made.

My arguments in this thread haven't changed.

Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology. On any given time and area one of them most likely shows the strongest correlation with recent attacks. Since the beginning of "private" terrorism around 1850 that top spot has changed multiple times. Since the beginning gender has shown stronger correlation in almost all time periods and geographical areas.

Even though it is extremely likely that any given random terrorist attack is done by a male terrorist, it is extremely unlikely that any random male is a terrorist. For me it would be silly to claim that men pose a terrorist threat. Because i think that, it would be even sillier to claim that a group that shows an even weaker correlation to current attacks would pose a terrorist threat.

And in case you're wondering, i do think that ISIS poses a terrorist threat. Dealing with those 50k deranged individuals can be done without fucking with 1,6 billion mostly harmless Muslims. Fucking with the 1,6b feeds in to that 50k and it keeps doing the 50k's information warfare for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

You are just a smarmy contrarian with no actual argument. I fucking hate people like you.

But here are a couple tidbits to wet your insincere, pseudo-intellectual beak, but I am sure you'll be able to explain these away by claiming that I give a shit about who you are:

1) Continual findings, like this one in 2015 that upwards of 90% of all suicide attacks were conducted by Islamic terrorists: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id...rticleid=11361

2) Or perhaps the fact that well over 10% of all Muslims believe that terrorism is a viable and justified means of attack by Islamic fighters, which means that roughly 160-175 MILLION people believe this, according to our best polling on the subject-matter, which surely rises above your smug certainty and wish-washy relativism. http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...y-believe.html

I also couldn't help but notice that you glanced right over the question of how we can accurately assume that an attack was conducted by an Islamic terrorist merely by hearing a few scant details. This is a fact you can't refute and your unwillingness to address it speaks volumes. I'll brace myself for your thorny, yet inaccurate, response.



Edit: Actually it's 195 million that think terrorism is a viable and justified method of attack.

---

Yeah "You are just a smarmy contrarian", "insincere, pseudo-intellectual" and "I am sure you'll be able to explain these away" seem to prove that "I give a shit about who you are" indeed is true. Also the ad hominem thingie, you know the drill.

1) And this matters because we all know suicide bombings/attacks are the only known form of terrorism. Oh wait, no, there are other ways to skin a cat. My apologies if this wasn't another fallacy on your part where this fact was used to prove something unrelated. Maybe you just thought i would be interested in this random fact.

2) Remarkable, this has only happened nearly every single time with terrorist groups. Same shit with basques/ETA, Irish/IRA and Jews/Irgun. You get the idea. It's once again something universal that you appear to be trying to pin on Muslims.

I glanced right over your question because it made no sense. Like literally it made no sense. It just wasn't decipherable. Someone mentioned incoherent. But you are correct i am not able to refute a fact you have not made.

My arguments in this thread haven't changed.

Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology. On any given time and area one of them most likely shows the strongest correlation with recent attacks. Since the beginning of "private" terrorism around 1850 that top spot has changed multiple times. Since the beginning gender has shown stronger correlation in almost all time periods and geographical areas.

Even though it is extremely likely that any given random terrorist attack is done by a male terrorist, it is extremely unlikely that any random male is a terrorist. For me it would be silly to claim that men pose a terrorist threat. Because i think that, it would be even sillier to claim that a group that shows an even weaker correlation to current attacks would pose a terrorist threat.

And in case you're wondering, i do think that ISIS poses a terrorist threat. Dealing with those 50k deranged individuals can be done without fucking with 1,6 billion mostly harmless Muslims. Fucking with the 1,6b feeds in to that 50k and it keeps doing the 50k's information warfare for them.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnOF7y-KuHE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Yeah "You are just a smarmy contrarian", "insincere, pseudo-intellectual" and "I am sure you'll be able to explain these away" seem to prove that "I give a shit about who you are" indeed is true. Also the ad hominem thingie, you know the drill.

1) And this matters because we all know suicide bombings/attacks are the only known form of terrorism. Oh wait, no, there are other ways to skin a cat. My apologies if this wasn't another fallacy on your part where this fact was used to prove something unrelated. Maybe you just thought i would be interested in this random fact.

2) Remarkable, this has only happened nearly every single time with terrorist groups. Same shit with basques/ETA, Irish/IRA and Jews/Irgun. You get the idea. It's once again something universal that you appear to be trying to pin on Muslims.

I glanced right over your question because it made no sense. Like literally it made no sense. It just wasn't decipherable. Someone mentioned incoherent. But you are correct i am not able to refute a fact you have not made.

My arguments in this thread haven't changed.

Muslims do not pose a terrorist threat any more than any other major religion or ideology. On any given time and area one of them most likely shows the strongest correlation with recent attacks. Since the beginning of "private" terrorism around 1850 that top spot has changed multiple times. Since the beginning gender has shown stronger correlation in almost all time periods and geographical areas.

Even though it is extremely likely that any given random terrorist attack is done by a male terrorist, it is extremely unlikely that any random male is a terrorist. For me it would be silly to claim that men pose a terrorist threat. Because i think that, it would be even sillier to claim that a group that shows an even weaker correlation to current attacks would pose a terrorist threat.

And in case you're wondering, i do think that ISIS poses a terrorist threat. Dealing with those 50k deranged individuals can be done without fucking with 1,6 billion mostly harmless Muslims. Fucking with the 1,6b feeds in to that 50k and it keeps doing the 50k's information warfare for them.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnOF7y-KuHE

---

LOL. And then we move on to passive-aggressive red repping and totally relevant youtube videos. It's like we've done this before. But yea clearly the problem is that i'm just a smarmy contrarian with no actual arguments. No fault lies with you even though you're too fucking dense to find said actual arguments from this very short thread. And what do you do when i compile all those arguments in to 3 small paragraphs? Do you refute them with logic and relevant facts? LOL.

Silly little peon.

goodness, what a garbage thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnOF7y-KuHE

---

LOL. And then we move on to passive-aggressive red repping and totally relevant youtube videos. It's like we've done this before. But yea clearly the problem is that i'm just a smarmy contrarian with no actual arguments. No fault lies with you even though you're too fucking dense to find said actual arguments from this very short thread. And what do you do when i compile all those arguments in to 3 small paragraphs? Do you refute them with logic and relevant facts? LOL.

Silly little peon.

---

I left that video as something to think about. The fact that you think your previous post was filled with arguments, evidence and that it was 3 paragraphs, are all clearly figments of your imagination. I am just wasting my time arguing with you, as you can't accept basic logic. Without working from the same framework, this is just a useless exercise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlunderMaker

I wouldn't say that too loudly once your new muslim neighbors move in.

---

Why? Because those evil Muslim bogeymen would then kill this infidel?

:lol2

 

Blunder, you really are a pussy scaredy cat, aren't ya. Go ahead. Admit it. You're secret will be safe with us.

:to

---

Nah, you're right. Killing infidels isn't something muslims would do. It's a religion of peace, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

LOL. And then we move on to passive-aggressive red repping and totally relevant youtube videos. It's like we've done this before. But yea clearly the problem is that i'm just a smarmy contrarian with no actual arguments. No fault lies with you even though you're too fucking dense to find said actual arguments from this very short thread. And what do you do when i compile all those arguments in to 3 small paragraphs? Do you refute them with logic and relevant facts? LOL.

Silly little peon.

---

I left that video as something to think about. The fact that you think your previous post was filled with arguments, evidence and that it was 3 paragraphs, are all clearly figments of your imagination. I am just wasting my time arguing with you, as you can't accept basic logic. Without working from the same framework, this is just a useless exercise.

---

It's obv a useless exercise.

My post wasn't 3 paragraphs. The relevant arguments you claimed i hadn't made in this thread were compiled in 3 paragraphs. If you disagree with any of them, you can very easily refute them with your mastery of basic logic and history. They are at the end of the post. You start at the bottom and count to 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

I left that video as something to think about. The fact that you think your previous post was filled with arguments, evidence and that it was 3 paragraphs, are all clearly figments of your imagination. I am just wasting my time arguing with you, as you can't accept basic logic. Without working from the same framework, this is just a useless exercise.

---

It's obv a useless exercise.

My post wasn't 3 paragraphs. The relevant arguments you claimed i hadn't made in this thread were compiled in 3 paragraphs. If you disagree with any of them, you can very easily refute them with your mastery of basic logic and history. They are at the end of the post. You start at the bottom and count to 3.

---

Moving goalposts again....


Just tell me one argument and I'll refute it, how's that sound? You seem so interested in being a contrarian that you don't have any actual stance. I would like to hear what your thoughts on Islamic terrorism are... you seem to think the threat is overblown and not at all more extreme than any other group that used terrorism as a tactic in the past. No insults, no videos, just answer me that.