Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post
Quote Originally Posted by GringoStar View Post


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.