Terrorist Attack in London

[lol wow]

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

[limitles]

Unfortunately not taught in US schools.

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

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

[GringoStar]

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.

[MumblesBadly]

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.

[Deal]

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.

[MumblesBadly]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[BlunderMaker]

"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.

[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?

 

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[sonatine]

goodness, what a garbage thread.

[GringoStar]

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.

[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?

 

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

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

[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.

[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.