Knife attack in Munich, 1 dead - Islamism or not?

[Wallenburg]

Not the most reliable source.

You would make a terrible policeman.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Actually, you would.

[Vassenor]

Not the most reliable source.

You would make a terrible policeman.

Speaking as someone who is doing a Criminology degree and has done witness recall and the issues thereof, I can tell you that Witness testimony is not considered evidence in and of itself.

[Alvecia]

Not the most reliable source.

You would make a terrible policeman.

I'd make a better one than people who rely on nothing but eyewitness testimony.

[Stormopolis]

You would make a terrible policeman.

Speaking as someone who is doing a Criminology degree and has done witness recall and the issues thereof, I can tell you that Witness testimony is not considered evidence in and of itself.

Oh, sure you are studying criminology. I'm the current Anti-pope. I think I know a thing or two about religions or pretenders of such.

[Insaeldor]

If I can clarify, this is what their propaganda in general targets. Their propaganda is aimed at targeting these sort of people and to get them to do what they want by given a message of meaning and purpose something that a lot of people like this man probably lacked.obviously this isn't universal but it's a pretty common trend especially in Europe where it targets Muslims more directly. Here in the states it seems to be a lot more of a focus on recent converts who are more pliable for this sorta stuff like the Michael Zehaf-Bibeau who was a habitual offender and eventually committed an act of terror with the Parliament Hill Shooting.

Well to be fair again, that's not just limited to Islam. All religions target the people that are at their most vunerable and impressionable. They're simply following the handbook.

Absolutely, but in the case of Radical Jihadism (just for future reference, I'm arguing this as categorically swperate from Islam as a whole) we see the worst possible effects of these tactics. Paris and Belgium are just two worst case scinarioscof Isolated, directionless, and frustrated youth be indoctrinated into committing such acts of barbarism.

[Alvecia]

Speaking as someone who is doing a Criminology degree and has done witness recall and the issues thereof, I can tell you that Witness testimony is not considered evidence in and of itself.

Oh, sure you are studying criminology. I'm the current Anti-pope. I think I know a thing or two about religions or pretenders of such.

See Vassenor, he hasn't seen you doing a Criminology degree, so there's no good way to tell if you actually are or not *nods*

[Stormopolis]

You would make a terrible policeman.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Actually, you would.

A contradictio in terminis combined with a "no u". Classy reply, bro.

[Alvecia]

Well to be fair again, that's not just limited to Islam. All religions target the people that are at their most vunerable and impressionable. They're simply following the handbook.

Absolutely, but in the case of Radical Jihadism (just for future reference, I'm arguing this as categorically swperate from Islam as a whole) we see the worst possible effects of these tactics. Paris and Belgium are just two worst case scinarioscof Isolated, directionless, and frustrated youth be indoctrinated into committing such acts of barbarism.

And to that I wouldn't disagree.

[Vassenor]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Actually, you would.

A contradictio in terminis combined with a "no u". Classy reply, bro.

Because providing a source that supports the opposite view is a "NO U" reply. Clearly.

[Alvecia]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Actually, you would.

A contradictio in terminis combined with a "no u". Classy reply, bro.

You didn't read the article did you?

Oh wait I forgot

I know what's true and what isn't.

You don't accept valid evidence do you?

[Stormopolis]

A contradictio in terminis combined with a "no u". Classy reply, bro.

Because providing a source that supports the opposite view is a "NO U" reply. Clearly.

Dude. Did you even read what he said? Here, let me show it to you a tiny bit clearer.

Actually, you would.

See it yet?

[Alvecia]

:blush:

Because providing a source that supports the opposite view is a "NO U" reply. Clearly.

Dude. Did you even read what he said? Here, let me show it to you a tiny bit clearer.

Actually, you would.

See it yet?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

[Stormopolis]

:blush:

Dude. Did you even read what he said? Here, let me show it to you a tiny bit clearer.





See it yet?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

I saw the link, thank you.

[Alvecia]

I saw the link, thank you.

And yet focused on his wording rather than address the argument made in the link.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Actually, you would.

A contradictio in terminis combined with a "no u". Classy reply, bro.

As a reply to an Ad Hominem attack from you. See, I can do Latin too.

[Wallenburg]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Actually, you would.

A contradictio in terminis combined with a "no u". Classy reply, bro.

I see that you don't know what a "contradictio in terminis" is, and that you don't accept evidence as evidence.

[Stormopolis]

I saw the link, thank you.

And yet focused on his wording rather than address the argument made in the link.

I got a little caught up in the contradictio in terminis encapsulated in his post

[Stormopolis]

A contradictio in terminis combined with a "no u". Classy reply, bro.

I see that you don't know what a "contradictio in terminis" is, and that you don't accept evidence as evidence.

SCIENTIFIC + AMERICAN

Get it?

Probably don't.

Also, why would I accept any evidence? The name tells me all I need to know.

See? Doesn't feel that fun, does it?

It's okay, though. You don't have to apologize. I'll be dead before you, with your downplaying skill rendering you blind.

[Wallenburg]

I see that you don't know what a "contradictio in terminis" is, and that you don't accept evidence as evidence.

SCIENTIFIC + AMERICAN

Get it?

Probably don't.

Oh, so funny. You know, America does have scientists, and they are good at what they do. Get off your high horse.

Also, why would I accept any evidence? The name tells me all I need to know.

So you refuse to accept clear facts because of who published an article on them? That's fucking ridiculous.

See? Doesn't feel that fun, does it?

Doesn't feel that logical, actually.

It's okay, though. You don't have to apologize. I'll be dead before you, with your downplaying skill rendering you blind.

Excuse me? What the fuck are you on about?

[Alvecia]

I see that you don't know what a "contradictio in terminis" is, and that you don't accept evidence as evidence.

SCIENTIFIC + AMERICAN

Get it?

Probably don't.

Also, why would I accept any evidence? The name tells me all I need to know.

See? Doesn't feel that fun, does it?

It's okay, though. You don't have to apologize. I'll be dead before you, with your downplaying skill rendering you blind.

Oh, I see. So instead of addressing the argument you decided to resort to attacking the posters and making silly jokes attempting to poison the well (badly I might add).
Can we accept this as your admittance that you've got no good response?

[Azervia]

And this is why we should keep the refugee's in Turkey.

[Jamzmania]

Considering that German police have indeed tried to cover up or otherwise downplay crimes by Muslims in the past and the guy was reportedly shouting Allahu Akbar...

I'm still keeping the option open.

Are you seriously saying that every crime in Germany is Islamic terrorism?

No, I'm talking about this attack.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

And this is why we should keep the refugee's in Turkey.

Wow. That's a stretch. Care to explain?

[Alvecia]

And this is why we should keep the refugee's in Turkey.

Know something we don't?

[Azervia]

And this is why we should keep the refugee's in Turkey.

Wow. That's a stretch. Care to explain?

Im not racist I promise;

> Lets refugee's in
> Wave of sexual assaults
> Drain on EU
> Paris and Brussels Attacks
> European instability
> Half of the EU dont even want them
> Stupid Merkel and her socialism
> All would be solved by keeping muslims in a muslim country
> Either that or stay in syria and take up arms