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

[Alvecia]

Just curious, what's the rate of "immigrant rape" proportional to their population compared to the same of naturalised citizens?

[Purple Robed Empire]

No, but when a bunch of witnesses say he said "Allah Akbar" and Islamic terrorism is common and where the perpetrator is Moslem than we can assume that it was done by an Islamic terrorist.

Do we know the perpetrator is Muslim? And do we know 'Allah Akbar' was used?

Mind, Allah Akbar is just the Arabic term for God is Great. If a Christian says 'bless you' when someone sneezes, is that a religious act?

Yes, and yes. No one disputes the first and the second is backed up by multiple witnesses.

I know what Allah Akbar means, if he used the phrase in anything other than before the attack that would be one thing but when you use the phrase just before you attack it is another. If he used the phrase in a mosque that would be expected, if he used it in a conversation he is probably discussing Islam, if he uses it in a prayer it merely means that he is Moslem but using it before an attack links the two. Context is everything here. If I use the phrase "In the name of Jesus Christ" it most likely means I am a pastor of some sort. If I use it before stabbing someone I linked the two up and it means I am some sort of violent Christian religious fanatic.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Do we know the perpetrator is Muslim? And do we know 'Allah Akbar' was used?

Mind, Allah Akbar is just the Arabic term for God is Great. If a Christian says 'bless you' when someone sneezes, is that a religious act?

Yes, and yes. No one disputes the first and the second is backed up by multiple witnesses.

I know what Allah Akbar means, if he used the phrase in anything other than before the attack that would be one thing but when you use the phrase just before you attack it is another. If he used the phrase in a mosque that would be expected, if he used it in a conversation he is probably discussing Islam, if he uses it in a prayer it merely means that he is Moslem but using it before an attack links the two. Context is everything here. If I use the phrase "In the name of Jesus Christ" it most likely means I am a pastor of some sort. If I use it before stabbing someone I linked the two up and it means I am some sort of violent Christian religious fanatic.

Well, I dispute the first, if you don't mind. Is there evidence the perpetrator is Muslim?

And aye, it might link the two. Certainly. but it's not really hard evidence, is it? I mean, anyone could shout 'Allah Akbar' before stabbing a few people. German police have already said that the man was probably just confused, meaning it has little to do with religious extremism. More with his mental state.

[Braecland]

Yes, and yes. No one disputes the first and the second is backed up by multiple witnesses.

I know what Allah Akbar means, if he used the phrase in anything other than before the attack that would be one thing but when you use the phrase just before you attack it is another. If he used the phrase in a mosque that would be expected, if he used it in a conversation he is probably discussing Islam, if he uses it in a prayer it merely means that he is Moslem but using it before an attack links the two. Context is everything here. If I use the phrase "In the name of Jesus Christ" it most likely means I am a pastor of some sort. If I use it before stabbing someone I linked the two up and it means I am some sort of violent Christian religious fanatic.

Well, I dispute the first, if you don't mind. Is there evidence the perpetrator is Muslim?

And aye, it might link the two. Certainly. but it's not really hard evidence, is it? I mean, anyone could shout 'Allah Akbar' before stabbing a few people. German police have already said that the man was probably just confused, meaning it has little to do with religious extremism. More with his mental state.

Furthermore, how do we know Anders Brevik was a far right neo-nazi? I mean, it could've just been his mental state..... Said no one ever

[Livian Nations]

Well, I dispute the first, if you don't mind. Is there evidence the perpetrator is Muslim?

And aye, it might link the two. Certainly. but it's not really hard evidence, is it? I mean, anyone could shout 'Allah Akbar' before stabbing a few people. German police have already said that the man was probably just confused, meaning it has little to do with religious extremism. More with his mental state.

Furthermore, how do we know Anders Brevik was a far right neo-nazi? I mean, it could've just been his mental state..... Said no one ever

He said he was.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Well, I dispute the first, if you don't mind. Is there evidence the perpetrator is Muslim?

And aye, it might link the two. Certainly. but it's not really hard evidence, is it? I mean, anyone could shout 'Allah Akbar' before stabbing a few people. German police have already said that the man was probably just confused, meaning it has little to do with religious extremism. More with his mental state.

Furthermore, how do we know Anders Brevik was a far right neo-nazi? I mean, it could've just been his mental state..... Said no one ever

Because in one case, we're dealing with speculation on someone who hasn't even been properly questioned yet. Breivik has had court cases from here to Valhalla.

[Purple Robed Empire]

Furthermore, how do we know Anders Brevik was a far right neo-nazi? I mean, it could've just been his mental state..... Said no one ever

Because in one case, we're dealing with speculation on someone who hasn't even been properly questioned yet. Breivik has had court cases from here to Valhalla.

We aren't in a court of law either so we aren't looking for "beyond reasonable doubt" but merely what is probable. At this time it is highly probable that he is an Islamic terrorist. When someone shouts "Allah Akbar" before stabbing people the odds are very high that he is what he appears to be, an Islamic religious fanatic and you have to bend over backwards to see it otherwise. Occam's Razor and all that.

[Vassenor]

Furthermore, how do we know Anders Brevik was a far right neo-nazi? I mean, it could've just been his mental state..... Said no one ever

Apart from the psychologist who diagnosed him as being schizophrenic during his first pre-trial evaluation.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Because in one case, we're dealing with speculation on someone who hasn't even been properly questioned yet. Breivik has had court cases from here to Valhalla.

We aren't in a court of law either so we aren't looking for "beyond reasonable doubt" but merely what is probable. At this time it is highly probable that he is an Islamic terrorist. When someone shouts "Allah Akbar" before stabbing people the odds are very high that he is what he appears to be, an Islamic religious fanatic and you have to bend over backwards to see it otherwise. Occam's Razor and all that.

Why should we have any lower standard for scepticism and evidence than a court of law? After all, the demand of evidence from a court is established because it's a good standard.

And for Occam's razor to work, you'll need a lot more evidence.

[Alvecia]

Because in one case, we're dealing with speculation on someone who hasn't even been properly questioned yet. Breivik has had court cases from here to Valhalla.

We aren't in a court of law either so we aren't looking for "beyond reasonable doubt" but merely what is probable. At this time it is highly probable that he is an Islamic terrorist. When someone shouts "Allah Akbar" before stabbing people the odds are very high that he is what he appears to be, an Islamic religious fanatic and you have to bend over backwards to see it otherwise. Occam's Razor and all that.

Why is regular life held to a lower standard of evidence than a court of law?

[Keshokif]

Heh. Lol.
This is called evidence to the contrary.

While you are factually not incorrect..
Heh. Lol.
Tey could do so much more. There's a little camp near a little place called Mecca with 100.000 tents that are equipped with airco and are empty 360 days of the year. Hmmmmmmmm...and somehow the West is not doing enough. Hmmmmm!

Oh come on! They are still a lot poorer than Western countries, and often have their own problems. Lebanon has taken in over a million and a half refugees when their population is only aroundfour million. If that isn't pulling one's own weight then I don't know what is. Please stop being xenophobic and notice that this is an actual problem which we could be doing a lot more to help.

[Purple Robed Empire]

We aren't in a court of law either so we aren't looking for "beyond reasonable doubt" but merely what is probable. At this time it is highly probable that he is an Islamic terrorist. When someone shouts "Allah Akbar" before stabbing people the odds are very high that he is what he appears to be, an Islamic religious fanatic and you have to bend over backwards to see it otherwise. Occam's Razor and all that.

Why is regular life held to a lower standard of evidence than a court of law?

Because no one is going to jail. We can't fine him, jail him or harm him in any way.

[Alvecia]

Why is regular life held to a lower standard of evidence than a court of law?

Because no one is going to jail. We can't fine him, jail him or harm him in any way.

So? I don't see why we should be more gullible just because we think there's less on the line.
If anything one should strive to be as skeptically minded, and as critically thinking as possible

[Ganos Lao]

This story reminds me of the one in Russia. A deranged woman was spouting off Islamist rhetoric while carrying around the head of a little girl (she was the child's nanny). Video of the incident leaked and spread like wildfire across certain parts of the internet. However, it's been suggested the woman had some screws loose and wasn't necessarily an Islamist.

Could it be the same here? Either way, the more incidents like these happen, the more likely it'll be that those who deem themselves saviors of Europe (et cetera) will reciprocate.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Why is regular life held to a lower standard of evidence than a court of law?

Because no one is going to jail. We can't fine him, jail him or harm him in any way.

Courts don't hold to a high standard of evidence because they're sending someone to jail. They hold to a high standard of evidence because they want to find out the truth. Doing any less would be to do injustice to the truth itself. To say that 'we can't touch him, so we can take the truth with a grain of salt' is quite ridiculous.

[Gauthier]

This story reminds me of the one in Russia. A deranged woman was spouting off Islamist rhetoric while carrying around the head of a little girl (she was the child's nanny). Video of the incident leaked and spread like wildfire across certain parts of the internet. However, it's been suggested the woman had some screws loose and wasn't necessarily an Islamist.

Could it be the same here? Either way, the more incidents like these happen, the more likely it'll be that those who deem themselves saviors of Europe (et cetera) will reciprocate.

It's like how all you have to be a Baptist is to declare you accept Jesus Christ as your savior. If you say "Allahu Akbar" while killing people it's automatically Islamic terrorism even if you're a die hard atheist trolling Muslims.

[Purple Robed Empire]

Because no one is going to jail. We can't fine him, jail him or harm him in any way.

Courts don't hold to a high standard of evidence because they're sending someone to jail. They hold to a high standard of evidence because they want to find out the truth. Doing any less would be to do injustice to the truth itself. To say that 'we can't touch him, so we can take the truth with a grain of salt' is quite ridiculous.

No, it is because someone can go to jail. When the decisions have actual consequences than the standard is higher. It matters not at all to the world what we say here.

No one is saying we take the truth with the grain of salt. What I am saying is that since we have no influence on what will happen to him we aren't held to the same standard. Since you are arguing for "beyond a reasonable doubt" I have to assume that you concede the fact that it is more probable than not that he is an Islamic Terrorist. Thanks, that is all I wanted.

[Purple Robed Empire]

This story reminds me of the one in Russia. A deranged woman was spouting off Islamist rhetoric while carrying around the head of a little girl (she was the child's nanny). Video of the incident leaked and spread like wildfire across certain parts of the internet. However, it's been suggested the woman had some screws loose and wasn't necessarily an Islamist.

Could it be the same here? Either way, the more incidents like these happen, the more likely it'll be that those who deem themselves saviors of Europe (et cetera) will reciprocate.

It's like how all you have to be a Baptist is to declare you accept Jesus Christ as your savior. If you say "Allahu Akbar" while killing people it's automatically Islamic terrorism even if you're a die hard atheist trolling Muslims.

The odds of you being Christian if you say you accept Jesus Christ as your savior is very high. It is far more likely than you are pretending to be one . If you shout "Allah Akbar" while attacking someone the odds are very high you are an Islamic extremist. It isn't absolutely certain but the odds are very high.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Courts don't hold to a high standard of evidence because they're sending someone to jail. They hold to a high standard of evidence because they want to find out the truth. Doing any less would be to do injustice to the truth itself. To say that 'we can't touch him, so we can take the truth with a grain of salt' is quite ridiculous.

No, it is because someone can go to jail. When the decisions have actual consequences than the standard is higher. It matters not at all to the world what we say here.

No one is saying we take the truth with the grain of salt. What I am saying is that since we have no influence on what will happen to him we aren't held to the same standard. Since you are arguing for "beyond a reasonable doubt" I have to assume that you concede the fact that it is more probable than not that he is an Islamic Terrorist. Thanks, that is all I wanted.

ehm... What? Because I ask for a high standard of evidence, I must therefore believe something? How does that logic even work?

I'm a legal student. I love a high standard of evidence. Again, it is because we want to know the truth. We don't want to let guilty people go, and we don't want to punish innocents. Therefore, the standard of evidence is aimed towards getting best of both worlds. If the standard truly were about the punishment, the standard would be much, much higher.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

It's like how all you have to be a Baptist is to declare you accept Jesus Christ as your savior. If you say "Allahu Akbar" while killing people it's automatically Islamic terrorism even if you're a die hard atheist trolling Muslims.

The odds of you being Christian if you say you accept Jesus Christ as your savior is very high. It is far more likely than you are pretending to be one . If you shout "Allah Akbar" while attacking someone the odds are very high you are an Islamic extremist. It isn't absolutely certain but the odds are very high.

Odds. Odds don't rule the world, you know. And they better not, in fact. Just because someone has a higher chance of doing something doesn't mean that is evidence that they did it. That reasoning has convicted plenty of innocents.

[Baltenstein]

This story reminds me of the one in Russia. A deranged woman was spouting off Islamist rhetoric while carrying around the head of a little girl (she was the child's nanny). Video of the incident leaked and spread like wildfire across certain parts of the internet. However, it's been suggested the woman had some screws loose and wasn't necessarily an Islamist.

Could it be the same here?

It certainly looks that way. Here's what we got from police reports so far:

They guy got into a vocal argument with his grandparents last weekend, who then called the police. The police took him to spend the night in psychiatric therapy, which he left on Monday. He then took a train to Munich - 350 km away from his home - where he arrived at midnight. He wanted to check into a hotel, but didn't have enough cash on him to do so. He then wandered - barefoot - through the night, until he decided to go on a stabbing spree at some local train station at 4.50 in the morning.

[Purple Robed Empire]

No, it is because someone can go to jail. When the decisions have actual consequences than the standard is higher. It matters not at all to the world what we say here.

No one is saying we take the truth with the grain of salt. What I am saying is that since we have no influence on what will happen to him we aren't held to the same standard. Since you are arguing for "beyond a reasonable doubt" I have to assume that you concede the fact that it is more probable than not that he is an Islamic Terrorist. Thanks, that is all I wanted.

ehm... What? Because I ask for a high standard of evidence, I must therefore believe something? How does that logic even work?

I'm a legal student. I love a high standard of evidence. Again, it is because we want to know the truth. We don't want to let guilty people go, and we don't want to punish innocents. Therefore, the standard of evidence is aimed towards getting best of both worlds. If the standard truly were about the punishment, the standard would be much, much higher.

Because you would then be saying that it was more probable than not that he isn't an Islamic terrorist and you know fully well that isn't the case.

I realize that you don't want to let guilty people go and don't want to punish innocents but we can't do that here. We have no influence on that decision. How much higher a standard can you go than "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the uncertainty principle makes certain that you can never have "beyond any doubt" as you would be convicting absolutely no one? There is always a finite chance that the evidence is wrong.

[The Huskar Social Union]

This story reminds me of the one in Russia. A deranged woman was spouting off Islamist rhetoric while carrying around the head of a little girl (she was the child's nanny). Video of the incident leaked and spread like wildfire across certain parts of the internet. However, it's been suggested the woman had some screws loose and wasn't necessarily an Islamist.

Could it be the same here?

It certainly looks that way. Here's what we got from police reports so far:

They guy got into a vocal argument with his grandparents last weekend, who then called the police. The police took him to spend the night in psychiatric therapy, which he left on Monday. He then took a train to Munich - 350 km away from his home - where he arrived at midnight. He wanted to check into a hotel, but didn't have enough cash on him to do so. He then wandered - barefoot - through the night, until he decided to go on a stabbing spree at some local train station at 4.50 in the morning.

Fella sounds a tad (or more than a tad really) unstable then based on that.

[Purple Robed Empire]

The odds of you being Christian if you say you accept Jesus Christ as your savior is very high. It is far more likely than you are pretending to be one . If you shout "Allah Akbar" while attacking someone the odds are very high you are an Islamic extremist. It isn't absolutely certain but the odds are very high.

Odds. Odds don't rule the world, you know. And they better not, in fact. Just because someone has a higher chance of doing something doesn't mean that is evidence that they did it. That reasoning has convicted plenty of innocents.

Odds do rule the world, they rule the universe in fact. Heisenberg showed that. We have no power to convict anyone. If this were a court of law I would have stricter standards of evidence and I would have better access to information than news items.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

ehm... What? Because I ask for a high standard of evidence, I must therefore believe something? How does that logic even work?

I'm a legal student. I love a high standard of evidence. Again, it is because we want to know the truth. We don't want to let guilty people go, and we don't want to punish innocents. Therefore, the standard of evidence is aimed towards getting best of both worlds. If the standard truly were about the punishment, the standard would be much, much higher.

Because you would then be saying that it was more probable than not that he isn't an Islamic terrorist and you know fully well that isn't the case.

I realize that you don't want to let guilty people go and don't want to punish innocents but we can't do that here. We have no influence on that decision. How much higher a standard can you go than "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the uncertainty principle makes certain that you can never have "beyond any doubt" as you would be convicting absolutely no one? There is always a finite chance that the evidence is wrong.

No, it is not more probable than not. Even if it were, it would not decide anything about this case. Statistics aren't that easily translated into single cases. If you think they do, you have a major misunderstanding about how statistics work.

And regarding reasonable doubt: First, that's only the doctrine used by the US. Outside, there are plenty of different doctrines. Second,'beyond reasonable doubt' is a legal term that hasn't been properly defined. It certainly doesn't mean what you think it means.