13 Hit by a car in Times Square

[Imperializt Russia]

because i was only person that willed to do it? and you cant trust news, which was proven by usa election. remember, hillary has 98% chances of winning

538 reported Trump with a 28% chance of winning the electoral college on the day of the election, which gives Hillary about 72%

Even if they had reported 98% - the 2% happens sometimes.
Otherwise, it wouldn't have been 98. It would have been 100.0

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I fail to see what the election has to do with any of this now that terrorism is out.

[Thermodolia]

Its spam

no. spam would be posting 20 messages with same thing one after the other. this is single post with a harmless joke.

Moderation has ruled in the past the such posts are spam. Spam here is determined differently than other sites

[Thermodolia]

I fail to see what the election has to do with any of this now that terrorism is out.

Because one poster doesn't believe the media because they where wrong about the election.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I fail to see what the election has to do with any of this now that terrorism is out.

Because one poster doesn't believe the media because they where wrong about the election.

Regardless.

[Aelex]

I thought we weren't allowed to do that. I thought we had to assume anything that happens is Islamic terrorism until proven otherwise.

A more accurate description of your own stance would be to "assume nothing that happens is Islamic Terrorism even after proven otherwise."

[Vassenor]

I thought we weren't allowed to do that. I thought we had to assume anything that happens is Islamic terrorism until proven otherwise.

A more accurate description of your own stance would be to "assume nothing that happens is Islamic Terrorism even after proven otherwise."

[Geilinor]

I thought we weren't allowed to do that. I thought we had to assume anything that happens is Islamic terrorism until proven otherwise.

A more accurate description of your own stance would be to "assume nothing that happens is Islamic Terrorism even after proven otherwise."

This incident hasn't been proven to be terrorism.

[Vassenor]

A more accurate description of your own stance would be to "assume nothing that happens is Islamic Terrorism even after proven otherwise."

This incident hasn't been proven to be terrorism.

And in fact has been proven not be terrorism.

[Ruskov]

Probably because Muslims, extremists to be precise, are behind most of the recent Car Ramming attacks.

You cant really blame someone for thinking a Muslim was behind the wheel.

In fact I can. A handful of car crashes have turned out to be a terrorist deliberately trying to kill people. A handful out of thousands. When there is a car crash it is almost always not terrorists. So hearing about a car crash and thinking it was a terrorist is stupid.

Yes, but when a car crashes into a crowd in an area such as Times Square, it wouldn't be an unfounded belief for it to be perpetrated by Islamic Terrorists. You're acting like if an old man crashes his 1990s Suzuki into a dustbin on a country road, people would think its a terrorist attack. That is not the case.

If a car crashes into a crowd in a densely packed area popular with tourists, there is substantial probability that it would be a terrorist attack.

[Aelex]

Ha, the infamous smiley of "I have nothing of any value to add nor any counterargument but still don't feel like recognising a truth I dislike".
Truly a compelling response!

[Aelex]

This incident hasn't been proven to be terrorism.

This particular one not, indeed, but given it's Vass automatic answer whenever such an event occur, it's still worthy to be noted. :^)

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

In fact I can. A handful of car crashes have turned out to be a terrorist deliberately trying to kill people. A handful out of thousands. When there is a car crash it is almost always not terrorists. So hearing about a car crash and thinking it was a terrorist is stupid.

Yes, but when a car crashes into a crowd in an area such as Times Square, it wouldn't be an unfounded belief for it to be perpetrated by Islamic Terrorists. You're acting like if an old man crashes his 1990s Suzuki into a dustbin on a country road, people would think its a terrorist attack. That is not the case.

If a car crashes into a crowd in a densely packed area popular with tourists, there is substantial probability that it would be a terrorist attack.

Pretty much this.

Barring reports that the driver converted to Islam and pledged allegiance to ISIS before the tragedy, this isn't a terrorist attack. However, pretending that we should simply ignore the possibility that a driver who erratically drove down three city blocks running over countless people and killing some, couldn't possibly be a terrorist attack is genuinely stupid.

If Doug is the known culprit of stealing pudding cups from the company fridge and leaving a dollar as compensation, and you go to the company fridge see your pudding cup is missing and a dollar has been put in it's place, then you have reasonable suspicion Doug is the culprit.

That is until someone says Doug hasn't been at work today, which means it could possibly be Nancy or Tom.

[Salandriagado]

I'm referring less to you, and more to the posters saying things like "allahu akhbar " (if anything, a great reason why the bow smiley should join the palm smiley in the site wastebin).

why? its just a small joke

But you were certainly leaning on that conclusion far more than necessary. It was just needless.

of course i did. do creationists say that "maybe evolution is real, or maybe not, here have this theory?" you pick a side and defend it.

Using creationists as your standard for intellectual honesty is the source of your problem here. People with intellectual integrity make their decisions based on the available evidence, and remain, at all times, ready to change them in the face of contrary evidence.

Why did you, of all people, need to "prove it" anyway? The news was going to do it anyway, for all of us.

because i was only person that willed to do it?

And also, they had already done it. They'd identified drunk driving offences from years ago, which means that they have every fucking detail about him.

and you cant trust news, which was proven by usa election. remember, hillary has 98% chances of winning

That percentage, in context, was pretty much correct. 98 is noticeably not 100.

Its spam

no. spam would be posting 20 messages with same thing one after the other. this is single post with a harmless joke.

Then why did you trust the media to be accurately reporting that this incident had occurred in the first place?

i have seen enough proof to convince me it happened

I suggest you read the site rules to find the definition of "spam" in use here.

[Risottia]

I thought it was about some drunk driver, not a terrorist? Hm, let me check

It was a drunk driver, yes.

DUI kills more people in Europe and America than terrorism.

[Valrifell]

It was a drunk driver, yes.

DUI kills more people in Europe and America than terrorism.

Lots of things kill more people in the US and Europe than terrorism. But banning bathtubs from entering the country just doesn't make a good campaign.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

It was a drunk driver, yes.

DUI kills more people in Europe and America than terrorism.

I'd be cool with executions for drunk driving.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yes, but when a car crashes into a crowd in an area such as Times Square, it wouldn't be an unfounded belief for it to be perpetrated by Islamic Terrorists. You're acting like if an old man crashes his 1990s Suzuki into a dustbin on a country road, people would think its a terrorist attack. That is not the case.

If a car crashes into a crowd in a densely packed area popular with tourists, there is substantial probability that it would be a terrorist attack.

Pretty much this.

Barring reports that the driver converted to Islam and pledged allegiance to ISIS before the tragedy, this isn't a terrorist attack. However, pretending that we should simply ignore the possibility that a driver who erratically drove down three city blocks running over countless people and killing some, couldn't possibly be a terrorist attack is genuinely stupid.

If Doug is the known culprit of stealing pudding cups from the company fridge and leaving a dollar as compensation, and you go to the company fridge see your pudding cup is missing and a dollar has been put in it's place, then you have reasonable suspicion Doug is the culprit.

That is until someone says Doug hasn't been at work today, which means it could possibly be Nancy or Tom.

Thing is:

Most driving accidents are not caused by terrorism. Not all terrorism is islamic terrorism. This isn't really the fault of people in general, but we humans are really, really bad at interpreting chance. We simply don't know what to do with it. But visualise this: if most car accidents are caused by drunken drivers or simple mismanagement of the car, then it is pretty irrational to suspect islamic terrorism, just because that has made the news more. There is a possibility that it involves terrorism, but that really shouldn't be your main focus. The first thought should be that most accidents are caused by causes other than terrorism, so it's likely not terrorism. Then, we wait for the counterarguments.

DUI kills more people in Europe and America than terrorism.

I'd be cool with executions for drunk driving.

Cruel and unusual punishment, perhaps?

[Ruskov]

The thing that annoys me is when someone assumes an Islamic Organisation is behind a terrorist attack, everyone loses their hats and starts saying "how dare you assume the perpetrator was a muslim! Muslims aren't responsible for all attacks! In fact, most of the time they're not!"


People assume this, whilst sometimes incorrect, because most terrorist attacks in recent years have been the work of Islamic extremists. Its not a horrendous offence to assume the attackers allegiance/religion.

[Aclion]

Choo choo- the paranoia train has arrived; All aboard!

is it paranoia to think that usual suspects did it?

Not at all, but the usual suspects in this case is drunks, idiots and people from Massachusetts.

[Torrocca]

The thing that annoys me is when someone assumes an Islamic Organisation is behind a terrorist attack, everyone loses their hats and starts saying "how dare you assume the perpetrator was a muslim! Muslims aren't responsible for all attacks! In fact, most of the time they're not!"


People assume this, whilst sometimes incorrect, because most terrorist attacks in recent years have been the work of Islamic extremists. Its not a horrendous offence to assume the attackers allegiance/religion.

Because making assumptions without any evidence is a stupid thing to do?

[Risottia]

DUI kills more people in Europe and America than terrorism.

Lots of things kill more people in the US and Europe than terrorism. But banning bathtubs from entering the country just doesn't make a good campaign.

MAKE AMERICA BATHTUBLESS AGAIN!

Uhm. Right, doesn't work.

[Ethel mermania]

Lots of things kill more people in the US and Europe than terrorism. But banning bathtubs from entering the country just doesn't make a good campaign.

MAKE AMERICA BATHTUBLESS AGAIN!

Uhm. Right, doesn't work.

You really want the peasants to be revolting, don't you?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The thing that annoys me is when someone assumes an Islamic Organisation is behind a terrorist attack, everyone loses their hats and starts saying "how dare you assume the perpetrator was a muslim! Muslims aren't responsible for all attacks! In fact, most of the time they're not!"


People assume this, whilst sometimes incorrect, because most terrorist attacks in recent years have been the work of Islamic extremists. Its not a horrendous offence to assume the attackers allegiance/religion.

You'd have to assume that it's a terrorist attack first. That's quite a stretch. But the thing is, people mix islamic terrorism and islam, and make large sweeping statements on the religion. That's wuite detrimental to the discourse.

[Risottia]

MAKE AMERICA BATHTUBLESS AGAIN!

Uhm. Right, doesn't work.

You really want the peasants to be revolting, don't you?

I said nothing about showers or soap.