Explosion in Dortmund...

Symantics.

The headline states the letters were not left by Islamic radicals and the article goes on to state that newspapers have now received an email from somebody with right wing motives saying that the attack was a warning.
 
The letters not being left by Islamists still doesn't make it unlikely that Islamists carried out the attack. Based purely on the article's wording, it doesn't at all state that it's unlikely that the attack was carried out by radical Islamists.

Third parties with their own agendas claiming xyz still doesn't mean that the article says it's unlikely.

If you think that semantics and a minor detail, then you're probably not built to paraphrase news articles.
 
Participant said:
If you think that semantics and a minor detail, then you're probably not built to paraphrase news articles.
Click to expand...

If you want to argue that "significant doubt" isn't in the same spectrum of probably not the case as "unlikely" then I'd argue you're probably looking for an explanation that fits your bias.
 
VincentHanna said:
Symantics.

The headline states the letters were not left by Islamic radicals and the article goes on to state that newspapers have now received an email from somebody with right wing motives saying that the attack was a warning.
Click to expand...

To me this smells of the usual loony lefties trying to cover it up and place blame elsewhere with their sick obsession of getting as much islam into the west as possible, A right winger wouldn't bomb some place and then say "Hey I'm a right winger", That would be counter productive.
 
matt100 said:
If you want to argue that "significant doubt" isn't in the same spectrum of probably not the case as "unlikely" then I'd argue you're probably looking for an explanation that fits your bias.
Click to expand...
'Unlikely' means less than 50% chance, i.e. less likely than likely.

'Significant doubt' means enough doubt to be significant given the situation, which in this particular situation, is not very much as almost any doubt is 'significant'.

Not at all the same thing, not at all semantics, and not at all does the article state that 'it's unlikely it was carried out by radical Islamists'.

I believe the above is objectively correct and unaffected by bias.
 
Dicehunter said:
To me this smells of the usual loony lefties trying to cover it up and place blame elsewhere with their sick obsession of getting as much islam into the west as possible, A right winger wouldn't bomb some place and then say "Hey I'm a right winger", That would be counter productive.
Click to expand...

Quoted for posterity.
 
Well that's certainly going to disappoint a good few people here. This thread will disappear without trace soon with the lack of replies.
 
Indeed, the usual numbnuts are gleefully circling the thread about the shooting in Paris now. You can almost hear them spamming F5 whilst they sit hoping for any kind of confirmation it's an ISIS attack.... It's pretty pathetic :(
 
well not every single terrorist attack will be muslims but if you look at all the terrorist attacks as a whole over the past 10-15 years i think you will find the majority of them were muslims.

in the 90's - 1049 killed and 7757 injured

2001 -
4,687 killed and 13,500 injured

more in a single year than in a decade before it

2002
821 and 2,897+

2003
418 and 2,321+

2004
1,066 and 4,016+

2005
348 and 1,857+

2006
319 and 981

2007
~621 and ~1730

2008
350+ and 362+

2010
673+ and >1,794

2011
717+ and 1757+

2012
788+ and 2378+

2013
768+ and 1839+

2014
2,120+ deaths uknown injured

2015
3,097+ and 3,383+

2016
1,326+ and 2,620+


tell me another religion in the world today killing this many innocents?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks#2000s
 
Psycho Sonny said:
well not every single terrorist attack will be muslims but if you look at all the terrorist attacks as a whole over the past 10-15 years i think you will find the majority of them were muslims.

in the 90's - 1049 killed and 7757 injured

2001 -
4,687 killed and 13,500 injured

more in a single year than in a decade before it

2002
821 and 2,897+

2003
418 and 2,321+

2004
1,066 and 4,016+

2005
348 and 1,857+

2006
319 and 981

2007
~621 and ~1730

2008
350+ and 362+

2010
673+ and >1,794

2011
717+ and 1757+

2012
788+ and 2378+

2013
768+ and 1839+

2014
2,120+ deaths uknown injured

2015
3,097+ and 3,383+

2016
1,326+ and 2,620+


tell me another religion in the world today killing this many innocents?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks#2000s
Click to expand...

So even when the story pans out as having nothing what so ever to do with Islam you can't let it lie can you? :rolleyes: youzza very broked son............
 
The US military has been making some numbers on the killing civilians front for a long time now.

We don't say that Christians are responsible for it though, because it would be moronic to hold an entire religion responsible for the actions of a tiny militant minority.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
well not every single terrorist attack will be muslims but if you look at all the terrorist attacks as a whole over the past 10-15 years i think you will find the majority of them were muslims.
Click to expand...

The christian terrorist group the LRA (The Lord's Resistance Army) have killed significantly more than that, approx 100,000 murders!

The LRA is accused of slaughtering more than 100,000 people and abducting 60,000 children in its bloody rebellion against Kampala that began in 1986. The prosecution is focusing on four attacks on camps housing people forced to flee from the LRA. More than 130 people – many of them children and babies – died in these attacks and dozens of others were abducted, prosecutors said.
Click to expand...
Source = The Guardian



Extremist Buddhist Monks Target Religious Minorities
Over the past year in parts of Asia, it is friction between Buddhism and Islam that has killed hundreds, mostly Muslims. The violence is being fanned by extremist Buddhist monks, who preach a dangerous form of religious chauvinism to their followers.
Click to expand...
Source = Time.Com

Yes, public figures like the Dalai Lama have “urged” the Buddhist militants in these countries to stop their apparent crusade. US President Barack Obama expressed the same rhetoric in his November visit to Myanmar. Even former US President Bill Clinton has frequently remarked how such Buddhist-led violence “sickens the world.”
Click to expand...
Source = fairobserver.com


Then we move onto ideological extremism/terrorism where groups like the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam have caused horrific death and destruction to the tune of approx 70,000 murders!

  1. June 7, 2000: Senior Sri Lankan Industry Minister CV Gooneratne assassinated in Colombo by a suicide bomber. (20-21 killed).[90]
  2. July 7, 2004: First suicide bombing in three years. LTTE female soldier in an apparent attempt to assassinate high-profile Hindu Affairs Minister Douglas Devananda, a voracious LTTE critic. (5 killed, 9 injured).[91]
  3. October 25, 2005: Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, a key player in the peace process and close aide of President Chandrika Kumaratunga, was assassinated at his home in a suicide attack in Colombo. (1 killed).[92]
  4. April 9, 2006: Over 100 killed during a 2 week period, the most intensified fighting since the 2002 truce. (100+ killed).[93]
  5. June 15, 2006: Evidence suggests that the LTTE was responsible for a bus bombing in Aduradhapura district. (64 killed, 84 wounded).[94]
  6. October 16, 2006: Suicide bombing attack on Sri Lankan naval convoy buses in northeast region of Dambulla, one of the deadliest since 2002 peace. (95 killed).[95]
  7. May 9, 2009: Attack on civilians in Mullaitivu, Northern Province, Sri Lanka. (9 killed, 19 wounded ).[96]
Click to expand...
Source = Stanford University



It's religious and ideological EXTREMISM that is the problem, NOT one specific religion or ideology!
 
Last edited:
Uganda - fair enough it's a messed up place

However comparing buddhists who killed a few hundred to extremist muslims who kill thousands per year, hundreds in a day?

The problem you have is a religion which teaches its followers they are above everyone else. treat their own women as second class citizens. non believers as third class and jews as fourth class. it's a religion of hatred an inequality. as soon as anyone speaks up against it they are made a target.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...dia-star-murdered-by-her-brother-in-apparent/

why don't fellow muslims ever help the authorities catch hate preachers, etc? it's been covered on panorama/dispatches, etc.

The final day
Muslims (followers of Islam) believe that on a day decided by Allah, and known only to Allah, life on earth will come to an end and Allah will destroy everything. On this day all the people who have ever lived will be raised from the dead and will face judgement by Allah.

does that sound like a religion of peace? he will destroy everything. everyone raised from the dead to face judgement? it's an extreme religion which in turn creates extremists. if you were made to pray 5 times a day and follow all the rules. you too would be brainwashed by it and preach it as the best thing since sliced bread.
 
mid_gen said:
The US military has been making some numbers on the killing civilians front for a long time now.

We don't say that Christians are responsible for it though, because it would be moronic to hold an entire religion responsible for the actions of a tiny militant minority.
Click to expand...

though this is all a bit off topic the US military isn't deliberately killing civilians as a result of any religious beliefs, in fact they actively try to avoid killing civilians

Islamic terrorism does however involve killing civilians as a result of a religious belief
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom