Running Gator Posted September 18, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted September 18, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ayin jade said: The feds want to keep us in the dark about the amount of terrorist activity that is starting to occur. What is to be gained from ignoring terrorist attacks? By pretending they are not terrorist attacks, the us will end up having more muslim refugees in without being vetted. More terrorists will sneak in that way. If some guy with a knife in St Cloud is the extent of the amount of terrorist activity that is starting to occur, I think I will sleep well tonight indeed! Personally, I think it is more of a case of pretending they are terrorist attacks and not just some wack job with a knife. Did this guy sneak into the country? Is that how he got here so he could attack a mall in St Cloud! And you didn't answer about the evidence. Edited September 18, 2016 by Out of the Shadows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said: Well it is very simple, I say they had no connection, as of now there is no evidence available to counter what I am saying, thus the default position would be they had no connection. If you have some evidence to prove otherwise, feel free to offer it up, but until then my view is the only one that has been supported. No, default position is that you really don't have anything to make the definitive claim it wasn't ISIS. ISIS takes responsibility for it. You have no way to show that it is a false claim. I am not the one with the burden of proof. You are. And nothing you say rises to the burden that is on you. ISIS took responsibility, the guy yelled alllahu akbar. There is far more to say it was terrorism and more to say that ISIS is responsible than not. Quote Any wack job can shout allahu akbar, not to mention there has been no report that I have seen that claims he said that, just that he said something about allah. But not just any wack job does that. There have been numerous crimes and murders where it didn't happen, but when it does, it's always a Muslim. Sorry, but you just don't have an intelligent argument to make that it wasn't terrorism. Quote Someone shouting something does not automatically make them a terrorist, not matter how much you and they want it to. This isn't about someone shouting "something." It is about someone shouting allahu akbar and this is a common terrorist act committed just before they commit an act of jihad in which they believe it is likely they will die. Sorry, but you argument just doesn't hold water. Quote All making this guy out to be more than some wack job does is encourage others to follow suit, which is just what any terrorist organization wants. What it actually does is put us on the track to finally being able to identify our enemy for the first time in 8 years of weakling, limp-wrists in our government who have neither the courage or willingness to be honest about who are enemy is and to call terror what it is. Sorry, but you're wrong and your position needs to be rejected out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said: Please! Do you not know anything about terrorism? The object of terrorism is not death, that is just a tool they use. And it was a tool used by ISIS in St. Cloud. Quote Please, for your own sake, take some time, maybe take a few courses and learn about what terrorism is, how they think and how they operate. I don't need to take any courses in terrorism to know that your claims are just bogus. St. Cloud was an act of terrorism and to say otherwise is intellectual suicide. Anyone being honest about it can see it was an act of terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted September 18, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted September 18, 2016 11 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: No, default position is that you really don't have anything to make the definitive claim it wasn't ISIS. ISIS takes responsibility for it. You have no way to show that it is a false claim. I am not the one with the burden of proof. You are. And nothing you say rises to the burden that is on you. ISIS took responsibility, the guy yelled alllahu akbar. There is far more to say it was terrorism and more to say that ISIS is responsible than not. Yes, you, and ISIS are the one's with the burden of proof as there is no way to prove a negative. Also, please provide the link to the source that the guy yelled allahu akbar. Quote But not just any wack job does that. There have been numerous crimes and murders where it didn't happen, but when it does, it's always a Muslim. Sorry, but you just don't have an intelligent argument to make that it wasn't terrorism. Newsflash, a Muslim killing someone is not automatically terrorism, no matter how much you want it to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted September 18, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted September 18, 2016 10 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: And it was a tool used by ISIS in St. Cloud. I don't need to take any courses in terrorism to know that your claims are just bogus. St. Cloud was an act of terrorism and to say otherwise is intellectual suicide. Anyone being honest about it can see it was an act of terror. Since you choose to remain woefully uninformed, I see no reason to continue this discussion with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 18, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 597 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,117 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,851 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Out of the Shadows said: I see no reason to continue this discussion with you. you should have done that from the start.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 Just now, Out of the Shadows said: Yes, you, and ISIS are the one's with the burden of proof as there is no way to prove a negative. Also, please provide the link to the source that the guy yelled allahu akbar. You can prove a negative. I can prove my computer is not a hot fudge sundae. I can prove that a dog is not human. I prove there are no Muslims on the Supreme Court. So yes, you can prove negatives. You said that it was not an act of terrorism and you said there was no evidence to link it to terrorism. That's the burden of proof you bear. If you can't meet that burden, then you should stop making claims as fact when you have nothing to really back up your claims. The guy not only yelled allahu akbar, he also ran up to victims and asked them if they were Muslims. here's your link: http://www.independentsentinel.com/police-chief-doesnt-know-why-allah-referencing-terrorist-knifed-8-people-in-st-cloud/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted September 18, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted September 18, 2016 Just now, other one said: you should have done that from the start.... True, discussions with him never seem to go anywhere but name calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 5 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: Since you choose to remain woefully uninformed, I see no reason to continue this discussion with you. Uh, I am not the one who is operating on a deficit of information. You're the one making claims you can't support. You're the one denying the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 Just now, Out of the Shadows said: True, discussions with him never seem to go anywhere but name calling. I haven't called you any names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts