Woman beheaded in London

I'll leave this moronic exchange with one point. Knowledge is one thing, wisdom is something else. Being able to apply knowledge is something you're unwilling to do. You seem to desire to read material that reads like an almanac, where the author(s) have an unwillingness (or inability, in your case) to apply knowledge and render judgments. This is why talking to twenty-something leftists who revel in their own illusions of objectivity is so tiresome.

So I'll take that as zero years of relevant experience then? :confused:
 
Either formal educations mixed with area specific work experience, intensive subject specific study (generally best with some sort of guideline from experts) or significant level of work experience pertaining to the issues generally helps.

So one needs such expertise in order to logically assume that the murderer was a Muslim given the fact that the victim was a woman, in London, and that the method was a beheading? Such an assumption requires a Ph.D. in "Islamic studies", in your view? Like I said, do you call the Best Buy Geek Squad "experts" before plugging in your laptop?

One could logically assume it was someone trying to make Muslims look bad also. Like the ploy Irgun terrorists used to blow up the King David.

Well, the so-called Irgun "terrorists" were not making any effort to implicate the Arabs. They were very transparent about their motivations and identities.
 
I'll leave this moronic exchange with one point. Knowledge is one thing, wisdom is something else. Being able to apply knowledge is something you're unwilling to do. You seem to desire to read material that reads like an almanac, where the author(s) have an unwillingness (or inability, in your case) to apply knowledge and render judgments. This is why talking to twenty-something leftists who revel in their own illusions of objectivity is so tiresome.

I agree.
Now, I hope you don't shoot anyone today...but as you're American I assume that you probably will.
 
How often have you delved into the depths of Islamic theological constructs and jurisprudential codes again?

No need to be an Islamic scholar to make a reasonable assumption about the religious/ethnic identity of the murderer in this case given some of the basic facts. You seem unable to come to grips with the relationship between such events (and contemporary terrorism) with Islam and Mohamedans. Perhaps you are a Muslim. I'm tired of this obfuscation. Good day.

Ah right, so zero it is. In other words you're merely talking out of your ass. got it. :)
 
So one needs such expertise in order to logically assume that the murderer was a Muslim given the fact that the victim was a woman, in London, and that the method was a beheading? Such an assumption requires a Ph.D. in "Islamic studies", in your view? Like I said, do you call the Best Buy Geek Squad "experts" before plugging in your laptop?

One could logically assume it was someone trying to make Muslims look bad also. Like the ploy Irgun terrorists used to blow up the King David.

Well, the so-called Irgun "terrorists" were not making any effort to implicate the Arabs. They were very transparent about their motivations and identities.

So perhaps the Lavon Affair would be a better example then.
 
How often have you delved into the depths of Islamic theological constructs and jurisprudential codes again?

No need to be an Islamic scholar to make a reasonable assumption about the religious/ethnic identity of the murderer in this case given some of the basic facts. You seem unable to come to grips with the relationship between such events (and contemporary terrorism) with Islam and Mohamedans. Perhaps you are a Muslim. I'm tired of this obfuscation. Good day.

Ah right, so zero it is. In other words you're merely talking out of your ass. got it. :)

Exactly. My assumption of the Muslim identity of the murderer was just pure luck. It could've just as easily have been a white Christian conservative from America doing a student exchange program. Brilliant.
 
No need to be an Islamic scholar to make a reasonable assumption about the religious/ethnic identity of the murderer in this case given some of the basic facts. You seem unable to come to grips with the relationship between such events (and contemporary terrorism) with Islam and Mohamedans. Perhaps you are a Muslim. I'm tired of this obfuscation. Good day.

Ah right, so zero it is. In other words you're merely talking out of your ass. got it. :)

Exactly. My assumption of the Muslim identity of the murderer was just pure luck. It could've just as easily have been a white Christian conservative from America doing a student exchange program. Brilliant.

Nice strawman. Did you build it all by yourself?
 
One could logically assume it was someone trying to make Muslims look bad also. Like the ploy Irgun terrorists used to blow up the King David.

Well, the so-called Irgun "terrorists" were not making any effort to implicate the Arabs. They were very transparent about their motivations and identities.

So perhaps the Lavon Affair would be a better example then.

Yeah, I'm sure the Mossad was behind this Islamic beheading.
 
or perhaps we could use your sig as an example of how generalizations generally tend to plow over obvious and important nuances? Ever hear of the Neighbor Policy?
 
So one needs such expertise in order to logically assume that the murderer was a Muslim given the fact that the victim was a woman, in London, and that the method was a beheading? Such an assumption requires a Ph.D. in "Islamic studies", in your view? Like I said, do you call the Best Buy Geek Squad "experts" before plugging in your laptop?

One could logically assume it was someone trying to make Muslims look bad also. Like the ploy Irgun terrorists used to blow up the King David.

Well, the so-called Irgun "terrorists" were not making any effort to implicate the Arabs. They were very transparent about their motivations and identities.

and that's why they wore arab clothing ?
 
or perhaps we could use your sig as an example of how generalizations generally tend to plow over obvious and important nuances? Ever hear of the Neighbor Policy?

I would imagine my signature irritates a person like you who practises the religion of moral relativity.
 
One could logically assume it was someone trying to make Muslims look bad also. Like the ploy Irgun terrorists used to blow up the King David.

Well, the so-called Irgun "terrorists" were not making any effort to implicate the Arabs. They were very transparent about their motivations and identities.

and that's why they wore arab clothing ?

So do you hate Jews for religious reasons, or because you're jealous of our achievements? Or is it just you following in daddy's footsteps?
 
or perhaps we could use your sig as an example of how generalizations generally tend to plow over obvious and important nuances? Ever hear of the Neighbor Policy?

I would imagine my signature irritates a person like you who practises the religion of moral relativity.

I'm an atheist there sport. But still, have you heard of the neighbor policy? Rather throws a wrench in your nice little generalization there.
 
Well, the so-called Irgun "terrorists" were not making any effort to implicate the Arabs. They were very transparent about their motivations and identities.

and that's why they wore arab clothing ?

So do you hate Jews for religious reasons, or because you're jealous of our achievements? Or is it just you following in daddy's footsteps?

How is pointing out that the perps of the King David Hotel Bombing wore "Arab clothing" antisemitic? :confused:

Persecution complex much?
 
No need to be an Islamic scholar to make a reasonable assumption about the religious/ethnic identity of the murderer in this case given some of the basic facts. You seem unable to come to grips with the relationship between such events (and contemporary terrorism) with Islam and Mohamedans. Perhaps you are a Muslim. I'm tired of this obfuscation. Good day.

Ah right, so zero it is. In other words you're merely talking out of your ass. got it. :)

Exactly. My assumption of the Muslim identity of the murderer was just pure luck. It could've just as easily have been a white Christian conservative from America doing a student exchange program. Brilliant.

Is he Muslim?
 
Ah right, so zero it is. In other words you're merely talking out of your ass. got it. :)

Exactly. My assumption of the Muslim identity of the murderer was just pure luck. It could've just as easily have been a white Christian conservative from America doing a student exchange program. Brilliant.

Is he Muslim?

Probably, but that really isn't the point of the discussion, it's just Krych3k's attempt to set up a strawman so that he can feel like he was making valid points regarding everything else.

As far as the OP story, the guy's faith wasn't mentioned.
 
So do you hate Jews for religious reasons, or because you're jealous of our achievements? Or is it just you following in daddy's footsteps?

How is pointing out that the perps of the King David Hotel Bombing wore "Arab clothing" antisemitic? :confused:

Persecution complex much?

You're clearly a Nazi.

OMG you're right! I just checked my closet and found my old wartime uniforms and Hitler Youth equipment! Can't believe I blanked on that!! :redface:
 
and that's why they wore arab clothing ?

So do you hate Jews for religious reasons, or because you're jealous of our achievements? Or is it just you following in daddy's footsteps?

How is pointing out that the perps of the King David Hotel Bombing wore "Arab clothing" antisemitic? :confused:

Persecution complex much?

Yes --along with the pompous and over compensating talking points.
 
Ah right, so zero it is. In other words you're merely talking out of your ass. got it. :)

Exactly. My assumption of the Muslim identity of the murderer was just pure luck. It could've just as easily have been a white Christian conservative from America doing a student exchange program. Brilliant.

Is he Muslim?

You're still not sure? More brilliance from the left.
 

Forum List

Back
Top