Apologies for the repetitive mention, but are you consciously ignoring the 9/11 attack and what ethnic category was responsible for it?These are the same points being rehashed over and over. I keep coming back to -- (a) where does that suspicious atmosphere come from,
It would be impossible to "ignore" since there is no such thing. "Ethnic categories" aren't responsible for actions of individuals. Were that the case we should have herded the entire German population into their own gas chambers on the basis that Hitler and his actions represent the whole.
They do not. That's a Composition Fallacy, without which this Islamophobe argument CANNOT be made. That makes the whole theory --- a fallacy.
I don't know what's obscure about this. Again, if a drunk gets in a Toyota and runs somebody over, that does not make Toyota the responsible party. It just doesn't.
Reference to 9/11, the Tsarnaev (pressure cooker) brothers, the televised beheadings and the vows of numerous shahids to kill all infidels is specious? It would be specious if none of it ever happened. But it did happen and there is no reason to think it won't continue.and (b) is it not valid to challenge it as specious?
See above.
Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins, Reverend Paul Jennings Hill, John Salvi, Martin Uphoff, Patricia Hughes, Jeremy Dunahoe, Paul Ross Evans, Bobby Joe Rogers, Francis Grady and the rest of that lot don't make Christianism a "killer religion" do they?
Well, why not? Those bombings and shootings did happen too. Should we not then be eyeing all Christians with suspicion, locking them up for investigation, declaring they can't be Presidential candidates? It's the same logic.
Again it's impossible -- literally, impossible -- to make this bullshit argument that some religion flew planes into buildings, without employing a Composition Fallacy. Can't be done.
What Achmed did provoked exceptional suspicion, which prompted an investigation.Not that that's what Achmed was doing here, we're still speculating on that motive.
We know that. We're speculating on what his motive could have been.
It appeared to quite possibly be the primary component of a timed explosive device, which calls for investigation.The fact remains that in order to come up with "bomb", somebody externally had to plug in an element that isn't there. The question comes down to-- are they justified in plugging that element in? Do they have sufficient grounds to run around hair-on-fire when they already know full well that it ain't a bomb?
I say they do not.
You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is Achmed knew exactly what he was doing.
Again, we don't disagree, the speculation is a worthy one. I'm just saying if his motive is to call out a fallacious hypocrisy, that callout deserves consideration. We don't simply dismiss a callout of hypocrisy because the hypocrisy is a popular one or because it's one we like.
"Investigation" is fine, and according to this theory would have been what he was seeking. My question above is --- HOW do they go on with the ruse after they already know full well it's not a bomb? What's the point of pretending a condition exists that they know perfectly well does not?
Last edited: