- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 1,021
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Well when the FBI investigates what starting do you recommend for them?
The part I made bold is what I have said numerous times in this thread.You appear to be mistaken about what "arson" means. The police have determined that this was arson, which means that it was a deliberate act. What they have not determined (because they have not arrested anyone) is why that act was committed. It was most likely someone opposed to the mosque (as I noted pages ago), but it's remains possible that it was someone acting for another purpose.
I don't understand why people are so angry at the observation that there is still some uncertainty here.
Where did I make the claim boy genius?
I said one claim was grounded with reality while the other claim was merely baseless speculation.
The facts are:
- it WAS arson
- anti-Muslim sentiment is high
- vandalism against the same mosque has already occurred
This makes it more reasonable to assume one claim over another that has no facts to support it.
Well when the FBI investigates what starting point do you recommend for them?
Show where I said one specific group committed the arson. Otherwise, you are full of ****. I clearly said one claim (the claim that this was a hate crime) has more evidence to support it than the claim that this was used as a diversion technique (which, in case you haven't noticed, no evidence for it has been provided).
Unless you have evidence of this as a hate crime you are talking out of your ass. The mere claim that this is a hate crime shows your bias. you dont know WHAT it is. And THATS what makes you 'that' guy.
Let's see:
- anti-Muslim sentiment is high in America right now
- the same mosque was vandalised with hate words
- the Muslims in that city have had no problems until the Ground Zero mosque controversy
This is all evidence that supports the claim that this is a hate crime.
Now let's see your evidence that this was actually a diversion technique to make those protesting the mosque become defensive. C'mon, you've been stating for numerous pages that this is just as probable a cause for the arson. Where's the evidence to support it? Oh that's right, it's completely nonexistent.
Let's see:
- anti-Muslim sentiment is high in America right now
- the same mosque was vandalised with hate words
- the Muslims in that city have had no problems until the Ground Zero mosque controversy
This is all evidence that supports the claim that this is a hate crime.
Now let's see your evidence that this was actually a diversion technique to make those protesting the mosque become defensive. C'mon, you've been stating for numerous pages that this is just as probable a cause for the arson. Where's the evidence to support it? Oh that's right, it's completely nonexistent.
The part I made bold is what I have said numerous times in this thread.
It's possible the arson was committed for another purpose. Is it probable? No. The facts on the ground support that this was most likely a hate crime.
The fact is...I have just as much evidence that YOU committed the crime that YOU have of ANYONE committing the crime. You get that...right?
... :roll: It is evidence to SUPPORT A CLAIM, not evidence of who actually did this crime. Apparently it takes you 5+ posts to understand a simple concept.
There is evidence to support the claim that this was a hate crime.
There is no evidence to support the claim that this was purposefully committed to put anti-Muslim protesters on the defensive.
No where did I say there was evidence that this was a hate crime. There is evidence to suggest that it may have been a hate crime. If you can't tell the difference, please stop posting for your own sake.
No, what you have is a hasty generalization. A red herring is a weak argument that defeats itself.I have LOTS of evidence that Muslims are low life no moral having murderous scumbags that will do anything to further their glorious causes including slaughtering their own people to make a point. So based on that, my evidence of such a pathetic disgusting people backs MY claim it was a muslim that burned the equipment.
No, I don't think arson is fun or funny. If you do, good for you. Your future is bleek.Isnt this FUN?
Again, you cannot even tell the difference between evidence to support a claim and evidence to prove someone's guilt. I am not saying I know who committed this arson. No where have I said that. Can you get that through your skull or do you need another three pages for me to explain my position yet again? I clearly said there is evidence to suggest that this was a hate crime. The only thing you have done to even attempt to counter that is use your hatred of Muslims to create some ridiculous fantasy that Muslims did this to deceive you.You have NOTHING with regard to THIS CASE...do you? ANd until you do you are making biased speculation. Well...Ive got about 600 terrorist attacks by Muslims annually, Ive got death threats over ****ingt cartoons (good God what a sick bunch of twists), Ive got slaughtered children in fields, Ive got evidence for DAYS that Muslims are scum...and since You seem to want to use others acts to justify your claim that this is a hate crime, it seems perfectly legit for me to roll out one by one with gruesome details the scumbag Muslims and why THEY are everybit as viable a candidate for guilt. Hey...terror is a TRADEMARK of Muslims...
No, what you have is a hasty generalization. A red herring is a weak argument that defeats itself.
No, I don't think arson is fun or funny. If you do, good for you. Your future is bleek.
Again, you cannot even tell the difference between evidence to support a claim and evidence to prove someone's guilt. I am not saying I know who committed this arson. No where have I said that. Can you get that through your skull or do you need another three pages for me to explain my position yet again? I clearly said there is evidence to suggest that this was a hate crime. The only thing you have done to even attempt to counter that is use your hatred of Muslims to create some ridiculous fantasy that Muslims did this to deceive you.
This is like debating with a toddler...
Officials said they had not determined whether the Aug. 28 fire is a hate crime but they said an accelerant was used to burn excavating
snip
Investigators said they would not be able to determine whether the arson constitutes a hate crime until there is a suspect.
Tennessee mosque site fire ruled arson - UPI.com
Just thought some facts were in order.
j-mac
VanceMack said:What we have has NOTHING to do with the fire or the investigation. What we HAVE is people making bigoted generalizations.
VanceMack said:I have LOTS of evidence that Muslims are low life no moral having murderous scumbags that will do anything to further their glorious causes including slaughtering their own people to make a point. So based on that, my evidence of such a pathetic disgusting people backs MY claim it was a muslim that burned the equipment.
Bigoted generalizations, indeed...
For the record (since VanceMack does not care to even read my posts coherently):
I am merely saying that there is evidence TO SUGGEST that this was a hate crime. I am not saying that it is outright a hate crime because the place that burned down is a mosque or anything of that nature (although VanceMack repeatedly interprets my argument as such). I just believe the evidence makes it more plausible that this was a hate crime than say... Muslims trying to deceive VanceMack.
For the record (since VanceMack does not care to even read my posts coherently):
I am merely saying that there is evidence TO SUGGEST that this was a hate crime. I am not saying that it is outright a hate crime because the place that burned down is a mosque or anything of that nature (although VanceMack repeatedly interprets my argument as such). I just believe the evidence makes it more plausible that this was a hate crime than say... Muslims trying to deceive VanceMack.
No ****? That's what I've said for the past 3 pages, but you are simply misinterpreting it. If you were not being purposefully obtuse, than I feel sorry for you. There is evidence TO SUGGEST (DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN) that this was a hate crime. That is not the equivalent of me saying there is evidence that this was a hate crime, which has already been reported as such by the authorities. Now please, you are only making yourself look more foolish.For the record...there is NO evidence regarding THIS incident. You may have evidence of other actions or behaviors...but you havent got **** about THIS crime.
Well, KC makes me think of a good question. Since we don't know who is behind it yet, what if it was a Muslim that was involved? Would that change any of the conclusions that this and other threads are ripe with?
j-mac
What if it was actually aliens? What if it was aliens that were committing a hate crime?! :roll:
No ****? That's what I've said for the past 3 pages, but you are simply misinterpreting it. If you were not being purposefully obtuse, than I feel sorry for you. There is evidence TO SUGGEST (DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN) that this was a hate crime. That is not the equivalent of me saying there is evidence that this was a hate crime, which has already been reported as such by the authorities. Now please, you are only making yourself look more foolish.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?