Manhattan explosion

[marplots]

The two guys who picked up the cooker bomb and took the bag it was in have been identified. They are security guards for EgyptAir. Reports say that they unknowingly deactivated that bomb just by handling it in the act of taking the bag.

Muslims have the "disarm bomb" power. It's in the Koran somewhere (don't ask me where, I don't read that squiggle writing). Allah protects his own. What we need are more good Muslims on the payroll, wandering our streets and stopping the bad Muslims.

Please write your Congressman about this.

 

[Craig4]

The two guys who picked up the cooker bomb and took the bag it was in have been identified. They are security guards for EgyptAir. Reports say that they unknowingly deactivated that bomb just by handling it in the act of taking the bag.

I find it troubling that security guards for an airline would recognize the possibility it was a bomb.

 

[William Parcher]

I find it troubling that security guards for an airline would recognize the possibility it was a bomb.

There is a word missing from your sentence, but I know what you are trying to say.

Maybe they thought it was a discarded school project like the fake clock bomb kid thing. LOL

Anyway, they are back in Egypt but US authorities still want to talk to them.

Two men who found a travel bag containing a bomb on a Manhattan street last month — and then walked off with the bag but left the bomb — were not just employees of EgyptAir but in-flight security officers for the carrier, two officials at the airline said on Friday...

The bomb did not explode, and investigators have said that the men may have inadvertently disabled the device...

“They didn’t know what was in it,” one of the officials said of the travel bag. Mr. Ali “told me he saw it and thought it was nice,” the official recalled. “He opened the bag to check it out and found a pot.”

Mr. Ali did not want to go to the trouble of flying the pot back to Cairo, the official said, so he put it aside and left with the travel bag...

OMG, he just explained why the cooker bomb wasn't taken on a flight to Egypt. Too much hassle!


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/0...re-identified-as-airline-security-guards.html

 

[Craig4]

There is a word missing from your sentence, but I know what you are trying to say.

Maybe they thought it was a discarded school project like the fake clock bomb kid thing. LOL

Anyway, they are back in Egypt but US authorities still want to talk to them.


OMG, he just explained why the cooker bomb wasn't taken on a flight to Egypt. Too much hassle!


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/0...re-identified-as-airline-security-guards.html

Can you imagine the awkward moment when the bomb got pulled out during screening?

 

[William Parcher]

Can you imagine the awkward moment when the bomb got pulled out during screening?

Oh yes, but there's also a different awkward moment. The security guards bypass screening and actually get the bomb onboard.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Muslims have the "disarm bomb" power. It's in the Koran somewhere (don't ask me where, I don't read that squiggle writing). Allah protects his own. What we need are more good Muslims on the payroll, wandering our streets and stopping the bad Muslims.

Please write your Congressman about this.

It's a second level spell from K&K, 5th edition.

(Koran and Killing, an RPG which is a spin off from D&D ... )

 

[Giz]

It's a second level spell from K&K, 5th edition.

(Koran and Killing, an RPG which is a spin off from D&D ... )

Heresy! Everyone knows that the only true version dictated by the Gygax was 1st edition and it is inerrant!

 

[Craig4]

Oh yes, but there's also a different awkward moment. The security guards bypass screening and actually get the bomb onboard.

I'm pretty sure they would have a hard time saying "we just picked up the bag off the street" story.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm pretty sure they would have a hard time saying "we just picked up the bag off the street" story.

I was thinking of a much more awkward moment. They get the bomb onboard and it explodes. Oh Lordy, now you have to figure out how that happened. You have a video of the dead security guys picking it up off the street.

How do you explain that they just thought it was something cool that they wanted to bring home?

 

[McHrozni]

That in 2014, Muslims carried out terror attacks at a rate far, far less than their percentage of the population would imply.

A statistical anomaly, resulting in no small part from Muslims getting arrested ten times more often than the general population.
Just so you know, ignoring an inconvenient fact usually means you're wrong.

Which indicates that, contrary to your assertions, that Islam isn't directly correlated with terrorism at all, since jihadist terror attacks don't happen at a constant rate per population, and until that year you cherry-picked there were far fewer jihadist attacks than there "should" be based on their population percentage.

No, it doesn't. Your own personal bias tells you that.

Yes, if you remove all the non-jihadist terrorist attacks that took place from your list of terrorist attacks, the percentage of terrorist attacks caused by jihadists on that list goes way up.

Yes, that is factually true. Because Jihadis (I said Muslims earlier, I should've said Jihadis, sorry) don't have a separatist cause in the EU to back, excluding the known irrelevant variable is entirely sensible, and that's the data you should be looking at.

Now you're trying to massage the data even more by double-dipping. Foiled attacks are already counted in the INTERPOL lists. And, again, back when there were far, far fewer arrests of jihadis than separatists, there were still far fewer jihadist attacks than there were separatist attacks, so the fact that there are far fewer jihadist attacks than there are separatist attacks now that there are more arrests for jihadis than separatists doesn't seem to mean what you want it to mean.

Police is obviously better at preventing Jihadis from separatists, be it in foiling attacks or arresting plotters before they could hatch a plot. You haven't even addressed this point at all. Do you concede it, then?

You haven't addressed the other points either. Do you concede those too?

You know, the only reason I consent to discussion about the number of attacks by Jihadis in Europe at all is because it's the one statistic that you favor and that is the most strongly biased in favor of your point. If even this statistic shows Muslims as coming out ahead in terrorist danger - and it does, albeit weakly - then you have absolutely no arguments in your favor. Other evidence I presented is typically much stronger and in most cases much more relevant.

Your only argument you present is very shaky, and you evidently have absolutely no idea how to address other arguments. It would be high time you consider the possibility of being wrong.

In other words, I suggest we give this one a rest and discuss some of the other statistics that you ignore. I'm game for the number of Jihadis arrested, death toll of Islamic terrorist attacks or justifications for violence in holy texts. Care to give one of them a go for a change?

What happened before 20 years ago (or, in Europe, before just a couple of years ago)? Were there sudden mass conversions to Islam to push things over the terrorism tipping point? Was there a magic switch that was flipped in all Muslims that wasn't on before? Did Muslims read your posts about Islam and slap their foreheads, going "I totally forgot I was supposed to be a terrorist! Thanks for reminding me, I'll get right on that!"

It's a natural consequence of the equivalent of the Reformation in the Muslim world. There is much more importance being given to the scripture and the earliest tenets of religion, and adhering to the religion of the founder and not the corrupt practices that grew out of it. In Christianity this gave us Martin Luther and in Islam it gave us Abu-Bakr Al Baghdadi.
(yeah, I know, a better comparison would be Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab)

I did mention there are many reasons for Islam being a threat, did I not? Here's another proof for you to ignore

Oh, my mistake. You actually just got done telling me about how I'm fated for the gas chambers for the crime of apparently being a Muslim

No. I actually told you why your current destiny is what it is several times over, and why is that. You seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend it, so I see no reason to explain it again. It won't do you any good anyway.

So you're telling me I'm going to be put in a gas chamber for someone else's beliefs, not mine. What a relief.

If it were only beliefs and nothing else we wouldn't even be having this issue. Didn't you know?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Here's what I want. I want to know if you really think the Koran is magical and has the power to make people into terrorists. I want to know because I do not wish to offend any religious beliefs you may hold. If you honestly think Allah is creating terrorists with a book, I will defer from criticizing, even though I do not believe it possible.

There is nothing magical about it. The book (alongside other texts) tells the believers to act in a certain way, and the believers then act in a the way described there. Islamic holy texts tell Muslims to pray five times a day, so devout Muslims pray five times a day and we can all agree the connection is uncontroversial. Islamic holy texts tell Muslims to kill infidels, and when they kill infidels it somehow needs magical abilities to do that. Ludicrous.

Koran is as magical as an average women's magazine is.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I want to point out that the bibble gets the same treatment.

No doubt. If you want to discuss the differences you can open a topic about it. However existence of a similar content in any other text, religion, ideology or whatever does not negate, alter or moderate the existence of such content in Islam, nor does it absolve Islam from being responsible for inspiring terrorists.

Note: Islam is not the same as all Muslims.

McHrozni

 

[marplots]

There is nothing magical about it. The book (alongside other texts) tells the believers to act in a certain way, and the believers then act in a the way described there. Islamic holy texts tell Muslims to pray five times a day, so devout Muslims pray five times a day and we can all agree the connection is uncontroversial. Islamic holy texts tell Muslims to kill infidels, and when they kill infidels it somehow needs magical abilities to do that. Ludicrous.

Koran is as magical as an average women's magazine is.

McHrozni

The solution seems obvious then. Write a different book.

You can even start with the book they have and just redact the parts that favor killing other people. If you think one religion is bad and is causing damage, then it seems reasonable to replace it with a religion that is better - one that causes less damage (or none at all).

I'm not the first one to have thought of this, and you don't have to take on the chore yourself, you can find many groups already in the fray. Here is one: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-to-share-the-gospel-with-muslims

 

[McHrozni]

The solution seems obvious then. Write a different book.

You can even start with the book they have and just redact the parts that favor killing other people. If you think one religion is bad and is causing damage, then it seems reasonable to replace it with a religion that is better - one that causes less damage (or none at all).

Yes, this exactly is the solution I'm advocating. Somehow this is entirely unacceptable, for reasons no one is quite ready to divulge.

McHrozni

 

[marplots]

Yes, this exactly is the solution I'm advocating. Somehow this is entirely unacceptable, for reasons no one is quite ready to divulge.

McHrozni

Cool. I support free speech and literacy.

 

[Belz...]

I support free speech and Liberace.

 

[A'isha]

A statistical anomaly, resulting in no small part from Muslims getting arrested ten times more often than the general population.

You fixate on one year of data out of ten when you think that year supports your claims, and then try to claim "statistical anomaly" when it turns out that the data from your own chosen year doesn't actually show what you want it to show?

Just so you know, ignoring an inconvenient fact usually means you're wrong.

Your entire reaction to the Europol report has been nothing but special pleading and spin in an effort to ignore the inconvenient facts in those reports.

Yes, that is factually true. Because Jihadis (I said Muslims earlier, I should've said Jihadis, sorry) don't have a separatist cause in the EU to back, excluding the known irrelevant variable is entirely sensible, and that's the data you should be looking at.

Sure, if the focus of the EU report were on separatist terror rather than terrorism in general. Unfortunately for your argument here, the EU report is about terrorism in general, listing all the failed, foiled, and successful attacks in the EU from whatever source. That's why your attempts to make the percentage of jihadist attacks look higher than the report actually says it is by excluding the separatist terror attacks that the report (by design) includes is not just illegitimate, but a rather transparent attempt by you at massaging the data to get the answer you want.

Police is obviously better at preventing Jihadis from separatists, be it in foiling attacks or arresting plotters before they could hatch a plot. You haven't even addressed this point at all. Do you concede it, then?

It's not a a "point", it's merely your speculation, in a pretty transparent attempt to insist that the data from the EU supports your false assertions in some way (any way), because it sure as hell doesn't support them when it comes to such major things as terrorist attacks per percentage of population.

Your "speculation" is complicated by the fact that there's no correlation between arrests and attacks (whether failed, foiled, or successful), and the reported arrests don't seem to lead to many actual convictions. The higher arrest rate of Muslims could just as easily be related to racism and police overreaction to the actual threat presented as it could be your speculated reasons.

You haven't addressed the other points either. Do you concede those too?

They also aren't "points", just more of your blanket assertions, unsupported by the data.

You know, the only reason I consent to discussion about the number of attacks by Jihadis in Europe at all is because it's the one statistic that you favor and that is the most strongly biased in favor of your point.

No, it's because you started out by claiming that Muslims are more of a terror threat because they carry out terror attacks at a rate much higher than their percentage of the population should indicate. You pounced on the Europol data when you thought it supported that argument, even accusing me of "cherry picking" from it (in one of the most blatant instances of projection I've ever seen), and gleefully crowing about how it "confirms" the bogus numbers you cited before.

And, now that it turns out that the EU data directly contradicts your claims, after first trying to twist the data to try and make it support you anyway, you're trying the old sour grapes route of "I never even liked that data anyway, I only used it as a favor to you".

In other words, I suggest we give this one a rest and discuss some of the other statistics that you ignore. I'm game for the number of Jihadis arrested, death toll of Islamic terrorist attacks or justifications for violence in holy texts. Care to give one of them a go for a change?

In other words, you want to change the subject away from your false claims that Muslims are a bigger terror threat because they commit terrorist acts at a higher rate than their population indicates, without admitting that your claim about that was wrong.

It's a natural consequence of the equivalent of the Reformation in the Muslim world. There is much more importance being given to the scripture and the earliest tenets of religion, and adhering to the religion of the founder and not the corrupt practices that grew out of it. In Christianity this gave us Martin Luther and in Islam it gave us Abu-Bakr Al Baghdadi.
(yeah, I know, a better comparison would be Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab)

al-Wahhab lived in the 18th Century, two hundred years ago. Not twenty.

No. I actually told you why your current destiny is what it is several times over, and why is that.

Yes: you think I'm a Muslim, and that makes me a candidate for the gas chambers, regardless of what my actual beliefs, positions, and statements actually are. And, to you, that's not at all the fault of those who are going to carry out this indiscriminate genocide of an entire religion that will sweep me up and murder me, but instead my fault.

 

[McHrozni]

Your entire reaction to the Europol report has been nothing but special pleading and spin in an effort to ignore the inconvenient facts in those reports.

Like the number of Jihadi arrests, for example?

Oh wait. No. We only get to discuss the statistics you choose. Anything else is cherry-picking

Sure, if the focus of the EU report were on separatist terror rather than terrorism in general. Unfortunately for your argument here, the EU report is about terrorism in general, listing all the failed, foiled, and successful attacks in the EU from whatever source. That's why your attempts to make the percentage of jihadist attacks look higher than the report actually says it is by excluding the separatist terror attacks that the report (by design) includes is not just illegitimate, but a rather transparent attempt by you at massaging the data to get the answer you want.

If this is illegitimate you'll need to point out which Jihadi arrests and/or attacks were perpetrated with separatism in mind. Good luck with that

It's not a a "point", it's merely your speculation, in a pretty transparent attempt to insist that the data from the EU supports your false assertions in some way (any way), because it sure as hell doesn't support them when it comes to such major things as terrorist attacks per percentage of population.

No, it's merely an attempt to shift the attention to other evidence which can be used to validate my point. You usually call it cherry-picking, but now you switched to "speculation".

Can you please explain why do you think this statistic is irrelevant?

Your "speculation" is complicated by the fact that there's no correlation between arrests and attacks (whether failed, foiled, or successful), and the reported arrests don't seem to lead to many actual convictions. The higher arrest rate of Muslims could just as easily be related to racism and police overreaction to the actual threat presented as it could be your speculated reasons.

Maybe. Are there other reasons why one would focus on Muslims? For example, how severe the attacks are? You dismissed this out of hand, but I'm having difficulties accepting your blanket assertion the French police is equally concerned by preventing an attack where 81 people are murdered by a truck driven by a Jihadi as they are about a large firecracker taking out a few windows. I also struggle to understand why the fact successful Jihadi terror attacks are typically drastically bloodier than those of non-Jihadis can be dismissed as "speculation", or why this statistic should be ignored.

Other than disproving you entirely, are there any other reasons for it?

They also aren't "points", just more of your blanket assertions, unsupported by the data.

Which of my 'blanket assertions' is unsupported by the data and where is the data that allegedly 'disproves' it?

No, it's because you started out by claiming that Muslims are more of a terror threat because they carry out terror attacks at a rate much higher than their percentage of the population should indicate. You pounced on the Europol data when you thought it supported that argument, even accusing me of "cherry picking" from it (in one of the most blatant instances of projection I've ever seen), and gleefully crowing about how it "confirms" the bogus numbers you cited before.

And, now that it turns out that the EU data directly contradicts your claims, you're trying the old sour grapes route of "I never even liked that data anyway, I only used it as a favor to you".

Was that in the post where I quoted from the Hadith and pointed out it was part of the problem, or in the post where I pointed out a further four reasons as why Islam is a problem? Can you please explain which of these two posts you mean

al-Wahhab lived in the 18th Century, two hundred years ago. Not twenty.

I know, he started the movement that snowballed about 20 years ago. What of it?

Yes: you think I'm a Muslim, and that makes me a candidate for the gas chambers, regardless of what my actual beliefs, positions, and statements actually are. And, to you, that's not at all the fault of those who are going to carry out this indiscriminate genocide of an entire religion that will sweep me up and murder me, but instead my fault.

In a small part, yes. You are determined to pretend there is no problem with Islam, come hell or high water. However, there is a problem with Islam, several massive problems, that understandably generate backlash against Muslims. Right now that backlash is still very minor, diffuse and disorganized, but it is also rapidly growing. It's actually a similar process to the one that took Islam from a backwater religion no importance to the worlds' foremost producer of walking bombs in the past 70 or so years. The process has already begun, and first results are beginning to show with banning of Burkinis, refusing to host Muslim refugees and so on. If things continue as they are, gas chambers are inevitable a few decades down the line. The process is getting harder to stop the longer it takes. The only people who can stop it are Muslims who actually agree parts of their religion are unacceptable. Muslims who pretend killing infidels (alongside other problems) isn't part of Islam are a part of the problem, and obviously carry part of the responsibility for what happens at the end.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Like the number of Jihadi arrests, for example?

Oh wait. No. We only get to discuss the statistics you choose. Anything else is cherry-picking

Your cherry-picking was in focusing on the number of jihadist attacks in 2014. The number of arrests for terrorism, as I said, show no correlation to either the number of attempted or the number of successful attacks.

If this is illegitimate you'll need to point out which Jihadi arrests and/or attacks were perpetrated with separatism in mind.

I see you're persisting in your attempts to illegitimately exclude separatist terrorism from the EU's terrorism report so you can pretend only jihadist terrorism happens there.

The authorities arrested separatists too, incidentally.

No, it's merely an attempt to shift the attention to other evidence which can be used to validate my point. You usually call it cherry-picking, but now you switched to "speculation".

Because you're speculating about the reason for the relative numbers of arrests, ignoring that the number of arrests aren't correlated to the number of attempted or failed attacks, and then treating your speculations as evidence.

Which they're not.

Was that in the post where I quoted from the Hadith and pointed out it was part of the problem, or in the post where I pointed out a further four reasons as why Islam is a problem? Can you please explain which of these two posts you mean

It was the post where you claimed that there were more jihadist attacks than non-jihadist attacks and that Muslims carry out more terrorist attacks than their percentage of population would indicate and said the EU reports confirmed that, and the post where you dismissed the EU reports because they show that there were more non-jihadist attacks than jihadist attacks and that Muslims don't carry out more terrorist attacks than their percentage of population would indicate and you were only referencing those reports as a favor to me because the fact that there are fewer jihadist attacks than non-jihadist attacks is "the one statistic that you favor and that is the most strongly biased in favor of your point."

I know, he started the movement that snowballed about 20 years ago. What of it?

Muslims waited 180 years, did they?

If things continue as they are, gas chambers are inevitable a few decades down the line. The process is getting harder to stop the longer it takes. The only people who can stop it are Muslims who actually agree parts of their religion are unacceptable.

And so you wash your hands entirely of the genocide you say your own side is going to carry out, disclaiming any responsibility for it while placing my own murder at the hands of your ideological fellows on my head and saying we can avoid it if we would only just meet your demands.

This kind of thing is ******** when Anjem Choudary does it, and it's ******** when you do it.

 

[McHrozni]

The authorities arrested separatists too, incidentally.

There is no doubt that separatism can incite terrorism. There is also no doubt that separatism can not incite Jihadi terrorism in EU. Therefore it is entirely legitimate to exclude separatism to get a true background value. You obviously don't like it because separatism is the sole factor that allows you to pretend Islam isn't a causative factor.

It was the post where you claimed that there were more jihadist attacks than non-jihadist attacks and that Muslims carry out more terrorist attacks than their percentage of population would indicate and said the EU reports confirmed that, and the post where you dismissed the EU reports because they show that there were more non-jihadist attacks than jihadist attacks and that Muslims don't carry out more terrorist attacks than their percentage of population would indicate and you were only referencing those reports as a favor to me because the fact that there are fewer jihadist attacks than non-jihadist attacks is "the one statistic that you favor and that is the most strongly biased in favor of your point."

So according to you, I said the number of the attacks was the sole factor in the post where I explicitly pointed out a Hadith that was also a factor.

Great argument! Totally convincing!

Muslims waited 180 years, did they?

No, nothing of the sort. The process started small and it took some 150 years to get a critical mass, which then resulted in various unsavory actions (like genocides over Jews and the like). It's like an exponential function, which starts low and advances very slowly at first, but the process increases, well, exponentially.

And so you wash your hands entirely of the genocide you say your own side is going to carry out, disclaiming any responsibility for it while placing my own murder at the hands of your ideological fellows on my head and saying we can only avoid it if we would only just meet your demands.

Obviously I'm completely innocent of what will most likely happen to you at the end. I'm doing my best to prevent the genocide over your people. If that somehow makes me guilty of genocide over your people by your standards you'll have to explain why your standards are the way those standards are first.

Also please explain to me how is it "my side" that will be doing things to you, when I'm actively trying to sabotage them before they even begin.

It's kind of surreal, really. You remind me of a cancer patient that categorically refuses all medical treatment but threatens his kin will sue the doctor if he dies of the disease. Get back to me if you find a legal precedents where doctor would be found to be legally responsible for the death in such a case.

McHrozni