ISIS may have attacked in Tennessee, US

This is exact proof as to why your position is so unintelligent and inconsistent. You attempt to justify feeling more sympathetic to the white people killed than the many Muslims who are killed simply on the basis that (i) Muslims have killed Muslims for longer than they have white people and (ii) that white people are not a part of this fight. Again, these two justifications are extremely weak. The first asserts that one's sympathy should decrease as the novelty of these murders dissipates, whilst the second ignores the fact that many Muslims who are killed are not part of this fight either, as they are civilians.

I would advise you to stop embarrassing yourself by presenting such a dull, unintelligent argument.

1) From the premise of innocent until proven guilty,

I would assume that they were innocent because nothing else has said about them.

He shows how some muslims think when they read things like this

Rather telling really

And why do you believe that premise to be correct?



So if there is no evidence, then that person didn't engage in some kind of criminal behaviour?



What if one had killed a young man in battle or authorised a drone strike that wiped out half a dozen civilians? is he innocent?

If we didn't have that premise we could be dragging everyone to court over hearsay. I now say that you are an ISIS militant. Better get to work disproving it. Presumption of innocence is a fairly universal right, even in backwards countries like Iran.

Yes? If you don't have evidence, all we have is a basless accusations of others, which is worth as much as toilet paper.

Do you have any proof that he did? How do you know that he wasn't just a recruit out of training?

I have made no mention of peoples skin colour

The rest of your post is based on this dishonesty on your part

ISIS arguably follow a more literal interpretation of the Qur'an than most modern day muslims. Practically everything they do can be justified using verses from the Qur'an. If Muhammed were to return he would probably recognise their version of Islam more than most present day ones.



But isn't this precisely because ISIS view everyone else as non-muslims?

Hahaha this is intellectual capitulation at its very slimiest.

You may say what you like of me. I couldn't care less.

So because everyone says that it is a right, it automatically becomes a right/



What level of evidence are you looking for? Civil or criminal burden?

If someone is convicted in a civil court of an offence but wouldn't be in a criminal trial, does that mean that he is guilty?



I don't but then again, I also didn't say that he was guilty of such crimes.

Poppa was the one who said he was innocent so if you want proof of that, you should take it up with him.

If we didn't have that premise we could be dragging everyone to court over hearsay.

I would love to see the Muslim world rise up against ISIS and kick the **** out of them.

Sorry what's that? You don't have anything to say to your defence? You're still guilty by your logic. Better start booking that flight to Cuba. Without the presumption of innocence, you are an ISIS militant.

It doesn't matter what kind of proof it is. You need more than words to convict anyone of anything. Accusations without anything to back aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

You seem to think that I care what you think about me. I don't.

Twitter screen caps can easily faked and the account has been suspended.

I love how the left justifies Islamic terrorism. No wonder they team up with the pro-sharia law protesters at 'anti fascist' protests!

It doesn't matter what your opinion is. Your opinion could be used as toilet paper for a judge. By stating that you don't believe in innocence until proven guilty, you are automatically guilty until you have proven it.

Except I didn't say I believed in it or disbelieved in the premise.

All I asked you to do was prove that the premise is worth anything.

I'm not going to embark on a lengthy discussion of why Presumption of Innocence is worthwhile unless it's actually relevant to the shootings. Go to the Law or Philosophy boards if you want to debate its merits. I only responded because you were the one questioning the Marine's presumed innocence (for something? I still don't get what?)