Munich shooter had "no link to Islamic state"

What was the purpose of tagging me in your post?

And funny, some people use your country's abhorrent foreign policy and the deaths that it has caused on a mass scale to justify the rise of Islamism. You sound just like them.

Iranian kid targets Turkish and Arab youngsters as a result of bullying. No idea what that could be about.
I wonder if our friends over on ISOC have any thoughts?

The purpose of my tagging you in my post was to question your seeming relief that the perpetrator of the shooting which took place a few days ago was not affiliated with radical Islam, even beginning to label those who made a rational presumption that the shooter may probably have been a Muslim given the pertinence of Islamic terror over the past few years in Europe. There is no consolation in the attacker of Wednesday's shooting not being a member of a radical Islamic group, and if the far-right wanted to demean Islam for its role in inflicting utter dismay on innocent people, they have an abundance of evidence from which to choose.

This - again - is where you assume that because I subscribe to conservatism that I must be a raging skinhead who has tattoos of the Union Jack imprinted on my bare skin. The people who say that the UK's foreign policy is responsible for the rise of Islamic terror are right. The Islamic community has been exploited by the west for decades and decades - whether that be the Sykes Picot Agreement, the foundation of Israel, the Suez Canal or the arming of the Mujahideen in 1982. I'm not dismissing the role the west has played in leading to the rise of radical Islam, but we don't live in the past and we can't reverse the irreversible.

You don't understand. Because this particular instance was a random nut case as opposed to an Islamist terror attack for a change, it means that we have no issue with Islamic terrorism at the moment. Now we can denounce everybody who talks about it, even though it happens every single day around the world. What a glorious day. SJWs be like "a mass shooting by a guy who did it for a reason other than Islamism? This is our opportunity"

What's frustrating is that so many were DESPARATE to try and link this to Islamic extremism to suit their own agenda.
And when it turns out it wasn't Islamic extremism they accuse the police of being corrupt and lying to us.

The far right nutjobs on here wet themselves with excitement when they hear about a mass shooting by an Islamic terrorist.

I needed there to be a thread on this forum

“Munich attack appears to be ‘classic shooting rampage’ and not terrorism,”


F U C K
Y O U

I have asked you on a previous thread as to what you mean when you proclaim that the right are trying to push an "agenda" in making questionable the links the shooter may have had to radical Islam. If the right wanted to berate Islam for the incessant level of terror and violence inflicted on European soil by so-called Muslims then they have an abundance of examples - many from recent weeks - which would prove sufficient in arguing such a case; we both know another terror attack in Europe by radical Islamic Jihads is more about when as oppose to if.

The shooter, in this i nstance, had seemingly no connection with the heinous practice of Islamic State and therefore I'll join you in denouncing the far-right who use such an event to drive misinformed conspiracies against the German police.

Here we come back to the hypocrisy in your post. You say I'm being insulting to the left wing for calling them out on their incessant need to ignore the failings of modern-day Islam and community cohesion yet in your earlier post you said that "right-wingers are trying really hard to make [the shooting] related to Islam". I'm right-wing, but not once following the press conference given by the German police have I tried to proclaim a conspiracy or that the shooter may indeed be affiliated with radical Islam. In your saying the rest of my post(s) were irrelevant, in that case this entire thread is irrelevant. Just because the shooter in this instance was not associated with radical Islam it doesn't offer any consolation to the ever-present threat Islamic terror poses to Europe or the death of the nine people two nights ago.

The shooter was a loner who may have suffered from medical dispositions, therefore to inform us that this time it wasn't a Muslim - even though this year we've seen over 100 deaths from radical Muslims in Europe - is a bizarre announcement to make and offers no mitigation to the role Islam has played in inflicting misery on innocent people.

You call me insufferable, fine. I'll make sure I cry myself to sleep at night. However, let's remember that you're the one who's called me "sick", "disgusting" and "racist" in some of our earlier debates while I have never attacked you from a personal perspective. If my political views offend you, get over it. I have never said anything racist, homophobic, sexist or xenophobic so to call me insufferable is quite immature.

Did you find the BBC biased and unrespectable when it informed us of the Nice attacks linked to Islamic terrorism?

I find the BBC's editorial decision to totally omit the Shi'ite Muslim name Ali (given by his parents) and to name this guy only "David" on all its websites "biased and unrespectable", yes.

Since just about every other media source on the planet was either giving both names, or just calling him Ali even they must have felt alone and embarrassed by the transparency of their spin, when it was pointed out to them. Hence the frantic backtrack.

The fact that they (eventually, non too swiftly) reported that the Nice attacker was an Islamist is irrelevant. Once again every other media outlet was doing so.

I meant relatively new article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36878436

Other sources also mention David as a second name. Why do you think he had a Christian name?

The "agenda" is not calling Islamic extremism out for the heinous ideology it is, because even I don't deny that radical Islam is a growing problem in Europe (obviously). It's the far-right's xenophobic, racist attitude towards anything remotely related to Islam - including berating peaceful practising Muslims - and its incessant need to paint the picture that the eradication of Islam is the only way to bring peace to Europe, regardless of whether innocent Muslims are unnecessarily targeted and prosecuted in the process.


You've made me the happiest person alive(!). I thank you truly.


That's wonderful, except I haven't once indicated that the ever-present threat of radical Islam has been diminished because of this one event. Do direct me to evidence otherwise, though.


Where have I said this? I've said that he wasn't linked to Islamic terror. I really do hope you're not equating being a Muslim to automatically being affiliated with ISIS, though. Even a right-winger must find that problematic and ignorant as hell.


Calling me emotionally unstable isn't a personal attack then, is it? I'm not medically diagnosed as being mentally unstable, and you're not a psychiatrist, so I can only assume that you're using that phrase as an insult. And your political views do offend me, as do mine you, but you can't just comment and then expect me to "get over it" instead of allowing me to retaliate. That's pretty immature of you.

Only a small proportion of people are proclaiming that the only way to mitigate the ensued threat of Islamic terror is to rid Europe of all its Muslims. No accredited far-right populist movement in western Europe is announcing its desire to deport Muslims or to make practicing the religion of Islam illegal, but rather making clear that Muslims who live in western European countries adhere to the secular principles of freedom and democracy. Even today there have been reports from Manchester of a group handing out leaflets opposing the presence of dogs in public because Muslims find them impure. The failings of community cohesion has led to social disharmony and that is why the idealistic pursuit of multiculturalism has failed and rise of populism in the western world is bulging.

Here we are again where we're going around in circles because you misquote and misinterpret the message I'm trying to convey. In my earlier post, I didn't imply that you yourself were oblivious to the threats posed by radical Islam, but rather I was pointing you out for your hypocrisy in saying I'm attacking the left when you were doing the exact same to the right. To clarify my point, I was insinuating that the left - as a collective - have an innate inability to talk about the heinous aspects of Islamic philosophy because it hurts their narrative and threatens the loyalty of the Muslim vote in the General Election.

Of course there are many peaceful Muslims in the United Kingdom and Europe who wish to get with their lives and not inflict harm or misery on any one person. However, the notion that Islam has - for the most - adjusted itself in western society is an unfounded falsity given the regressive views many of its members still acquire. A poll done earlier this year by Channel 4 shows that over 50% of Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal, with a further 38% saying women should always obey their husbands and nearly a quarter supporting the introduction of Sharia Law on the British people. In an academic piece done by Truth Revolt which compiled a series of extensive opinion polls throughout many Muslim countries, the data shows that over 600 million Muslims posses views which would be considered radical in the western world. In Pakistan, 9% of respondents said they have a favourable view of Islamic State with only 28% calling them unfavourable.

Calling you emotionally unstable is not a personal attack, as it's synonymous for other words I've described you as such as hysterical. A personal attack is calling someone a heinous word - and I would never talk to a person with the same deplorable language that you think is acceptable over a conversation on a student forum - hence why many of your comments have been removed whereas not a single one of mine has been. I didn't ask you to "get over" my political views because I oppose challenge on them; I asked you to "get over" my political views if they offend you from a personal perspective.

David was a very famous Jewish King, actually.

Don't you know anything in the Bible? David and Goliath??

No idea why he chose that name. In a vain attempt to fit in somewhere, as someone hated both by native Germans and the Sunni Muslims bullying him at school on sectarian grounds?

You tell me.

You may very well be correct that the right-wing is not interested in banning Islam or anything absurd like that. However, you'll note that I'm talking about the far-right - still, if you have any evidence that only a small proportion of far-right extremists want to deny Muslims their basic human right to religion, then I'll be happy to consider that and change my views accordingly.

The word "insufferable" means intolerable - I don't see how this is a heinous word that cannot be used on TSR..? I find your incessant demonising of the left-wing insufferable. I found your criticism of the BLM racist, to be quite frank (regardless of whether you think it was or not). These are posts that you have made and I have reacted to, in a similar way to how you react to the posts I make (except you are not concise enough and you express your hostility towards me in a more long-winded way). Get off your high horse just because I use stronger language than you. I've never sworn at you, AFAIK (I apologise if I have). You spend more time painting me as hysterical and an SJW than actually addressing points.

The rise of far-right populism in Europe has not been the result of a newfound admiration for the same fascist policies that Europe experienced through the 20th century. If you take the time to study the parties which have been acquiring unprecedented support over the past few months - such as the PVV (Netherlands) or the Front National (France) or the Freedom Party (Austria) - you will see that many of them are against uncontrolled mass immigration, radical leftist rhetoric and the abandonment of traditional national values.

I have lost count of the number of times I've had to call you out for misquoting my words, but I didn't say that your calling me "insufferable" was heinous. I was saying that it's rather bizarre that you have the nerve to call me insufferable given the heinous words you have used to describe me in the past.

In our Black Lives Matter debate I provided you with a whole list of accredited evidence from respected academic sources which helped to dispel the myth that the Black Lives Matter movement was in protest against systemic institutional racism. You didn't like my conclusion, but yet still didn't provide one piece of evidence to suggest otherwise and now you're calling me a racist for my disagreeing with it. My problem with the left is that as soon as they lose an argument, they resort to one of their four buzzwords to silence any discussion: racist, bigot, sexist and homophobe.

It's distasteful to hope and pray that he was a Muslim just to push your agenda, and then refuse to accept the facts when you're proven hilariously wrong.