You mean ironic that I make a reasonable arguement against someone that can't be reasoned with?
If people like that have their way we'll all be bound by the hands and gags in our mouths because literally everything can be used as a weapon and we'll be safe if we cover everyone in bubble wrap and clingfilm.
He is a Somali from Norway.
IF we call him a Muslim and his crime Islamic motivated, we shall then call every single crime committed in the US by an American a Christian crime. Shall we?
I mean, we've a 83% chance of being correct.
Or, shall we distinct?
Shall we not use a person's origin as the default motive?
"The pen is mightier than the sword.. and considerably easier to write with."
Lol lol lol.
Seriously, that is your answer? That its possible for a person with a knife to kill multiple people if they target a disabled peoples home where all the inhabitants are disabled and so unable defend themselves, and so guns therefore = knives in ability to kill?
Define "related". Certainly the actions were radical and the perpetrators were Islamic. So I guess it was radical Islam again, doggone it!
I mean, peoples definitions would vary; but an attack by organised terrorism I would suspect to look a lot more like Belgium or The Bataclan; rather than single (or couple) going on a indescirminate rampage. But w/e really I'm way past trying to persuade other people what to think about it all, you can't uninstall paranoia
That guy called 9-11 specifically to tell us he was killing everybody in the name is ISIS and Is***, we learned that after DOJ failed to suppress the original dispatch office and the local city news outlet that got the original unedited tape from releasing it.
I know Loretta Lynch told the press "we'll never know his motives" but ...yea we did cause he told us that his motives were in very clear words.
MAGA
When all you do is WIN WIN WIN
That would be fully correct if you surrender science to be exclusive to the left.
Fact..
Racism is arguably similar to Ethnicity as per social science literature and popular usage. Both are historically equivalent.
It's contemporary science however separating the two.
Which means, either side is correct, and arguing over it is semantics.
I'm pretty sure not one person here has the professional capacity of a scientist to engage in this argument with foundation.
Any disagreement here, is just for the sake of pissing on the other person they disagree with.
"The pen is mightier than the sword.. and considerably easier to write with."
Here is a pro tip...
If, oh fuck... even a much bigger IF... the government was so oppressive and manipulative, you can bet your lilywhite ass, you wouldn't be able to post such stupid nonsense here.
They'd long deprived you from the ability.. And we would never know.. because, the almighty government..
/facepalm
"The pen is mightier than the sword.. and considerably easier to write with."