So basically you were blaming me for something someone else may have done? I posted on this thread well after he had been apprehended and when his identity was known.
What are you talking about?
I listed several pieces of evidence in addition to his MO: the explosive device he had, his posts in social media, and later his alleged confession.
None of which were available when people started staining the pants about Islamic terrorism.
This is what I'm talking about. You first accused me personally of jumping to conclusions and of having a "wrong opinion", and now when I pointed out that I made my conclusion at a time when there was sufficient evidence available, you are trying to move the goalposts to accusing some "people" who have nothing to do with me or this conversation.
Quick browsing through wikipedia and related news do not explicitly say whether he was a muslim. We could infer that from him being an asylum seeker from Kosovo, which has a muslim majority, but maybe he was an asylum seeker precisely because he's a minority. I wouldn't want to jump into the conclusion that he was a muslim without proper evidence, now would I?
It is amazing how you continue to miss the point. People jumped to the conclusion he was muslim and an Islamic terrorist without waiting for any other information other than his name.
And as I pointed out, it was irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that the attribute "islamic" is not similar to attribute "male" because there are many terrorists who are male by coincidence, but practically no terrorists that are islamic by coincidence. Note that I'm not saying that there aren't
any such terrorists, and indeed the guy in Düsseldorf axe attack may be one, but I have not yet seen specific evidence for it.
You apparently lost track of the argument, so let me recap....
It is amazing how you continually miss the point. I pointed out the obvious flaw in your "logic". Which you tacitly admittted, but continue to defend.
Before you accuse others of "missing the point", do try to make sure you understand what the point is yourself first. If you don't even know what you are arguing against, obviously you can't point out any flaws in it. What did I "tacitly admit" exactly?
At the time when I made the conclusion, there was sufficient evidence. But apparently, you have no problems jumping to conclusons calling someone a bigot before getting your facts straight.
I have my facts straight. There were people claiming this killer was an Islamic terrorist even though nothing was none about him. That makes those people bigots. Or are you under the impression you are the only poster in this thread or on this board? If you actually bothered to read what I posted, I never called you a bigot.
What you said exactly at various points of the discussion:
"My point was that
your "evidence" was not convincing evidence at all."
"My point is that it was too early to jump to conclusions. "
"So what is stopping you from changing your wrong opinion?"
"Since there was not plenty of evidence at the time
people were jumping to conclusions, it is irrational."
"Not initially [enough information to make an educated conclusion], except for a bigot."
You start with clearly a personal accusation. When pointed out that, you switched to talking about "people" or "bigots" doing the same thing you accused me of doing, i.e. jumping to conclusions. A rational person might make the inference that you were indeed implying that I was part of this group of people and as such a bigot.
At no point did I make any argument about what other people may have said about this incident or any other, I'm only speaking for myself. You seem to be arguing a strawman because you found your original position to be untenable.
ETA: And based on your reply to Derec a few posts above, you
still seem to think that there isn't enough evidence to call Rahmat Akilov an islamic terrorist, which is confounding since he has admitted it himself and all evidence points to that direction.
