Hystery

Then the issue resides in the lack of budget towards law enforcement to have enough police departments/police officers to cover a certain area with decent response times. Someone shouldn't have to rely on weapons to defend themselves when there's law enforcement to do that. Police in my area would take a good 10 to 20 minutes to arrive to my home would I need them, more than enough for anyone to break into my home and kill me, yet I don't feel the need to have any kind of weapon other than a faithful dog and a baseball bat. And many europeans feel that way. Saying cops take time to arrive so you need weapons is a poor excuse, and doesn't address the actual problem, which are the response times.

Whatever you say mate. I just find it extremely amusing that you can't take that Channel 4 as a factual news outlet while blindly trusting whatever Breitbart is spewing your way. There's a lot of irony in that. Also, I think I already mentioned that in that other thread, but that Breitbart no-go zones article, which comes from a Fox News news, is actually fake. French medias mocked Fox News (and Breitbart) by sending journalists in the no-go zones mentioned in the articles to show everyone was minding their own business and everyone was free to go wherever they wanted. Even funnier, Paris mayor sued Fox News for that fake news, and Fox News publicly apologized for it. So, shortly put, that Breitbart article is bullshit from A to Z, just like most of their articles. Either way, that ain't the topic of this thread, so I'll leave it at that. Believe whatever makes you sleep at night buddy, don't worry about us, we're doing fine.

Eiffel Tower is still there and standing. Ain't gonna go down any time soon, but I appreciate your concern, no matter how paranoiac it is.

They'll probably call Breibart fake news because they're 99% fake news (and I'm generous), no matter the point of the article.

Considering here it's about murder rate, I don't think it'd be as easy to not register a murder as a murder, especially by knife.

Double standards are present everywhere, including "rightism" or "leftism".

Last news don't talk about any boyfriend as the woman had no apparent connection to the victims, but about her wanting to actually get at Youtube because it kept demonetizing her videos. She's been found ranting aggressively towards YT on many networks. It's only 'mays' so far, but everything is possible. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43638221

I'm baffled anyone could think this shooting was justified. The dude had his pants down. Please explain to me how he was any kind of threat to the officer. He couldn't even run towards him without tripping over his own pants for eff sake. In no way he could have been fast enough to stab the officer like that. He was showing no sign of aggressivity. He wasn't attenting to the officer's life whatsoever. Taser, paper spray, tonfa were the way to go. Yes, taser has a small chance of not working. Same for paper spray. But then again, so what? Plenty of officers use them on a daily basis against much more dangerous targets, and you're going to tell me pulling a gun at this guy was legit? The dude was showing no sign of aggressivity, it wasn't a moment of rush. The officer just decided to go for the lethal way out right away rather than trying a non-lethal solution beforehand, or even to just talk the dude out of it. You know, de-escalating rather than drawing the gun on the first opportunity. The lack of empathy is sickening. "Society will move on without him". "Another POS taken care of". The only thing that comes to me when I read that is "wtf", especially since you know nothing about the guy. But I'll use an argument I've seen in another thread (wink wink nudge nudge): wait until it happens to someone close to you, and we'll see how you feel about it then.

When an officer has to react in a split second in a moment of rush, I could understand that said officer has to take a decision quick, and it could be the wrong one because he had little to no time to think about it. In this case, the officer had plenty of time to choose what to do. The guy was not threatening. He wasn't running towards the officer. He had a taser at his belt. He could have used it, he had all the time in the world to do it. He prefered to shoot the poor sod down, rather than try to de-escalate the situation. He's undefendable.

Charts based on what people "think" rather than what reality actually is. I know it's difficult to conceive, but your perception of the world doesn't mean the world is actually like how you perceive it. Charts that are based on people's sentiments have no scientific value when it comes to statistics. Feelings =/= facts. Funny, that's exactly what you do as well. But if I tell you that, you're going to tell me that for you it's not the same, that you put a like on people's posts because you agree with them, while other people put a like on people's posts just because they want to team up against you regardless of if they agree with the posts content or not. That's weird, I swear I've seen this line of defense somewhere... Oh yeah, it's the same as "We're not the same, it's not the same, they're different and they come for us" argument that I've seen being repeated over and over on this thread. You know, that's almost paranoia at this point. Do you know what the New Testament says? "2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." All scripture includes the Old Testament. The Old Testament which is, actually, even more violent than the Quran. I could also quote quite some hateful or violent verses from the New Testament if you want me to. But, surprisingly so, I haven't got a christian trying to slaughter me for blaspheming their god or being gay, despite what the Old Testament or New Testament say. Could it be that christians actually don't follow every single word of what their holy texts are saying? My point is, you can be as religious as you want, no one, and I insist on that, no one ever follows every single precept the Bible, the Quran or any other holy book are teaching. No one. For example, you're christian. Somewhat your religion forbids you from stealing. But I'm pretty sure that, as anyone else in the world, at some point you stole a candy from a friend or someone else, or a pen from the school, or any other small thing you'd consider so small it'd be irrelevant. Because everyone is like this and everyone does this. No one follows every word of what a book says. Everyone makes their own interpretation. Everyone decides to follow or not follow a certain part of a book. And if you want an example (and actual fact), it's easy: you keep saying muslims are taught to follow every word of the Quran. Alright. Then how do you explain almost every muslim in your country or mine doesn't try to slaughter you for being a christian, if it's not that they purposefully decide to ignore that part of their book?

I don't need to refuse to accept facts, because you haven't presented any. On the other hand, everytime someone presents you with a fact, a statistic, some history lesson or a proof of your blatant double standard and discriminatory behavior, you purposefully choose to ignore them. Yes, we've got a hostage situation. Yes, innocent people died, and a police officer sacrificed his life to trade himself for a hostage. Did we lose them from islamic extremism and terrorism? Yes. Does that mean every, single, muslim is dangerous and should be put down? No. Because those are a minority. You want a fact? Here's one: if islamic terrorism and islamic extremism concerned a majority of muslims, France would be FUCKED. Because Islam is the second most popular religion here. But surprisingly enough, it's not a civil war or theological war outside. It's just a bunch of people from different origins trying to live all together. Extremists are a minority. Just like christian extremists are a minority. Or jews extremists are a minority. That, is a fact. Deal with it, friend. You know what? As a matter of fact, it is fake. Do you know where the "No-go zone" thing came from? Fox News (how surprising). Do you know how french medias responded? By sending journalists in said "no-go zones" and show that everyone could go wherever they want in those areas. Oh, and you haven't heard the best part. Fox News APOLOGIZED for saying there were "no-go zones" in Paris, and even better, the mayor of Paris sued Fox News! Ain't that a beautiful proof that no-go zones are pure bullshit? But of course, you're going to deny all this. Rightfully so, after all, you most likely know better than me what happens in my own country.

Okay. Okay. You might be upset by what I'm going to say, but it's an important bit, so here it is. You. Have. NOT. Presented. Any. Kind. Of. Proven. Statistics. Or. Facts. Zero. None. All you presented was a bunch of videos showing 10 dudes doing useless shit (like there are thousands over the internet, from every country, race or religion), or from a bunch of biased people who barely presented any number based on... on what? Wikipedia, most likely? Because I haven't seen a single trustworthy institute credited as a source anywhere. So don't come and talk about facts and proven statistics, because so far, your opinion is based on none of them, and solely on what you think is correct. Which, surprisingly enough, could be wrong, regardless of it's offensive or not.

The only difference is that he didn't voice an opinion, but facts. He didn't say "I'm against banning" or "I'm favourable to banning" anything, he presented facts. But since it was contradicting your preconceived, biased and double-standardized vision of the world, you purposefully decided to ignore it, because otherwise it'd mean that everything you believed so far was in fact false, which is quite scary. Oh look, more videos showing what... a dozen dudes? Damn, that's an invasion, we're all gonna become muslims with such a powerful force, let's all shelter in our bunkers and await theological annihilation. Is that the same kind of videos saying there are no-go zones in France, even though there aren't (and I think I'm better placed than a random dude across the ocean to know about this specific info)? Funny thing is that if I looked around my neighborhood, I'd most likely find more christian extremists who would refuse any sort of right for anyone but christians than actual islamic extremists. Does that mean all christians are extremists as well? 🤔 You moved on? As far as I'm aware, the KKK still exists, doesn't it? And they're christian. And they prone the elimination of quite a bunch of people. And they did eliminate quite a bunch of people, in a violent way. Did they miss the memo about moving on? Does that mean all christians are like those extremists of the KKK? Should we ban christianity? Because the KKK can't be a minority, right, just like islamic extremists? What about all the american, white dudes who killed in the name of God? Like Robert Lewis Dear, the gunman of the November 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, who praised the "Army of God", that "sinners" would "burn in hell" during the end times, and said that attacks on abortion clinics are "God's work". Can we safely assume, just like you do for muslims, that he's part of a majority of christian extremists who want to follow the example? Or we could talk about Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright and Patrick Eugene Stein, in 2016, 3 Kansas militia men calling themselves ‘Crusaders’ who were arrested plotting a bomb attack and a mass shooting targeting an apartment complex home to a mosque and many Muslim immigrants from Somalia. 'Crusaders', I think the name is explicit, no? Do they represent a majority of christians as well? Should we ban christianity? Because from the looks of it, it creates violent crimes against people of a different religion or skin color. But obviously, you will say "Christianity isn't the same, those guys are isolated incidents, God doesn't approve of them, bla bla bla". Yeah, sure, they're a minority, and I won't blame the whole christianity religion based on the actions of a couple crazy fucks here and there. But in that case, why do you condemn the religion of almost 2 billion people based on the actions of just a couple of crazy fucks as well, I wonder? I've the answer already: because you deliberately decided to discriminate them, regardless of whatever could prove you wrong. That's all there's to it, you'd be better off saying it instead of trying to find excuses for doing so.

I think a good Reality Check would actually be to aknowledge TheLoneRanger's point above before posting a video of propaganda held by biased people. But that's just my opinion.

No, I'm simply more tolerant of Islam because I manage to separate a minority of crazy lunatics in middle-east and a large majority of peaceful people in the rest of the world. Also because I don't believe any conspiracy theory saying Islam would replace any major religion in our western countries. Ah yes, everyone knows that China or North Korea for example, or well-known to be muslim countries, which is why they violate human rights all the time. That, or they're actually not muslim countries and they just violate human rights because they want to, regardless of their religion. Yes, it would be unconstitutional, and your statistical facts about "people who know less about Islam are the most tolerant about it" are just words so far.

No, it's not. It's a religion, and some happen to use it as a form of government. However it's not in the US, nor in any western country that doesn't have Islam as its main religion. Therefore this argument doesn't apply to any of said countries, and there's absolutely no reason to ban Islam. At least not more than any other existing religion.

No, they don't. All I read on that page is the implementation of an islamic tribunal, for muslims only (and thus, you and other people wouldn't be concerned, so your rights and freedom aren't endangered, as I was saying before), and that this islamic tribunal would have to "conform to legal proceedings at the local, state and federal level", and that "these proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law of the land; local, state and federal within the United States" (therefore abiding to the US laws and rules). There's nothing there about enforcing anything. If anything, they're open to discussions to open this kind of islamic tribunal with legal professionals (as stated in the very last paragraph of that page), therefore not forcing anything on anyone. Let me ask you something: did you know that jews have a similar system? It's called beth din, it's a jewish tribunal for jewish people to settle their matters according to their religion's rules and precepts. Why does the islamic tribunal bother you (since it doesn't concern you or anyone else who isn't a muslim), but not the beth din? Why would jewish have the right to have their own religious court (which has legal powers), but not muslims? I love how you say "there's no context, Allah tells muslims to do that" when you're talking about a verse from the Qu'ran, but when it's a verse coming from the Bible, you say "There's context to that, it's only sinners and people found guilty of something". Your double standards are going very far, mate. And yet you want to prevent people from practicing the religion they want. Isn't that beautiful as well.

The only thing I find when Googling "Texas sharia law" are articles saying that Texas passed an anti-sharia law (which is already a thing in many places in the world and just makes sense as religious laws and civil laws shouldn't be mixed) and a Breitbart article that has been debunked as fake. So I wouldn't mind having trustworthy sources about Muslims "attempting to make sharia law legal on a local level".

Did muslims come to you to tell you to stop worshipping your god? To stop shaving and let your beard grow? To pray at the mosque? To stop speaking your mind? To make your girlfriend wear a cloth on her head? Do they prevent you from eating the food you want? Or from drinking alcohol? Do they try to assault you with Qu'ran books in an alleyway? Do they try to overthrow your government? To rule your country with their religion? Do they try to make you speak arabic? Or to wear a djellaba? No? They don't do any of this? Then they don't impede your freedoms or rights. Nor do they impede the freedoms or rights of any other American.

IT DOESN'T.

So what you're saying is that according to Christians, homosexual people aren't sinners if they don't show that they're homosexual (because it shouldn't be prevalent). Ah, such a religion of acceptance and peace, to tell people to repress who they are even if that means hurting themselves psychologically in the process. You're wrong. “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Your holy book teaches to kill homosexuals. It's written, right there. Therefore, your God doesn't love all, and on top of that, gets the luxury to tell its believers to slaughter people. Again, such a religion of acceptance and peace. It is different, because you're pushing your beliefs onto people by doing that. I don't want some christian to ring at my door to tell me his God wants me in, because I don't care about it, and yet here they are trying to lure me in even though I don't want to. It's intrusive, and it's no different than what you think muslims are doing. Neither does Christianity then, because there are plenty of aggressive, vicious, brutal verses in the Bible (as seen just above). But again, double standards, trying to find scapegoats to target muslims arbitrarily, all that.

Yeah, I know, but your original question was "was crash actually a bad anti-gang unit", to which the answer is yes, yes they were a bad anti-gang units. As I said, the end doesn't justify the means. A decrease in criminality shouldn't come with the price of a corrupted law enforcement force terrorizing the population.

Then I can only suggest you to make your own research because claiming this is blatant ignorance. An ignorance that brings misconception, misunderstanding and ultimately leads to hate. But I doubt you'll do so. As I said, there will always be a good excuse (or scapegoat) to arbitrary target Muslims. I'll just say one thing: you, who's a proud American, should most likely stand by the values of freedom and constitutional rights. Like the freedom and right to have guns, or to speak your mind. Whether you like it or not, there's also the freedom and right to practice any religion. Your best bet is to deal with it and learn to live with the fact you will have to live with things you don't agree with, and let people worship whatever god they want. Because your God, and your religion, objectively aren't better or worse than any other.

I don't think it gives anyone an excuse to slaughter millions of people based on their religion (Judaism and Islam in those cases), but I'm not christian so what do I know about massive genocides. In the end there will always be an excuse to say "No but Islam is worse so it's bad." because you arbitrary decided that this was the enemy, even though it isn't. Yeah, there are Islamic extremists in the world. Just like there are Christian extremists, Jew extremists, so on so forth. But you arbitrary decided to focus on islamic ones. Yeah, there are bits of violence in the Qu'ran (even though the book isn't entirely based on this as there are plenty of passages talking about peace of mind and body, helping hand, etc), just like in other holy books of the other main religions around the globe. But you arbitrary decided to focus on the Qu'ran. Yeah, there are countries run by extremists who try to rule with a very barbaric approach of Islam over their people. But I don't see how it's your business to deal with that, unless you want another rendition of the Irak war (we all saw what pathetic results it gave for the geopolitical situation in middle-east).

They must have missed that part in the Bible when they launched the crusades and slaughtered millions of jews and muslims then.