RolStoppable said:
You said that I was using a fallacy because I stated that the absence of a pattern that matches an islamic attack suggests that it wasn't an islamic attack. You can fight over semantics and what you may or may not have implied all you want, but no amount of that will change that I was right and you were not. |
There's no one criteria for what constitutes or does not constitute an Islamic attack. If a person murders people in the name of Islam, then it is an Islamic attack, though in this case in Munich, it was not. The pattern is rather meaningless if the motivation was the religion. So it's not a matter of semantics. You were off the bat entirely.
So I don't see how you're right in any regard, moreso you failed to adequately prove that I rally up people against Islam.