Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Explosive detonates near New York City's Times Square in 'attempted terrorist attack,' suspect in custody

" The 27-year-old suspect, Akayed Ullah, was badly injured in the arm and torso from the explosion that went off in his arms, sources said. He is alert and conscious and was taken to a hospital, sources said.

The suspect, originally from Bangladesh, has been in the United States for seven years and has an address in Brooklyn, sources said.

Authorities called the explosive an "improvised low-tech explosive device" that was based on a pipe bomb and was attached to the suspect with Velcro and zip ties. "

Luckily no deaths. But this is getting old, they got very very lucky.

1. Glad no one got hurt besides the dumbass wannabe murderer.
2. Sounds like he had a blast.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. Sounds like he had a blast.

Thank God for dadudemon.

"Akayed Ullah", well that's an unsafe name if I've ever heard one. Time to add Bangladesh to the immigration ban.

good hes dead

Originally posted by Robtard
"Akayed Ullah", well that's an unsafe name if I've ever heard one. Time to add Bangladesh to the immigration ban.

Sounds like someone with dyslexia and a speech impediment trying to say, "Allahu Akbar".

Don't tell me you didn't just try to say it.

I have a cousin named "Akayed", you bastard.

California should be added to the travel ban.

Yes. And it is all the fault of those DIRTY JEWS! Huh Darthy!?

Originally posted by Robtard
I have a cousin named "Akayed", you bastard.

Okayed.

Originally posted by Surtur
IOW: It's Trumps fault. Even though we just had a terrorist attack in the same city recently. Okay.

It's good, now every time Islamic terrorists do what they do we can blame it on the Jerusalem thing.


They are politically motivated so yeah I wouldn't be surprised if they will increase specifically on US soil.



Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yes. And it is all the fault of those DIRTY JEWS! Huh Darthy!?


As far as I know this wasn't a "Jewish" decision.

Do you actually comprehend the difference between politics, race and religion Fly?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
They are politically motivated so yeah I wouldn't be surprised if they will increase specifically on US soil.






As far as I know this wasn't a "Jewish" decision.

Do you actually comprehend the difference between politics, race and religion Fly?

I do know that moving the embassy to Jerusalem has been a promise that the U.S made several decades back now and Trump is the only one to fufill it.

And I always get a LAUGH when asked such an asinine question as that Darthy.

Especially for some that all 3 are pretty much the same thing know....you know LEFTIST PROGRESSIVES.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Akayed Ullah", well that's an unsafe name if I've ever heard one.

That is how we know it is terrorism. If his name was "Stephen Paddock" for example, then it would be "a mental health issue."

The gymnastic the left is doing in this thread is laughable.

Inept terrorists are the best of terrorists.

Originally posted by SquallX
The gymnastic the left is doing in this thread is laughable.

Do you feel Bangladesh should be added to the Muslim country ban?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
They are politically motivated so yeah I wouldn't be surprised if they will increase specifically on US soil.

We've had attacks recently. And you try to shift this stuff. You say it is politics. Yeah, this is Islam lol. Islam *is* politics for these people. You know politics is deeply entwined with it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you feel Bangladesh should be added to the Muslim country ban?

Bangladesh is where he is "from" as in born. But is that were he CAME from?

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you feel Bangladesh should be added to the Muslim country ban?

Wasn't this a point you tried to bring up? lol Nobody proposed a travel ban

Originally posted by socool8520
Wasn't this a point you tried to bring up? lol Nobody proposed a travel ban

The point: is that the Muslim Ban is supposed to keep us safe; this is what the Islamophobes sold it on, yet the countries/people on the ban haven't attacked us.

Originally posted by Robtard
The point: is that the Muslim Ban is supposed to keep us safe; this is what the Islamophobes sold it on, yet the countries/people on the ban haven't attacked us.


I still don't see how this relates to his particular story though. It just seems like a jab at pro ban people when it's irrelevant.

Well, if they are banning them, then it isn't as easy for them to attack us is it? lol It would stand to reason that attacks would now more likely come from a place where the people aren't banned correct?

Ah I see so

White killer: GUN CONTROL!!!! WE HAVE TO DO SOOOMMMEEEETHHIIIINNNNGGG!!!!!

Non-white killer: Thoughts and prayers

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ah I see so

White killer: GUN CONTROL!!!! WE HAVE TO DO SOOOMMMEEEETHHIIIINNNNGGG!!!!!

Non-white killer: Thoughts and prayers

To be fair, he used a low tech bomb

Originally posted by socool8520
To be fair, he used a low tech bomb
I'm not making any actual accusation of racism there, I'm just saying that the retarded logic that Right-wingers are racist if they support constricting immigration and more heavily policing high crime rate areas but not gun control, since you could throw it back at such left wingers that they screech about needing a solution when a white guy shoots a bunch of people but argue that the proposed solutions to the other problems aren't okay.

Originally posted by socool8520
I still don't see how this relates to his particular story though. It just seems like a jab at pro ban people when it's irrelevant.

Well, if they are banning them, then it isn't as easy for them to attack us is it? lol It would stand to reason that attacks would now more likely come from a place where the people aren't banned correct?

Except we've not been attacked from the countries that are banned...

Like Chad. Why is it on there and not Saudi Arabia? Can you explain.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ah I see so

White killer: GUN CONTROL!!!! WE HAVE TO DO SOOOMMMEEEETHHIIIINNNNGGG!!!!!

Non-white killer: Thoughts and prayers


Um, did you forget we have a travel ban targeting Muslims with the intent that its supposed to stop Islamic terrorist attacks? Surely you remember that?

Originally posted by Robtard
Except we've not been attacked from the countries that are banned...

Like Chad. Why is it on there and not Saudi Arabia? Can you explain.

I'm sure it's quite political. Shady business dealings and such. Who knows?

I'm not for the ban by the way, I just simply didn't see it as a relevant point to this article.

Yeah, something like that.

Because this is about an Islamic extremist, which is what the travel ban is supposed to target and protect from.

Originally posted by Robtard
The point: is that the Muslim Ban is supposed to keep us safe; this is what the Islamophobes sold it on, yet the countries/people on the ban haven't attacked us.

But they have attacked us lol. It's just they haven't killed anyone.

Originally posted by Emperordmb


Non-white killer: Thoughts and prayers
Nobody said anything about thoughts and prayers. Stop projecting your belief in unsubstantiated nonsense on others.

Originally posted by Surtur
But they have attacked us lol. It's just they haven't killed anyone.

Do you even know what you're talking about anymore...

Who is "they have attacked us" you're referring to specifically here?

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you even know what you're talking about anymore...

Who is "they have attacked us" you're referring to specifically here?

I apologize if I misunderstood what you are saying. But you seemed to be saying we've never had anyone from any of the countries on the list of the travel ban attack us. This is not true. They have not killed anyone, but we have had non-lethal incidents. The people were stopped before they were able to kill.

Originally posted by Surtur
I apologize if I misunderstood what you are saying. But you seemed to be saying we've never had anyone from any of the countries on the list of the travel ban attack us. This is not true. They have not killed anyone, but we have had non-lethal incidents. The people were stopped before they were able to kill.

Interesting. Can you list these?

Cos I can tell you of one you might have heard of, it was pretty big. We refer to it as "9/11", where 15 Saudis, 2 UAE, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese murdered nearly 3,000 people and did billions of dollars worth of damage.

BTW, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon are not on Trump's Muslim travel ban list.

Okay, you've qualified Iran and Somalia with a half-truth. Kudos

The others on the list though? Like why Chad and not Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt or Lebanon, where people where actually murdered by people from those counties and not just botched attempts.

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay, you've qualified Iran and Somalia with a half-truth. Kudos

The others on the list though? Like why Chad and not Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt or Lebanon, where people where actually murdered by people from those counties and not just botched attempts.

But there have been people who have attempted shit, is the point.

Why did Obama put the countries on the list?

From two counties...

HYG: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/ "Half Truth" also.

BTW, why didn't Trump list Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt or Lebanon?

good thing i took the train in

What an idiot

He dishonors everyone who's ever vouched for him with this b.s.

Thank God no one got hurt

Originally posted by Robtard
From two counties...

HYG: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/ "Half Truth" also.

BTW, why didn't Trump list Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt or Lebanon?

Yes, so some of the countries on the list.

And I don't know why he didn't. Why didn't Obama? Why did they pick these countries? Do you know?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
good thing i took the train in

I found out my cousins were within a block of where this happened last week.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, so some of the countries on the list.

And I don't know why he didn't. Why didn't Obama? Why did they pick these countries? Do you know?

Two, out of what, eight?

How many more times are you going to deflect to Obama in order to avoid Trump, the current President?

Originally posted by Robtard
Two, out of what, eight?

How many more times are you going to deflect to Obama in order to avoid Trump, the current President?

Yes, thus showing it's not a true statement to say they haven't tried to attack us.

It's not a deflection. These countries were on a list prepared by him. They set the list, it is valid to ask why they chose what they chose.

I see the game you want to pull with Saudi Arabia, but Obama left that off the list as well.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have a cousin named "Akayed", you bastard.
Have you reported him to Homeland Security yet?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Have you reported him to Homeland Security yet?

Akayed wouldn't hurt a fly. He's a proper Muslim.

Akayed's been Akayed

(If it had gone off in his face)

My next door neighbours are Muslim

You must be talking about some other kind of Muslims

mBEudDA2WMc

Originally posted by Firefly218
Your anecdotes don't say anything about "proper" Muslims. Proper Muslims do NOT stab you in the heart, what kind of bullshit talk is that?

I too have been in Muslim countries and from my personal experiences they are warm and kind people. I got the chance to stay with a Bedouin tribe for several days and they are the sweetest people you'll ever meet.

There's nothing wrong with "proper" Muslims who follow the Quran, there IS something wrong with fundamentalist and extremist Muslims. Just like there's something wrong with extremist Christians or extremist Hindus. Islam has crappy messages in it, but its not special. The real problem is extremism and a culturally medieval mindset.

Nope. Fundamentalism is not the problem. As Sam Harris points out, an extremist Jainist is no threat to anyone.

It's the religion. Islam, Christianity, both have some horrible stuff. Of course one of those is a lot more concise about such things in their holy book. And they also are the religion that seem to be mainly responsible for terrorism in our current era(450 out o 452 suicide bomber attacks in 2015 were Islam).

You need to be able to have bad stuff to twist. Like in Islam, killing over folks causing "mischief' and the vague definition of what it means to do.

Mischief

I don't know why the link messes up, you'll have to copy and paste to see it I guess.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nope. Fundamentalism is not the problem. As Sam Harris points out, an extremist Jainist is no threat to anyone.

It's the religion. Islam, Christianity, both have some horrible stuff. Of course one of those is a lot more concise about such things in their holy book. And they also are the religion that seem to be mainly responsible for terrorism in our current era(450 out o 452 suicide bomber attacks in 2015 were Islam). Bruh I'm supposed to be studying don't be baiting me into drawing-out a long argument with that kind of response.

Yes Islam deserves criticism, Sam Harris is right. There are things in the Quran which are wrong and bad. But that doesn't mean Muslims are wrong and bad, right?

For example, a majority of Christians are sensible and rational enough to look past the things in the Bible that are wrong and bad. Just because Christianity has lots of wrong and bad ideas, does not mean that Christians themselves are wrong or bad.

And ultimately, demonizing Muslims as people is not productive. We need to be working WITH the Muslims, not AGAINST them. If we want to work towards reforming the middle east and bringing Islam up to modern humanitarian standards, we can't do that by fighting Muslims.

To bad Leftist Progressive "Standards" also turn out to be filled with as much "Wrong and Bad" if not more so then both Muslim and Christian Principals.

"Modern Humanitarian Standards" ....what a crock!

Originally posted by Firefly218
Bruh I'm supposed to be studying don't be baiting me into drawing-out a long argument with that kind of response.

Yes Islam deserves criticism, Sam Harris is right. There are things in the Quran which are wrong and bad. But that doesn't mean Muslims are wrong and bad, right?

For example, a majority of Christians are sensible and rational enough to look past the things in the Bible that are wrong and bad. Just because Christianity has lots of wrong and bad ideas, does not mean that Christians themselves are wrong or bad.

And ultimately, demonizing Muslims as people is not productive. We need to be working WITH the Muslims, not AGAINST them. If we want to work towards reforming the middle east and bringing Islam up to modern humanitarian standards, we can't do that by fighting Muslims.

It's not the people, it's the religion. That is my point. It's Islam. It's Christianity. Not every Muslim or Christian is bad. Some are abhorrent. I heard horrible stuff said about gays, etc. by Christian brothers. But not all were bad.

http://pjtoastmasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/648-300x225.jpeg

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not the people, it's the religion. That is my point. It's Islam. It's Christianity. Not every Muslim or Christian is bad. Some are abhorrent. I heard horrible stuff said about gays, etc. by Christian brothers. But not all were bad. The fact that there exist millions of sensible and reasonable Muslims able to look past the bad ideas in Islam is proof that peaceful Islam is possible right? The fact that millions of Muslims here in the USA have integrated into our culture and enjoy things like the NFL and Kendrick Lamar is proof that peaceful Islam is possible right?

What a stupid ****. Glad he mainly just hurt himself and didn't die. Terrorist fail. Allah will deny you Paradise and your virgins.

Enjoy sucking dick in prison. And I hope they make you piss on a Koran, too.

Yeah. He probably will lose his Twig & Berries and still not get his 70 Virgins. Not that he could do anything with them now mind....

Originally posted by Surtur
Nope. Fundamentalism is not the problem. As Sam Harris points out, an extremist Jainist is no threat to anyone.

It's the religion. Islam, Christianity, both have some horrible stuff. Of course one of those is a lot more concise about such things in their holy book.

I blame this sick attachment to literalism to the US christians. Because literal interpretations of Holy Books has always been a thing, they think it's the core of any religion. There are many valid ways of attacking religious institutions, but the fact that anti-clericalism leans on literal readings of the Holy Books is disingenious and reductionist.

The we get true scottsman arguments like "if they don't literally believe in the book, they are not true jews/christians/muslims". Which is, again, disingenious becase most (modern) believers are not literalists.

Originally posted by Bentley
Which is, again, disingenious becase most (modern) believers are not literalists. Right, because people are getting less and less religious as society progresses.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Right, because people are getting less and less religious as society progresses.

Literalism only became a thing when believers had free access to religious text, before that interpretations shifted to fit the people in power whether they were metaphorical interpretations or literal ones -willingly disregarding many others... Which happens to this day. In any case, the period of time where literalism was relevant was minimal even when religiosity was mainstream in most societies. It has always been a niche, disingenious and irrelevant angle to attack faith.

I agree that lessen religiosity doesn't help literalism to thrive though.

Originally posted by Bentley
I blame this sick attachment to literalism to the US christians. Because literal interpretations of Holy Books has always been a thing, they think it's the core of any religion. There are many valid ways of attacking religious institutions, but the fact that anti-clericalism leans on literal readings of the Holy Books is disingenious and reductionist.

The we get true scottsman arguments like "if they don't literally believe in the book, they are not true jews/christians/muslims". Which is, again, disingenious becase most (modern) believers are not literalists.

Yes, but the bible is a clusterf*ck of all this shit. The holy book of Islam is a lot more...concise and consistent in its ideas.

It is why "both religions have horrible stuff in their books" is 100% true, but also doesn't at all mean what some want it to mean when they say it. And usually it is said to make it seem like it's more or less just like Christianity. It's not. In the same way a guy who holds up a liquor store and shoots and kills the clerk in the confrontation is not at all the same as Ted Bundy. Yet both are bad.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, but the bible is a clusterf*ck of all this shit. The holy book of Islam is a lot more...concise and consistent in its ideas.

It is why "both religions have horrible stuff in their books" is 100% true, but also doesn't at all mean what some want it to mean when they say it. And usually it is said to make it seem like it's more or less just like Christianity. It's not. In the same way a guy who holds up a liquor store and shoots and kills the clerk in the confrontation is not at all the same as Ted Bundy. Yet both are bad.

My understanding is that Quran downright contradicts itself at points, so I wouldn't call it exactly consistent. None of these books has ever been "taken to face value" by original believers, that's more of a historical myth than anything else

l agree that some of the stories told and morals taught are pretty shocking, but it would've made no sense to have some pussified politically correct books back in the day when wars were plenty and life was harsh. Historically you can easily make sense of these textual atrocities.

Originally posted by Bentley
My understanding is that Quran downright contradicts itself at points, so I wouldn't call it exactly consistent. None of these books has ever been "taken to face value" by original believers, that's more of a historical myth than anything else

l agree that some of the stories told and morals taught are pretty shocking, but it would've made no sense to have some pussified politically correct books back in the day when wars were plenty and life was harsh. Historically you can easily make sense of these textual atrocities.

They all contradict, but it's more concise and consistent than the bible though, which is true.

Originally posted by Surtur
More concise and consistent than the bible though, which is true.

Well, it was written later, so it wasn't as corrected to fit the times as the original Torah books were.

Originally posted by Bentley
Well, it was written later, so it wasn't as corrected to fit the times as the original Torah books were.

Well yeah you'll have reasons why, but at the end of the day it's why the thing about "both their books have horrible stuff" is both true and yet not telling the whole story.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well yeah you'll have reasons why, but at the end of the day it's why the thing about "both their books have horrible stuff" is both true and yet not telling the whole story.

If a text is truthful it should face the harsh realities directly, it'd make no sense to have texts that talk about rainbows and ponies. Holy texts aren't meant to be morality textbooks, that's another intepretation pulled off the *ss of religious sect leaders and people who take joy in attacking those positions.

So when did Surt become an Islamic Apologist?

They holding your stash hostage there Surt?

^

Wtf are you talking about, it's like you invented an argument I didn't make and then attacked that. How edge.

Originally posted by Robtard
^

Wtf are you talking about, it's like you invented an argument I didn't make and then attacked that. How edge.

Your quotes and comments on this subject indicate that you believe criticism of type that I am espousing towards Islam is bigotry. But facts are not bigotted.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Your quotes and comments on this subject indicate that you believe criticism of type that I am espousing towards Islam is bigotry. But facts are not bigotted.

Are you flipping over "my cousin Akayed" comment? Funny, if so.

Criticize Islam all you like, I don't care. Contrary to what some retards think, I am not a Muslim. Just be fair/balanced with it.

I think if anything people view you as one of those western progressive Muslim apologists rather than an actual Muslim.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you flipping over "my cousin Akayed" comment? Funny, if so.

Criticize Islam all you like, I don't care. Contrary to what some retards think, I am not a Muslim. Just be fair/balanced with it.

As DMB says, I view you as an apologist.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I think if anything people view you as one of those western progressive Muslim apologists rather than an actual Muslim.

Being fair/balanced in regards to criticism is not an apologist

ps I think Muhammed was a pedo, I've said this for years in here. That's not really an "Islam apologist" stance

Originally posted by Bentley
Literalism
What is that?

Originally posted by Robtard
Your hatred, bigotry and rage are palpable, guy. Work on that, or it will eat you from the inside.
That's not hatred or bigotry. At worst, he misunderstood the context you were using the term "proper" in. In the context of Squall's reply, "proper" would refer to members who most 'properly' follow an ideology. That would be those who follow all of what their text dictates rather than cherrypick certain parts and disregard others. A 'proper' supporter of an ideaology fully supports said idealogy.

Off course, proper, doesn't always mean good, but Squall is right, Muslims who only support part of islam aren't as 'proper' in their support of islam as muslims who support the bad and good parts of the text.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
What is that?

The idea that a specific book is to be taken at face value to be interpreted correctly. A quick reminder of how unhistorical literalism is would be to point out history was invented and applied very late in human history.