When people set impossible targets for things its not evidence of their willingness to change their view its evidence of their dishonesty.
I don't decree what the targets are, I make an estimate where the targets should be based on the responses we see to them (e.g. by voting for clearly bad choices who promise to do something about it). I don't claim any significant accuracy, it could be a hundred million Muslims would do enough in a single event, or it could be even half a billion wouldn't do the trick if it were a one-time event. What I can say that in a one off event rejecting Islamic extremists 30,000 Muslims is a joke and that 300,000,000 would be truly impressive and would have a significant impact on the extremists on both sides, even if it were just a one time event. It could be enough, it could still be too little too late, but it would have a notable positive impact on the issue.
You still haven't come up with any counter-proposal as to what could be done. Am I right to assume this is because you don't have any alternative either, but simply refuse to request any valuable contribution if it has to come from a certain religious group?
Why would anyone Muslim or otherwise listen to such nonsense?
No reason, other than wanting the terrorists to lose.
That is my only motivation. The only embarrassing nonsense is that you keep on ranting about collective guilt and other stuff I not only never said, but actually explicitly denounced. Muslims should simply admit that even though it could be considered unfair, they should still go out and denounce the extremists often, in numbers and loudly. It would weaken the extremists' hold on the narrative and their attacks would no longer have the desired effect by driving a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. If non-extremist Muslims manage to take a hold of narrative even a far worse terror campaign really won't make a dent in the perception. If they began witch such a campaign 15 years ago the terrorists could be defeated by now, using relatively moderate effort. By now this would require a truly herculean effort, because they let it slide for far too long.
Again, you could say it's unfair to ask this of Muslims, and you wouldn't be utterly wrong - just utterly irrelevant. If you want to see fair go watch a game of American football. Then come back when you've filled your quota of fairness and divulge in what matters. Defeating the terrorists matters, and claiming something shouldn't be considered because it's 'unfair' to ask of Muslims to contribute in a way they aren't legally obliged to contribute (but are entirely able to) is nonsense, pure and simple.
What is so hard to grasp about Muslims combating extremism in this way anyway? Is it fair that the European and American taxpayers must pay for European and American servicemen to risk their lives in fighting what is an essentially problem of Muslims, created by Islam, that is threatening mainly Muslims? I don't see you campaigning against that, and I really don't see many Muslims or anyone else objecting the fight against ISIS because it is unfair to US, French, Germany, British and other taxpayers and servicemen
and their families either. What I ask of Muslims is a
fraction of that cost, and that minuscule fraction would actually be immensely more effective, and on top of it all it would improve their lot too. The payout to the regular Muslim could well be positive, unlike the fight against ISIS that doesn't directly benefit a western taxpayer in any way. Yet, it is considered unfair to ask of Muslims to denounce the extremists sufficiently loudly and in sufficient numbers, but it is not considered unfair to ask a western taxpayer to foot the bill and moreover of the western serviceman to risk their lives and of the family members of the said servicemen to risk losing a loved one to fight the extremists.
Talk about double standards.
Seesh!
McHrozni
This is one of the most nonsensical arguments I've seen so far 
it would be quite right to call it David Icke level nonsensical.