Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[McHrozni]

How about the fact that the great, overwhelming majority of them don't practice that core tenet? This means nothing, unless a certain number of them also make noises against it to soothe your feelings? Because AFAICT, no number of middle-of-the-roaders speaking against extremists of their faith has ever had any actual effect other than to appease folks who demand that salve.

If you think this question is relevant you did not read what I wrote. Do so for a change please.

And I have to agree with Darat that you seem to be avoiding the question he's asking in favor of the one you want to answer- not how you get your number, but why you think you have a right to choose one.

Which part of the word "estimate" is unclear and needs furrther elaboration?

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

If I got to set the figure things would be eqsy. I'd set it to the numbers we see now and the problem would be solved.
Alas, I am but an observer and based on my observations, those numbers would be necessary today.

I also presented estimates for earlier years, when things weren't quite as bad yet.

McHrozni

But you have set the figure: ".... It's just a number I can say for sure would make an important difference by itself, in a one time event.
..."

So again - why should you be able to set the "appropriate" level of "protest" for over a billion people?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Your problem is that you think Europe has a paper cut when it actually has a snake bite and a deadly dose of venom coursing through its veins.

Under those circumstances, amputation starts to sound more reasonable. Especially when the alternative is death.

Ah yes, more metaphors that reduce people fleeing horrible violence as 'poisonous snakes' that signal the eminent death of our way of life and all that is good and pure in the world.

 

[turingtest]

If you think this question is relevant you did not read what I wrote. Do so for a change please.

(Shrug) If I thought you were actually in a position to set policy, I might take the trouble. As it is, all I see is another self-important, anonymous Internet poster whining that enough moderate Muslims aren't taking some action that would have no effect on extremists but to soothe his bigoted butthurt anyway.

Which part of the word "estimate" is unclear and needs furrther elaboration?

McHrozni

Which part of the word "you" is giving you so much trouble?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

As I said, I estimated it based on numbers of Muslims and on the paticipation on similar events of such nature. Rages against wordwide prosperity on G7 meeting routinely drew tens to hundreds of thousands. Political rallies feature tens of thousands of people. Rallies againt government in Venezuela and those on Hajj draws well over a million. Efforts on this scale would bring measurable results in a few years. If you want a one time event to essentially solve the issue, you're looking at 9 figures, minimum.

If you know of a more scientific approach you're welcome to present it.

McHrozni

What if a one-time event is not going to solve the issue?

Do you know what a gathering of millions of moderate voices denouncing violence and calling for peace looks like to an extremist? A target-rich environment full of apostates and heretics.

30,000 Libyans marched against violence after Benghazi. They carried signs saying 'this is not Libya' and 'Ambassador Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.' These signs were written in English specifically to make sure Americans got the message. Yet still there was constant demand from certain media pundits just like yours that 'no Muslims are denouncing this atrocity' while conveniently ignoring that is exactly what happened. They stormed and overran numerous militia compounds in a tremendous show of force. Several recent attacks in Europe have resulted in calls from prominent clerics, Arab/Gulf state governments and regional groups. Again, a certain sector of the media pretend like that hasn't been the case and demand that 'someone! anyone! from the 'Muslim world' make a statement of condemnation.'

Another good reason why the threshold you demand won't be met? Do you know what happens to people who cooperate with the U.S. against terrorists or who speak out against a theocratic regime or those who wish to impose one? May as well call it 'suicide by suicide bomber.'

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That's why Muslims must reject violence, loudly and often. It is the only effective way to counter the tenets of Islam and it is the only way non-Muslims can be reassured not all Muslims believe in that core tenent. Police can only mitigate when that effort is insufficient. It's the last line of defense, not the first and certainly not the only line as some would have it.

They do, just not in the manner or numbers you deem acceptable.

Reminds me of a meme I saw recently. Shows looters and says 'you must protest peacefully!' The next four frames are athletes or entertainment celebrities engaging in some kind of simple, peaceful, passive form of protest all containing the caption 'but not like that, either.' It starts to become clear that the form of response isn't the actual issue and nothing will ever be 'good enough' to satisfy the bigoted mind.

Feelings of Muslims are typically championed, but feelings of non-Muslims are too often ignored. You can see the results of that already in polls in US, EU and elsewhere.
McHrozni

The electoral victories of ethno-nationalists who want to turn their backs on war refugees and impose pointless, punitive restrictions on articles of clothing tell you that Muslims are being championed and non-Muslims are being ignored?

Really, now?!

 

[McHrozni]

But you have set the figure: ".... It's just a number I can say for sure would make an important difference by itself, in a one time event.
..."

So again - why should you be able to set the "appropriate" level of "protest" for over a billion people?

I'm not setting it, I'm estimating it. If you think you have a better estimate you're free to present it.

It's also not of 1 billion of people, but over 7 billion people. Muslims must ensure non-Muslims are able to tell who wants to kill them as their holy books command and who opts not to believe that part. The current levels of protest implicate most as silently agreeing with them. True or false don't matter nearly as much as perceptions of this being true or false. Muslims can counter that, the rest of us can't. So they should do it, for the good of everyone, except of the terrorists.

I find it hard to believe you guys find this objectionable. I truly do.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

What if a one-time event is not going to solve the issue?

Short of a truly phenomenal event, unprecendented in human history, a single event isn't going to cut it. The thing is, some here are selling one small event as the silver bullet.

30,000 Libyans marched against violence after Benghazi. They carried signs saying 'this is not Libya' and 'Ambassador Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.' These signs were written in English specifically to make sure Americans got the message. Yet still there was constant demand from certain media pundits just like yours that 'no Muslims are denouncing this atrocity' while conveniently ignoring that is exactly what happened. They stormed and overran numerous militia compounds in a tremendous show of force. Several recent attacks in Europe have resulted in calls from prominent clerics, Arab/Gulf state governments and regional groups. Again, a certain sector of the media pretend like that hasn't been the case and demand that 'someone! anyone! from the 'Muslim world' make a statement of condemnation.'

Yes, yes, all welcome. Now if only those Muslims that aren't directly implicated pick some slack as well, things would become notably better too.

Not that 30,000 Libyans is all that impressive to begin with.

Another good reason why the threshold you demand won't be met? Do you know what happens to people who cooperate with the U.S. against terrorists or who speak out against a theocratic regime or those who wish to impose one? May as well call it 'suicide by suicide bomber.'

I don't demand it, I'm estimating what the treshold for effective countering of terrorism is right now. It will be larger five years from now. Evernyone is free to make whatever excuses, just don't think that having an excuse is a substitute for a honest effort.

I'm talking about how to defeat the terrorists. Cowering in fear and letting non-Muslims risk their lives on your behalf certainly doesn't work. I mentioned something about controlling the narrative earlier, the non-extremist Muslims let the extremists control the narrative for decades for whatever reason. The terrorists are winning as long as this is true. If you have a better option of how to change that do speak up. If it's easier and/or more effecive than mine I'll join your calls for it.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

They do, just not in the manner or numbers you deem acceptable.

Yes. The current effort would probably be sufficient 20 years ago. If they did this then islamic terrorism wouldn't have one iota the effect it does now.

The electoral victories of ethno-nationalists who want to turn their backs on war refugees and impose pointless, punitive restrictions on articles of clothing tell you that Muslims are being championed and non-Muslims are being ignored?

Really, now?!

Yes. Do remember where those war refugees were from and why are they turning their backs on them.

Islamic terrorists are a major part of the equation.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

(Shrug) If I thought you were actually in a position to set policy, I might take the trouble.

Try reading this post, line marked with the number 12:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=681416&postcount=1

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

It's also not of 1 billion of people, but over 7 billion people. Muslims must ensure non-Muslims are able to tell who wants to kill them as their holy books command and who opts not to believe that part. The current levels of protest implicate most as silently agreeing with them. True or false don't matter nearly as much as perceptions of this being true or false. Muslims can counter that, the rest of us can't. So they should do it, for the good of everyone, except of the terrorists.

I find it hard to believe you guys find this objectionable. I truly do.

You don't find it objectionable to require Muslims to denounce the content of their holy books, or you will accuse them of complicity in a desire to massacre all non-Muslims? The fact that Muslims in general express no such desire and don't engage in violence isn't enough. They must all publicly denounce their holy books! You really can't understand why that's objectionable.

OK I've said I don't require all Jews to renounce illegal occupation of various lands, on pain of holding them responsible, each and every one, for these usurpations. From now on you won't find it objectionable if I require the Jewish community here publicly to denounce the Tanakh, which of course contains many passages mandating and celebrating the occupation of these very lands, and indeed the massacre of their inhabitants.

If I start a campaign along these lines, you won't understand why that might reasonably be considered objectionable?

You ideas contain some very familiar xenophobic themes. They are an exact copy of former manifestations of anti-catholicism^WP.

After the Reformation and until at least the late 20th Century, majority Protestant states (especially England, Germany, the United States, and Canada) made anti-Catholicism and opposition to the Pope and Catholic rituals major political themes, with anti-Catholic sentiment at times leading to violence and religious discrimination against Catholic individuals (often derogatorily referred to in Anglophone Protestant countries as "papists" or "Romanists"). Historically, Catholics in Protestant countries were frequently (and almost always baselessly) suspected of conspiring against the state in furtherance of papal interests or to establish a political hegemony under the "Papacy", with Protestants sometimes questioning Catholic individuals' loyalty to the state and suspecting Catholics of ultimately maintaining loyalty to the Vatican rather than their domiciled country.​

Here's another of your eminent precursors.

As to papists, what has been said of the protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.​

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), Sir WIlliam Blackstone, Offences Against God and Religion. For Sir William, was it enough that "papists" should be peaceful neighbours, law abiding citizens? No, they must also collectively and jointly "renounce the supremacy of the Pope". Who could possibly object to that? Did they? No. What happened? Nothing. In 1829 they were emancipated. What damage did that do to the UK? None at all.

 

[turingtest]

I'm not setting it, I'm estimating it. If you think you have a better estimate you're free to present it.

It's also not of 1 billion of people, but over 7 billion people. Muslims must ensure non-Muslims are able to tell who wants to kill them as their holy books command and who opts not to believe that part. The current levels of protest implicate most as silently agreeing with them. True or false don't matter nearly as much as perceptions of this being true or false. Muslims can counter that, the rest of us can't. So they should do it, for the good of everyone, except of the terrorists.

Great- the only way non-Muslims can tell the Muslims who are trying to kill them from the ones who aren't is for some certain number to protest against the killing, otherwise the ones whose actions don't suit the definition of "terrorist" are at least abettors. Because I'm sure the ones who are trying to kill non-Muslims would be absolutely horrified at the idea of lying about their intentions. But I'm sure you're right- enough signatures on a great big piece of paper, maybe? That would certainly put a spoke in the terrorist wheel, huh?

I find it hard to believe you guys find this objectionable. I truly do.

McHrozni

I'll bet you do. Skeptic Tank probably finds it hard to believe more white people don't agree with his views on race; there are any number of monomaniacs on any number of subjects- UFOs, 9/11, NDEs, you name it- who can't believe folks don't buy into their claptrap. That sort of incredulity is kind of a defining characteristic of the type; and their incredulity, like yours, is irrelevant.

 

[turingtest]

Try reading this post, line marked with the number 12:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=681416&postcount=1

McHrozni

You mean this?

Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.

If you think I'm in violation of that rule, report me.

 

[Darat]

I'm not setting it, I'm estimating it. If you think you have a better estimate you're free to present it.

No you are simply pulling a figure out of thin air, there is no science, no reason and no evidence to back your "estimation".

It's also not of 1 billion of people, but over 7 billion people.

1) You are now twisting yourself to get out from your statements, let me remind you it was you that said how many Muslims had to protest. And there are only a billion or so Muslims in the world not 7 billion.
2) You are now not only trying to set the scale of protests for Muslims but also how the rest of the non-muslims must react!

That is sheer hubris.

Muslims must ensure non-Muslims are able to tell who wants to kill them as their holy books command and who opts not to believe that part.

I would say it seems just over a billion muslims make that clear every second, every hour of every day.

The current levels of protest implicate most as silently agreeing with them.

You do know that to argue as your premise your conclusion is a logical fallacy?

True or false don't matter nearly as much as perceptions of this being true or false.

Whether something is truthful or not may not matter to you but I for one take great stock in knowing what is truthful and what isn't. And in this matter I have the evidence of over a billion people every single day.

Muslims can counter that, the rest of us can't. So they should do it, for the good of everyone, except of the terrorists.

Then why did you mention the rest of the population?

You can twist or turn as much as you like and try to dress your opinions in a semblance of rationality but to date you haven't been able to provide any reason why you get to set the appropriate level of protest.

I find it hard to believe you guys find this objectionable. I truly do.

McHrozni

From time to time we all tend to forget that our opinions are not facts, In this instance you are confusing your opinions and your guesses as being facts, which is why you can't understand the objections to you setting the appropriate level of protest for over a billion individuals.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Short of a truly phenomenal event, unprecendented in human history, a single event isn't going to cut it. The thing is, some here are selling one small event as the silver bullet.

So you admit that only a completely nonsensical expectation, utterly outside of the boundaries of probability is the burden you need to have met in order to be satisfied?

At this time I would ask that you start holding your breath.

Yes, yes, all welcome. Now if only those Muslims that aren't directly implicated pick some slack as well, things would become notably better too.

You mean like clerics and national figures in Arab Gulf states denouncing acts of terrorism that take place in Europe in some cases by people who were born and lived in Europe their entire lives?

I wonder if you've actually done any research on this whatsoever since you seem blissfully unaware that the things you insist must happen have actually already happened.

Not that 30,000 Libyans is all that impressive to begin with.

Compared to one or two dozen actual militants and maybe a few hundred (at most) looters and otherwise unaffiliated aggressors?

That's like 100:1 at a bare minimum. Literally 100x more people said "this is wrong" than those who committed any violence at all. Then they went further and expelled militias from compounds around the city. It is worth noting that the vast bulk of them weren't even armed with weapons, it was the sheer overwhelming force of numbers.

But your dismissal of this symbolic act only furthers my suspicion that this has nothing to do with being reasonable whatsoever.

I don't demand it, I'm estimating what the treshold for effective countering of terrorism is right now. It will be larger five years from now. Evernyone is free to make whatever excuses, just don't think that having an excuse is a substitute for a honest effort.

Who gets to differentiate an 'excuse' from an 'honest effort'? You?

I think the estimation for what threshold would counter terrorism might have to do with how many less innocent people are killed by western imperialism than how many Muslims put their own lives and their families lives on the line to make you feel better.

I'm talking about how to defeat the terrorists. Cowering in fear and letting non-Muslims risk their lives on your behalf certainly doesn't work. I mentioned something about controlling the narrative earlier, the non-extremist Muslims let the extremists control the narrative for decades for whatever reason. The terrorists are winning as long as this is true. If you have a better option of how to change that do speak up. If it's easier and/or more effecive than mine I'll join your calls for it.

McHrozni

Why don't YOU go to a ME country and get on a soapbox? Put your money where your mouth is, maybe?

Real easy to insist people "just" speak up if you're in a country that doesn't have a U.S.-backed puppet dictator.

There's a huge difference between 'letting' someone do something because of complacency (or consent) and 'letting' someone do something because they have guns, munitions, explosives, international syndicates and control of social/political institutions and you don't. Self-preservation is funny that way.

 

[McHrozni]

You don't find it objectionable to require Muslims to denounce the content of their holy books, or you will accuse them of complicity in a desire to massacre all non-Muslims?

It would be just lovely if you could read my posts and arguments for a change, you know?

It's about defeating the terrorists, nothing else. Is that so hard to grasp?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

From time to time we all tend to forget that our opinions are not facts, In this instance you are confusing your opinions and your guesses as being facts, which is why you can't understand the objections to you setting the appropriate level of protest for over a billion individuals.

If you have a more accurate or otherwise estimate then you're welcome to present it. I never claimed it to be some sort of numerological wonder you make it out to be. I told you both of these before.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You mean like clerics and national figures in Arab Gulf states denouncing acts of terrorism that take place in Europe in some cases by people who were born and lived in Europe their entire lives?

I wonder if you've actually done any research on this whatsoever since you seem blissfully unaware that the things you insist must happen have actually already happened.

I wonder if you have actually red any of my posts thus far.

I'm edging towards no, you haven't, you're just replying to various combinations of characters you saw on the screen. Prove me wrong if you can.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Great- the only way non-Muslims can tell the Muslims who are trying to kill them from the ones who aren't is for some certain number to protest against the killing, otherwise the ones whose actions don't suit the definition of "terrorist" are at least abettors. Because I'm sure the ones who are trying to kill non-Muslims would be absolutely horrified at the idea of lying about their intentions. But I'm sure you're right- enough signatures on a great big piece of paper, maybe? That would certainly put a spoke in the terrorist wheel, huh?

Either that or drive a wedge between terrorists and the rest of Muslim community, and not a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims as they do know.

Terrorists lose in either case. Yet it must not be done, because Muslims would have to do something not mandated by law.
The horror, the horror ...



McHrozni

 

[Darat]

If you have a more accurate or otherwise estimate then you're welcome to present it. I never claimed it to be some sort of numerological wonder you make it out to be. I told you both of these before.

McHrozni

Again you are not actually coming up with an estimate you are simply pulling a figure that you consider appropriate out of thin air and then using that to support your claims. So once again why do you think you get to set the appropriate level of protest for 1 or 7 billion people?