Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[McHrozni]

The question remains unanswered, why do you get to set the appropriate level of protest for at least a billion people?

I answered the question lots of times. If you wish to know how I made the estimate ask that, and I'll answer that one too.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

We are not working hard enough to eradicate those things. Mobilising an unprecedented number of people would certainly have as much if not more impact than your idea that criminals can be protested out of their criminal behaviour.

If we are going to protest criminal behaviour though lets open it up to all murder and get everyone involved. By your logic a billion person protest could end crime by Thursday.

Really? Please explain how placards and rallies will defeat hunger. I would dearly want to know. Who knows, maybe it's a way to cut down on the grocery bill.

Do the same for crime while you're at it.

Plan B is to read my argument and figure out what I'm talking about. I'll give you a hint: the goal is not to stop the attacks (though that could be a welcome side effect, it's not the main goal). The goal is something else entirely. Cite what it is to prove you red my posts please.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

As they do?

My my Santa didnt bring you a mirror for xmas I assume?

Ask Santa for a poll or two. AfD and LePen and Trump aren't on the rise because people suddenly became stupid overnight. Yes, they do dtive a wedge between Muslims and others, in addition to w hile host of other problems. That's their intent and the way Islamic terrorism is particularily dangrous. Moreso than most other kinds, I might add. In addition to being especially bloody it also directly undermines the foundations of our society. Islamic inaction is a part of that.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

I answered the question lots of times. If you wish to know how I made the estimate ask that, and I'll answer that one too.

McHrozni

Again why do you get to set the appropriate level of protest?

 

[Craig B]

Plan B is to read my argument and figure out what I'm talking about. I'll give you a hint ...

Oh, you big tease!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Really? Please explain how placards and rallies will defeat hunger. I would dearly want to know. Who knows, maybe it's a way to cut down on the grocery bill.

Do the same for crime while you're at it.

Plan B is to read my argument and figure out what I'm talking about. I'll give you a hint: the goal is not to stop the attacks (though that could be a welcome side effect, it's not the main goal). The goal is something else entirely. Cite what it is to prove you red my posts please.

McHrozni

Im pretty sure a three hundred million person rally against hunger would motivate politicians to up their game in addressing it. But hey we dont need to justify mechanisms for how it works do we? After all you just pulled the idea out of your backside. That you've doubled down on it rather than admitting it was a bit silly is certainly telling.

 

[McHrozni]

Im pretty sure a three hundred million person rally against hunger would motivate politicians to up their game in addressing it. But hey we dont need to justify mechanisms for how it works do we? After all you just pulled the idea out of your backside. That you've doubled down on it rather than admitting it was a bit silly is certainly telling.

If you had red my posts you'd know I have done so. Run along now and explaim this theory of yours further, preferably in an appropriate thread. If you agree with it you agree with my point by the way. If that's the case we are no longer in any disagreement.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Again why do you get to set the appropriate level of protest?

You're just trying to make me violate Rule 0, aren't you?
I find that impolite, and more than slightly desperate to be honest. Ask me a question I haven't answered already and you might get an answer.
Or don't and keep pretending you're asking something I can't answer. Your choice. We're done until you acknowledge you're putting words I explicitly rejected in my mouth, and correct that.

McHrozni

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What seems permissible relates to what behaviors one thinks one's peer group would applaud or condemn. Thus, a Dylann Roof, who associated with those who applauded his later actions. Hutus killing Tutsis: "Some militias called themselves the "Army of Jesus" and they believed their mission was to destroy God's enemies (wiki)." This is especially true if the group and its worldview/ideology provides mental short-cuts for dehumanizing those they oppose with common epithets.

So there are two valid questions one can raise wrt Islamic terrorism today: To what degree and in what forms do radicalized Islamic terrorists receive validation, and even helpful hate speech, to provide them with a covering narrative? To what degree does the ideology itself, barring unconventional interpretations, lend itself to, or even explicitly condone, terrorism?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If you had red my posts you'd know I have done so. Run along now and explaim this theory of yours further, preferably in an appropriate thread. If you agree with it you agree with my point by the way. If that's the case we are no longer in any disagreement.

McHrozni

My theory that your ridiculous call for three hundred million Muslims to protest terrorism is idiotic? No I think that theory is fine just here.

That you can see the flaws in it for everything except Muslims says it all. That you can always find a special pleading for everything when it come to muslims is astounding.

You insist everybody who disagrees with you hasnt read your posts. Do you really think everyone here struggles with English except yourself? We have read your posts. They're ridiculous.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What seems permissible relates to what behaviors one thinks one's peer group would applaud or condemn. Thus, a Dylann Roof, who associated with those who applauded his later actions. Hutus killing Tutsis: "Some militias called themselves the "Army of Jesus" and they believed their mission was to destroy God's enemies (wiki)." This is especially true if the group and its worldview/ideology provides mental short-cuts for dehumanizing those they oppose with common epithets.

So there are two valid questions one can raise wrt Islamic terrorism today: To what degree and in what forms do radicalized Islamic terrorists receive validation, and even helpful hate speech, to provide them with a covering narrative? To what degree does the ideology itself, barring unconventional interpretations, lend itself to, or even explicitly condone, terrorism?

Well on the latter it would seem that unconventional interpretations are exactly what is being discussed so it would be hard to bar them.

The people who most vehemently insist that proper Muslims and proper Islam equates to terrorism are people like we see on this thread. Theyll never be convinced otherwise not even by their wet dream of three hundred million muslims protesting in unison. In fact if it ever did happen they would find a way to turn even that against Muslims

 

[McHrozni]

My theory that your ridiculous call for three hundred million Muslims to protest terrorism is idiotic?

Again with this nonesense? Really?

I fully addressed this complaint of yours in post #114. Here's the link for your convenience:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11639487&postcount=114

It's in the second segment.

That you can see the flaws in it for everything except Muslims says it all. That you can always find a special pleading for everything when it come to muslims is astounding.

There is no special plea. If you think the same mechanic can be applied to, say, hunger then please, make a case for it, as I have for Islamist terrorism. Your entire claim that the same thing can be used for anything else is baseless. Police repression can't effectively fight hunger either - is that a special plea too?

You insist everybody who disagrees with you hasnt read your posts. Do you really think everyone here struggles with English except yourself? We have read your posts. They're ridiculous.

Well, given that you (and some others) keep insisting I'm claiming things I've explicitly repudiated in this very thread, and have linked those posts to you repeatedly, then the mildest accusation I can think of is that you have not, in fact, red them. If you think there is something else at play then please, say so.

Truth to be told, I'm quite sure you did read my posts, found them painfully agreeable, and are struggling to write something against them to the point the best you can do is a straw man argument, because I have written something you'll never agree with and can't let go.
I'm right, aren't I?

The same goes for you, Darat.

McHrozni

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Well on the latter it would seem that unconventional interpretations are exactly what is being discussed so it would be hard to bar them.

The people who most vehemently insist that proper Muslims and proper Islam equates to terrorism are people like we see on this thread. Theyll never be convinced otherwise not even by their wet dream of three hundred million muslims protesting in unison. In fact if it ever did happen they would find a way to turn even that against Muslims

Nevertheless, I would invite you to actually do the research into what Islam preaches, and devise a way to deal with the life examples of Mohamed (hadith) which believers are encouraged to emulate. Find me that formally moderate Islam that is being twisted, and I'll agree to change my opinion. Not moderate people, mind you; that you get with any creed owing to natural human empathy.

Or take institutional Islam, in other words, those actions and statements made by a large majority of Muslim nations to express their common stance. Surely these are reasoned and moderate(?). In this, we have as examples the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam^WP, and the Defamation of Religion and the United Nations^WP. Enjoy.

 

[A'isha]

Nevertheless, I would invite you to actually do the research into what Islam preaches, and devise a way to deal with the life examples of Mohamed (hadith) which believers are encouraged to emulate. Find me that formally moderate Islam that is being twisted, and I'll agree to change my opinion. Not moderate people, mind you; that you get with any creed owing to natural human empathy.

See Andrew Rippin's Muslims: Their Beliefs and Practices (for an overview of those theologies and the Muslim scholars who have written about them, from a Western, non-Muslim perspective) or Khaled Abou El-Fadl's The Great Theft (for an explication of one such theology from the perspective of one of those Muslim scholars).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Again with this nonesense? Really?

I fully addressed this complaint of yours in post #114. Here's the link for your convenience:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11639487&postcount=114

It's in the second segment.



There is no special plea. If you think the same mechanic can be applied to, say, hunger then please, make a case for it, as I have for Islamist terrorism. Your entire claim that the same thing can be used for anything else is baseless. Police repression can't effectively fight hunger either - is that a special plea too?



Well, given that you (and some others) keep insisting I'm claiming things I've explicitly repudiated in this very thread, and have linked those posts to you repeatedly, then the mildest accusation I can think of is that you have not, in fact, red them. If you think there is something else at play then please, say so.

Truth to be told, I'm quite sure you did read my posts, found them painfully agreeable, and are struggling to write something against them to the point the best you can do is a straw man argument, because I have written something you'll never agree with and can't let go.
I'm right, aren't I?

The same goes for you, Darat.

McHrozni

The very first word of the part of the post you link to proving that I am misinterpreting you is you agreeing with my interpetation.

You say things, agree to saying them then claim people dont read your posts when they disagree with you, deny saying the things then go back to saying them. Its literally ridiculous.

And you wonder why the worlds muslim population dont want to put on a show for you?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nevertheless, I would invite you to actually do the research into what Islam preaches, and devise a way to deal with the life examples of Mohamed (hadith) which believers are encouraged to emulate. Find me that formally moderate Islam that is being twisted, and I'll agree to change my opinion. Not moderate people, mind you; that you get with any creed owing to natural human empathy.

Or take institutional Islam, in other words, those actions and statements made by a large majority of Muslim nations to express their common stance. Surely these are reasoned and moderate(?). In this, we have as examples the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam^WP, and the Defamation of Religion and the United Nations^WP. Enjoy.

I have an easy way to deal with this. I dont live my life by ancient books or try to replicate the life of people who lived centuries before me. I suggest everyone else do likewise. I certainly dont engage in trying to second guess the meaning of fictional characters in books.

If your book tells you the earth is flat you are wrong. If your book tells you dinosaurs and men coexisted you are wrong. If your book tells you to kill people you are wrong. No interpretation required.

You cannot wiggle out of looking at moderate people because it is the people and their actions that matter. Probably moreso in Islam than certain other religions because of its lack of clear leadership. Im not sure you can so easily disconnect say Catholics from thee actions of the pope or their church.

If I applied your arguments to other principles like say capitalism or democracy would you so quick to tar all their adherents with the same brush as their bad actors?

 

[McHrozni]

The very first word of the part of the post you link to proving that I am misinterpreting you is you agreeing with my interpetation.

Correct, it does. Now read the rest if you will, the response was a bit longer than one word. It specified what the number signified, which you apparently never grasped. Is that really so difficult?

As for the show comment, they would be doing it for themselves, mainly. I'm just a messenger, shooting those isn't typically the best way to solve problems (although I can think of an exception).

McHrozni

 

[Childlike Empress]

SPIEGEL reports that electronic helper systems in the Truck initiated a full braking a second after becoming aware of objects in the way, likely preventing many more victims and the culprit being "martyred" the way it was intended. SCANIA ad? Awesome anyway.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Correct, it does. Now read the rest if you will, the response was a bit longer than one word. It specified what the number signified, which you apparently never grasped. Is that really so difficult?

As for the show comment, they would be doing it for themselves, mainly. I'm just a messenger, shooting those isn't typically the best way to solve problems (although I can think of an exception).

McHrozni

A simple admission that 300 million is a stupid number would be far more expedient than trying to convince that you never really meant it.

Now lets settle on a sensible number. Since we are talking about european muslims now according to a later clarification from you.

Woodstock got 400k out of 200m americans and was fairly significant. Thats 10 times the population of muslims in the eu. So 40000 muslims gathering in London would be as significant as woodstock give or take.

So the event you dismiss as insignificant is actually three quarters or more of a woodstock and achieved without much publicity on a single day and without global celebrities.

And it goes largely unreported while a few hundred gathering to protest over syria is painted as an insurgency of extremists.

Now even puting that aside no matter what the number is what are they meant to achieve? Convince isis to give up? Or are you really suggesting that muslims need toto put on a show to convince the bigots and racists of their good intentions. Because they wont do either.

So what exactly are you achieving with your reminding muslims of their need to do something to impress you?

 

[McHrozni]

A simple admission that 300 million is a stupid number would be far more expedient than trying to convince that you never really meant it.

It's unrealistic to achieve it, but not stupid. The reason I wrote it is because someone here pretended that a one time event of 30,000 Muslims from the world over was a major event against Islamic extremism.

By way of comparison, for every Muslim that rallied againt Islamic extremism in a one time event, over 60 travelled to Mecca on a yearly event of neo-paganism. If that doesn't demonstrate their priorities are a bit off, what would?

Now lets settle on a sensible number. Since we are talking about european muslims now according to a later clarification from you.

Woodstock got 400k out of 200m americans and was fairly significant. Thats 10 times the population of muslims in the eu. So 40000 muslims gathering in London would be as significant as woodstock give or take.

So the event you dismiss as insignificant is actually three quarters or more of a woodstock and achieved without much publicity on a single day and without global celebrities.

The said rally was a wordwide event. Why do you only count European Muslims when Muslims from all over the world attended? By that standard we would be talking about over 2 million people. Yes, that would be significant and it would be a major achivement. If it were done yearly, as Woodstock is (right?), then it would work wonders over a decade or so.

Now even puting that aside no matter what the number is what are they meant to achieve? Convince isis to give up? Or are you really suggesting that muslims need toto put on a show to convince the bigots and racists of their good intentions. Because they wont do either.

I already addressed that, but since you did show some interest, here I go again. The main danger of Islamic terror isn't the death toll, but the fact every attack drives Muslims further away from Muslims. This isn't due to bigotry, but because the attacks are in the name of Islam, justified by Islamic scriptures and often done by people otherwise not seen as particularily problematic. They decide to read the Koran a bit more, and a little later they drive trucks in festuve crowds. Non-Muslims examine the teachings and find that the justifications are indeed there, clear as they can be. Islamic response to the attacks ranges from "don't blame Islam" to "yes, but Israel..." to "Muslims grievances", it never addresses the teachings, history, context or anything else that explains the attack. In this light more and more peoplw grow suspicious of Muslims. How many welcome the attacks, but wouldn't carry them out themselves? How many are cheering the dead kaffir, and are planning to emulate the attackers?

It's not bigotry, and it's certainly not racism. Muslims have shaken the confidence in them, shaken it badly, and should now work to restore that confidence, for the good of us all. They would benefit the most from it, incidentally, since incidents od what you might call bigotry and islamophobia would fall and might eventually even disappear altogether - irrespective of terrorist attacks. The terrorists lose in this scenario even if the attacks continue unabated. A major, consistent and severe Muslim rejection of the attackers can defeat the terrorists. Nothing else can. I therefore call for a major, consistent and severe pan-Islamic rejection of Islamuc terrorism. What we see now is a minor, inconsistent and mild, before you ask.

I ask again, how on Earth is this controversial??

McHrozni