Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[McHrozni]

If you don't think they have any responsibility to do anything then why are you annoyed at them for not doing anything? Why Muslims specifically rather than cyclists or Lithuanians?

What's so bad about cyclists and Lithuanians precisely?

A substantial proportion of Muslims kill because their holy texts say so. Please explain where in a bike vehicle code are the instructions to decapitate non-cyclists if they refuse to cycle or where does Lithuanian constitution mandates executions of people who no longer wish to be Lithuanian.

If you can't you made two rather blatant false equivalences.

See if I'm not responsible for something I don't see why I should be required to clean up the mess.

If Islamic extremism and terrorism didn't exist I would be content by Muslims going on as if there isn't a problem (because there wouldn't be). But unlike your imaginary problems with cyclists and Lithuanians they do exist and they are a problem, and it's a problem Muslims can fight more effectively than everyone else combined.

So, um, why shouldn't they fight it, exactly? You haven't answered this to any meaningful extent yet.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What's so bad about cyclists and Lithuanians precisely?

What's so wrong with Muslims precisely?

A substantial proportion of Muslims kill

A substantial proportion? Really? No bigotry there at all.

If Islamic extremism and terrorism didn't exist I would be content by Muslims going on as if there isn't a problem (because there wouldn't be). But unlike your imaginary problems with cyclists and Lithuanians they do exist and they are a problem, and it's a problem Muslims can fight more effectively than everyone else combined.

So Muslims do have a shared responsibility? You can't have it both ways

So, um, why shouldn't they fight it, exactly? You haven't answered this to any meaningful extent yet.

I didn't say they shouldn't fight it. I've said that they should have no more reason to be expected to fight it than Lithuanians or cyclists unless you are somehow apportioning some extra responsibility to them on account of them sharing a religion with criminals.

The question is what can an average Muslim or cyclist do to combat terrorism? Very little if anything. Not engaging in Anti-Muslim bigotry would be one thing. You prepared to do your bit on that front or just going to keep justifying the right wing deplorables and blaming Muslims for the bad behaviour of others?

 

[McHrozni]

What's so wrong with Muslims precisely?

They consider a book filled with hate speech as holy. This would be tolerable, if the book didn't inspire nearly as many to kill in the name of the said book. That's where we draw the line, when the texts have a significant effect on the society.

So Muslims do have a shared responsibility? You can't have it both ways

Yes, Muslims have a shared responsibility in ensuring Muslims aren't inspired to kill by the texts the Muslims consider sacred or by the example of a person they consider the model to follow.

If you taught your kid that Ted Bundy was the best person ever and to emulate him in every way, you would have some responsibility if the kid turned out to be a sadistic serial killer - even if you never directly praised or even mentioned his crimes to the kid. In fact, you could be locked up for good if you did that.

Yet somehow Muslims are allowed to teach their kids precisely this kind of BS and aren't even required to explain which parts the kids are supposed to follow and which parts are there for no good reason at all.

And somehow it's also bigoted to call them to stop doing so

I didn't say they shouldn't fight it. I've said that they should have no more reason to be expected to fight it than Lithuanians or cyclists unless you are somehow apportioning some extra responsibility to them on account of them sharing a religion with criminals.

I have done so numerous times. The fact you refuse to read it in no way lessens the arguments.

The question is what can an average Muslim or cyclist do to combat terrorism? Very little if anything.

I believe I did mention the need for numbers. You know, that argument you spent about four pages mocking?

Now suddenly the question turns about what can one individual do. It's kind of funny how things turned out, isn't it?

Not engaging in Anti-Muslim bigotry would be one thing. You prepared to do your bit on that front or just going to keep justifying the right wing deplorables and blaming Muslims for the bad behaviour of others?

There is no anti-Muslim bigotry from me, nor is there a substantial level of anti-Muslim bigotry in the society as of yet. It is rising however, despite frantic efforts to contain it. Clearly this tactic is ineffective and has been proven not to work. Would you care for another try maybe?

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Just so you know, you're claiming they should consider texts that call for your and mine decapitation as holy, even though they do result in regular decapitations of people like you and me.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of conscience and speech, but even that has it's limits. The law agrees with me too, hate speech is a form of non-protected speech that can get you penalized. But apparently you think the law should be different if you consider it sacred, and treated differently. Can you justify this position of yours please?

McHrozni

I already have. Here's the principle. The contents of a holy book are not being uttered as hate speech by the people who are adherents of the religion in which the book is considered to be holy. That is the general principle. The more so is that the case, when these people deny that there are any such words in their book (whether their denial is accepted by you or not) as the great majority of Muslims deny that their holy texts call for the murder of non Muslims. See this missive and many other writings

Here is the application of the principle. My Muslim neighbours and fellow residents in Glasgow (where I live in the main area of Muslim residence) do not indulge in hate speech against me, and do not suggest that their religion requires them to. They behave like normal neighbours and fellow residents of a city district.

Example. The Jewish holy texts unquestionably refer to the murder of other peoples in territory currently coveted by Israel. That is not "hate speech" conducted by Jews for which all Jews must be held responsible because it's in the Tanakh. Those Jews who illegally settle the land are responsible for what they do, and their holy books are no excuse, and don't dilute their guilt by spreading it to other Jews; just as Muslims who shoot up night clubs are responsible for what they do, and their holy books neither mitigate their guilt nor permit them to share the responsibility with other Muslims, much as Islamic extremists and Islamophobes would like to think so.

For these groups have exactly the same goal: to make normal social life and normal relations between Muslims and others impossible. The Islamicists need martyrs, because death and not life is the object of their worship; and the Islamophobes need scapegoats, because that's how alt-right extremism functions. Without scapegoats, these reactionary ideologies fall to the ground.

 

[McHrozni]

I already have. Here's the principle. The contents of a holy book are not being uttered as hate speech by the people who are adherents of the religion in which the book is considered to be holy. That is the general principle. The more so is that the case, when these people deny that there are any such words in their book (whether their denial is accepted by you or not) as the great majority of Muslims deny that their holy texts call for the murder of non Muslims.

These people are already denouncing their holy texts, though only by implication. Why would saying this out loud be so controversial as to be called bigoted, unfair, unjust and so on? This was your main if not only concern, was it not?

For these groups have exactly the same goal: to make normal social life and normal relations between Muslims and others impossible. The Islamicists need martyrs, because death and not life is the object of their worship; and the Islamophobes need scapegoats, because that's how alt-right extremism functions. Without scapegoats, these reactionary ideologies fall to the ground.

My way is the only way to tackle the alt-right in any remotely effective way. Your approach might work until they begin to rise. Once they begin to rise, as they already have, you need to do much more than simply pretend nothing is amiss, as evidenced by the rise of the alt-right during the time your strategy was being attempted.

Simply put, history has already proven you wrong. Please explain why you expect that continuing on a wrong path is the best way to achieve the best results.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Simply put, history has already proven you wrong. Please explain why you expect that continuing on a wrong path is the best way to achieve the best results.

McHrozni

Because history has not been kindly disposed to the practice of publicly and collectively humiliating religious communities, because of the real or imagined crimes of individual fellow adherents, or interpretations of the wording of holy texts. History has proven that to be very very wrong, in my view.

 

[McHrozni]

Because history has not been kindly disposed to the practice of publicly and collectively humiliating religious communities, because of the real or imagined crimes of individual fellow adherents, or interpretations of the wording of holy texts. History has proven that to be very very wrong, in my view.

I am not advocating that or anything remotely similar to that. Try again.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

I am not advocating that or anything remotely similar to that. Try again.

Yes you are, as I observed here. It is you who should "try again".

You can say it's not guilt by association not five times but five hundred times and that will still be a delusion, as long as you require law abiding coreligionists of the criminals to assemble and publicly denounce the holy texts of their religion every year for ten years. That is guilt by association.

 

[McHrozni]

Yes you are, as I observed here. It is you who should "try again".

You're making too much of that "denouncing religious teachings" thing. While this is an accurate description of what such demonstrations would amount to, they could take an entirely different form. Calling ISIS heretics who are not Muslim because they don't follow the Koran is precisely that. It denounces the core teachings of Islam, but it can and has been done in a way that isn't remotely described as any form of humiliation.

Are you sure you don't want to try again?

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

You're making too much of that "denouncing religious teachings" thing. While this is an accurate description of what such demonstrations would amount to, they could take an entirely different form. Calling ISIS heretics who are not Muslim because they don't follow the Koran is precisely that. It denounces the core teachings of Islam, but it can and has been done in a way that isn't remotely described as any form of humiliation.

Are you sure you don't want to try again?

McHrozni

Absolutely. I don't need to try again. Muslims have to assemble publicly, and collectively denounce the "core teachings of Islam" every year for ten years. I'll leave it there.

 

[McHrozni]

Absolutely. I don't need to try again. Muslims have to assemble publicly, and collectively denounce the "core teachings of Islam" every year for ten years. I'll leave it there.

Maybe add a little clarification. Which core teachings need denouncing?

Tip: I wrote a few.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Maybe add a little clarification. Which core teachings need denouncing?

Tip: I wrote a few.

McHrozni

I worry for you. You have various prejudices, as displayed in your many posts; and you seem to like arranging people so that they will formally express submission to these prejudices in public pronouncements. Not necessary, or even desirable.

You're the one who wrote the stuff. If you want me to read it again, paste a link or post reference numbers, and I'll have a look at it when convenient.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They consider a book filled with hate speech as holy. This would be tolerable, if the book didn't inspire nearly as many to kill in the name of the said book. That's where we draw the line, when the texts have a significant effect on the society.

And we've established that the texts are no different than other texts in what they actually say. And we've established that other religions and other ideologies inspire people to kill as well. So actually you draw the line when it comes to Muslims and not others.

Yes, Muslims have a shared responsibility in ensuring Muslims aren't inspired to kill by the texts the Muslims consider sacred or by the example of a person they consider the model to follow.

So why in the name of hell do you spend post after post claiming that you don't ascribe shared responsibility to them right after you do it?

If you taught your kid that Ted Bundy was the best person ever and to emulate him in every way, you would have some responsibility if the kid turned out to be a sadistic serial killer - even if you never directly praised or even mentioned his crimes to the kid. In fact, you could be locked up for good if you did that.

And if you spent year after year teaching your kid that Ted Bundy was great and someone else on the other side of the world that you had never spoken to turned into a sadistic serial killer? Same?

Yet somehow Muslims are allowed to teach their kids precisely this kind of BS and aren't even required to explain which parts the kids are supposed to follow and which parts are there for no good reason at all.

Just as Christians and Jews are allowed to teach their holy books of hate and nonsense. And you don't complain when Ugandans put homosexuals to death and require Italian or American Chrisitians to mass protest to stop it.

And somehow it's also bigoted to call them to stop doing so

When you haven't shown that they are actually doing it, when there is the evidence of your own eyes and millions of Muslims living peacefully in Western societies to prove that they don't hold these ideas and when you single them out over all other religions doing exactly the same thing. Yes.

I have done so numerous times. The fact you refuse to read it in no way lessens the arguments.

Yes I know you have done so. But when pointed out that you are doing it you deny it. At least you have finally admitted it here.

I believe I did mention the need for numbers. You know, that argument you spent about four pages mocking?

Ah yes, so the average Muslim can just start a 300m person movement then?

Now suddenly the question turns about what can one individual do. It's kind of funny how things turned out, isn't it?

Unless you have some weird bigoted idea that Muslims are not individuals then it is ONLY individuals who can do anything. Because unless we are being prejudiced and bigoted we hold individuals responsible for their own actions not the actions of some wider group that they happen to share some attributes with.

There is no anti-Muslim bigotry from me, nor is there a substantial level of anti-Muslim bigotry in the society as of yet.

Utter garbage. On both counts. Proposals for a registry of Muslims by the President Elect no less are substantial. People voting to leave the EU to keep Muslims out are substantial. Islamophobia is substantial.

Certainly more substantial than the number of Muslims killing people.

It is rising however, despite frantic efforts to contain it. Clearly this tactic is ineffective and has been proven not to work. Would you care for another try maybe?

McHrozni

What tactic? What efforts to contain it? You are completely disconnected from reality if you think that the last few years have been characterised by efforts to contain Anti-Muslim sentiment. The deplorables have been courted and feted.

 

[McHrozni]

I worry for you. You have various prejudices, as displayed in your many posts; and you seem to like arranging people so that they will formally express submission to these prejudices in public pronouncements.

Pray tell, what is that prejudice?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

And we've established that the texts are no different than other texts in what they actually say. And we've established that other religions and other ideologies inspire people to kill as well. So actually you draw the line when it comes to Muslims and not others.

You have established no such thing. You claimed it, true, but you established nothing similar. Furthermore, you seem to look at the issue in an entirely binary way: if an ideology has ever inspired anyone to kill it is equally bad than an ideology that has inspired thousands of people to kill.

This is so patently ridiculous it doesn't merit a rebuttal other than what I already wrote.

So why in the name of hell do you spend post after post claiming that you don't ascribe shared responsibility to them right after you do it?

They don't have a shared responsibility for the attacks per se, but they do have a shared responsibility for furthering an ideology which directly causes these attacks to occur.

Despite this I don't think they should organize the campaign because of guilt, but because that's the only way to combat the dangerous ideology.

And if you spent year after year teaching your kid that Ted Bundy was great and someone else on the other side of the world that you had never spoken to turned into a sadistic serial killer? Same?

The situation is so drastically different from what I described I'll dismiss it as utterly irrelevant.

Teaching a kid Ted Bundy was a model citizen who should be emulated in every possible way, but never mentioning his crimes, makes you partially responsible if the kid emulates Ted Bundy in his crimes. Yes or no?

Just as Christians and Jews are allowed to teach their holy books of hate and nonsense. And you don't complain when Ugandans put homosexuals to death and require Italian or American Chrisitians to mass protest to stop it.

That's partially because it is patently clear that Christians and Jews have grown out of it, which is proven by the state of affairs in nearly all Christian and Jewish majority states.

The second part of the reason is that you obviously grossly misunderstand their teachings, and rely on smearing then with feces in the form of out of context verses.

The third reason is that faults of religion other than Islam have absolutely no bearing on the problems caused by Islam, and don't lessen them in any way. I asked you before, why this insane focus on ills of Christianity and Judaism anyway?

If you want to make Islam look good by comparison, pick something worse. Mesoamerican beliefs of holy human sacrifice put Islam to shame (or pride) in horrific abuses.

When you haven't shown that they are actually doing it, when there is the evidence of your own eyes and millions of Muslims living peacefully in Western societies to prove that they don't hold these ideas and when you single them out over all other religions doing exactly the same thing. Yes.

All other religions are flying planes into buildings, conducting several terrorist attacks per day and chopping off heads of unbelievers, because they're unbelievers?

Prove it. It's possible I may have missed something here, although to be honest, I think you're just full of it.

Ah yes, so the average Muslim can just start a 300m person movement then?

It's funny that now you've accepted what the 300 million figure was all along, you now also demand it is also done by one person, alone.

I did mention the effort isn't going to be easy, didn't I? Well, if it could be done by a single person it wouldn't be all that difficult to begin with.

Unless you have some weird bigoted idea that Muslims are not individuals then it is ONLY individuals who can do anything. Because unless we are being prejudiced and bigoted we hold individuals responsible for their own actions not the actions of some wider group that they happen to share some attributes with.

Claiming the code of conduct of mankind is a pedophile rapist with a passion of executing people who wronged him in any way or just refused to bow down to him does make you complicit when people take the code of conduct seriously.

Hence my Ted Bundy comparison.

Utter garbage. On both counts. Proposals for a registry of Muslims by the President Elect no less are substantial. People voting to leave the EU to keep Muslims out are substantial. Islamophobia is substantial.

Islamophobia is a garbage slur without any meaning for the most part. But if you think a proposal for a Muslim registry and voting to keep what are illegal immigrants out of your country are substantial, you're way, way oversensitive to what actual bigotry really means. These are very minor and futhermore isolated cases. Substantial bigotry is what happens if you're gay in Pakistan, or a non-Muslim that wants to visit Mecca or a Kurd who wants rights for Kurds n Turkey. That's substantial, a proposal to register all Muslims - which would by the way fail any constitutional challenge - barely registers compared to that.

What tactic? What efforts to contain it? You are completely disconnected from reality if you think that the last few years have been characterised by efforts to contain Anti-Muslim sentiment. The deplorables have been courted and feted.

I'm sure various fringe media outlets did do that, but like with that imagined bigotry of yours, we're talking about phenomena so minor and so out on the fringe they wouldn't be worthy of mention in most cases. Granted, it's made into a big deal, but really, it isn't.

Secondly, if you think this is still a big deal, please explain how Muslim anti-Infidel propaganda is not. There is plenty in the Islamic holy texts you think should be protected fro reasons unknown, even though it kills thousands each year. Yet, you want to curtail freedom of speech and expression in order to defend Muslims from bad press they get as a result of these actions, even though we have yet to see any random lynchings or the like.

For example, explain to me why this should be cherished and protected:

And believe no one except the one who follows your religion. Say (O Muhammad): "Verily! Right guidance is the Guidance of Allah" and do not believe that anyone can receive like that which you have received (of Revelation) except when he follows your religion, otherwise they would engage you in argument before your Lord. Say (O Muhammad): "All the bounty is in the Hand of Allah; He grants to whom He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, the All-Knower."
(Koran 3-73)

And this suppressed:

And believe anyone except the one who follows Allah and Mohamed. Say: "Verily! Right guidance is the Guidance of all gods except Allah" and do not believe because he will not follow your religion, otherwise they would engage you in argument before your Lord. Say: "No bounty is in the Hand of Allah; He grants to no one. And Allah is useless for His creatures' needs, the Ignorant."
(the same verse, obviously, but reversed)

The latter verse would surely classify as crude and severe anti-Islamic propaganda to the point of hate speech, primarily due to the first part saying no Muslim should ever be trusted. The former is revered as the ultimate truth by Muslims. Anti-Islamic propaganda you whine about is certainly far less severe than this modified verse. You think the latter should be suppressed and the former protected. Please justify this position of yours.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Really, A'isha? I explicitly told you several times I want to prevent that, and you still continue this character assasination?

That rings a little hollow when your proposed means of preventing the genocide of not just Muslim men, women, and children, but people like me as well, is to make impossible demands like saying 300 million Muslims need to hold yearly protest rallies.

Apparently criticizing Islam in any way is an unforgivable sin, even to a non-practicing quazi-Muslim.

I have no problem with criticising Islam. I just kind of get a wee bit testy when people tell me I'd better change my position about Islam or it's the gas chamber for me.

The second part of the reason is that you obviously grossly misunderstand their teachings, and rely on smearing then with feces in the form of out of context verses.

Quoting the parts of the Qur'an that rail against unbelievers is merely pointing out how bad Islam is, but quoting the parts of the Bible that rail against unbelievers is "grossly misunderstand[ing] their teachings, and rely[ing] on smearing then with feces in the form of out of context verses", is it?

The third reason is that faults of religion other than Islam have absolutely no bearing on the problems caused by Islam, and don't lessen them in any way. I asked you before, why this insane focus on ills of Christianity and Judaism anyway?

It's to highlight your hypocrisy.

Claiming the code of conduct of mankind is a pedophile rapist with a passion of executing people who wronged him in any way or just refused to bow down to him does make you complicit when people take the code of conduct seriously.

"Narrated `Abdullah bin Mulaika:

`Aisha said that the Jews came to the Prophet and said, "As-Samu 'Alaikum" (death be on you). `Aisha said (to them), "(Death) be on you, and may Allah curse you and shower His wrath upon you!" The Prophet said, "Be calm, O `Aisha ! You should be kind and lenient, and beware of harshness and Fuhsh (i.e. bad words).""

Sahih Bukhari 6030

[EDIT: And my cousin Hisham, born and educated in Egypt (though he now lives and works in the US) and with a degree in shari'ah, had this to say on December 24th: "Merry Christmas to all my Christian family and friends".]

Secondly, if you think this is still a big deal, please explain how Muslim anti-Infidel propaganda is not.

It should be treated exactly the same as Jewish and Christian anti-Infidel propaganda - you can say and believe what you like in America, no matter how bigoted, but actual violence is not to be tolerated.

 

[McHrozni]

That rings a little hollow when your proposed means of preventing the genocide of not just Muslim men, women, and children, but people like me as well, is to make impossible demands like saying 300 million Muslims need to hold yearly protest rallies.

This nonesense again? I thorughly explained the context, and yet you refuse to understand? Why, I wonder?

I have no problem with criticising Islam. I just kind of get a wee bit testy when people tell me I'd better change my position about Islam or it's the gas chamber for me.

No one claimed anything of the sort, this is solely your imagination and prejudice at work. Shame on you.

Quoting the parts of the Qur'an that rail against unbelievers is merely pointing out how bad Islam is, but quoting the parts of the Bible that rail against unbelievers is "grossly misunderstand[ing] their teachings, and rely[ing] on smearing then with feces in the form of out of context verses", is it?

If people killed in the name of Bible anywhere near as often than they do in the name of Koran, maybe. They don't, so your false equivalence is once again exposed.

"Narrated `Abdullah bin Mulaika:

`Aisha said that the Jews came to the Prophet and said, "As-Samu 'Alaikum" (death be on you). `Aisha said (to them), "(Death) be on you, and may Allah curse you and shower His wrath upon you!" The Prophet said, "Be calm, O `Aisha ! You should be kind and lenient, and beware of harshness and Fuhsh (i.e. bad words).""

Sahih Bukhari 6030

[EDIT: And my cousin Hisham, born and educated in Egypt (though he now lives and works in the US) and with a degree in shari'ah, had this to say on December 24th: "Merry Christmas to all my Christian family and friends".]

What of it? I never said all of Islam is bad, did I? Just a very significant proportion, which needs to be removed.

It should be treated exactly the same as Jewish and Christian anti-Infidel propaganda - you can say and believe what you like in America, no matter how bigoted, but actual violence is not to be tolerated.

Archie, your response? You two clearly disagree on this important point.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

This nonesense again? I thorughly explained the context, and yet you refuse to understand? Why, I wonder?

The context is right there in this thread and in the link in my sig.

No one claimed anything of the sort, this is solely your imagination and prejudice at work. Shame on you.

Oh, if only I had a quote in my sig where you said exactly that... [EDIT: The "context" of which was that you stated I was fated for the gas chambers not for being a Muslim who supported terrorism, but for merely the crime of "completely ignor[ing] the textual evidence that strongly supports the observational data and tr[ying] to use the cherry-picked observational data to conclude Islam is not a source of problems".]

If people killed in the name of Bible anywhere near as often than they do in the name of Koran, maybe. They don't, so your false equivalence is once again exposed.

You seem to dance back and forth between blaming the teachings (ie, Islam itself) and the people who use those teachings to justify violence. You keep claiming the former, but always move the goalposts to the latter every time it's pointed out to you that other religions teach the exact same thing, and then move them right back your very next post.

What of it? I never said all of Islam is bad, did I? Just a very significant proportion, which needs to be removed.

You've explicitly stated it's irrevocably baked into its teachings (hence your idiotic "Ted Bundy" example). [EDIT: And that hadith is to point out that your statement that Muhammad had "a passion of executing people who wronged him in any way or just refused to bow down to him" is contradicted by many of Islam's own scriptures.]

Archie, your response? You two clearly disagree on this important point

Just as Christians and Jews are allowed to teach their holy books of hate and nonsense.

Hmmm..

 

[Craig B]

Pray tell, what is that prejudice?

This expresses it well.

A substantial proportion of Muslims kill because their holy texts say so

This too

Claiming the code of conduct of mankind is a pedophile rapist with a passion of executing people who wronged him in any way or just refused to bow down to him does make you complicit when people take the code of conduct seriously.​

I think that's quite a stark example of prejudice, by the way.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You have established no such thing. You claimed it, true, but you established nothing similar. Furthermore, you seem to look at the issue in an entirely binary way: if an ideology has ever inspired anyone to kill it is equally bad than an ideology that has inspired thousands of people to kill.

No, I have made and supported two claims. You have not disproven them, merely moved the goalposts. I'll repeat them:

1. If the issue is the words of the holy books (and not the outcome or actions inspired by them) then the sentiments which you despise in Islam are also contained in other ideologies and holy books. The verse you quoted was matched by the verse I quoted.

2. If the issue is the actions of people which are 'inspired' by ideologies then a) the only people who are responsible for those actions are the people who take them b) there are other ideologies which are equally or more harmful in terms of bodycount that should also be the focus of your ire. I'm not talking about those of decades ago but those of today. What's the bodycount on the right-wing idiots ideologically clinging to their 'right to bear arms' or the Catholic bodycount in Africa from HIV, or the Iraq War?

They don't have a shared responsibility for the attacks per se, but they do have a shared responsibility for furthering an ideology which directly causes these attacks to occur.

Or doesn't, depending on the interpretation. What if they don't further that ideology? What if they are Muslims who teach their kids that terrorism is bad and killing people is bad?

Despite this I don't think they should organize the campaign because of guilt, but because that's the only way to combat the dangerous ideology.

You keep saying this. But you haven't substantiated it. And you've changed your mind again about the point of the campaign. It was supposed to be proving to non-Muslims that Muslims aren't all bad. Now it's again combating the dangerous ideology.

The situation is so drastically different from what I described I'll dismiss it as utterly irrelevant.

Teaching a kid Ted Bundy was a model citizen who should be emulated in every possible way, but never mentioning his crimes, makes you partially responsible if the kid emulates Ted Bundy in his crimes. Yes or no?

It's different because your situation was completely non-analagous to what we are discussing. If a Muslim teaches people that they should kill infidels and those people kill infidels then they are of course responsible for that criminal behaviour.

But you ignore the fact that the people committing these crimes have no connection to the vast majority of Muslims and therefore there is no causal link. Furthermore the vast majority of Muslims don't teach their kids to kill infidels. But you blame them anyway.

That's partially because it is patently clear that Christians and Jews have grown out of it, which is proven by the state of affairs in nearly all Christian and Jewish majority states.

Except that only makes sense if you are so blinkered as to ignore the things done by Christians and Jews.

The second part of the reason is that you obviously grossly misunderstand their teachings, and rely on smearing then with feces in the form of out of context verses.

I did exactly what you did with the equivalent verse. Characterize it as smearing with feces if you wish.

The third reason is that faults of religion other than Islam have absolutely no bearing on the problems caused by Islam, and don't lessen them in any way. I asked you before, why this insane focus on ills of Christianity and Judaism anyway?

If you want to make Islam look good by comparison, pick something worse. Mesoamerican beliefs of holy human sacrifice put Islam to shame (or pride) in horrific abuses.

The point is not that the other religions are worse. It's that you don't hold any and all Jews/Christians to account for these problems nor do you determine that the entire religion is toxic because of them.

All other religions are flying planes into buildings, conducting several terrorist attacks per day and chopping off heads of unbelievers, because they're unbelievers?

Prove it. It's possible I may have missed something here, although to be honest, I think you're just full of it.

Religions don't do anything. People do things.

I've already mentioned some things people are doing in the name of their relevant ideologies.

It's funny that now you've accepted what the 300 million figure was all along, you now also demand it is also done by one person, alone.

I did mention the effort isn't going to be easy, didn't I? Well, if it could be done by a single person it wouldn't be all that difficult to begin with.

The only one demanding anything is yourself.

Claiming the code of conduct of mankind is a pedophile rapist with a passion of executing people who wronged him in any way or just refused to bow down to him does make you complicit when people take the code of conduct seriously.

Hence my Ted Bundy comparison.

Unlike the wonderful 'perfect' character of the OT God?

Islamophobia is a garbage slur without any meaning for the most part. But if you think a proposal for a Muslim registry and voting to keep what are illegal immigrants out of your country are substantial, you're way, way oversensitive to what actual bigotry really means. These are very minor and futhermore isolated cases. Substantial bigotry is what happens if you're gay in Pakistan, or a non-Muslim that wants to visit Mecca or a Kurd who wants rights for Kurds n Turkey. That's substantial, a proposal to register all Muslims - which would by the way fail any constitutional challenge - barely registers compared to that.

Islamophobia is not a garbage slur. That just proves your bigotry further. But again you believe that Muslims deserve what they get so there is no reasoning with you.

I'm sure various fringe media outlets did do that, but like with that imagined bigotry of yours, we're talking about phenomena so minor and so out on the fringe they wouldn't be worthy of mention in most cases. Granted, it's made into a big deal, but really, it isn't.

No the largest newspapers in the country are not fringe outlets. You simply deny reality because it doesn't conform to your view.

Secondly, if you think this is still a big deal, please explain how Muslim anti-Infidel propaganda is not. There is plenty in the Islamic holy texts you think should be protected fro reasons unknown, even though it kills thousands each year. Yet, you want to curtail freedom of speech and expression in order to defend Muslims from bad press they get as a result of these actions, even though we have yet to see any random lynchings or the like.

Why should I explain a view I don't hold? All criminal behaviour and bigoted nonsense is shameful. When a Muslim does it it's equally bad. I have made no claims that any holy text should be protected. Nor have I made any claim that freedom of speech should be curtailed.

We have yet to see any random lynching? Only because its easier to shoot people:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...d-anti-muslim-hate-crime-160816191517636.html

For example, explain to me why this should be cherished and protected:

And believe no one except the one who follows your religion. Say (O Muhammad): "Verily! Right guidance is the Guidance of Allah" and do not believe that anyone can receive like that which you have received (of Revelation) except when he follows your religion, otherwise they would engage you in argument before your Lord. Say (O Muhammad): "All the bounty is in the Hand of Allah; He grants to whom He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, the All-Knower."
(Koran 3-73)

And this suppressed:

And believe anyone except the one who follows Allah and Mohamed. Say: "Verily! Right guidance is the Guidance of all gods except Allah" and do not believe because he will not follow your religion, otherwise they would engage you in argument before your Lord. Say: "No bounty is in the Hand of Allah; He grants to no one. And Allah is useless for His creatures' needs, the Ignorant."
(the same verse, obviously, but reversed)

The latter verse would surely classify as crude and severe anti-Islamic propaganda to the point of hate speech, primarily due to the first part saying no Muslim should ever be trusted. The former is revered as the ultimate truth by Muslims. Anti-Islamic propaganda you whine about is certainly far less severe than this modified verse. You think the latter should be suppressed and the former protected. Please justify this position of yours.

McHrozni

No I don't think the latter should be suppressed nor the former protected.