Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[McHrozni]

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".]

The context, A'isha, as I have thoroughly explained to you several times over, was that Islamic terrorism, unchecked by a meaningful and visible effort by Muslims to discredit them, will turn the general opinion of so many people against Muslims to such an extreme, you will end up exiled or dead. I and even several other posters have further explained to you several times that I would dearly love to prevent this, and I'm doing everything in my power to do so.

Don't believe me? Here's the link to the thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311917

I got it off your signature, mrs. "a pity I don't have the link".

Yet you still use this to sling mud at me, for "threatening you with gas chambers". This despicable knee-jerk reaction to anyone who dares criticize Islam is fairly typical for Muslims or people raised as Muslim if you will. It seems that the Islamic doctrine that puts Islam above and beyond any criticism hasn't seeped out your allegedly secular, skeptical brain yet. A pity, you might be a good conversationist if it did.

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.

Nonsense, my positions are consistent and unchanging. Islamic teachings are a problem and must be acted upon because they literately result in dead bodies. If there are other teachings that might do so as well but don't in any appreciable amounts (i.e. Christian, Jewish, Falun Gong, ...) they can be acted upon if and when the teachings that cause acute problem are resolved.

Why is this so hard to grasp, I wonder?

You've explicitly stated it's irrevocably baked into its teachings (hence your idiotic "Ted Bundy" example).

Of course it is, I (and many others) have proven this many times over.

The most you can do is claim that the good parts outweigh the bad. In this case you'll have to explain a few other things as well - like why do you sling so much mud on Christianity, whose teachings contain notably more good and notably less bad than Islamic ones.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

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?

What is so hard to grasp about Islamic teachings being problematic because they inspire Muslims to kill (or worse), but non-Islamic teachings who don't have any remotely similar bad effect are tolerable, regardless of what they contain?

You pretend as if these are two issues, and that it must be either one or the other. This is false, the combination of the two is what makes Islam the problem.

As to why we should focus on Islam and not, say, on HIV, I have explained this several times over in this thread. The two most important points are:

1. Islamic violence can be fought effectively with energy that can't usually be harnessed well to fight many other threats (common people holding rallies)

2. Islamic violence has a knock-down effect that severely damages the society. You call it the right-wing idiot ticket, a classification I agree with. That ticket feeds off Islamic violence and especially perceived Islamic indifference to Islamic violence. Knock the latter out and right-wing idiot ticket loses it's strongest ace.

The the best of my knowledge you haven't even acknowledged these points yet, much less done any refutation

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?

More power to them, then. This is basically what CraigB keeps ridiculing as denouncing Islamic teachings. Yes, this is an accurate description of it, but since Islamic teachings still contain commands and justifications for Islamic violence, to ISIS and worse, this effort needs to be visible as well. Muslims have lost the trust of many others, they must work to rebuild this trust. No one else can do that on their behalf.

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.

It's both, I just describe different aspects at different times. The greatest threat of Islamic violence isn't the 1500 or so terrorist attacks yearly, it isn't massacres of stadiums and it isn't driving trucks into celebrations, killing dozens and hundreds of people. These are threats yes, but the greatest threat is the response of the non-Muslim society to these attacks. In Iraq this results in a genocide by exile (which is apparently considered very good and proper because it's only Christians leaving) and in the West this results in right-wing idiot tickets winning elections, leading to all sorts of other problems that occur when idiots get in charge of countries, possibly to the point of terrorists winning by converting the West into a fascist hellhole. Massive and visible Muslim effort to combat Islamic extremism would significantly reduce this, perhaps to the point of elimination.

On the other hand, massive and visible Muslim effort to reject the extremists would certainly reduce the recruiting pool and reduce Islamic violence as well. This is a welcome side effect, but not the primary goal of the effort I describe.

I explained this to you before, but you keep pretending as if these are two separate and mutually exclusive issues. They are neither. If this was done early enough - 1996 would be a good start date, 2001 was the high time for it - we wouldn't have nearly as many or as severe problems as we do today. Ordinary Muslims too would live far better, and rallies of tens of thousands would suffice.

Nowadays though ... anything less than hundreds of thousands isn't going to do much, and even that only if it's often enough.

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.

The person in my scenario never taught his kid to kill people either, just that he should emulate a particularly sadistic serial killer in every way. He never mentioned his crimes, but held him as the paragon of good behavior, and red the good parts of his biography (I'm sure there were some good parts there, he did hold a job for a time did he not?) and ignoring the rest, while letting the biography be freely red by the kid.

This is basically little different from what Muslims do. It's no wonder some turn out bad as a result.

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.

This is because you don't understand that the teachings and actions of adherents need both be examined in context, and aren't two separate single issues.

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.

If I wanted Muslims to be treated as disease-carrying pests, I'd fight the idiot fight you do, never blaming them or Islam for anything and constantly thinking up excuses for their excesses and protest Islamophobia.

One enough anger would be generated, I'd just melt away and have the lynch mobs take care of the rest. Or if the right people get elected, buy shares in a gas company.

Since I don't want that to happen, I'm doing my best to prevent it. It's funny how that makes a person a bigoted Islamophobe.

You're right that calling Islamophobia a garbage slur is probably an insult to most forms of garbage though.

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

Let's give it a try, define propaganda and post a link to what you consider is was a particularly bad example of anti-Islamic propaganda.

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

It's a little hard to take you seriously if you consider killing a Christian because he was of Arab descent constitutes an anti-Muslim hate crime.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/16/us/tulsa-arab-american-shooting-trnd/

It was an anti-Arab hate crime sure, and this is just as bad as any other hate crime. But you'll be rather hard-pressed to call it an anti-Muslim hate crime.

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.

So, um, how would you stop newspapers from publishing what they have the right to publish again? You said there is anti-Muslim propaganda awash with newspapers that should end, but you wouldn't end it.

What is your proposal then?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What is so hard to grasp about Islamic teachings being problematic because they inspire Muslims to kill (or worse), but non-Islamic teachings who don't have any remotely similar bad effect are tolerable, regardless of what they contain?

probably because you arrive at the conclusion that non-Islamic teachings don't have any similar bad effects by ignoring them and arrive at the conclusion that Islamic teachings have bad effects by assuming they do and exaggerating the extent of them.

You pretend as if these are two issues, and that it must be either one or the other. This is false, the combination of the two is what makes Islam the problem.

No I 'pretend' that when someone quotes a verse and says 'see how the Muslims think we are worse than cattle' that if a similar verse exists in other teachings they would have the good grace to acknowledge that rather than pretend that I have somehow twisted or smeared with feces something entirely reasonable. They would then probably stop claiming that stupid, ignorant teachings in a holy book mean anything significant.

As to why we should focus on Islam and not, say, on HIV, I have explained this several times over in this thread. The two most important points are:

1. Islamic violence can be fought effectively with energy that can't usually be harnessed well to fight many other threats (common people holding rallies)

Sorry but Catholic teachings on condoms and homosexuality could be much more easily changed than Islamic terrorism could be addressed. The Pope can simply make it so. And if enough Catholics raise their voices that's probably achievable. There is no such method by which Islamic teachings can be changed.

2. Islamic violence has a knock-down effect that severely damages the society. You call it the right-wing idiot ticket, a classification I agree with. That ticket feeds off Islamic violence and especially perceived Islamic indifference to Islamic violence. Knock the latter out and right-wing idiot ticket loses it's strongest ace.

No, it doesn't. Right wing idiots hate Muslims for being Muslim, for looking different, dressing different, eating different food, talking different languages and not being good old fashioned white-folk.

The the best of my knowledge you haven't even acknowledged these points yet, much less done any refutation

I've disagreed with you on these points several times.

More power to them, then. This is basically what CraigB keeps ridiculing as denouncing Islamic teachings. Yes, this is an accurate description of it, but since Islamic teachings still contain commands and justifications for Islamic violence, to ISIS and worse, this effort needs to be visible as well. Muslims have lost the trust of many others, they must work to rebuild this trust. No one else can do that on their behalf.

Yes they can. People like you can stop claiming that Muslims are all terrorists or terrorists sympathisers. Stop pretending that Muslims are a threat. Stop insisting that the only good proper Muslims are the ones who want to commit terrorism. Because the deplorables listen to people like you, not to Muslims.

It's both, I just describe different aspects at different times. The greatest threat of Islamic violence isn't the 1500 or so terrorist attacks yearly, it isn't massacres of stadiums and it isn't driving trucks into celebrations, killing dozens and hundreds of people. These are threats yes, but the greatest threat is the response of the non-Muslim society to these attacks.

If you genuinely believe this then why do you fan the flames of such response by continuing to insist that Muslims are a threat and that the deplorables are right to react in such a way.

In Iraq this results in a genocide by exile (which is apparently considered very good and proper because it's only Christians leaving) and in the West this results in right-wing idiot tickets winning elections, leading to all sorts of other problems that occur when idiots get in charge of countries, possibly to the point of terrorists winning by converting the West into a fascist hellhole. Massive and visible Muslim effort to combat Islamic extremism would significantly reduce this, perhaps to the point of elimination.

You keep saying this but I don't believe it for a second. Mass rallies of Muslims would be seen as a threat to the deplorables. The deplorables don't want to live peacefully alongside Muslims they want them out. If you really think that the deplorables will convert the West into a fascist hellhole and that's what the terrorists want then why on earth would you not be saying this to the deplorables? Why instead would you be defending them and justifying them?

On the other hand, massive and visible Muslim effort to reject the extremists would certainly reduce the recruiting pool and reduce Islamic violence as well. This is a welcome side effect, but not the primary goal of the effort I describe.

Again another unsupported assertion.

I explained this to you before, but you keep pretending as if these are two separate and mutually exclusive issues. They are neither. If this was done early enough - 1996 would be a good start date, 2001 was the high time for it - we wouldn't have nearly as many or as severe problems as we do today. Ordinary Muslims too would live far better, and rallies of tens of thousands would suffice.

Nowadays though ... anything less than hundreds of thousands isn't going to do much, and even that only if it's often enough.

Well massive rallies of hundreds of thousands of people ain't happening particularly not in countries where there are only hundreds of thousands or a couple of million Muslims. So let's look at things that can actually happen.

The person in my scenario never taught his kid to kill people either, just that he should emulate a particularly sadistic serial killer in every way. He never mentioned his crimes, but held him as the paragon of good behavior, and red the good parts of his biography (I'm sure there were some good parts there, he did hold a job for a time did he not?) and ignoring the rest, while letting the biography be freely red by the kid.

This is basically little different from what Muslims do. It's no wonder some turn out bad as a result.

No it's a lot different. Because let me spell it out carefully. Almost all Muslim kids don't kill anyone. And almost all Muslims have no interaction with someone who has killed anyone. No matter what you teach your kids you are not responsible for what the next door neighbour's kids do. Even less so for what the kids of a guy in another country do.

This is because you don't understand that the teachings and actions of adherents need both be examined in context, and aren't two separate single issues.

Except when they are non-Muslims teachings we just ignore all that.

If I wanted Muslims to be treated as disease-carrying pests, I'd fight the idiot fight you do, never blaming them or Islam for anything and constantly thinking up excuses for their excesses and protest Islamophobia.

Except I haven't done any of this. I've merely opposed your rampant bigotry and nonsense. I'm perfectly happy to blame Muslims or Islam for things for which they are responsible. Just as I am happy to blame Christianity or Judaism or right-wing idiots for the things they are responsible for.

One enough anger would be generated, I'd just melt away and have the lynch mobs take care of the rest. Or if the right people get elected, buy shares in a gas company.

Since I don't want that to happen, I'm doing my best to prevent it. It's funny how that makes a person a bigoted Islamophobe.

No saying bigoted Islamophobic things makes a person a bigoted Islamophobe. It's not difficult really.

You're right that calling Islamophobia a garbage slur is probably an insult to most forms of garbage though.

Calling this an idiotic statement would be an insult to idiots.

Let's give it a try, define propaganda and post a link to what you consider is was a particularly bad example of anti-Islamic propaganda.

Why am I defining propaganda again?

But hell this is the constant stream of media messages that people receive from the front pages of the newspapers.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...f&tbm=isch&q=daily+mail+anti-muslim+headlines

It's a little hard to take you seriously if you consider killing a Christian because he was of Arab descent constitutes an anti-Muslim hate crime.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/16/us/tulsa-arab-american-shooting-trnd/

It was an anti-Arab hate crime sure, and this is just as bad as any other hate crime. But you'll be rather hard-pressed to call it an anti-Muslim hate crime.

You think deplorables know the difference?

So, um, how would you stop newspapers from publishing what they have the right to publish again?

So um where did I say I was going to stop them again? What is it about right wingers that makes them assume that the solution to everything is banning it or legislating against it?

You said there is anti-Muslim propaganda awash with newspapers that should end, but you wouldn't end it.

What is your proposal then?

McHrozni

I don't have the power to end it. I'm not the editor of the Daily Mail or Daily Express (Thank God). However I don't buy their rags, I don't endorse the sentiments in them and I certainly don't go on internet forums to stand up for or justify the deplorables nor sit back and watch while others do.

 

[Craig B]

The context, A'isha, as I have thoroughly explained to you several times over, was that Islamic terrorism, unchecked by a meaningful and visible effort by Muslims to discredit them, will turn the general opinion of so many people against Muslims to such an extreme, you will end up exiled or dead.

Translation. Unless Muslims in general assemble one and all to denounce the holy texts of their religion, and then every year assemble in huge numbers to renew annually this denunciation of their religion in public, then they will be extruded from the land by the anger of the people, or slaughtered by the wrath of the common folk.

Yes. That is not the first such warning received by a minority community. Not to take more modern examples: in 1625 in Vienna, according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia

The Jews of that time found it in many cases impossible to live together with the Christians. Not only were they in constant fear of being derided and insulted, injured in property, health, and honor, and even of being murdered, but they were in continual danger of being falsely accused of crime and condemned.​

Just as you say Muslims are now. These Viennese Jews were transferred to a special walled district of the city and obliged to live there. That was a form of "exile" such as you have predicted for European Muslims. May I offer my historical example for your consideration?

 

[McHrozni]

probably because you arrive at the conclusion that non-Islamic teachings don't have any similar bad effects by ignoring them and arrive at the conclusion that Islamic teachings have bad effects by assuming they do and exaggerating the extent of them.

Please list the head-chopping Christian states currently in existence. There are two Islamic ones, who claim to be one, but go no further than the claim (ISIS and Boko Haram).

If you can't you've proven my point.

No I 'pretend' that when someone quotes a verse and says 'see how the Muslims think we are worse than cattle' that if a similar verse exists in other teachings they would have the good grace to acknowledge that rather than pretend that I have somehow twisted or smeared with feces something entirely reasonable. They would then probably stop claiming that stupid, ignorant teachings in a holy book mean anything significant.

Who said Muslims think we are worse than cattle? I certainly didn't.
I do claim, and you acknowledge it, that Islamic teachings call us worse than cattle. I also claim that verses like these drive Muslims to kill other people - mainly Muslim, because the only thing worse than an atheist or a polytheist is an incorrect Muslim.

Anyway, since no other religion currently produces results that would be anywhere within two orders of magnitude of what Islam does, it is entirely justified to focus on Islam and ignore others. If that ever changes then this might change as well, but until then, Islam should get the heat.

Sorry but Catholic teachings on condoms and homosexuality could be much more easily changed than Islamic terrorism could be addressed. The Pope can simply make it so. And if enough Catholics raise their voices that's probably achievable. There is no such method by which Islamic teachings can be changed.

Pope doesn't have divine powers of changing peoples' minds, he is just an absolute monarch who can change laws at will. These things will take time, they're hundreds of years older than Islam in some cases, but there is a sincere and advancing effort towards that by the current Pope. I applaud it. Catholics would do well to encourage faster change, particularly among their more conservative kin.

Non-Catholics demonstrating for the Pope to change teachings more quickly are rather unlikely to work, they will discourage further change due to unwanted external interference. Notice that I don't call for mass all-religions demonstrations against Islamic extremism either. Those could end ... horribly.

Now that we've dealt with this silly deliberate derail of yours, please get back on topic, will you?

No, it doesn't. Right wing idiots hate Muslims for being Muslim, for looking different, dressing different, eating different food, talking different languages and not being good old fashioned white-folk.

If you think anyone who votes or otherwise contributes to an electoral a right-wing idiot ticket victory is automatically a right-wing idiot, you're more bigoted than you can probably imagine.

The combined number of idiots of various sides (left, right, communist, nationalist whatever) represent ~10-15% of any electorate, at any time. They're empowered by people losing faith in their non-idiot leaders of any political side. Some might vote for right-wing idiot tickets, others simply won't vote against them, and lo and behold the right-wing idiot tickets squeezes an electoral victory.

Islamic terrorism and particularity perceived Islamic indifference to it and perceived indifference of sane political leadership to it and it's ineffective response greatly increase votes for right-wing idiot ticket, since people perceive them as the lesser evil than unchecked hordes of Jihadis and they take votes away from sane political options because they're perceived as weak and ineffective in the face of real and present danger.

Muslims can combat the key perception that they're indifferent to the Islamic terror extremely effectively, and they can combat the bigotry fueling the right-wing idiot ticket to some extent. They can even make the Jihadi threat seem smaller and eventually make it meaningfully smaller, by something as simple as holding sufficiently large rallies against Islamism sufficiently often.

10-15% of the electorate will still hate them, but what of it? If they don't get in power - and they won't without Islamic extremism - they will have no power to do anything. Eventually the focus of the right-wing idiot ticket will move somewhere else and that will be that.

Yes they can. People like you can stop claiming that Muslims are all terrorists or terrorists sympathisers. Stop pretending that Muslims are a threat. Stop insisting that the only good proper Muslims are the ones who want to commit terrorism. Because the deplorables listen to people like you, not to Muslims.

I said all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? Really? Where? When? Link or apology please.

See, this is true bigotry and prejudice in action. I say something about Muslims, and you label me as a Muslim-hater off the bat. This is, in it's very core, worse than what you accuse me of. Of course there is a difference in that your accusation is also evidently false, but that's the lesser issue.

Find some shame will you?

You keep saying this but I don't believe it for a second. Mass rallies of Muslims would be seen as a threat to the deplorables. The deplorables don't want to live peacefully alongside Muslims they want them out. If you really think that the deplorables will convert the West into a fascist hellhole and that's what the terrorists want then why on earth would you not be saying this to the deplorables? Why instead would you be defending them and justifying them?

I'm neither defending nor justifying them. I'm simply saying this is the way to defeat them. It is at least the best, easiest, least messy and least damaging way to do it, it may well be the only way to do it. Deplorables will never want to live peacefully alongside Muslims, but they can be put in a position where they can't do anything damaging about it. Staying the course is the exact opposite of that. Your only excuse as to why we should stay the course is because doing anything different would be pleasing to deplorables. This is so transparently silly I find it hard to believe you don't see right through it.

Again another unsupported assertion.

It's entirely normal for youngsters to take up what is hip at the time. The problem is that in this case it involves killing people. If terrorists are seen as scum, rejected by their families, made into outcasts posthumously and seen to bring shame to their families, the number of youngsters picking it up will decrease.

It's trivially easy to support this - this was the primary mode of population and birth control in the West, Islamic world and elsewhere up to technological innovations of 20th century. It was also the primary means of suicide prevention in the West for well over a thousand years. The same principle applies elsewhere too.

Well massive rallies of hundreds of thousands of people ain't happening particularly not in countries where there are only hundreds of thousands or a couple of million Muslims. So let's look at things that can actually happen.

France has about 5 million Muslims, I'm sure they can pull off a collection of rallies all over the country with the combined number of 500,000 people. A single event like that won't do the job by itself, but it would be a decent start.

No it's a lot different. Because let me spell it out carefully. Almost all Muslim kids don't kill anyone. And almost all Muslims have no interaction with someone who has killed anyone. No matter what you teach your kids you are not responsible for what the next door neighbour's kids do. Even less so for what the kids of a guy in another country do.

Actually I'm rather sure that running a cult of Ted Bundy that would result in some kids turning into serial killers would result in juridical penalties, including deprivation of liberty for most adults actively involved in the cult.

But there is no need to be so severe with Islam, I'd settle for them making clear to everyone, loudly and clearly, which parts of the persona they detest and which ones they adore for now. That will likely do.

Except when they are non-Muslims teachings we just ignore all that.

Well, if they don't have a meaningful effect at the moment we can ignore them until we solve all who have a meaningful effect right now. If you disagree please justify why we should focus on segments that do not have an effect and ignore the ones that do.

Good luck.

Except I haven't done any of this. I've merely opposed your rampant bigotry and nonsense. I'm perfectly happy to blame Muslims or Islam for things for which they are responsible. Just as I am happy to blame Christianity or Judaism or right-wing idiots for the things they are responsible for.

I'm just explaining where your entire strategy leads. You're free to disagree, just like you're free to disagree about which side of the sky is west and which is east. You won't be taken seriously in that case either.

But hell this is the constant stream of media messages that people receive from the front pages of the newspapers.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...f&tbm=isch&q=daily+mail+anti-muslim+headlines

Other than the large font I see nothing that would be intrinsically problematic. It could be the articles within are entirely factual. Many headlines aren't aimed at Muslims at all, and one is obviously satirical (involving a Muslim spider).

Post one article you think is particularly bad anti-Muslim propaganda, and what makes it propaganda, and we'll go on from there, OK?

You think deplorables know the difference?

I don't know, do they? You called it an anti-Muslim hate crime, you back it up that this Christian was targeted because he was Muslim or whatever it is you're claiming.

So um where did I say I was going to stop them again? What is it about right wingers that makes them assume that the solution to everything is banning it or legislating against it?

You were asked to present a proposal to make it better. You then answered something to the note of ending anti-Islamic propaganda. Now explain how would that be done.

I can think of a few ways, legislating against it is by far the most benign. The rest range from Jyllands-Posten to Charlie Hebdo. If you think there is a better (easier and/or more effective, certainly less destructive) way of doing it then please present it.

I don't have the power to end it.

I don't have the power to make Muslims go on large rallies against Islamists, Islamic extremists and other such scum either. I still present this as a possible solution to the problem.

Just so you know, if you don't have a realistic proposal for what you desire to accomplish, you also spent about four pages of this thread mocking what you thought was my unrealistic plan to accomplish the same goal.

Learn some shame. I mentioned this before, I believe.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Translation. Unless Muslims in general assemble one and all to denounce the holy texts of their religion, and then every year assemble in huge numbers to renew annually this denunciation of their religion in public, then they will be extruded from the land by the anger of the people, or slaughtered by the wrath of the common folk.

Yes. That is not the first such warning received by a minority community. Not to take more modern examples: in 1625 in Vienna, according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia

The Jews of that time found it in many cases impossible to live together with the Christians. Not only were they in constant fear of being derided and insulted, injured in property, health, and honor, and even of being murdered, but they were in continual danger of being falsely accused of crime and condemned.​

Just as you say Muslims are now. These Viennese Jews were transferred to a special walled district of the city and obliged to live there. That was a form of "exile" such as you have predicted for European Muslims. May I offer my historical example for your consideration?

Why yes, this is a fate I wish to avoid for them, and it ends in pretty much the same way. Thank you for bringing up a case that doesn't involve Nazis, I appreciate it.

Muslims have all the power to prevent this from happening. It takes an effort they're well capable of, that wouldn't damage their livelihoods in any meaningful way and that is routinely used all over the world for many purposes. You then tell me they should not do it, because of reasons you're never quite able to explain.

And I'm the bigoted one in the end. Figures

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Why yes, this is a fate I wish to avoid for them. Thank you for bringing up a case that doesn't involve Nazis, I appreciate it ...
McHrozni

I note that you think I didn't offend any readers who are distressed by historical accounts disparaging Nazis. May I ask why you consider that condemnation of Nazis is not appropriate?

In fact my post contained a (seemingly too subtle) attack on Nazi German threats against Jews, so my deference to Nazi sensitivities should not be assumed to be strong.

But my cited case was drawn from another historical epoch, I admit.

 

[McHrozni]

I note that you think I didn't offend any readers who are distressed by historical accounts disparaging Nazis. May I ask why you consider that condemnation of Nazis is not appropriate?

Because Nazis are overused to the point where they must be avoided as a comparison whenever and wherever possible. It's refreshing for someone to have an interest in pre-20th century history, and I appreciate it.

But my cited case was drawn from another historical epoch, I admit.

The antisemitism (Judeophobia?) of the epoch was ultimately responsible for some of the most well-known aspects of Nazis. Antisemitism in Germany didn't begin in 1933, it was well established for centuries, as this example shows.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Please list the head-chopping Christian states currently in existence. There are two Islamic ones, who claim to be one, but go no further than the claim (ISIS and Boko Haram).

If you can't you've proven my point.

No I think you've proven my point. When asked to look at the big picture of despicable acts from all sides you instead choose to select one particular act that you think you can tag on Muslims and then ignore everything else. It's textbook bigotry. By the way, neither of the groups you mention are states. You really should stop parroting terrorist claims as facts.

Who said Muslims think we are worse than cattle? I certainly didn't.
I do claim, and you acknowledge it, that Islamic teachings call us worse than cattle. I also claim that verses like these drive Muslims to kill other people - mainly Muslim, because the only thing worse than an atheist or a polytheist is an incorrect Muslim.

Great. If Muslims don't think it then why bring it up? It makes it no different than the Biblical verse that Christians apparently don't follow either. Throwing **** and hoping it sticks seems to be your tactic of choice.

Anyway, since no other religion currently produces results that would be anywhere within two orders of magnitude of what Islam does, it is entirely justified to focus on Islam and ignore others. If that ever changes then this might change as well, but until then, Islam should get the heat.

Why only religions suddenly? Plenty of ideologies are causing greater or equal harm. Including the right-wing idiocy that you protect and justify.

Of course a sensible approach would be to focus on the people doing the harm rather than the people who aren't. But when did sense ever come into it when you can jump on a Muslim-hating bandwagon?

Pope doesn't have divine powers of changing peoples' minds, he is just an absolute monarch who can change laws at will. These things will take time, they're hundreds of years older than Islam in some cases, but there is a sincere and advancing effort towards that by the current Pope. I applaud it. Catholics would do well to encourage faster change, particularly among their more conservative kin.

The Pope can change the policy. And his underlings will have to fall in line. And people will follow. The Catholic teachings on contraception are not hundreds of years older than Islam. There is no sincere and advancing effort. All that's needed is an pronouncement. It could be changed tomorrow.

[quote[Non-Catholics demonstrating for the Pope to change teachings more quickly are rather unlikely to work, they will discourage further change due to unwanted external interference. Notice that I don't call for mass all-religions demonstrations against Islamic extremism either. Those could end ... horribly. [/quote]

Yes, external interference and pressure to change your religion from outsiders won't work. I'm glad you realised that. Now perhaps stop doing it?

But nowhere did I call for non-catholics to demonstrate against the Pope. I asked why you don't hold Catholics responsible for doing so.

Now that we've dealt with this silly deliberate derail of yours, please get back on topic, will you?

Ah yes, any suggestion that anyone other than Muslims have issues is a derail. Your hypocrisy shines through like a beacon of BS.

If think anyone who votes or otherwise contributes to an electoral a right-wing idiot ticket victory is automatically a right-wing idiot, you're more bigoted than you can probably imagine.

"I'm not a right-wing idiot, I just voted for one." That's your line? Seriously?

The combined number of idiots of various sides (left, right, communist, nationalist whatever) represent ~10-15% of any electorate, at any time. They're empowered by people losing faith in their non-idiot leaders of any political side. Some might vote for right-wing idiot tickets, others simply won't vote against them, and lo and behold the right-wing idiot tickets squeezes an electoral victory.

Number pulled out of backside noted.

The point is that people like you should be harassing the deplorables who are actually doing things that are bad rather than Muslims who are doing nothing wrong. And everyone should be harassing the people who are actually perpetrating terrorism. Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Islamic terrorism and particularity perceived Islamic indifference to it and perceived indifference of sane political leadership to it and it's ineffective response greatly increase votes for right-wing idiot ticket, since people perceive them as the lesser evil than unchecked hordes of Jihadis and they take votes away from sane political options because they're perceived as weak and ineffective in the face of real and present danger.

Because deplorables and people like yourself who exaggerate the risks and demand inappropriate and unrealistic responses then paint anything sensible and balanced as weak and ineffective. Because continually trying to demonise decent law-abiding Muslims funnily enough doesn't make things better.

Muslims can combat the key perception that they're indifferent to the Islamic terror extremely effectively, and they can combat the bigotry fueling the right-wing idiot ticket to some extent. They can even make the Jihadi threat seem smaller and eventually make it meaningfully smaller, by something as simple as holding sufficiently large rallies against Islamism sufficiently often.

And you can combat the perception that you are an Islamophobic bigot by stopping saying things that appear Islamophobic and bigoted. But instead you deny that Islamophobia exists at all. Funny that isn't it? It's almost as if when you don't agree with a perception you don't really think you need to change.

10-15% of the electorate will still hate them, but what of it?

Well I think that's quite bad. Apparently you don't?

If they don't get in power - and they won't without Islamic extremism - they will have no power to do anything. Eventually the focus of the right-wing idiot ticket will move somewhere else and that will be that.

Nonsense. UKIP aren't in power and yet Brexit happened. Because whatever concessions were made to the Euro-sceptics merely encouraged them and legitimised their complaints. Their view was given prominence above what was merited. It was courted and feted by the press looking for an audience. And nobody had the guts to simply say 'No.'

I said all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? Really? Where? When? Link or apology please.

See, this is true bigotry and prejudice in action. I say something about Muslims, and you label me as a Muslim-hater off the bat. This is, in it's very core, worse than what you accuse me of. Of course there is a difference in that your accusation is also evidently false, but your statement is bigoted and prejudiced to the core.

Find some shame will you?

You run fast and loose with your smears of Muslims then get offended when someone calls you on it. And no it wasn't 'off the bat' it was in response to the things you said. Then denied. Then repeated. Then denied again.

I'm neither defending nor justifying them.

Yes you are.

I'm simply saying this is the way to defeat them. It is at least the best, easiest, least messy and least damaging way to do it, it may well be the only way to do it. Deplorables will never want to live peacefully alongside Muslims, but they can be put in a position where they can't do anything damaging about it. Staying the course is the exact opposite of that.

Encouraging them is the best way to defeat them?

It's entirely normal for youngsters to take up what is hip at the time. The problem is that in this case it involves killing people. If terrorists are seen as scum, rejected by their families, made into outcasts posthumously and seen to bring shame to their families, the number of youngsters picking it up will decrease.

This statement has nothing whatsoever to do with Muslims or Islam. People tend not to disown their families no matter what they do.

It's trivially easy to support this - this was the primary mode of population and birth control in the West, Islamic world and elsewhere up to technological innovations of 20th century. It was also the primary means of suicide prevention in the West for well over a thousand years. The same principle applies elsewhere too.

Genuinely have no idea what you are talking about here.

France has about 5 million Muslims, I'm sure they can pull off a collection of rallies all over the country with the combined number of 500,000 people. A single event like that won't do the job by itself, but it would be a pretty decent start.

No, I'm pretty sure they can't. 10% of the population don't turn up for things. Ever. Particularly not things they have no reason to turn up for. But France is France. That's one country.

Actually I'm rather sure that running a cult of Ted Bundy that would result in some kids turning into serial killers would result in juridical penalties, including deprivation of liberty for most adults actively involved in the cult.

I don't know if that's true. I imagine it would depend on what country and what specifically you were saying. I doubt it's illegal to say Ted Bundy is a great role-model for children.

But there is no need to be so severe with Islam, I'd settle for them making clear to everyone, loudly and clearly, which parts of the persona they detest and which ones they adore for now. That will likely do.

Fine. You just need 1.6bn Muslims to agree on that and then they can do so.
Can we have the Christians and Jews do the same just for completeness though?

Well, if they don't have a meaningful effect at the moment we can ignore them until we solve all who have a meaningful effect right now. If you disagree please justify why we should focus on segments that do not have an effect and ignore the ones that do.

Because they only don't have an effect in your head.

I'm just explaining where your entire strategy leads. You're free to disagree, just like you're free to disagree about which side of the sky is west and which is east. You won't be taken seriously in that case either.

Yes because you and the deplorables and the terrorists are right and the rest of the world is wrong. More hate and division is what will help right now.

Other than the large font I see nothing that would be intrinsically problematic.

No you probably don't. Colour me unsurprised that you think this is OK.

It could be the articles within are entirely factual. Many headlines aren't aimed at Muslims at all, and one is obviously satirical (involving a Muslim spider).

Post one article you think is particularly bad anti-Muslim propaganda, and what makes it propaganda, and we'll go on from there, OK?

You keep using the word propaganda. My point is that anti-Muslim messages are fed to the public on a daily basis by the mainstream press. I'm not going to bother quoting an example because I know what your response will be - it's not that bad. Which will, as per usual, miss the point.

I don't know, do they? You called it an anti-Muslim hate crime, you back it up that this Christian was targeted because he was Muslim or whatever it is you're claiming.

You asked for random lynchings. I think you can't get any more random than the example I gave you. Perhaps you would like to explain why this person was Anti-Arab Christian then? Or is it possible that this deplorable who hated 'Mooslems' might have just been mistaken as to the religion of his victim?

Still if you insist on being deliberately illogical here are some actual Muslims being murdered:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/03/new-york-muslim-murder-bangladeshi-nazma-khanam

You were asked to present a proposal to make it better. You then answered something to the note of ending anti-Islamic propaganda. Now explain how would that be done.

This is not what happened at all. You insisted that Islamophobia was a myth and that only a few fringe media outlets carry anti-Muslim stories. You have been shown this is not the case. I expect you to continue to deny that but hey ho. Because my solution to the problem of Islamophobia is to call it out and counter it when I see it.

I can think of a few ways, legislating against it is by far the most benign. The rest range from Jyllands-Posten to Charlie Hebdo. If you think there is a better (easier and/or more effective, certainly less destructive) way of doing it then please present it.

Arguing against it.

I don't have the power to make Muslims go on large rallies against Islamists, Islamic extremists and other such scum either. I still present this as a possible solution to the problem.

Yes, I have no idea why but you certainly do still do that. Learn some embarrassment.

Just so you know, if you don't have a realistic proposal for what you desire to accomplish, you also spent about four pages of this thread mocking what you thought was my unrealistic plan to accomplish the same goal.

I have a proposal of how to counter idiotic bigotry and Islamophobia. You are watching it in action. It doesn't stop the bigots but it may at least stop others swallowing their garbage. Bigots it seems have no embarrassment about being bigots.

Learn some shame. I mentioned this before, I believe.

McHrozni

Indeed you did. You probably think it is an appropriate response. Once again you are incorrect.

 

[McHrozni]

No I think you've proven my point. When asked to look at the big picture of despicable acts from all sides you instead choose to select one particular act that you think you can tag on Muslims and then ignore everything else. It's textbook bigotry. By the way, neither of the groups you mention are states. You really should stop parroting terrorist claims as facts.

You mentioned no despicable acts, but rather a passage you claim to be problematic, then claimed it is an act. That's rather disingenuous, since I am capable of forming memories.

Great. If Muslims don't think it then why bring it up? It makes it no different than the Biblical verse that Christians apparently don't follow either. Throwing **** and hoping it sticks seems to be your tactic of choice.

The answer to this 'answer' of yours is contained in the quote it was supposed to answer in it's entirety.

If you ever wondered why I keep insisting you should read my responses for a change, that's a prime example why.

Why only religions suddenly? Plenty of ideologies are causing greater or equal harm. Including the right-wing idiocy that you protect and justify.

Of course a sensible approach would be to focus on the people doing the harm rather than the people who aren't. But when did sense ever come into it when you can jump on a Muslim-hating bandwagon?

Because you keep bringing up other religions as excuses for faults of Islam. Other ideologies are problematic too, and should be fought. The only thing this tells us that Islam should be, too.

The Pope can change the policy. And his underlings will have to fall in line. And people will follow. The Catholic teachings on contraception are not hundreds of years older than Islam. There is no sincere and advancing effort. All that's needed is an pronouncement. It could be changed tomorrow.

That's how things are supposed to work in the RCC, but realistically it's quite a bit more complicated than that. You probably wouldn't understand, and there is no point of debating it. Open a thread on it in Religion forum if you wish to know more.

Yes, external interference and pressure to change your religion from outsiders won't work. I'm glad you realised that. Now perhaps stop doing it?

That's nonsense, of course external interference and pressure to change your religion from outsiders can work wonders. Outside pressure is why RCC changed from an outright despicable institution into something that is relatively benign in most cases.

That said, this does not mean, nor does it imply, any form of outside pressure is counterproductive. This is simply a product of your own imagination.

Ah yes, any suggestion that anyone other than Muslims have issues is a derail. Your hypocrisy shines through like a beacon of BS.

Unless you can show it is relevant to the debate then yes, it's a very definition of derail.

Slinging mud to show others are bad too is not relevant to the debate.

"I'm not a right-wing idiot, I just voted for one." That's your line? Seriously?

What, you think nearly half of the US electorate became right-wing idiots over the course of one year? Seesh! That's precisely how it works.

"I'm not a Muslim extremist, I just defend them from criticism whenever I can" works well enough for A'isha. Why do you think right-wing idiot voters are any different?

The point is that people like you should be harassing the deplorables who are actually doing things that are bad rather than Muslims who are doing nothing wrong. And everyone should be harassing the people who are actually perpetrating terrorism. Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

A weird thing about Western civilization is that we tend to stick with the people being harassed, regardless of who they are. This is why your knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of Islam is to immediately defend it and defame the critic in any way you can, by attributing them positions they never had and refuse to acknowledge you've been corrected five or more times over.

Harass the deplorables, and you'll hand over allies to them. Do you really want that?

Because deplorables and people like yourself who exaggerate the risks and demand inappropriate and unrealistic responses then paint anything sensible and balanced as weak and ineffective. Because continually trying to demonise decent law-abiding Muslims funnily enough doesn't make things better.

Why are Muslim rallies against Islamic extremists inappropriate?

And you can combat the perception that you are an Islamophobic bigot by stopping saying things that appear Islamophobic and bigoted. But instead you deny that Islamophobia exists at all. Funny that isn't it? It's almost as if when you don't agree with a perception you don't really think you need to change.

Islamophobia exists, but for the most part, the term is overused to the point of being utter garbage. It's kind of how so many comparisons in internet debates involve Nazis at a certain point. There are times when using these terms are valid, but most of the time, it's really garbage made out of junk.

Well I think that's quite bad. Apparently you don't?

If you think that's quite bad you should endorse my plan inside and out, and become it's vocal supporter.

Nonsense. UKIP aren't in power and yet Brexit happened. Because whatever concessions were made to the Euro-sceptics merely encouraged them and legitimised their complaints. Their view was given prominence above what was merited. It was courted and feted by the press looking for an audience. And nobody had the guts to simply say 'No.'

A referendum on Brexit happened and the Leave side squeezed a narrow victory. And telling them "No!" would empower them far more than giving in to the demand of the referendum ever could.

You run fast and loose with your smears of Muslims then get offended when someone calls you on it. And no it wasn't 'off the bat' it was in response to the things you said. Then denied. Then repeated. Then denied again.

In other words, you are unable to present any evidence of your claim, yet claim it is the undeniable truth?

Encouraging them is the best way to defeat them?

Try reading some of my longer paragraphs for a change. It would do you well.

This statement has nothing whatsoever to do with Muslims or Islam. People tend not to disown their families no matter what they do.

Muslims in particular often not just disown, but actually execute their family members if they leave Islam (religious command) or if they are female and have extramarital sex regardless of context. This does result in rape victims getting murdered so the family honor is preserved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shafilea_Ahmed

In light of this 'cultural' background, I find it unlikely that making outcasts of already deceased family members would be a particularly notable upset.

Genuinely have no idea what you are talking about here.

I don't have the power to make what I propose happen, and that doesn't stop me from saying what should happen. This is your sole excuse for not explaining how would you stop the alleged propaganda you're unable to produce when asked, and I just demonstrated it is not a valid reason.

I don't know if that's true. I imagine it would depend on what country and what specifically you were saying. I doubt it's illegal to say Ted Bundy is a great role-model for children.

Go ask a lawyer, then.

Fine. You just need 1.6bn Muslims to agree on that and then they can do so.
Can we have the Christians and Jews do the same just for completeness though?

I don't see why not, although if you were to read why we need the Muslims on board, you'd know we don't need the Christians and Jews. They wouldn't hurt the effort, but not meaningfully help it either.

Because they only don't have an effect in your head.

You keep using the word propaganda. My point is that anti-Muslim messages are fed to the public on a daily basis by the mainstream press.

Hey, you're the one who used it. Dodge noted.

You asked for random lynchings. I think you can't get any more random than the example I gave you. Perhaps you would like to explain why this person was Anti-Arab Christian then?

You presented it as an example of a random anti-Muslim lynching, but then it just so happens his neighbor who hated Arabs and called him a ****** did it, and that the victim was Christian.

I won't be explaining anything until you can explain how the incident constituted an anti-Muslim hate crime.

This is not what happened at all. You insisted that Islamophobia was a myth and that only a few fringe media outlets carry anti-Muslim stories. You have been shown this is not the case. I expect you to continue to deny that but hey ho. Because my solution to the problem of Islamophobia is to call it out and counter it when I see it.

I asked you how to stop this alleged anti-Muslim propaganda. You are unable to show a way to do so, after spending about four pages mocking me for not showing a way of how to do something I never claimed was necessary.

Can you at least spend the next four pages mocking yourself please? Fairness in all things and all that.

I have a proposal of how to counter idiotic bigotry and Islamophobia. You are watching it in action. It doesn't stop the bigots but it may at least stop others swallowing their garbage. Bigots it seems have no embarrassment about being bigots.

So basically you want to smear anyone who thinks Muslims should do anything but sit tight as an idiotic bigot and Islamophobe, in order to protect Muslims from criticism and prejudice.

Nice strategy you have there. A bit self-defeating perhaps, but a good first try.

Now come up with something serious. I give you two more attempts before calling it quits.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Because Nazis are overused to the point where they must be avoided as a comparison whenever and wherever possible. It's refreshing for someone to have an interest in pre-20th century history, and I appreciate it.



The antisemitism (Judeophobia?) of the epoch was ultimately responsible for some of the most well-known aspects of Nazis. Antisemitism in Germany didn't begin in 1933, it was well established for centuries, as this example shows.

McHrozni

Won't do, I'm afraid. I warned you that my deference to this rubbish couldn't be depended upon.

Most of the German states emancipated Jews in the first half of the nineteenth century, as indicated in Jewish emancipation^WP ending with the unified country in 1871. The Nazi persecution of Jews represented a monstrous leap backwards, not to mention the subsequent genocide.

There was, is, and can be, no excuse for these crimes in any historical datum describing conditions in seventeenth century Vienna, or elsewhere. Moreover, vile as it was, the persecution suffered by Jews in Vienna or Rome was as nothing compared to the Holocaust.

 

[A'isha]

"I'm not a Muslim extremist, I just defend them from criticism whenever I can" works well enough for A'isha. Why do you think right-wing idiot voters are any different?

Perhaps you'd like to quote where I've ever defended Muslim extremists?

Muslims in particular often not just disown, but actually execute their family members if they leave Islam (religious command) or if they are female and have extramarital sex regardless of context.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/454614/honour-killing-couple-who-converted-to-islam-killed-by-family/

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1991195,00.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Honour-killing-by-UK-Sikh-family/articleshow/2384202.cms

You presented it as an example of a random anti-Muslim lynching, but then it just so happens his neighbor who hated Arabs and called him a ****** did it, and that the victim was Christian.

I won't be explaining anything until you can explain how the incident constituted an anti-Muslim hate crime.

From Archie Gemmill Goal's link above about the murder of Nazma Khanam: "In the same week the Imam and his friend were killed in Queens, a Lebanese man in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was killed by his neighbor who had repeatedly referred to him as a “dirty Arab” and a “Mooslem”, and attacked his family multiple times in the past."

Which is the exact same case he first gave you a link about.

 

[McHrozni]

Perhaps you'd like to quote where I've ever defended Muslim extremists?

By trying your best to smear a person who is guilty of presenting a plan to defeat them, and by trying your best to stifle the discussion about it by portraying non-Muslims to be bad too by posting irrelevant information, an example of which is quoted below as you desired.

It is a little more ingenious than the more usual ways of defending Islamic extremists, terrorists and murderers, because you don't come of as defending Islamic extremists right off the bat, but it's also a lot more more sinister than the more transparent variants for the same reason.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/454614/honour-killing-couple-who-converted-to-islam-killed-by-family/

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1991195,00.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Honour-killing-by-UK-Sikh-family/articleshow/2384202.cms

Please explain how this is in any way relevant to the (in)ability of Muslim families to denounce their terrorist kin after they have committed acts of terror.

You might want to read the whole argument I make for a change and not just rely on soundbites here and there. Or else stop defending Islamic extremism from criticism, if this is indeed your goal and not just a byproduct of the typical knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of the faith you were born into. Either will do, really.

From Archie Gemmill Goal's link above about the murder of Nazma Khanam: "In the same week the Imam and his friend were killed in Queens, a Lebanese man in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was killed by his neighbor who had repeatedly referred to him as a “dirty Arab” and a “Mooslem”, and attacked his family multiple times in the past."

Which is the exact same case he first gave you a link about.

In other words, he was targeted because he was an Arab, first and foremost. The hatred against Arabs was probably indeed spawned by actions of Arab Muslims, which, in the small mind of a retard, seemed to be one and the same or something. The way I see it there is a very weak case that it was an anti-Muslim hate crime. The underlying cause for bigotry was spawned by Muslim extremists, but since he was a Christian, he obviously wasn't targeted for his Muslim faith.

Now please explain how this doesn't strengthen my case for moderate Muslims to rally against Islamic extremists loudly, in great numbers, and often?

It is a very strong piece of evidence that I'm right and Archie, CraigB and you are actually arguing against something you've now been given conclusive proof would be beneficial. I thank you for bringing it up, I doubt I could ever find a better case to demonstrate why I'm right and why you're wrong.

I won't hold my breath for any of you to change your minds though, nor do I expect you to respect my opinion, because it's different from what you want to be true.

You might do well to read where you fit in very neatly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+bigotry

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

By trying your best to smear a person who is guilty of presenting a plan to defeat them, and by trying your best to stifle the discussion about it by portraying non-Muslims to be bad too by posting irrelevant information, an example of which is quoted below as you desired.

It is a little more ingenious than the more usual ways of defending Islamic extremists, terrorists and murderers, because you don't come of as defending Islamic extremists right off the bat, but it's also a lot more more sinister than the more transparent variants for the same reason.





Please explain how this is in any way relevant to the (in)ability of Muslim families to denounce their terrorist kin after they have committed acts of terror.

You might want to read the whole argument I make for a change and not just rely on soundbites here and there. Or else stop defending Islamic extremism from criticism, if this is indeed your goal and not just a byproduct of the typical knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of the faith you were born into. Either will do, really.



In other words, he was targeted because he was an Arab, first and foremost. The hatred against Arabs was probably indeed spawned by actions of Arab Muslims, which, in the small mind of a retard, seemed to be one and the same or something. The way I see it there is a very weak case that it was an anti-Muslim hate crime. The underlying cause for bigotry was spawned by Muslim extremists, but since he was a Christian, he obviously wasn't targeted for his Muslim faith.

Now please explain how this doesn't strengthen my case for moderate Muslims to rally against Islamic extremists loudly, in great numbers, and often?

It is a very strong piece of evidence that I'm right and Archie, CraigB and you are actually arguing against something you've now been given conclusive proof would be beneficial. I thank you for bringing it up, I doubt I could ever find a better case to demonstrate why I'm right and why you're wrong.

I won't hold my breath for any of you to change your minds though, nor do I expect you to respect my opinion, because it's different from what you want to be true.

You might do well to read where you fit in very neatly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+bigotry

McHrozni

This last part is fairly sickening victim blaming. The guy was killed for no reason other than his ethicity and you point the finger at Muslims.

Pathetic really.

 

[McHrozni]

The guy was killed for no reason other than his ethicity and you point the finger at Muslims.

I pointed the finger at Muslim extremists as the main, possibly the sole driver of bigotry in this case. I didn't realize I was supposed to protect their feelings, can you please explain why I should do that?

At any rate, the incident shows that Muslims would benefit greatly from speaking against Islamic extremists loudly, in great numbers and often. Blame (or lack thereof) of non-extremist Muslims doesn't even enter the equation, despite of your increasingly desperate attempts to insert it. If your best argument against this is that I'm pathetic, I rest my case.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Muslims already do speak loudly and in large numbers against Islamic terrorism/extremists.

 

[McHrozni]

Muslims already do speak loudly and in large numbers against Islamic terrorism/extremists.

That's debatable. I would say that for a group of 1.6 billion people, the numbers are nowhere near where they should be. We could debate who is right forever, and we could only come down it is ones' opinion whether the numbers are what we could consider large and their volume loud. Yes, the numbers mentioned (30,000 people, one time event) seem large when taken at face value and no, the numbers are quite small when compared to other things Muslims are routinely doing (Hajj: >1,500,000 people, yearly event; Arba'een: >20,000,000 people*, yearly event) and minuscule compared to what is achievable.

What isn't debatable is that the current effort is insufficient to stem the tide of anti-Muslim bigotry. They waited for too long for these numbers to do the job. If we would see the levels of protest we see today twenty years ago, the levels we see today might suffice, but not after so many atrocities committed by devout Muslims in the name of Islam.

This is why I've been adding the adjective sufficient lately. You could argue that some aspects of the effort are "large" by some definitions, although in my opinion the current effort cannot be considered such. Regardless, it is abundantly clear it is not sufficient to do the job, as some posters here have shown.

* I suspect Shi'a propaganda added an extra zero there. That's what Wikipedia says though. Still, 1% of this is still almost 10 times the largest Muslim anti-terrorism rally in history, and that was a one-time event, this one is yearly, and from only ~10% of Muslims too. There is more and more evidence my estimate of two orders of magnitude was right on the bat for the lower bound of what scale of effort would be appropriate.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

As ever why are you the one to set the appropriate level of protest for over a billion people?

 

[McHrozni]

As ever why are you the one to set the appropriate level of protest for over a billion people?

I explained to you why this would be an appropriate level in the above post. You're free to try to poke a hole in the numbers if you can.

If 1.5 million Muslims are capable of traveling to Mecca to stage a reenactment of a Pagan ritual every year then it also should be possible to gather 1.5 million Muslims somewhere to fight against the greatest threat to Islam in at least 800 years by protesting against it. If you think otherwise please explain why that is and what numbers would be acceptable. I'll hold you to the same standard and I won't accept the numbers you pull out of any orifice of yours as acceptable.

Good luck in your quest.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

I pointed the finger at Muslim extremists as the main, possibly the sole driver of bigotry in this case. I didn't realize I was supposed to protect their feelings, can you please explain why I should do that?

At any rate, the incident shows that Muslims would benefit greatly from speaking against Islamic extremists loudly, in great numbers and often. Blame (or lack thereof) of non-extremist Muslims doesn't even enter the equation, despite of your increasingly desperate attempts to insert it. If your best argument against this is that I'm pathetic, I rest my case.

McHrozni

This is developing along historically precedented lines. Let's go back to the ghetto epoch we were discussing previously. Jews are responsible for harming Christians. A Jew is attacked by Christians. Who is to blame? The Jew. In fact all Jews. Because they won't get together en masse and denounce their own religion. They won't admit that a scribe copying the Torah is thereby propagating "hate speech" and thus arousing the righteous wrath of the common folk.