Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[McHrozni]

I thought it was quite funny. It would only be awful if he meant it, and one would have to be a bit dim to think that.

I wouldn't give it that much credit, but it was an attempt to be funny. Still, given how badly he, A'isha and Darat misrepresent my views, the only safe way for me is to take it seriously and respond to it as if it were true.

I wouldn't want them quoting me as a supporter of self-flagellation until the end of time, as would likely happen.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Not as nitpicky: believing Earth is flat and beheading non-believers a deed that gets you into heaven are not equivalent. There is nothing illogical or improper to fully tolerate one and ignore it and fight against the other.
Not all crazy beliefs are alike and different beliefs warrant different attitudes of those not believing in them. Who would've thought.

Which wasn't the point I was making and is yet another strawman.

 

[Craig B]

You mean like in the Ashura, which is attended by up to 45 million Muslims in a record year, and over 20 million regularly attend it on an annual basis?

Yes, so they're putting in some practice in advance. That makes the self flagellation project all the more feasible, doesn't it? I mean they've got a good supply of whips already.

 

[A'isha]

Because you'll just ignore it again, just like you did last time and the time before that. You need to find and post it yourself, so the next time this comes up, I'll be able to quote your own post.

Your claim, you back it up.

Though I note you've complained that I'm quoting you out of context at least a half dozen times now, and yet every single time you've been singularly unwilling (or perhaps unable) to quote yourself in what you think the "proper context" is.

You could, yes. Please point out a Buddhist state that does what ISIS does and uses Buddhist teachings, and those teachings alone to justify it.

Ah, again, as with the state execution method of beheading, with the carefully wording of the request to prompt the answer you want, even if it excludes things that you have previously included when talking about Islamic terrorists.

Nevertheless, the genocide of the Rohingya is close enough to what ISIS is doing (distressingly so), and is motivated by Buddhist supremacism and incited by Buddhist clerics speaking with "the force of doctrine".

And no amount of your apologism for terrorism and religious violence that you can't attribute to Islam and special-pleading handwaving will make that go away.

Well if you think he hated Arabs for reasons other than actions of some Arabs of Muslim faith (like flying civilian airliners into large skyscrapers, killing thousands), you're free to present your theory as to why he hated Arabs.

Make sure it doesn't scuttle the argument it was an anti-Muslim hate crime, by the way. We wouldn't want you disproving yourself, would we?

Uh, I don't think he hated Arabs for any reason other than he believed all Arabs are Muslims and he hates Muslims. And that is, in fact, why this was an anti-Muslim hate crime.

You're the one that's been trying to argue he murdered the victim solely because the victim was Arab and his motivations had nothing to do with Muslims.

No one has done anything of the sort. There were a few silly attempts at false equivalence, which I addressed in full - without complaints, I might add.

Yes, that's why you complained "What more do you want?" when suddenly forced to hold yourself to the same standard you hold for Muslims.

If they claim they don't think their religion actually tells them to be terrorists, they already deny the validity of their religion as a whole.

You didn't even know about the existence of jihad an-nafs (and still refused to acknowledge it even after I pointed it out to you), so your understanding of what "their religion actually tells them" leaves quite a bit to be desired.

 

[A'isha]

To put it in terms you should understand well, being healthy and being ill are not binary either. Suppose your child has gotten ill, and there are two options: either it's the common cold, or it's cancer. Both are diseases, so the child will no longer be healthy, but are both diseases equally disturbing to the parent and child? Would you be equally distressed if your child had the common cold than if (s)he had cancer?

It's more like a choice between your child having one type of cancer, or a different type of cancer (or between having one strain of the flu or a different strain of the flu).

 

[Belgian thought]

The fight against 'global terror' starts at home.

nice but nonsense

 

[Belgian thought]

That is surely a joke or a delusion. The Bible, for example, is not a single uniform piece of writing that can be respected or rejected as a whole. What does "the Bible say"?

Deuteronomy 5:9 ... I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.​

You don't respect that? No problem. We'll stay in the same book.

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.​

A joke perhaps, but really, and as you rightly point out in the above example, these books do not give much credence, full of contradictions etc..

I asked you and other writers a long time ago which parts of these "holy books" would you apply to a country's constitution.

I still await an answer which does not include cherry picking.

 

[Giz]

The fight against 'global terror' starts at home.

... if your name is bin Laden.

 

[Darat]

There is nothing personal about it. I am genuinely ignorant of what you believe now. ...snip... <childish insults sniped>

Yet again: I do not agree with your premise.

I have three competing theories, which I wrote down above, each of the three is mutually exclusive with the two others and evidence for each of the three is comparably strong. You also refuse to say clearly what do you believe. It's neither a personal nor insult nor a non sequitur to say so.

It is, however, a non sequitur to answer with what you don't believe in again, as you undoubtedly will soon enough.

You repeat your non-sequitur and false dichotomy again. I am not making a claim beyond stating I do not agree with your premise.

One more thing, since you claimed my conclusion is a non sequitur, can you explain to me what system of logic do you use?

You see, it goes like this:

Statement A: I think everyone should denounce Islamic extremists.
Statement B: I think non-extremist Muslims should denounce Islamic extremists.

If A is true so is B in every system of logic I'm familiar with, but not with yours, apparently. Can you please explain what is this system of yours and how it operates, what are it's rules? Is it what suits you in that particular moment, or does it have some consistency maybe? ...snip....

You should go back in the thread and check what you agreed was your premise. That should help clear up your confusion.

....<puerile silliness snipped>...

Can you tell me how many times to I need to answer this, so I can use the trusty ctrl+c, ctrl+v please? If you do, you'll get your answer, STAT.

McHrozni

I'd just like you to answer once the actual question I have repeatedly asked you: why are you the one to set the appropriate level of protest for over a billion people?

 

[Darat]

... if your name is bin Laden.

Sadly your joke about a terrorist responsible for the murder of over three thousand people has a kernel of truth in it. It is certainly true that some terrorists are acting out the culture and society they are by chance born into.

Again sadly we seem to forget at times the wisdom of "winning hearts and minds", indeed the concept is often ridiculed today in (especially) politicised discussions yet we know it is a strategy that can work. Of course it isn't the only tool but we should use it when it is appropriate.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I asked you and other writers a long time ago which parts of these "holy books" would you apply to a country's constitution.

Did you ask that? Apologies. Here's my answer. None.

I don't really see how that is relevant to the topic at hand but if it helps then I'm happy to answer.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

... if your name is bin Laden.

So my arguing against doing what bin Laden and ISIS leaders want us to do...makes me bin Laden.

Care to try again?

nice but nonsense

Can't help but notice both of you isolate a single line out of context and have zero substance to your replies.

 

[Giz]

So my arguing against doing what bin Laden and ISIS leaders want us to do...makes me bin Laden.

Care to try again?

It was a joke. SEAL team 6 brought the war on terror to his house.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It was a joke. SEAL team 6 brought the war on terror to his house.

NEEEEROOOM!

Right over my head :9.

 

[Craig B]

A joke perhaps, but really, and as you rightly point out in the above example, these books do not give much credence, full of contradictions etc..

I asked you and other writers a long time ago which parts of these "holy books" would you apply to a country's constitution.

I still await an answer which does not include cherry picking.

Remind us, if you will, of the terms of your question by a link to it; and please recall that a courteous question is more likely to elicit a constructive response.

 

[The Norseman]

Your claim, you back it up.

Though I note you've complained that I'm quoting you out of context at least a half dozen times now, and yet every single time you've been singularly unwilling (or perhaps unable) to quote yourself in what you think the "proper context" is.

I've got no dog in this fight whatsoever, but I followed the link in your sig and I agree that you're studiously mis-reading what he wrote. I've been reading this entire thread and I have read where he has explained what he meant and the context.

And no amount of your apologism for terrorism and religious violence that you can't attribute to Islam and special-pleading handwaving will make that go away.

Oh, BS. Complete and utter BS. It is laughably moronic to read McHrozni's posts and think he's apologizing for terrorism and religious violence. You, Darat, Craig B and others are doing your best to turn this whole conversation personal and it's blatantly obvious. I don't know nor do I care at this moment what McHrozni's political leanings are; he's put forth his argument in a clear and rational manner and has defended it decently.

Yet again: I do not agree with your premise.

So what? You've said this a dozen times now. I don't think I've actually seen you state why you disagree; just keep harping on the irrelevant question of, in essence, "who do you think you are?"

You repeat your non-sequitur and false dichotomy again. I am not making a claim beyond stating I do not agree with your premise.

He's already explained what you've wanted him to explain so maybe it's time to just drop it if this is the extent of your contributions.

I'd just like you to answer once the actual question I have repeatedly asked you: why are you the one to set the appropriate level of protest for over a billion people?

Already asked and answered many times.

So why doesn't anyone else who opposes McHrozni give some more effective solutions instead of whining that his proposal is teh suxxors?

 

[A'isha]

I've got no dog in this fight whatsoever, but I followed the link in your sig and I agree that you're studiously mis-reading what he wrote. I've been reading this entire thread and I have read where he has explained what he meant and the context.

Really? And what, to you, was the context for him asking if I wanted to be put in a gas chamber because I didn't agree with him that "Islam" is the problem?

, BS. Complete and utter BS. It is laughably moronic to read McHrozni's posts and think he's apologizing for terrorism and religious violence.

McHrozni not only ignores and minimizes and denies any religiously motivated terrorism and violence if it's not caused by Islam (just watch how he'll handwave away the role and motivation of Buddhism in what's happening in Burma/Myanmar), he's even refusing to acknowledge the rather blatant anti-Muslim nature of the murder of Haifa Jabara because apparently to him only Muslims kill people over religion.

EDIT:

So why doesn't anyone else who opposes McHrozni give some more effective solutions instead of whining that his proposal is teh suxxors?

Here's one: How about supporting Muslims who don't believe their religion tells them to be terrorists, rather than saying garbage like "If they claim they don't think their religion actually tells them to be terrorists, they already deny the validity of their religion as a whole."

 

[McHrozni]

Your claim, you back it up.

Though I note you've complained that I'm quoting you out of context at least a half dozen times now, and yet every single time you've been singularly unwilling (or perhaps unable) to quote yourself in what you think the "proper context" is.

You're unwilling to find it, and resort to fake skepticism to hide it?
What more would one expect from a denier anyway?

I could say the entirety of evidence is readily available from the thread you quote to. But since I'm a better person than you, I'll do as you pretend to want (but fear beyond all reason), I will quote the actual post. One of them, because there were several.

The most convenient and easiest to find was incredibly well hidden six posts down from the one you quote, on the same page. Here's the link:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11513143&postcount=293

It's in the last two paragraphs. You even managed to quote the text that refuted your claim with more false accusations. I fully expect you to continue with your despicable mud-slinging campaign, because defending Islam from any and all criticism is much more important to you than honest exchange of opinions. Prove me wrong if you can manage, but don't expect me to hold my breath.

You don't risk being put in a gas chamber because of your opinions, where did you get that idea from anyway? You risk being put in a gas chamber because you (appear to) follow a religion whose greatest achievement in the past several centuries is 1001 ways to make innocent everyday objects into tools to commit mass murder, and whose followers (including you) spare no effort to defend the religion and keep it as it is while making essentially no effort to fix the glaring problems with the religion.

My comments about gas chambers are exactly as much a threat as a climatologist warning about the disastrous climate change is a threat. I actually want to spare you from that fate, but you're listening about as much as a rich oil magnate is to the climatologist. This was explained to you before. Why do you keep misrepresenting my points?

Ah, again, as with the state execution method of beheading, with the carefully wording of the request to prompt the answer you want, even if it excludes things that you have previously included when talking about Islamic terrorists.

You're the one focused on head-chopping. I explicitly said I would accept a different form of execution.

Nevertheless, the genocide of the Rohingya is close enough to what ISIS is doing (distressingly so), and is motivated by Buddhist supremacism and incited by Buddhist clerics speaking with "the force of doctrine".

Close enough according to you, not according to reality. What Rohingya are doing is closer to what is happening to non-Muslims in Egypt (and a whole host of others, see Algeria in 1960s) than what is happening to minorities under ISIS. If you're going to claim that's comparable to ISIS, Islam just got that much worse for your to defend.

You didn't even know about the existence of jihad an-nafs (and still refused to acknowledge it even after I pointed it out to you), so your understanding of what "their religion actually tells them" leaves quite a bit to be desired.

I never claimed Islam has no good features. My claim is only that Islam has massive bad features which effectively drown out the good features it might have.

Your refusal to acknowledge what that gas chambers comment said and using it to smear me with feces is a prime example of where Islam is really bad: accepting any form of criticism.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

It's more like a choice between your child having one type of cancer, or a different type of cancer (or between having one strain of the flu or a different strain of the flu).

The fact you protested it in this way clearly demonstrates you're fully aware of the difference I'm talking about, and just refuse to acknowledge it. How very 'skeptical' of you

I can do the same comparison with diseases if you want - pancreatic vs prostate cancer (both in a male you care about obviously) or Spanish flu vs a much more benign strain of flu and so on. But you already managed see the point, you just hide away from it, as usual.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Here's one: How about supporting Muslims who don't believe their religion tells them to be terrorists,

This is precisely that I'm doing. The thing is, you consider any criticism of Islam to be unacceptable, and hence refuse to even look for context when you get an appropriate soundbite.

McHrozni