Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I can summarize all 'suggestions' in one very short phrase: "stay the course".

You can do. You would be wrong to do so but you certainly can do. In fact you just did.

I tend towards the motto 'first do no harm'. The actions of the right are making things worse not better. You even seem to agree with this in moments of clarity but then fall back to saying it's all the Muslim's own fault.

I tend to believe that the only people who can change the actions of the right are the right.

I really think we need to stop sending the message to Muslims that terrorists have the correct interpretation of what their God wants them to do. I think that's counterproductive

I really think we need to to stop caging Muslims in refugee camps which will become (if they aren't already) nothing more than factories for radicalisation. Because you can't treat people like animals and expect them not to resent that. The USA and UK should be ashamed of themself in its lack of action in helping refugees. And before you say it, so should those Muslim countries that have done little or nothing to help. That's not an excuse though.

And I really think we need to have some grown up conversations about how we can integrate Islamic culture better into Western society without giving up anything important.

With regards the Middle East - there may well be no solution. But if there is one it surely involves finding a way for young Muslims not to grow up in a war zone. Growing up in a war zone tends to have bad results. Ditto Africa where a hell of a lot of the places where we see trouble are plagued by civil war and infighting.

Most of all though we should keep the whole thing in perspective and stop claiming that somehow Muslims are a threat to our civilisation when they are nothing of the sort. Perhaps its an American reaction to actually having a threat on their own shores but Europe has dealt with terrorism and wars for as long as anyone can remember. We are still here.

 

[McHrozni]

I tend towards the motto 'first do no harm'. The actions of the right are making things worse not better. You even seem to agree with this in moments of clarity but then fall back to saying it's all the Muslim's own fault.

Well, gain with guilt. It is Muslim fault to the extent they're unwilling to even admit, much less remove the core cause of problems with Islam, and pretending this is something universal we just have to contend with. A'isha is prime example.

I tend to believe that the only people who can change the actions of the right are the right.

By that logic the only people who can change the actions of Islamists are Muslims.

Reality is much more complex however, and actions of any group can be influenced if not dictated by any other group, especially if they're a response to that group. The rise of the alt-right is in no small part a reaction of what many perceive to be Islamism running amok essentially unchecked.

Remove that or perception of that, and you've dealt them a blow it will take them decades to recover from, and then the process will renew.

I really think we need to stop sending the message to Muslims that terrorists have the correct interpretation of what their God wants them to do. I think that's counterproductive

I think it's counterproductive to keep pretending Islam isn't a massive source of massive problems. It clearly is. The question is how do we deal with it. Digging our heads in the sand until we strike oil is a tad overly optimistic.

I really think we need to to stop caging Muslims in refugee camps which will become (if they aren't already) nothing more than factories for radicalisation. Because you can't treat people like animals and expect them not to resent that. The USA and UK should be ashamed of themself in its lack of action in helping refugees. And before you say it, so should those Muslim countries that have done little or nothing to help. That's not an excuse though.

Like the Germans did, resulting in events like the one in OP? That breeds significant alt-right resentment, empowers them and it's the driving force of the problems.

Furthermore you fall into the common trap of excuses for Islamic extremism. In reality, the social structure of terrorists and extremists shows that well-off, educated and middle class are underrepresented whereas the poor and socially excluded are underrepresented.

A fair assessment of that would be that social exclusion is not the overwhelming factor. It might factor in in some cases, but in most cases the driving force is elsewhere. The only viable source for that is knowledge of Islamic scriptures. You're free to name another source if you wish, but I doubt you'll be able to.

And I really think we need to have some grown up conversations about how we can integrate Islamic culture better into Western society without giving up anything important.

That's precisely what I proposed. The only thing to be given up is marginal amounts of free time - a few hours a month. That certainly qualifies as nothing important. If you have cheaper solutions I'm all ears.

With regards the Middle East - there may well be no solution. But if there is one it surely involves finding a way for young Muslims not to grow up in a war zone. Growing up in a war zone tends to have bad results. Ditto Africa where a hell of a lot of the places where we see trouble are plagued by civil war and infighting.

Sure.

Algeria: Islamists vs. secularists.
Tunisia: Islamists vs. everyone else.
Libya: Islamists vs. Islamists vs. everyone else.
Egypt: Islamists vs. everyone else.
Lebanon: Islamists vs. everyone else.
Syria: Islamists vs. Islamists vs. Islamofascists vs. Kurds
Turkey: Islamofascists vs. Kurds
Iraq: Islamists vs. Islamists
Yemen: Islamists vs. Islamists

Call me Islamophobe if you want, but it seems to me those wars DO have a common demominator. That typo was deliberate.

You also mentioned Africa. A valid observation of Africa is that despite the many wars and decades of unrest, poverty and foreign interference, it hasn't produced an appreciable number of international terrorists of non-Muslim faith.

That is curious to say the least. Can you explain it in a way that doesn't involve Islam as a major contributor, setting it apart from other religions?

Most of all though we should keep the whole thing in perspective and stop claiming that somehow Muslims are a threat to our civilisation when they are nothing of the sort. Perhaps its an American reaction to actually having a threat on their own shores but Europe has dealt with terrorism and wars for as long as anyone can remember. We are still here.

Islamists are a threat to our civilization in the same way a peanut is life-threatning to a person with peanut allergy. Muslims won't destroy Western civilization by fighting it, they lack the military strength for that.

They could well destroy it by a paper cut on a paper cut until the overreaction of our civilization destroys it. The only way to prevent it is to demonstrate adequately that most Muslims indeed are different. That is what my plan calls for, this is what needs to be done. If you have a better example of how to do it and are able to present and argue for it I might change my mind.

Pretending all is fine because "most" Muslims are not problematic brought us here, and is driving us off the cliff. I consider this unacceptable and a worse option than mine. What else can be done?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well, gain with guilt. It is Muslim fault to the extent they're unwilling to even admit, much less remove the core cause of problems with Islam, and pretending this is something universal we just have to contend with. A'isha is prime example.

This simply assumes your conclusion. Muslims are responsible and need to do something because they haven't yet done the thing that you want them to do.

By that logic the only people who can change the actions of Islamists are Muslims.

Can you see what you've done there? And why that completely invalidates your point?

Reality is much more complex however, and actions of any group can be influenced if not dictated by any other group, especially if they're a response to that group. The rise of the alt-right is in no small part a reaction of what many perceive to be Islamism running amok essentially unchecked.

Remove that or perception of that, and you've dealt them a blow it will take them decades to recover from, and then the process will renew.

You are very hot on people apologising for unacceptable behaviour but seem completely blind to the fact that this is exactly what you do with the right wing deplorables.

If you think right wing deplorable behaviour is a threat then oppose it.

I think it's counterproductive to keep pretending Islam isn't a massive source of massive problems. It clearly is. The question is how do we deal with it. Digging our heads in the sand until we strike oil is a tad overly optimistic.

Disagreeing with you is not pretending anything.

Like the Germans did, resulting in events like the one in OP? That breeds significant alt-right resentment, empowers them and it's the driving force of the problems.

Let's keep making the problem worse because it fits your narrow worldview then.

Furthermore you fall into the common trap of excuses for Islamic extremism. In reality, the social structure of terrorists and extremists shows that well-off, educated and middle class are underrepresented whereas the poor and socially excluded are underrepresented.

This is not even related to what I said and is just yet another talking point of the right. First off being educated doesn't mean you aren't socially excluded and secondly you cannot take the individuals out of the context of their group and still have a meaningful point.

A fair assessment of that would be that social exclusion is not the overwhelming factor. It might factor in in some cases, but in most cases the driving force is elsewhere. The only viable source for that is knowledge of Islamic scriptures. You're free to name another source if you wish, but I doubt you'll be able to.

This 'fair assessment' would be completely missing the point.

That's precisely what I proposed. The only thing to be given up is marginal amounts of free time - a few hours a month. That certainly qualifies as nothing important. If you have cheaper solutions I'm all ears.

No you did not propose grown up conversations on how Muslims and Islam can be better integrated into Western society.

Sure.

Algeria: Islamists vs. secularists.
Tunisia: Islamists vs. everyone else.
Libya: Islamists vs. Islamists vs. everyone else.
Egypt: Islamists vs. everyone else.
Lebanon: Islamists vs. everyone else.
Syria: Islamists vs. Islamists vs. Islamofascists vs. Kurds
Turkey: Islamofascists vs. Kurds
Iraq: Islamists vs. Islamists
Yemen: Islamists vs. Islamists

Deary me. You might remember what started the Iraq war for example? Since when was Dubya a Muslim?

Call me Islamophobe if you want, but it seems to me those wars DO have a common demominator. That typo was deliberate.

Was it? Was it clever?

You also mentioned Africa. A valid observation of Africa is that despite the many wars and decades of unrest, poverty and foreign interference, it hasn't produced an appreciable number of international terrorists of non-Muslim faith.

Was the Rwandan genocide in your opinion terrorism?

How about the LRA?

That is curious to say the least. Can you explain it in a way that doesn't involve Islam as a major contributor, setting it apart from other religions?

Can I explain it? I can certainly suggest alternative hypotheses to test. 1. You are cherry picking. 2. You are being dishonest in your characterisation of some of these conflicts 3. Non-Muslims are so racist towards Muslims that they start a war with them everytime they move in. (I don't personally believe this but it would certainly fit a lot of your data) 4. There is a 'terrorism infrastructure' and plenty of 'role models' for Islamic terrorism therefore making it easier and more likely that Islamic groups will adopt this behaviour ... there's a whole host of others. But again you are picking data to fit your conclusion.

Islamists are a threat to our civilization in the same way a peanut is life-threatning to a person with peanut allergy. Muslims won't destroy Western civilization by fighting it, they lack the military strength for that.

They could well destroy it by a paper cut on a paper cut until the overreaction of our civilization destroys it.

Then stop encouraging the over-reaction. It's not hard. Just sit down and do nothing and it will already be an improvement on what you are doing right now.

The only way to prevent it is to demonstrate adequately that most Muslims indeed are different.

This has already been demonstrated adequately. The problem is people like you that want impossible levels of proof to even consider it.

That is what my plan calls for, this is what needs to be done. If you have a better example of how to do it and are able to present and argue for it I might change my mind.

Your plan calls for bullying Muslims until they kow-tow to your expectations.

Pretending all is fine because "most" Muslims are not problematic brought us here, and is driving us off the cliff. I consider this unacceptable and a worse option than mine. What else can be done?

McHrozni

No it wasn't what brought us here and it's that kind of gross misrepresentation of facts thats undermines your entire argument. We didn't get here by being too nice to Muslims, to the Middle East, to Africa, to refugees. We got here by continually ***** them up and thinking we had an entitlement to do that.

 

[A'isha]

I can summarize all 'suggestions' in one very short phrase: "stay the course".

Actually, it's more like "stop taking ISIS' side against Muslims who are also against ISIS".

Repression of minorities is not the only problematic feature of ISIS. Please show what else they do in order to deserve the comparison.

"Repression of minorities" is a pretty PC way to describe the campaigns of religious and ethnic based genocide that both ISIS and Burma/Myanmar are carrying out.

True, but Boko Haram has other other problematic features which are unlike ISIS, but just as bad. One of them is an active campaign against education, because it's a threat to Islam. That is a feature which rivals international terrorism in depravity and destructiveness, so the comparison is entirely justified.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Secu...oesn-t-really-mean-Western-education-is-a-sin

Nevertheless, this is more special pleading and carefully redefining your criteria to include the religion you want to include and exclude the religions you don't.

You aren't establishing a metric and then seeing what religions fit where, you've already determined what religions you want to fit where, and are tinkering with criteria you can retrofit onto that to justify it after the fact.

You do realize I admitted religious violence in other religions existed, but that it is the severity of such violence was where Islam was different from all other major religions in existence in the part of the post which this reply of yours was aimed at, right?

And you challenged me with finding a Buddhist state that was doing things like ISIS was doing (because you, like many Westerners, falsely believed in the "Buddhism is a nonviolent religion" meme). And when I found a pretty big example, you changed the subject and only then started accusing me of "defaming other religions".

Well, genocides is clearly plural and you're unwilling or unable of providing more than one example. Arabic has dual grammatical number as I recall, so I really don't see why we should stop at just two either. I think five is the limit where you can claim something to be plural in just about any language. Your assertion was that there is religious violence in all religions and appear to pretend it is equally severe in all religions. Your 'evidence' for that is that one Buddhist state appears to be engaged in genocide, although it's not proven to be either, and it's clearly dwarfed by what ISIS is doing. You need to prove your claim in full, that violence of such scale is present in all religions, and that it is present with a severity and frequency not significantly different from that of Islam.

You keep snipping out every mention of mass killings (including beheadings and forced conversions on pain of death) and ethnic cleansing verging on genocide carried out by Christian militias and terrorist organizations in Central Africa, so you can keep asserting that such things don't exist.

And I haven't even brought up what happened to Bosnian Muslims at the hand of Eastern Orthodox Serbs.

The principles you mention are about altering Sharia to be more in line with the Koran and the Hadith, not to be more in line with how the society is supposed to function. That is not what I was asking for. I suspect you'll do your very best to deny this, as usual.

Really? Altering shari'ah (which, let's not forget, you specifically declared was a thing that couldn't even happen in the first place) to declare that the marriage of anyone under the age of 18 is unlawful is not making it "more in line with how the society is supposed to function"?

Thanks for the acknowledgement that prohibiting child marriage is "more in line with the Koran and the Hadith", though.

 

[A'isha]

Well, gain with guilt. It is Muslim fault to the extent they're unwilling to even admit, much less remove the core cause of problems with Islam, and pretending this is something universal we just have to contend with. A'isha is prime example.

You seem to vacillate on just what you think the "core cause of problems with Islam" actually is. Usually you focus on the fact that there are passages within Islamic scripture which talk about violence, the doomed fate of unbelievers, etc. When it's pointed out to you that there are passages within Christian (and therefore Jewish) scripture which say the exact same things regarding violence, the doomed fate of unbelievers, and so on, you switch your argument to say that Christians don't follow those passages in their scriptures and/or interpret them to be nonviolent, but Muslims still believe their violent passages. When it's pointed out to you that there are Muslims who also don't follow those passages in their scriptures and/or interpret them to be nonviolent, you circle right back to focusing on the existence of those passages and declare that there's no way to ignore and/or interpret them to be nonviolent and still be a Muslim (thus neatly refusing to accept even the possibility of Muslims interacting with their scripture the exact same way you not only completely accept when Christians do it, but use it to justify your claims that Islam is worse than Christianity).

Which argument you use at any given moment seems to change mostly based on whichever one is most useful to justify your excusing of Christianity but blaming of Islam, apparently completely heedless of the fact that each form of argument you use is completely contradicted by the other forms of it.

 

[McHrozni]

This simply assumes your conclusion. Muslims are responsible and need to do something because they haven't yet done the thing that you want them to do.

Muslims are able to do something meaningful the rest of us aren't able to. Therefore I contend they should do it, regardless of how fair or unfair this seems.

You are very hot on people apologising for unacceptable behaviour but seem completely blind to the fact that this is exactly what you do with the right wing deplorables.

If you think right wing deplorable behaviour is a threat then oppose it.

I do oppose it. My scenario is the one that opposes them in the most effective manner possible.

Let's keep making the problem worse because it fits your narrow worldview then.

This is precisely what you're advocating.

This is not even related to what I said and is just yet another talking point of the right. First off being educated doesn't mean you aren't socially excluded and secondly you cannot take the individuals out of the context of their group and still have a meaningful point.

Really. Please provide evidence social exclusion was the cause of a major portion of Islamic extremism. Not guesses and not innuendo, evidence.

Good luck.

Incidentally, correlation does not equal or imply causation, but lack of correlation does at least imply a lack of causation.

Deary me. You might remember what started the Iraq war for example? Since when was Dubya a Muslim?

Iraq war ended almost 13 years ago. It was followed by an Iraqi civil war, which pitted Shia Islamists against Sunni Islamists. This isn't something that was created by Iraq war, these tensions existed beforehand (and resulted in up to 250 thousand dead in 1993). The only thing Dubya did was to unmask them. You can't just pretend Iraq problems started in 2003 when the preceding government was guilty of several genocides or attempted genocides.

Was the Rwandan genocide in your opinion terrorism?

How about the LRA?

Rwandan genocide was, as the name suggests, a genocide. It was an organized campaign of violence against a minority, perpetrated by a majority government. As such it doesn't classify as terrorism. That doesn't mean it is any better, just that it doesn't fall under the definition of a terrorism.

LRA is a terrorist organization. What of it?

Can I explain it? I can certainly suggest alternative hypotheses to test. 1. You are cherry picking. 2. You are being dishonest in your characterisation of some of these conflicts 3. Non-Muslims are so racist towards Muslims that they start a war with them everytime they move in. (I don't personally believe this but it would certainly fit a lot of your data) 4. There is a 'terrorism infrastructure' and plenty of 'role models' for Islamic terrorism therefore making it easier and more likely that Islamic groups will adopt this behaviour ... there's a whole host of others. But again you are picking data to fit your conclusion.

In other words, no you are not capable even formulating a hypothesis which would see something other than Islam as the main cause of Islamic terrorism.

Then stop encouraging the over-reaction. It's not hard. Just sit down and do nothing and it will already be an improvement on what you are doing right now.

Sitting down and doing nothing for about 25 years got us to a situation where the deplorable overreaction against Muslims threatens to bring down the foundations of Western civilization. I think this was tried and tested and proven to fail for long enough.

This has already been demonstrated adequately. The problem is people like you that want impossible levels of proof to even consider it.

No. To all of these assertions.

No it wasn't what brought us here and it's that kind of gross misrepresentation of facts thats undermines your entire argument. We didn't get here by being too nice to Muslims, to the Middle East, to Africa, to refugees. We got here by continually ***** them up and thinking we had an entitlement to do that.

Really? Perhaps you would like to provide evidence for this argument of yours?

When Algeria declared independence, it essentially exiled it's native-born French population through a campaign of threats and violence. France was beset by a wave of refugees, numbering in hundreds of thousands. Please list the French retaliatory measures and how were they excessive for that genocide.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

"Repression of minorities" is a pretty PC way to describe the campaigns of religious and ethnic based genocide that both ISIS and Burma/Myanmar are carrying out.

Yes, good catch. You're supposed to demonstrate what Myanmar is doing amounts to a behavior bad enough to be associated with ISIS. For now you managed to show they might be acting in a way reminiscent to ISIS to one specific minority. Repression of minorities is hardly where problems with ISIS begin or end, although it is a feature of theirs. There is a meaningful point of similarity, but I find it grossly inadequate. Please list more if you wish to pursue this point further.

Nevertheless, this is more special pleading and carefully redefining your criteria to include the religion you want to include and exclude the religions you don't.

You aren't establishing a metric and then seeing what religions fit where, you've already determined what religions you want to fit where, and are tinkering with criteria you can retrofit onto that to justify it after the fact.

There are organizations, states and the like that would fit the criteria that aren't Muslim: Khmer Rouge, DPRK and Nazi Germany are three examples that would fit the criteria.
The thing is, none of those are what we might reasonably call religious organizations or followers of religion.

There were also religions that were comparably bad, I like to mention Mezoamerican beliefs which required war for human sacrifices. That was likely worse than ISIS. But they don't exist any more.

There are also cults in existence that can be compared with ISIS, mainly various suicide cults with up to a few dozen members and the like. They're comparably bad, but tiny and insignificant.

The only fault with my criteria is that it doesn't suit your biased needs.

You keep snipping out every mention of mass killings (including beheadings and forced conversions on pain of death) and ethnic cleansing verging on genocide carried out by Christian militias and terrorist organizations in Central Africa, so you can keep asserting that such things don't exist.

And I haven't even brought up what happened to Bosnian Muslims at the hand of Eastern Orthodox Serbs.

We're discussing Christianity now? That's new. And you were wondering why I keep insisting your only tactic is to sling feces and hope it'll stick

Really? Altering shari'ah (which, let's not forget, you specifically declared was a thing that couldn't even happen in the first place) to declare that the marriage of anyone under the age of 18 is unlawful is not making it "more in line with how the society is supposed to function"?

Thanks for the acknowledgement that prohibiting child marriage is "more in line with the Koran and the Hadith", though.

I would say this is again one of those examples of widespread ignorance so pervasive in Islam. Few enough knew this to be the case, the ones who did kept their mouth shut for whatever reason, so the motion was passed.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You seem to vacillate on just what you think the "core cause of problems with Islam" actually is. Usually you focus on the fact that there are passages within Islamic scripture which talk about violence, the doomed fate of unbelievers, etc. When it's pointed out to you that there are passages within Christian (and therefore Jewish) scripture which say the exact same things regarding violence, the doomed fate of unbelievers, and so on, you switch your argument to say that Christians don't follow those passages in their scriptures and/or interpret them to be nonviolent, but Muslims still believe their violent passages.

This is manifestly the case. If you wish why that is you might want to examine the scriptures, because both groups are acting in accordance with them.

When it's pointed out to you that there are Muslims who also don't follow those passages in their scriptures and/or interpret them to be nonviolent, you circle right back to focusing on the existence of those passages and declare that there's no way to ignore and/or interpret them to be nonviolent and still be a Muslim (thus neatly refusing to accept even the possibility of Muslims interacting with their scripture the exact same way you not only completely accept when Christians do it, but use it to justify your claims that Islam is worse than Christianity).

Why yes, I do that. This is because both religions endorse the fact a later scripture overrides the earlier scripture, Islam even explicitly so. The early teachings in the Bible are often violent, latter ones are not. The early teachings in the Koran are often tolerant, latter ones are not.

Therefore the two teachings are not alike when examined in context, even though they both contain violent passages. But hey, if you take things sufficiently out of context, Bible is an atheist scripture:

(...) "There is no God." (...) - Psalm 14:1 (portion)

http://biblehub.com/psalms/14-1.htm

This is about as bad as you're doing with Islam to make it seem acceptable and to Christianity to make it seem as bad as Islam.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Muslims are able to do something meaningful the rest of us aren't able to. Therefore I contend they should do it, regardless of how fair or unfair this seems.



I do oppose it. My scenario is the one that opposes them in the most effective manner possible.



This is precisely what you're advocating.



Really. Please provide evidence social exclusion was the cause of a major portion of Islamic extremism. Not guesses and not innuendo, evidence.

Good luck.

Incidentally, correlation does not equal or imply causation, but lack of correlation does at least imply a lack of causation.



Iraq war ended almost 13 years ago. It was followed by an Iraqi civil war, which pitted Shia Islamists against Sunni Islamists. This isn't something that was created by Iraq war, these tensions existed beforehand (and resulted in up to 250 thousand dead in 1993). The only thing Dubya did was to unmask them. You can't just pretend Iraq problems started in 2003 when the preceding government was guilty of several genocides or attempted genocides.



Rwandan genocide was, as the name suggests, a genocide. It was an organized campaign of violence against a minority, perpetrated by a majority government. As such it doesn't classify as terrorism. That doesn't mean it is any better, just that it doesn't fall under the definition of a terrorism.

LRA is a terrorist organization. What of it?



In other words, no you are not capable even formulating a hypothesis which would see something other than Islam as the main cause of Islamic terrorism.



Sitting down and doing nothing for about 25 years got us to a situation where the deplorable overreaction against Muslims threatens to bring down the foundations of Western civilization. I think this was tried and tested and proven to fail for long enough.



No. To all of these assertions.



Really? Perhaps you would like to provide evidence for this argument of yours?

When Algeria declared independence, it essentially exiled it's native-born French population through a campaign of threats and violence. France was beset by a wave of refugees, numbering in hundreds of thousands. Please list the French retaliatory measures and how were they excessive for that genocide.

McHrozni

I will respond fully later but for nowthe your repeated demands for evidence and proof and causal links merely amuse. Not onlybecause you continually ask me to support arguments I havent made but because you genuinely seem to believe that you asserting something makes it true whereas others need to provide evidence.

 

[McHrozni]

I will respond fully later but for nowthe your repeated demands for evidence and proof and causal links merely amuse. Not onlybecause you continually ask me to support arguments I havent made but because you genuinely seem to believe that you asserting something makes it true whereas others need to provide evidence.

What do you want evidence for that I haven't provided yet?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What do you want evidence for that I haven't provided yet?

McHrozni

Let's start with your basic premise that mass demonstrations are an effective way to deal with Islamic terrorism.

Then we will move onto your points about terrorism being what Allah wants Muslims to do (i.e. you know the mind of an imaginary being)

 

[McHrozni]

Let's start with your basic premise that mass demonstrations are an effective way to deal with Islamic terrorism.

My basic premise is that mass demonstrations are an effective way of convincing other people your group really opposes whatever it is you're protesting against.

Since governments have been overthrown by sufficiently large demonstrations against them - e.g. Monday demonstrations - I consider that point proven if not self-evident.

Then we will move onto your points about terrorism being what Allah wants Muslims to do (i.e. you know the mind of an imaginary being)

Do you agree that this passage is a cause for Muslim to go to Mecca for pilgrimages?

Koran 2:196-197:
And perform properly (i.e. all the ceremonies according to the ways of Prophet Muhammad), the Hajj and 'Umrah (i.e. the pilgrimage to Makkah) for Allah (...)

The Hajj (pilgrimage) is (in) the well-known (lunar year) months (i.e. the 10th month, the 11th month and the first ten days of the 12th month of the Islamic calendar, i.e. two months and ten days). (...)

I snipped parts which explained what could be done in lieu of the pilgrimage and how the pilgrimage should be carried out. Let's just focus on whether this part says Muslims should make pilgrimages to Mecca and that this is indeed a reason for Muslims to make pilgrimages to Mecca.

Yes or no please. I shall provide proof of that assertion as soon as we agree on this point.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

When Algeria declared independence, it essentially exiled it's native-born French population through a campaign of threats and violence. France was beset by a wave of refugees, numbering in hundreds of thousands. Please list the French retaliatory measures and how were they excessive for that genocide.

OK. This was perpetrated under the command of the same police chief as was responsible for the roundup of Jews in Nazi occupied Paris in 1942. Here's his wiki biography. Now, must I demand organised Christian public demonstrations of penitence for these misdeeds? What utter nonsense.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I consider that point proven if not self-evident.

Well, consider it not proven or self-evident and have a go at actually justifying what you say rather than simply asserting it.

Do you agree that this passage is a cause for Muslim to go to Mecca for pilgrimages?

Not particularly, no.

And as far as I can tell nor do you really since you insist that most Muslims don't read their text or know what it says.

 

[McHrozni]

OK. This was perpetrated under the command of the same police chief as was responsible for the roundup of Jews in Nazi occupied Paris in 1942. Here's his wiki biography. Now, must I demand organised Christian public demonstrations of penitence for these misdeeds? What utter nonsense.

You're free to do so. However, if you do so, I must ask you to explain what you expect them to accomplish, seeing as this guy was convicted for his crimes and has already served a life sentence, having assumed room temperature a decade ago.

Given his history of dealing with protests, you should also demonstrate the validity of your assertion: that this massacre was done in retaliation for deeds of the FNL in Algeria. After all, he also has nine Communists staging a protest executed just four months later, it seems to me he was just very keen to kill people who opposed his state. You must therefore prove the first was an act of religious retaliation and the second was something else entirely.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Well, consider it not proven or self-evident and have a go at actually justifying what you say rather than simply asserting it.

I have adequately proven my case. If you think mass demonstrations aren't a good way of proving a certain group of people really does oppose whatever they're protesting against from you're free to present your evidence for that.

Seeing how common mass demonstrations for or against something are, you face an uphill struggle. But hey, if you manage it you might be able to transform politics as we know it! After all if there are better ways of showing discontent we should all be doing that instead when we have to rally for or against something.

Not particularly, no.

Really? The passage explicitly tells Muslims to make pilgrimages to Mecca. Please explain why you think it doesn't make Muslims go to Mecca.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

You're free to do so. However, if you do so, I must ask you to explain what you expect them to accomplish, seeing as this guy was convicted for his crimes and has already served a life sentence, having assumed room temperature a decade ago.

Given his history of dealing with protests, you should also demonstrate the validity of your assertion: that this massacre was done in retaliation for deeds of the FNL in Algeria. After all, he also has nine Communists staging a protest executed just four months later, it seems to me he was just very keen to kill people who opposed his state. You must therefore prove the first was an act of religious retaliation and the second was something else entirely.

McHrozni

I think you're now simply stating the first thing that comes into your head. Suppose the Paris massacre was just the normal behaviour of the French police, with no excuse whatsoever. That would make it worse, it seems to me. The fact is, that the police committed mass terrorism against French Muslims. Meanwhile a nationalist uprising was happening in Algeria, resulting in the expulsion of French settlers and their descendants. These misdeeds were not inspired on either side by the scriptures of any religion, but were incidents in a war waged by a subject people against the French Empire; and no religious community requires to be subjected to public humiliation on their account.

But if you are in any doubt that the French state committed atrocities during the Algerian War, as you seemed to be, I have dispelled these doubts.

You wanted to be shown retaliatory atrocities by the French state. I show you atrocities. Your response: but these were not retaliation, they were just business as usual for the time. That's a crazy response, in the context of this discussion.

 

[McHrozni]

I think you're now simply stating the first thing that comes into your head. Suppose the Paris massacre was just the normal behaviour of the French police, with no excuse whatsoever.

It was the normal behavior of a guy whom you claimed to be representative of French Christians. Your best evidence for that is that he was convicted only decades later, but still 20 years ago. What, if anything, would you expect demonstrations against him to accomplish?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Really? The passage explicitly tells Muslims to make pilgrimages to Mecca. Please explain why you think it doesn't make Muslims go to Mecca.

McHrozni

I think I've already proven this just be saying it. Isn't that how argument works?

 

[Craig B]

It was the normal behavior of a guy whom you claimed to be representative of French Christians. Your best evidence for that is that he was convicted only decades later, but still 20 years ago. What, if anything, would you expect demonstrations against him to accomplish?

McHrozni

I do NOT claim that Papon was "representative of French Christians", and I did not and do not hold Christianity responsible for his deeds. I hold him to blame, and the state which appointed him, knowing his previous record of anti Jewish atrocities. If Christians abetted his deeds, these individuals are personally responsible, not their religious community as a whole, let alone its sacred texts.

ETA I'm really baffled. How do the following words make Papon a "representative of French Christians"?

These misdeeds were not inspired on either side by the scriptures of any religion, but were incidents in a war waged by a subject people against the French Empire; and no religious community requires to be subjected to public humiliation on their account.