Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[Matthew Best]

Minister confirms that Anis Amri has been shot dead by police in Milan. One policeman was also shot and is in hospital recovering.

(Sorry to interrupt the pointless bickering with news.)

 

[Aepervius]

Perhaps it wasn't the best word to use, but I figured it would be clear enough from the context that I wasn't talking about criminal implications. I'm sorry you were so confused by the term that you were unable to contribute anything relevant to the discussion. I was talking more about the kinds of concerns people understandably have about a group, when members of that group are doing concerning things.

Yes please explain us how some muslim in jakarta are implicated with some insane guy plowed into people in Germany.

After you explained us that, you can ask the world to forgive you for german war crime, or Russian Ukraine invasion.

Because that will be pretty much the same *loose* degree of "implication"

 

[catsmate]

Are there religious arbitration courts for other religions in UK too?

McHrozni

Sharia "courts" are not really courts, despite the hype from the right. And yes there are; Jewish religious courts have existed for decades for example
and the Church of England also retains Ecclesiastical courts (which do have legal status).

 

[Darat]

...snip...


Agreeing on which Hadiths are real and which ones are fake and need to be purged from record would be a good start ... but you probably can't link that. Agreeing on a common interpretation of the Koran and other holy texts would also be a rather urgent thing to do, but I also doubt you can link to that. Agreeing on a common arbiter in theological questions of the magnitude "is peaceful coexistence with the unbelievers acceptable or not" would also be rather necessary, but you probably can't link that, either.

You know, the sort of thing other religions take for granted, but are entirely missing from Islam. Huge rallies against wackos are just something there is no excuse not to do. These other issues are immersed in difficulty. Urgent yes, necessary certainly, but also incredibly difficult to carry out. Vast rallies are downright trivial in comparison.

McHrozni

I'm very surprised that you are unaware that "Christianity" has all those divisions and major doctrinal differences and has no overarching authority.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm very surprised that you are unaware that "Christianity" has all those divisions and major doctrinal differences and has no overarching authority.

I'm aware of that. What of it?

The question in Christianity is whether Christ was a divine being or not and other such nonsense. The question in Islam is whether Muslims are allowed to let unbelievers live in peace or are they supposed to chop off their heads if they can - which is really a tad more fundamental and more than a bit unnerving, unlike the division in Christianity which is irrelevant if you don't fervently believe one or the other option. The first religion can live without a central authority, the second one needs it. Deal with it.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Yes please explain us how some muslim in jakarta are implicated with some insane guy plowed into people in Germany.

He's not personally implicated in it, but he can meaningfully contribute to it not happening any more in a way a non-Muslim never could.

Can you please explain why it's not reasonable to ask for his help, especially since it requires so little effort on his part?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Sharia "courts" are not really courts, despite the hype from the right. And yes there are; Jewish religious courts have existed for decades for example

I'm not really fine with those either, due to the unofficial pressure a member of religion is under to subject themselves to that authority. That said Jewish legal tradition is a tad more benign than Islamic and doesn't invoke quite the same implications as the appendage-chopping Sharia does. It's understandable, logical and even proper that Sharia courts invoke significantly more resentment, even if they're not allowed to mutilate their victims.

and the Church of England also retains Ecclesiastical courts (which do have legal status).

Aren't those intended to settle disputes within the organization of the Church only? If so that's a bit different, I think.

McHrozni

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You know, it would be great if you could demonstrate you are able to comprehend my proposal and the reasoning behind it. The way I see it you only responded in a certain programmed way to an argument you wish to see, but not to the argument that was made.

It's usually called a straw man argument, and never a good sign of actually having a point. Address the argument that was made, not one you think you are able to argue against. If that's too hard then maybe you should consider the merits of my argument. If you're unable to make a case against my argument (as opposed to an argument I didn't make) then it is rather likely I'm right and you're wrong.

For example, you claimed that demonstrating against extremists is "paying in blood and lives". This is one of the most nonsensical arguments I've seen so far it would be quite right to call it David Icke level nonsensical.

McHrozni

Literally not one sentence of your post has to do with the topic, just a bunch of subtle digs at me, my comprehension, my 'programmed' response, condescendingly explaining to me what a straw-man is, etc. I addressed your argument, you are the one making this personal.

Regardless:

No, that's not my claim. Accusing me of a straw-man relies upon either committing that same fallacy yourself or just completely misunderstanding the post. For the sake of moving things along, I'll just assume the latter.

You mentioned the unfairness of having to pay taxes to support military operations. I'm pointing out that for people living in those areas of conflict, the price is much higher. This also feeds into the very problem of extremists because grieving people are more likely to turn to those promising them the opportunity for revenge.

I'm also wondering how much you go out of your way to make sure those people understand that you denounce such horrible acts done in our collective name.

The point of the query should be obvious. If you don't believe in collective shame for things done by a group you are a part of (national identity), then you can't apply such to others. If you do think there's a broad kind of guilt that applies but don't make amends for it, then you can hardly ask others to do so.

 

[Craig B]

Minister confirms that Anis Amri has been shot dead by police in Milan. One policeman was also shot and is in hospital recovering.

(Sorry to interrupt the pointless bickering with news.)

These criminals may conquer Hell, but their casualty rate makes it gratifyingly improbable that they will ever conquer the world.

 

[McHrozni]

You mentioned the unfairness of having to pay taxes to support military operations. I'm pointing out that for people living in those areas of conflict, the price is much higher.

Yes, certainly. What of it? I'm not talking about them anyway (though their contribution would be most welcome), I'm talking about especially about Muslims living in the West.

I'm also wondering how much you go out of your way to make sure those people understand that you denounce such horrible acts done in our collective name.

The fact you think this is a relevant question shows you completely misunderstand what is my proposal and the reasoning behind it. It seems to me you only skipped through and acted on a word here and there, without reading any of what I wrote. Prove you red my proposal and tried to understand it. Then demonstrate to me this is true, make a compelling case against the arguments I made and after that we can talk about something else, including this question of yours.

The point of the query should be obvious. If you don't believe in collective shame for things done by a group you are a part of (national identity), then you can't apply such to others If you do think there's a broad kind of guilt that applies but don't make amends for it, then you can hardly ask others to do so.

No, I don't believe in collective shame or collective guilt. My proposal has nothing to do with either of them. I said so repeatedly, and yet you still try to sneak those in. As I said earlier, try reading my proposals for a change. You might find them illuminating.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

These criminals may conquer Hell, but their casualty rate makes it gratifyingly improbable that they will ever conquer the world.

Probably true. They could destroy the civilization as we know it though.

It reminds me of the Spanish flu. If look up on how that disease killed you'll find it bears uncanny resemblance to how the terrorists could reasonably destroy Western civilization within an alarmingly short amount of time.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

That said Jewish legal tradition is a tad more benign than Islamic and doesn't invoke quite the same implications as the appendage-chopping Sharia does. It's understandable, logical and even proper that Sharia courts invoke significantly more resentment, even if they're not allowed to mutilate their victims.

It must therefore surprise you that sharia courts are part of the official Israeli judicial system

 

[McHrozni]

It must therefore surprise you that sharia courts are part of the official Israeli judicial system

Not really, no. I know Israel is extremely accommodating to Muslims.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Not really, no. I know Israel is extremely accommodating to Muslims.

McHrozni

What does that say about your own attitudes towards them then?

By the way, the UK adopted the same Sharia policy under the Mandate.

But Israel isn't spectaculatly "accommodating" to Muslims. Over a hundred thousand of them were expelled from Israeli-annexed Golan in and after 1967. Their "accommodation" was removed from them. The Druze people, about twenty thousand, have been permitted to remain.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I'm aware of that. What of it?

The question in Christianity is whether Christ was a divine being or not and other such nonsense. The question in Islam is whether Muslims are allowed to let unbelievers live in peace or are they supposed to chop off their heads if they can - which is really a tad more fundamental and more than a bit unnerving, unlike the division in Christianity which is irrelevant if you don't fervently believe one or the other option. The first religion can live without a central authority, the second one needs it. Deal with it.

McHrozni

Arianism, Chalcedonism, Nestorianism, almost every minor or major schism of Christianity featured blood being spilled over it. Sham trials against 'heretics', burnings at the stake, kingdoms mobilizing against each other or embroiled in civil war over theological disputes, etc.

It wasn't that long ago that Catholics and Protestants were still blowing each other up in Ireland.

How about Serbian atrocities after the breakup of Yugoslavia? Certainly there were human rights violations committed against many people, but the Orthodox Serbs treatment of Albanian Muslims in particular rose to genocidal proportions.

This is classic "our blessed and peaceful religion" vs. "their backwards, violent superstitions" dichotomy.

 

[Aepervius]

He's not personally implicated in it, but he can meaningfully contribute to it not happening any more in a way a non-Muslim never could.

Can you please explain why it's not reasonable to ask for his help, especially since it requires so little effort on his part?

McHrozni

Because for the same reason most folk do not contribute to anything the other side of the earth. Because there is no reason to lose time, except to appease some westerner which think they know better and assign the blame because they belong to the same religion than some. So what if the guy from Jakarta yell loudly he is against terrorism ? Other did, and those folk asking a reaction , like you do, are NEVER satisfied by any quantity of reaction.
And usually when the revert happen, you do not see them going out of their way to require christian the same they ask muslim. Where were you when abortion doctor were slain ? here were you when abortion clinics were bombed ? Where were you when gays were slain ?

And even if you cite a few reaction, I will tell you the same as what Aisha seem to get as answer when she shows pages of people protesting those insane islamist : not enough of folk protesting.

If you are not loudly protesting the white terrorist like ALF, then you are part of the problem when you are pointing at muslim for not protesting enough stuff which happens half a earth away.

 

[McHrozni]

What does that say about your own attitudes towards them then?

Nothing. Why?

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Nothing. Why?

Then you're not reading your own words.

That said Jewish legal tradition is a tad more benign than Islamic and doesn't invoke quite the same implications as the appendage-chopping Sharia does.​

 

[McHrozni]

Arianism, Chalcedonism, Nestorianism, almost every minor or major schism of Christianity featured blood being spilled over it. Sham trials against 'heretics', burnings at the stake, kingdoms mobilizing against each other or embroiled in civil war over theological disputes, etc.

It wasn't that long ago that Catholics and Protestants were still blowing each other up in Ireland.

How about Serbian atrocities after the breakup of Yugoslavia? Certainly there were human rights violations committed against many people, but the Orthodox Serbs treatment of Albanian Muslims in particular rose to genocidal proportions.

Yes, true. They were a feature of disagreement. However if you can't understand why a disagreement over what is fundamentally theological question and a disagreement whether infidels should be executed or left alone can't be compared then I'm afraid you aren't equipped to deal with the serious question Islam is facing.

The same book, with the identical text, claims both ways: kill the infidels and tolerate the infidels. It's no wonder Muslims do a little of both. Until they settle the question about which interpretation is right Islam itself will be a problem.

That says absolutely nothing about every individual Muslim though. If you can't understand why please say so and I shall try to explain one more time.

This is classic "our blessed and peaceful religion" vs. "their backwards, violent superstitions" dichotomy.

Considering my religious beliefs (namely lack thereof) and background (lack thereof for two generations), I find this statement somewhat amusing.

Your position appears to be basically "all religions are alike and don't differ in a significant way".
I find this position ludicrous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture#Xipe_Totec

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Then you're not reading your own words.

That said Jewish legal tradition is a tad more benign than Islamic and doesn't invoke quite the same implications as the appendage-chopping Sharia does.​

Why do you think this is relevant?

McHrozni