Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[Delphic Oracle]

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.

You want how many million Muslims (living in the west, apparently) to denounce other things a few thousand Muslims do? 44 million Muslims in Europe, 11 million in the EU, about 3.3 million in the U.S. We're going to have trouble meeting all of your criteria if this keeps up.

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.

You could have just said "I don't want to answer" and it would have taken less time for you to type and for me to read.

Again you have to rely on snide insinuations about my ability to comprehend, impugn my motives, accuse me of hastily skimming, etc.

I don't have to jump through your hoops (you seem to really like demanding people do x, y, or z before you'll give them the blessing of your endorsement) in order to ask questions. You are under no compulsion to answer them, of course.

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

You say you don't believe in collective guilt, but then you describe collective judgment of groups and insist they must denounce things done by people who happen to share beliefs or traits in common with them (but not the violent behavior or extremist beliefs, which are the things you want them to denounce).

See, the problem isn't my not comprehending your point, it is that I could see it plain as day.

 

[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.

You do realize I spelled out the quantities that would suffice and when would they suffice within the past several posts, right? Now you claim nothing would ever suffice, so I ask you now please explain your reasoning as to why that is. Cite parts of my posts which demonstrate that if you will.

You don't seem to read my posts at all if you think "one guy in Jakarta" is what I'm asking for. Do that for a change. It's considered polite.

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.

Yes. I explained why the numbers are insufficient, when they might be sufficient and what numbers I believe would be sufficient today. After that you accused me the numbers would never be enough.

Suffice to say that one Muslim rallied against extremists in UK for every sixty or so Muslims that made a pilgrimage to touch a converted pagan shrine built around a meteorite in Arabia this year. This was also the largest Muslim anti-extremism rally in recorded history, but the pilgrimage wasn't even the largest in a decade, and you think I'm obligated to consider that effort sufficient? Why do you think that? How many people do you think should be considered sufficient and why?

McHrozni

 

[Delphic Oracle]

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.

Christianity has never dealt with issues relating to treatment of heathens or heretics? Really?

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.

The Bible also contains quotes about putting those who God is angry with to the sword (and their women and children into slavery, and their cattle claimed as booty, and their idols smashed, etc, etc), then the next chapter talks about tolerance and forgiveness as superior virtues. Same problems.

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.

Just like I can't say much of anything that would apply to 'every' individual Christian, either.

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

Yet you launch into criticism against one belief and defend the other when their histories (including modern/recent) are quite similar. I would suspect the culture you live in socialized that inherent bias in (it happens to all of us).

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

No, just the ways you keep trying to point out as being so different. They are alike in that human beings believe in them and human beings often do stupid things when armed with 'belief.'

Regardless, I've achieved my purpose. When asked if you could denounce violent actions against others perpetrated by a group you are identified as, you've expended enormous effort not to do so.

I would conclude that you can probably expect the same of those you insist should denounce violent actions against others perpetrated by a group they are identified as part of.

 

[McHrozni]

You want how many million Muslims (living in the west, apparently) to denounce other things a few thousand Muslims do?

I answered that in post #112, here is the link for your convenience.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11639474&postcount=112

You say you don't believe in collective guilt, but then you describe collective judgment of groups and insist they must denounce things done by people who happen to share beliefs or traits in common with them (but not the violent behavior or extremist beliefs, which are the things you want them to denounce).

I also described why I want that in post #108. Spoiler: it has nothing to do with judgment and guilt.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11639403&postcount=108

Please read it thoroughly and address points therein. The post was initially addressed to you by the way. I find your lack of interest impolite.

Again you have to rely on snide insinuations about my ability to comprehend, impugn my motives, accuse me of hastily skimming, etc.

You know, since I'm easily able to answer your "difficult questions" that "I don't want an answers to" with links to my recent posts, some of whom were addressed to you in the first place, then you're probably guilty of hasty skimming at the very least. But hey, if it was something else you could just explain that.

See, the problem isn't my not comprehending your point, it is that I could see it plain as day.

Really? Can you please explain why you're asking me questions I already answered and claim I don't want answers to those questions then?

McHrozni

 

[Matthew Best]

Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen are both saying that, as the terrorist was able to get from Germany to Italy (apparently via France) without being detected, then the Schengen agreement should be rescinded and borders closed.

 

[McHrozni]

Christianity has never dealt with issues relating to treatment of heathens or heretics? Really?

It's called Ecumerism.

The Bible also contains quotes about putting those who God is angry with to the sword (and their women and children into slavery, and their cattle claimed as booty, and their idols smashed, etc, etc), then the next chapter talks about tolerance and forgiveness as superior virtues. Same problems.

Not really on the same scale as Islam, no
I could explain it to you, but you'd never read it anyway, so there is no point in it.

Yet you launch into criticism against one belief and defend the other when their histories (including modern/recent) are quite similar. I would suspect the culture you live in socialized that inherent bias in (it happens to all of us).

Maybe, but this is notably different from what you were talking about.

Regardless, I've achieved my purpose. When asked if you could denounce violent actions against others perpetrated by a group you are identified as, you've expended enormous effort not to do so.

Marking and hitting backspace over an irrelevant comment is hardly an enormous effort. Can you explain why those denunciations would be beneficial? I did so with Muslims, so it's up to you to either agree my argument is sound (and you're wrong) or make an entirely different argument as to why it would be so. Make sure it doesn't hold true for the conflict with Islam, or else you'll still be proven wrong. If I consider it sound I'll agree that this should be done, I promise!

Good luck!

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen are both saying that, as the terrorist was able to get from Germany to Italy (apparently via France) without being detected, then the Schengen agreement should be rescinded and borders closed.

Typical traitorous populist vultures. The fact he was being hunted in Italy shows Schengen agreement is way better than any alternative.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Please explain why my argument is bigoted. Cite passages from it and explain which parts are bigoted and why. Then make a counter-proposal that is better than mine and comparably effective.



Please explain why my proposal wouldn't help. I explained why it would, now you make a case why it wouldn't. Gut feeling isn't a case, and neither are dismissals out of hand. Good luck.

McHrozni

Your argument is bigoted because it assigns responsibility for bad behaviour of individuals to a broader group that have no connection to that bad behaviour based on nothing more than
their religious affiliation.

Its also specifically something you save for Muslims because you expressly dont do it for other groups.

Your proposal wouldnt help because one its ridiculous on its face and two theres no reason to believe that ISIS give a crap what Muslims think. They are quite happy to blow Muslims up. Those who dont ascribe to their ideology are wrong. Enemies to be fought. Not to be reasoned with. You said as much yourself.

Do you think ISIS dont know that billions of people Muslim or not hate them?

In any case if we are able to mobilise 300m people in a cause there are probably at least ten better things for them to be working on eradicating if not a hundred.

Lets mobilise 300m guys to protest and end rape or murder. Or would that be silly to suggest?

How about mobilising protests against things that might even be changeable like the catholic church view of condoms?

Hell lets mobilise a few thousand lefties to protest against Trump. That certainly made his supporters think twice, didnt it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

You have not shown this to be true merely asserted it based on your own prejudices. If ISIS listened to the average Muslim or cared what they thought they wouldnt be doing what they do.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen are both saying that, as the terrorist was able to get from Germany to Italy (apparently via France) without being detected, then the Schengen agreement should be rescinded and borders closed.

Quelle surprise.

 

[Craig B]

Why do you think this is relevant?

McHrozni

The only think that's relevant is that I'm paying regard to your arguments, and you are not. That seems pointless, so I will desist. I hope you have a pleasant Christmas.

 

[McHrozni]

Your argument is bigoted because it assigns responsibility for bad behaviour of individuals to a broader group that have no connection to that bad behaviour based on nothing more than
their religious affiliation.

My argument has nothing to do with responsibility or guilt. I'll give you two more tries. Good luck.

In any case if we are able to mobilise 300m people in a cause there are probably at least ten better things for them to be working on eradicating if not a hundred.

Really? Please list three.

Lets mobilise 300m guys to protest and end rape or murder. Or would that be silly to suggest?

Make a case as to why that would be beneficial, like I did for Muslims, and I'll be willing to consider your argument. If it's persuasive I'll even start organizing an effort.

You may begin.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Yeh, figures. For one of the worst terrorist incidents in the West of the past 15 years, it's in the range of about 1% of where it should be for it to be anywhere near sufficient to combat extremists in a marginally useful way.

McHrozni

I see you didn't skip a beat in your complete dismissal after being informed that there actually are five hundred percent more condemnations from not just individuals but organizations repesenting their members than you thought because you couldn't be bothered to actually LOOK at my link, and rolled straight on to demanding that a website put together by a teenage girl and a few volunteers from English-language sources that don't include things like random message board or Facebook posts have FIFTY THOUSAND PERCENT more.

 

[Arcade22]

Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen are both saying that, as the terrorist was able to get from Germany to Italy (apparently via France) without being detected, then the Schengen agreement should be rescinded and borders closed.

Yeah those two have a tendency to say stupid and unreasonable things because they are both stupid and unreasonable. Should we also start amputating limbs as a first order treatment for papercuts instead of treating the problem in a more proportional manner?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My argument has nothing to do with responsibility or guilt. I'll give you two more tries. Good luck.



Really? Please list three.



Make a case as to why that would be beneficial, like I did for Muslims, and I'll be willing to consider your argument. If it's persuasive I'll even start organizing an effort.

You may begin.

McHrozni

You do realise that you saying things doesnt make them true, dont you? Its hard to tell to be honest.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Really? Please list three.


McHrozni

Hmm.. let me spend exactly one second on that.

Poverty
Hunger
Disease

There you go.

I mean if we are in lala land of assembling three hundred million people to protest that they know the will of an imaginary character better than some criminals who happen to disagree with them then lets aim high.

 

[John Nowak]

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.

Probably not.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/9/1405.full

Takeaway point: contemporary medical recommended the use of aspirin at two to four times the dose considered to be lethal in 1977. A significant number of the Spanish Flu deaths were probably inadvertently killed by their doctors.

 

[Craig B]

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

That is too bizarre for comment. The flu didn't destroy civilisation. Anyway it's an infectious disease, not a violent political act. Why not compare the terrorism with the war going on at that time, also a violent political act. There are few terrorists. They are able by surprise actions to kill some innocent people. They are then usually themselves killed, very often shortly after committing their crimes. The armies of WW1 killed tens of millions, and remained in existence, sustained by the might of huge empires, for four years.

Believe me, our civilisation can survive such cowardly crimes by a modest number of maniacs, as crashing a lorry or emptying the magazine of a rifle, at civilian targets, and then being apprehended or killed.

Unless you think of Islam as an "infection", a "bacillus" that spreads through the people who profess it, and invisibly contaminates and undermines the whole of western civilisation, and we must protect ourselves against these human bacilli by ...

But I'm sure you don't think that, so comparing people, even gangs of criminals, to infectious diseases does nothing to advance our enlightenment in this matter.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.)

No one cares, the thread isn't about him or the attack in Germany anymore, it's devolved in to the usual islamic bickering.
It's like threads about shootings in the USA, the op is forgotten by the second page.

 

[Craig B]

No one cares, the thread isn't about him or the attack in Germany anymore, it's devolved in to the usual islamic bickering.
It's like threads about shootings in the USA, the op is forgotten by the second page.

It has been mentioned several times, by other posters and in more than one post by myself. Indeed I refer to it - twice! - indirectly but consciously - in the post immediately preceding yours!