Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[A'isha]

Possibly, but all events mentioned regardless of their being regional and/or global can be rooted to the interpretations of deemed holy books and beliefs.

These holy books and beliefs therefore contain scripts that are interpreted to validate violence, killings, rapes etc.

That being so, they do not deserve any respect.

I disagree, in that I feel that those interpretations don't deserve any respect, but I respect interpretations that stand against violence, killings, rapes etc.

I respect Fred Rogers and his More Light Presbyterian interpretation as much as I excoriate Christian Identity (which apparently is something of a global threat), the same way I respect, say, Nur Ashki Jerrahi Sufism as much as I excoriate ISIS.

 

[Belgian thought]

I disagree, in that I feel that those interpretations don't deserve any respect, but I respect interpretations that stand against violence, killings, rapes etc.

I respect Fred Rogers and his More Light Presbyterian interpretation as much as I excoriate Christian Identity (which apparently is something of a global threat), the same way I respect, say, Nur Ashki Jerrahi Sufism as much as I excoriate ISIS.

You respect cherry picking.

 

[A'isha]

You respect cherry picking.

I respect anyone who stands against violence, killings, rapes etc., for whatever reason, religious or otherwise.

 

[Belgian thought]

I respect anyone who stands against violence, killings, rapes etc., for whatever reason, religious or otherwise.

Therefore, you cannot respect any piece of literature that advocates what you don't respect.

This includes the Bible, the Koran etc..

And anyone who respects these books are not to be respected.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

To take a very cold view on this - the examples given are all within regional/national boundaries and the acts are indeed deplorable.

The difference with Islamic based terrorism is it that it is global. it is an ugly ideology that can threaten (and does) and harm anyone anywhere.

All acts of terror take place within someone's perceived idea of 'their' territory. When it comes to other religions and ideologies, we seem to be able to contextualize it as a local-to-regional level social issue. When it comes to Islam, it's one grand interconnected conspiracy. No doubt that there is endless state-backed malfeasance and coordination systems and hardly any major players in the geopolitical game have clean hands in this regard. However, to see it is a single beast is totally off the mark. This is why the 'Al Qaeda inspired' claim on repeat for years finally had to be retired. Sure, Al Qaeda dumped money into foreign conflicts, but so were other groups. They fought each other as much as whatever local boogeyman was (supposed to be) getting ousted. Then, since Al Qaeda ideology and local ideology and foreign fighters from 12 countries ideologies all conflicted in fundamental areas, even these semi-cohesive federations dissolve into a patchwork of minor militias of constantly-shifting overall allegiances.

Remember also that we're seeing exactly what we warned about with regards to the most powerful 'global' tool in the insurgency arsenal: local radicalization. If you take a person who's been born inside a given country, only known that since birth, feel as thoroughly a citizen of that state as any other, then suddenly start denigrating them, vilifying them, telling them to 'go back', enacting laws clearly designed to treat them as inferiors or automatically suspicious. Guess what just happened? A whole lot of people just got a lot easier to radicalize. This isn't a far-fetched social theory, this is what ISIS has explicitly spelled out in their publications. It is in the same vein of OBL's long-term predictions for how we would respond to 9/11.

The fight against 'global terror' starts at home.

Plus, if you really want to go down the route of comparing the death tolls of 'ideology' that takes place on a 'global' scale, I regret to inform you that my own country (U.S.) has a pretty good case for top prize lately.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And in many Muslim lands there seems to be little unrest at all.

In any event these differences make nonsense of the suggestion that Muslims commit atrocities mainly because they are required by their holy scriptures to murder all non-Muslims.

Was the first sentence sarcastic?

Anyways, I agree it is nonsensical. The far-and-away most numerous victims of terrorism? Muslims.

That is not a clever reference to state military operations, I mean the actions generally internationally condemned as such. A good portion of them take place in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan targeting their own fellow Muslims either for supporting the 'wrong' political figures/parties/policies or quite often, just for being of the wrong denomination/sect or perhaps tribal group (not even a religious motivation, per se).

 

[Craig B]

Therefore, you cannot respect any piece of literature that advocates what you don't respect.

This includes the Bible, the Koran etc..

And anyone who respects these books are not to be respected.

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.​

 

[Darat]

Well, I'm convinced. Other religions are just as bad if not worse than islam. Thanks skeptics!

And?

 

[McHrozni]

Repeating your assertion doesn't strengthen it, as I said you seem utterly incapable of understanding that some of us don't share your simply asserted premise.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose you're completely right and no level of protest would help. Suppose further that Muslims still take it up, and commit themselves to monthly rallies. Let's say they only do it in Europe, for 12 months, with an average attendance of 1 million people. Furthermore, suppose each rally takes up about six hours of time of a protester, including travel time, plus another two hours in preceding days to prepare (placards, posters, whatever). Suppose that after a year with no results, the protests peter out and I'm proven wrong.

The amount of energy invested in rallies is about 100 million man-hours (12 rallies of 1 million people each, 8 hours per person, rounded up). Calculating this into money is somewhere about 2 billion euros/pounds/dollars. It's maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less, but somewhere in vicinity of that. That's the total cost the Muslim community would have to bear.

By way of comparison, US department of homeland security costs in excess of $40 billion a year. It's harder to get an European equivalent, but it's clear the costs to contain Islamic terrorism are already above and beyond anything the Islamic community would put on line to defeat them, and Muslims, just like their non-Muslim compatriots are already paying for it through taxes.

Moreover, and this is where the silly "fairness" 'argument' falls apart completely, terrorism also incurs a terrible opportunity cost on the Muslim community. That's the reason they often have trouble finding employment, that's the reason they aren't desired in neighborhoods, that could be the reason why they're under-performing in education and so on. None of these are fair, and all of these are a result of terrorists and inadequate Muslim rejection of terrorism.

I contend that if these protests achieved a tenth of what I claim they could achieve (i.e. still to be considered a failure, but the gain wasn't zero), Muslim community would still be better off after a year because of them. The amount they need to put up is so tiny it is inconceivable they wouldn't gain more than they would lose, and even if the gain was zero the costs are minuscule next to them. If it works to any extent they're better off and if it doesn't work at all, they aren't worse off to any appreciable extent.

Now please explain to me why they're a bad idea. Because you say so? Who are you to set that again?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Why don't you quote the part that you think provides the proper context for you thinking I "want to be put in a gas chamber" because I "conclude Islam is not a source of problems"?

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.

I realize this may disincentive you from your search, but it's not like you ever had an honest interest in what was said anyway. If you did have an honest interest in what I have to say, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Or I could point out that you're only focusing on a specific method of state execution so you can handwave and minimize and ignore the violence, terrorism, and killings carried out in the name of pretty much every religion, not just Islam.

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.

Good luck.

He thought his Arab victim was a Muslim, and hated Arabs because of (in your own words) "actions of some Arabs who were all of Muslim faith", and from that you conclude that therefore this obviously was a crime that didn't have anything to do with anti-Muslim sentiment?

Do you actually believe that argument? Because I sure don't.

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?

Certainly didn't stop you from complaining the instant someone held you to the exact same standard you hold for 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.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose you're completely right and no level of protest would help....snip...

Whilst you can call it a "thought experiment" I call it "nothing to do with what I have posted" aka strawman.

 

[McHrozni]

Do you have a rough estimate of the numbers/frequency for the protests that Jews should have engaged in to correct their bad reputation and prevent the bad things happening to them?

Ballpark figures are fine.

No, I don't, but that situation was different in at least one key factor. The reason Jews were despised in Europe was radically different from the reason Muslims are viewed with distrust ... pretty much all over the world, honestly. The Jews committed the ultimate sin, the one sin that is unforgivable in the minds of small people: they were more successful than their neighbors, because they adopted principles and practices that were well ahead of their time (and because Christians were prohibited from loaning money). Protests won't help that, the only way Jews would grow to be accepted by their own actions is if they were to embrace living in poverty and ignorance like their neighbors. This is the exact same reason for much of the outright insane hatred of Israel among Muslim countries today. "How dare these undermänsch be better than us?? We're the chosen ones!!" and so on, this sort of thing.

Naturally, it is a bit much to ask of a community to wallow in poverty so they wouldn't be harassed any more. It's also a bit hard to accomplish even if you wanted to.

On the other hand, the Muslim community is accused of something much more readily forgivable: they are looked down upon only because they're thought to consider defending murderers and rapists as more important than giving justice to their victims.
This can be readily corrected to a considerable extent in the way I described. The solution will take some time and it will take some effort, but asking a community to engage in demonstrations against something they don't believe in and that acutely harms them, first and foremost, really isn't anything other than the most obvious solution out there.

Some people here think it's 'unfair'. Maybe you could make a case for it being unfair, yes. What of it?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Whilst you can call it a "thought experiment" I call it "nothing to do with what I have posted" aka strawman.

Really? What is you claim then?

"No level of protest would suffice" is the only thing I can decipher out of it. If it's something else you'll need to explain it differently.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Really? What is you claim then?
"No level of protest would suffice" is the only thing I can decipher out of it. If it's something else you'll need to explain it differently.

McHrozni

One again you seem unable to comprehend what I think is very clear - I don't accept your asserted starting premise. And I am sincerely sorry that I don't know any way to reword that to help you understand.

 

[McHrozni]

Where would you like me to start?

You aren't seriously suggesting that all or even a majority of violence and killing is happening in the name of Islam are you?

No, he's claiming the majority of religion-inspired violence happens in the name of Islam and not any other religion.

Unless US Police force is a form of religion and NYPD, LAPD, Sheiffs and so on are it's denominations, you just proved his point. If they aren't you constructed a straw man, and still proved his point.

Better luck next time.

From another post of A'isha, but it fits here well enough:

EDIT: I didn't even state that other religions are worse than Islam in this regard or anything, just pointed out that it's a problem that exists in other religions besides just Islam. But apparently even that is too much of a challenge to the notion that Islam is the Evilest Evil that ever Eviled or something, and so has to be vehemently denied.

The issue of religiously-inspired violence isn't a binary problem you make it out to be. Yes, there are bad apples in all religions. The difference between Islam and others is that other religions have bad apples, but Islam has entire bad orchards.

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?

If yes, you would be equally distressed you need to seek professional help. If no, you wouldn't be equally distressed you understood the point and should stop slinging mud on other religions every time Islam comes up. I don't expect an answer, or for you to follow this advice.

If you have no kids you can swap the child with a different person you care about - spouse, lover, parent, sibling, cousin, friend, reality TV star, whatever.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

One again you seem unable to comprehend what I think is very clear - I don't accept your asserted starting premise. And I am sincerely sorry that I don't know any way to reword that to help you understand.

Yes, you said don't accept the premise "There exists a level of protest that would notably improve the lives of Muslims", correct?

Therefore your premise can only be "There is no level of protest that would notably improve the lives of Muslims", which would result in the scenario I described and you now disavowed by claiming this is your premise. To call it confusing is giving it undue credit, it's contradictory.

If your premise is something else, please write it down.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Because apparently it's insufficient for Muslims to declare that they don't think their religion actually tells them to be terrorists, they have to deny the validity of their religion as a whole (since man is that statement begging the question).

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.

As I said several times over, you guys are making far too much of this. Yes, it is an accurate description of what they must do. No, they don't have to acknowledge it.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You don't think that organising and participating in mass demonstrations in the presence of adherents of other religions, for the purpose of abjuring the divine mandate of their own holy scriptures, would cause unease to members of a minority religious community? And that therefore requiring them to participate in such a performance might signify a collective guilt supposedly incurred by that community? You may explain why it is not indicative of guilt for the eleventh time, if you wish, and I will reject what you say for the twelfth time.

It probably could incur unreasonable feelings of guilt in many, yes. This isn't a goal, but just an unfortunate byproduct.

Getting your blood drawn when you're ill is also uncomfortable. Should we now stop doing laboratory testing because of it? Giving birth is also uncomfortable, should we stop procreating because of it?

Seesh!

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

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. IN MY OPINION

As I said several times over, you guys are making far too much of this. Yes, it is an accurate description of what they must do. No, they don't have to acknowledge it.

McHrozni

Fixed that for you.

 

[McHrozni]

Fixed that for you.

Well if you disagree with it you're claiming they don't have to denounce the validity of their religion at all. Why are you against it then?

McHrozni