Shooting at Wilders speech in Texas

[Timsup2nothin]

You are indeed a funny guy! So now you believe that me suggesting to someone to watch some vids in order to "make up his own mind" is on par with you not providing evidence for your claim that the woman should be banned from the planet.

I wonder what's next, keep it coming!

I seriously doubt that anyone will see me saying "find your own evidence" is on par with you saying "find your own evidence". I have well established credibility, where you don't, so with the two of us saying basically the same thing I still come out ahead.

By the way, I suggest you look at the exchange we have had here with a dispassionate eye and assess what kind of credibility you are building for the future.

 

[Funky]

I'd be flattered Tim. He hasn't called you a liar yet. You must have a certain aura of honesty to you.

Nah, I don't tend to assert things without sufficient evidence. In case you are refering to my comment a few pages ago that it didn't seem to me that you were interested in an honest discussion, I'll let you figure out yourself what the difference is to calling someone a liar.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sounds like I have. Would you care to refine your statement in the interest of greater understanding? I'd listen.

 

[Funky]

I have well established credibility, where you don't, so with the two of us saying basically the same thing I still come out ahead.

Credibility comes from quality of arguments and persuasiveness of evidence. I don't care about anything else, least of all about who makes the arguments. The very idea that you will "come out ahead" (whatever that means) for reasons other than argument and evidence seems, I don't know, pretentious?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Credibility comes from quality of arguments and persuasiveness of evidence. I don't care about anything else, least of all about who makes the arguments. The very idea that you will "come out ahead" (whatever that means) for reasons other than argument and evidence seems, I don't know, pretentious?

It's just an acknowledgement of reality. I've been similarly called out on the "provide a link" matter at least a dozen times around here. Every time I've said the same things I've said here, which is coincidentally the same thing you said once you got done complaining about me saying it. "This is the internet, the evidence is easy to find and I won't limit you to a provided link when you can do a quick search and decide for yourself."

My consistency through a dozen or more similar exchanges lends me credibility. Your switch from "give me a link or I dismiss you" to "go find a video for yourself and you will see my opinion is correct" detracts from yours. So in terms of credibility I come out ahead. Burn too much credibility and you become really easy to dismiss, which would be a shame because you offer a view that provides contrast.

 

[JollyRoger]

Credibility comes from quality of arguments and persuasiveness of evidence.

A good first step to the rebuilding project.

 

[Kyriakos]

 

[classical_hero]

The guy who drew this has now been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505



I used to pay attention when SPLC declared someone a hate group, but now I'm starting to wonder.
Mere jerks are slowly being added to the lists of hardcore racists and violent activists.

I wonder if they are going to put the creators of South Park on the list for mocking Mormons? It seems like mocking Muslims is out of the picture.

 

[Funky]

It's just an acknowledgement of reality. I've been similarly called out on the "provide a link" matter at least a dozen times around here. Every time I've said the same things I've said here, which is coincidentally the same thing you said once you got done complaining about me saying it. "This is the internet, the evidence is easy to find and I won't limit you to a provided link when you can do a quick search and decide for yourself."

Do you really not get it?

When you make a claim, you better provide evidence. When you make an extraordinary claim, like that someone should be banned form the planet, you better provide pretty compelling evidence.

I didn't make any claim. I simply pointed out to Borachio that that material is available on youtube with which he could make up his own mind. What could I possibly have provided evidence for?

This is so basic, I'm astonished that I must even spell it out.

My consistency through a dozen or more similar exchanges lends me credibility. Your switch from "give me a link or I dismiss you" to "go find a video for yourself and you will see my opinion is correct" detracts from yours. So in terms of credibility I come out ahead. Burn too much credibility and you become really easy to dismiss, which would be a shame because you offer a view that provides contrast.

Not only do past conversations on different topics say nothing at all about your credibility on the topic at hand. Your unwillingness to address actual arguments, your reluctance to provide evidence for your claims, your apparent lack of understanding of logic, and your need to claim some kind of special credibility when your arguments fail, speaks for itself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do you really not get it?

No, I really do get it.

When you make a claim, you better provide evidence. When you make an extraordinary claim, like that someone should be banned form the planet, you better provide pretty compelling evidence.

You forgot to add "or else" at the end of the order, so I am choosing not to comply, though I'm sure "you better" is supposed to be just as intimidating.

I didn't make any claim. I simply pointed out to Borachio that that material is available on youtube with which he could make up his own mind. What could I possibly have provided evidence for?

This is so basic, I'm astonished that I must even spell it out.

I'm astonished that you feel like you must spell things out as well. You should perhaps seek treatment of some sort.

By the way, you seem to be consistently claiming that banning venomous Pammy is too extreme to contemplate, and your evidence to support your claim (that no one asked for) is available on youtube...or so you claim.

I'm not the least bit astonished at having to spell that out for you, though I'm sure everyone else has gotten it by now.

Not only do past conversations on different topics say nothing at all about your credibility on the topic at hand. Your unwillingness to address actual arguments, your reluctance to provide evidence for your claims, your apparent lack of understanding of logic, and your need to claim some kind of special credibility when your arguments fail, speaks for itself.

What makes you think my arguments failed? I never intended to convince you of anything, so the fact that I haven't convinced you of anything is not indication of failure. My arguments, as always, are aimed at the bystanders and lurkers. I think JR's comment speaks volumes about the results.

I am now dropping the shovel. Should you choose to bury yourself further I'll join the bystanders and watch someone else throw dirt on the pile should they so desire.

 

[Funky]

By the way, you seem to be consistently claiming that banning venomous Pammy is too extreme to contemplate, and your evidence to support your claim (that no one asked for) is available on youtube...or so you claim.

Add to my last post that putting words in my mouth that I never said also probably isn't a good way to increase your credibility. Needless to say, I never claimed anything of the sort. The only one making a claim about Mrs Geller was you, and you still haven't provided a shred of evidence for it. You failed, dude, and lying about what I said only makes you look more desperate. Present an argument, present your evidence, and we can have a conversation. Until then, you're done.

 

[Ajidica]

Not entirely sure how extremist Islam in involved in the Congo Wars, considering the major players involved were either a Christian variant or traditional. From what I remember on the subject from Prunier's Africa's World War, Islam of any facet didn't really play a role. Gaddhafi attempted to drum up some sort of 'Muslim Legion' type thing but it was even less successful than his prior flirtation with the concept back during Uganda-Tanzania War if something could even be less successful than that.
As I understand it, at best you have the Sudanese government getting annoyed at Mobutu for his continued support of anti-government rebels but that I would really hesitate to call any sort of Islamic extremism.
If you have articles or sources on the subject, I would be interested to see them.

Funky, you mentioned back on page 9 that Islamists were playing a role on the Congo Wars, much like the role Boko Haram is playing in Nigeria. I like to consider myself relatively well informed on the Congo Wars and I've never heard that before. Could you elaborate on what you said or provide some links?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am now dropping the shovel.

Until then, you're done.

As I already said.

 

[Funky]

Funky, you mentioned back on page 9 that Islamists were playing a role on the Congo Wars, much like the role Boko Haram is playing in Nigeria. I like to consider myself relatively well informed on the Congo Wars and I've never heard that before. Could you elaborate on what you said or provide some links?

I don't have any expertise in regard to the situation in Congo, and the information I have I snapped up in my general studies of the role of radical Islam across the world. That said, the descriptions on websites like this one are rather worrisome. I'd be eager to hear about your views on the matter.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wouldn't get too worried by anything said on MidnightWatcher's Blogspot.

 

[innonimatu]

Here in Germany, where neither guns nor religion play a dominant role in society, there are plenty of young men (and to a lesser extent women) from "normal German families" who have become radicalized and have even gone to Syria to join the IS and figt Jihad.

This shows just how out of place any charge of racism is when criticizing Islam. It's all about the ideology and its heinous core doctrines, which for whatever reasons are appealing to especially young men, regardless of their background.

It's not just about the ideology that attracts these young men. It it were it'd have some kind of universal appeal but it doesn't. It's only gathering recruits in some countries.

Have you questioned whether it is about the ideologies of "normal german families", and what may be missing or wrong there, that these individuals seek out those heinous doctrines instead? Something is rotten in the holy roman empire, perhaps?

 

[Ajidica]

I don't have any expertise in regard to the situation in Congo, and the information I have I snapped up in my general studies of the role of radical Islam across the world. That said, the descriptions on websites like this one are rather worrisome. I'd be eager to hear about your views on the matter.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but I wouldn't call that site an example of journalistic integrity or quality -even by the low standards associated with internet blogs.
For example, in the first article on the linked to page, it discusses killings in the north-eastern part of the DRC (while, strangely, coloring in the Republic of Congo on the map) which are sadly common as a lingering remnant of the Congo Wars. Nowhere in the actual article from Reuter's does it the killings were done because of religion - indeed, the article mentions how they were only suspected to belong to the ADF and how the attackers were wearing DRC uniforms.
Nothing about that attack as reported makes it sound any different than the other killings and brutality that occur in the Kivus that aren't related to religion.

Additionally, the second article gave us this gem:

The goal is creating a big African-Islamic continent. Christians must be killed or expelled.

I mean, the authors somehow jump from unnamed groups in Nigeria issuing an out of context statement about kicking Christians out to somehow believing their is a grand Muslim conspiracy about conquering Africa.
It ends on an equally absurd note:

A prophecy which seems about to become true. Will the world stand to prevent another Rwanda?”

This sort of statement betrays a deep lack of understanding of the Rwandan genocide, as religion was simply put not a meaningful factor in the genocide. The country was largely Christian, majority Catholic.

Although religious identities did not separate perpetrators from victims in Rwanda, my research indicates that religion was nevertheless an essential element in the Rwandan genocide. Contrary to the claims of some church authorities,(6) the involvement of the churches went beyond a simple failure to act in the face of atrocities or the individual transgressions of church members. As I will attempt to demonstrate in this paper, the culpability of the churches lies not only in their historic role in teaching obedience to state authority and in constructing ethnic identities but also in their modern role as centers of social, political, and economic power, allied with the state, actively practicing ethnic discrimination, and working to preserve the status quo.

http://faculty.vassar.edu/tilongma/Church&Genocide.html

Not to sound patronizing, but I would generally be quite suspect of articles that say things like "80 Christians killed by Muslims" and leave it at that. Unless somehow the article can show it is probably the killings occurred because of religion, it would be like reporting the Invasion of Iraq as "Christian bombers killed 80 Muslims in bombing raid" which I think we can all agree is a simplistic and misleading description of the conflict.
For lack of a better word 'tribal'* conflicts in some parts of Africa aren't uncommon and have been going back to the middle of the Cold War. The Islamic spin some put on can often be thought of as 're-branding' and not some expression of a desire for a global Islamic caliphate. Even amongst legitimately Islamist groups, desire for an Islamic caliphate is rare at best. Look at the Iranian Revolution: it was an explicitly Islamist affair but at the same time was also staunchly republican and nationalist without any sort of desire for a Caliphate.
*Calling African conflicts 'tribal' in my opinion is just laziness given how complicated the ethnic situation is. For example, in the lead up to the Congo Crisis of '61 and the Katangese secession, the Katangese-Baluba was concerned about Kasai-Baluba gaining influence inside Katanga and had quite different cultural backgrounds. To that end the Katangese-Baluba sided with the Lunda in Katanga against their 'brethren' from Kasai. (Ultimately, the Lunda and the Union Katangaisekicked out the Katangese-Baluba and embarked on massacres against them.)

 

[Funky]

@Ajidica:

Thank you for sharing your insights. I'd like to point out that the incident mentioned on the page I linked to appeared in several news outlets, one of which is linked to on the site. So even if we grant that the site is somewhat tendentious, the events don't seem to be fabricated. That said, my mentioning of Congo in the same breath as Nigeria, the Middle East or Afghanistan in regard to radical Islam was probably not proportionate.

The bigger issue though is the general role of radical Islam in Africa. North of the Sahara, on the one hand, the IS is trying to increase its influence and gain a foothold along the Southern Mediterranian coast, with parts of Libya and Sinai already under its control. It is attracting people from all over the region, who see the IS as a liberation movement and agree with the idea of the caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood, which like the IS has the installment of Sharia on its agenda, continues to enjoy considerable support in Egypt.
Sub-Sahara, apart from Boko Haram in Nigeria, we hear about tragedies like in Kenya, where 150 university students were killed in the name of Islam, al-Shabab's attempt to create a caliphate like the IS in Somalia, or the division of Sudan due to conflicts stemming from radical Islamic groups. Even in the more stable regions, in countries with Islam as their predominant religion practises of things like female genital mutilation or religion-based punishments like death for apostacy are commonplace.

Now as you say, religion is in many of these cases not the sole cause, and I agree that in a wider sense we have a problem with tribalism and "us vs them"-thinking. However, Islam at the very least acts as an intensifier of the division between various groups, and at worst has become the driving force behind the the brutal acts of violence and theocratic aspirations we witness in large parts of the continent.

But perhaps we are not in disagreement about this.

 

[Funky]

It's not just about the ideology that attracts these young men. It it were it'd have some kind of universal appeal but it doesn't. It's only gathering recruits in some countries.

I don't know of many countries with Muslims constituting at least a large minority, in which this problem hasn't arisen.

Have you questioned whether it is about the ideologies of "normal german families", and what may be missing or wrong there, that these individuals seek out those heinous doctrines instead?

Absolutely, in fact this has become part of my job. So far the reasons appear to be manifold and difficult to pinpoint. However, this is a seperate discussion. Why certain people are drawn towards heinous ideas is one thing. That many of the core doctrines of Islam are heinous ideas in the first place, which must be talked about honestly, is another, which, however obvious it may seem when reading the Koran and the Hadith, has become increasingly difficult to discuss, especially in the liberal press.