TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 126

Thread: Julian Assange's Arrest and the Repurcusions for Whistle blowers

  1. #76
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Actually, the link that I posted completely deconstructs his argument on islamic battles:

    In his “How Islam destroyed the Classical World” series, Bill Warner argues that it was Islam, in a series of aggressive wars, that brought down the glories of Ancient Rome and Greece.

    He makes this argument with some animated maps, based on a set of data purporting to include all battles between Muslims and Christians over a few thousand years that is… Beyond laughable.

    I barely know where to start. Dr. Bill Warner claims to be a scientist. OK, let's talk about significant figures and scales of measurement. His data includes no significant figures. How many people are we talking about here? in 633 he lists 11 separate "Muslim on Christian" battles. Are we talking about raids of 100 people or so? Or are we talking about armies of Thousands? In 1099, the largest and most significant year of the First Crusade he just lists two battles, Jerusalem and Ascalon, set piece battles of thousands that make all the history books. So there weren't any other Battles in the Crusaders march through the Holy Land? Ridiculous. Obviously it's going to look like a lot more Islamic initiated battles if you only list the largest battles of the crusades, while including every documented Muslim raiding party. Then there's also the scale issue. For Islamic battles he uses a scale of over a thousand years. For the Crusades it's only 180 years (1080-1260). I notice that the data set corrects this towards the end, pointing out the Nicopolis (1396) and Varna(1444) crusades, probably because somebody made him aware of them after the fact (Dr. Bill Warner Doesn't know much history). But these campaigns as well are listed as single events rather than the massive movements of armed nobility than they were, which must have included all manner of ancillary raids. Going through his data set I noticed many examples of Muslim v. Muslim battles that are included for some reason. Also, ludicrously, it seems that every battle of the Spanish Reconquista is seen as a battle of Islamic victory. I think the Spanish would dispute that. This isn't science. This is dubiously motivated flat earth garbage. It's shameful that he gets as large an audience as he does.

    Beyond the data set, in his tales of the fall of Classical civilization, Warner leaves out all the actual history. He doesn’t include details like Rome’s 3rd century crisis, the endless wars with the non-Muslim Persians, or the Barbarian Invasions from the North East that contributed to Rome’s centuries long fall. The Western Empire fell over 100 years before Muhammad began to preach.
    And more: https://socialistworker.org/2010/11/15/islamophobia-inc
    Here, his 'center' is described as a hate group: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...-roundup-51518

    Even if that data were accurate, what would your argument actually demonstrate? Countless nations have engaged in widespread imperialism throughout the course of human history. Nothing about that says anything about Islam, but the fact that you've redirected this whole conversation to be about 'the problems with Islam' says a lot about you.
    Last edited by froghawk; 17th Apr 2019 at 15:50.

  2. #77
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by froghawk View Post
    Actually, the link that I posted completely deconstructs his argument on islamic battles
    No, it doesn't.

    Although it is perfectly reasonable to argue over the details of certain historical battles, none of this successfully refutes the basic fact of the initiation of force via Jihadism, before and after the Christian Crusades occurred. Therefore, according to military history, the Crusades were not the first "big one".

    Even if that data were accurate, what would your argument actually demonstrate? Countless nations have engaged in widespread imperialism throughout the course of human history. Nothing about that says anything about Islam but the fact that you've redirected this whole conversation to be about 'the problems with Islam' says a lot about you.
    I never argued that other nations have not been imperialistic, which any educated person of world history knows to be true.

    Your attempt to twist my motivation is counteracted by the fact that my intention was clearly stated earlier...

    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    the purpose of posting this particular video was that it provided the relevant information in a concise format, in order to rebuke the fallacy of icemann's statement, "And don't forget the crusades of the middle ages. The first big one"...which is factually incorrect.
    ...and so your dishonesty is properly noted.

    The next time you lose an argument, it would be wise to be more open-minded, rather than resorting to undignified personal attacks.

  3. #78
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    It does, in fact, deconstruct HIS argument, as I said above. If your argument isn't the one he's making, as you're claiming, then why post videos from white supremacists which advance a different argument to make an argument that's a total non-sequitur in the first place? Why is it even relevant who technically started what centuries ago?

  4. #79
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    I've already stated why, so you're just continuing to be dishonest here...and your attempt to undermine a factual argument via name-calling ("white supremacist")...is weak and cowardly.

    If you're unable to get beyond your own ideological sophistry, it would be best to recuse yourself from any intellectual debate in the future.

  5. #80
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I didn't call you a white supremacist - I said you were posting links from white supremacists and questioned your motives for doing so (and no, your answer was not satisfactory). If you're unable to make that distinction (and furthermore, if you're unable to see why posting links from propagandists then calling them 'factual arguments' is a problem), I suggest you do the same.

  6. #81
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    On the surface, the idea that Islam was responsible for the fall of classical civilization is ignorant, considering that the western Roman empire fell to Germanic barbarians ~200 years before Mohammad started doing his thing. And Greece? It was conquered by the Romans.

    Now if Vae and his current favorite youtuber were arguing about the fall of the Byzantine empire, he may have a point. It was absorbed into the very Islamic Ottoman Empire.

    ...but that happened during the Renaissance, around 1500AD, give or take a century. Not exactly classical antiquity.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 17th Apr 2019 at 18:07.

  7. #82
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by froghawk View Post
    Whoa, whoa, whoa. It's a VERY major leap to go from 'this particular action by this country was a direct result of our involvement' to 'all actions by this country are a result of our involvement', and I NEVER implied the latter. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

    And Tocky, are you kidding me? The west has been heavily involved in the middle east since at least the treaty of Versailles, when the region was arbitrarily divided into countries without any regard for cultural boundaries and plunged into chaos. There hasn't really been a time since when the west hasn't been involved in the region, and you're entirely ignoring that history by claiming that 'we tried not being involved' and saying that we weren't involved prior to Hussein, which is ridiculous. You call me a propagandist then claim the Taliban's motivation was purely religious. It wasn't. It was a response to decades of western imperialist action.

    The answer is pretty simple in both of these cases, guys. Imperialism caused literally all of these problems, from our own imperialism to Europe's to Russia's. So we either keep doing the thing that created the problems in the first place (sometimes under the guise of 'fixing' the problems we started, but that's never really the reason and it literally never works), or we stop trying to control the world for our own benefit.
    It's easy to say everything is our fault because we're imperialist. I don't believe it's that simple, but imperialism certainly has consequences. But isolationism doesn't solve problems either. It just enables the aggressors.

    When a crisis arises, it's hard to know when it's right to intervene, and when it's a mistake. But if you're a world leader, you have to make a choice. You can't just say "well, there wouldn't be a crisis if we hadn't done such and such..." You can't go back in time and undo the actions of your predecessors. You have to weigh the risks of getting in versus staying out. But if you take the position that we shouldn't get involved in anything, that pretty much green lights Russia and China to walk all over their neighbors.

    And I agree with Tocky that every crisis that happens in the Middle East is pretty much a no-win situation.

  8. #83
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    You're assuming that some imperial actions are altruistic, though. If that were the case, it would be a different story, but virtually no country is ever going to use their resources to just 'do the right thing' - and at the very least, the US never has. There's always an ulterior motive there, and that's why imperialism always creates a mess. I'm not fundamentally isolationist, and I'd be in support of selfless, altruistic intervention (assuming that it was requested by the country in question) if it ever happened, but I don't think that's the world we live in. There's also a frequent misunderstanding of the nuances of a situation's dynamics when we intervene and it ends up being a bit like bringing a sledgehammer to a sowing party.
    Last edited by froghawk; 17th Apr 2019 at 19:37.

  9. #84
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    The Egyptian empire was the only one that you could say was destroyed via "Islam", though from memory it was technically the Turks that did that. Though a Wikipedia search tells me that it was due to a whole bunch of different empires who invaded and wrecked the place over time. So I'm likely wrong on the Turks.

  10. #85
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Islam took over the whole of the middle east which was Jewish so you could well say they destroyed that empire. It wasn't a totally peaceful takeover either.

    And it's quite possible to have a vested and even capitalistic interest in a place and perform a good deed at the same time. Desert Storm. Protecting the Kurds. Siding with the northern alliance in Afghanistan. Pushing ISIS out. Scattering that rats nest of Al Queda and keeping them beat down. Ridding Iraq of Hussein. None of those are bad things. We spent billions doing those and got back very little. It might not be altruism but when you don't make a profit it's not exactly greed either is it?

    Sure, sure, we are ideologically opposed to the Taliban who ARE a religious organization (student does not mean student of philosophy but of religion- it's in the name FS) but we didn't create them. They came about in Pakistan where we had no dealings other than aid and then tried to spread their shoot them in the head if they don't follow our strict unforgiving view of the Quoran ways outward. Were they spreading it with throw pillows and teddy bears? You want to blame everything on imperialism as if that were some magic fountain from which all evil spreads. It isn't. Plenty comes from sources other than the west all on it's own.

    And yes, after we had helped Afghanistan with Russia we left it alone. I wasn't speaking of all time since men crawled from caves or anything. Did the region blossom with brotherly love on it's own?

  11. #86
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    What is this hogwash Islamic issues chatter?

    Let me guess, too much illumination about Assange in this thread so some CIA or DNC shill group needs to smear all Assange discussion
    as "Alt-Right" racist stuff. So now we're all in this honeypot and every poster in the thread is an "alt right poster"?

    Such a primitive ploy.

    I can't wait 'till Shareblue \ Media Matters etc have their day in front of a civil lawsuit about these tactics.

    They basically killed voat this way. If I were a voat investor I would issue a FOIA lawsuit to know what gov agencies are being paid to be fake racists online
    to slide social media and forum sites.
    Last edited by nbohr1more; 18th Apr 2019 at 03:08.

  12. #87
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Huh?

  13. #88
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    It's nbohr, Ice. Everything's a conspiracy.

  14. #89
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    It's nbohr, Ice. Everything's a conspiracy.
    That may be true... but you have some reading to do:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/3375...ump#from_embed

  15. #90
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    What is this hogwash Islamic issues chatter?

    Let me guess, too much illumination about Assange in this thread so some CIA or DNC shill group needs to smear all Assange discussion
    as "Alt-Right" racist stuff. So now we're all in this honeypot and every poster in the thread is an "alt right poster"?

    Such a primitive ploy.

    I can't wait 'till Shareblue \ Media Matters etc have their day in front of a civil lawsuit about these tactics.

    They basically killed voat this way. If I were a voat investor I would issue a FOIA lawsuit to know what gov agencies are being paid to be fake racists online
    to slide social media and forum sites.
    You got me. I'm CIA sent here to convince a dozen folks from around the world that Assange is an ass lozenge. I've been hiding out for seventeen years just so I could point out the obvious.

  16. #91
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I KNEW IT! Goddamn it, Tocky.

  17. #92
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    You've done it now, Tocky. Waiting stories from your CIA days.

  18. #93
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Guys. You do realise that now he has to track all of us down and kill us, right? It's the only way to be sure.

  19. #94
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    As Hannibal said, the world is more interesting with you in it. Besides, I would have to wake the cat on my lap.

  20. #95
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    It's either shills or what I call "shill fumes" AKA people who get their talking points from shills.

    If someone is on the CIA\DNC payroll, it's Vae. His was the post that slid this discussion away from Assange to "extreme racism".

    Perhaps he just picked-up that behavior by watching other sliders on other forums and is emulating a shill.

    It just looks a little too coincidental since I see these same talking points on reddit, etc.

    Same factory makes the same sausages.

    Shill bots gonna shill.

  21. #96
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    If someone is on the CIA\DNC payroll, it's Vae.
    All I know is that Hillary is good, and Trump is bad!...

    ...and just because they're paying me to say that doesn't make it untrue!...

  22. #97
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Right.

    "Shill fumes" AKA parroting talking points from shills elsewhere.

    In this case, probably for satire. :P

  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    You got me. I'm CIA sent here to convince a dozen folks from around the world that Assange is an ass lozenge. I've been hiding out for seventeen years just so I could point out the obvious.
    Your sarcasm is roughly as sane as what people on Twitter actually think. Literally any support in favor of Assange gets you called a "Russian".

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    It's nbohr, Ice. Everything's a conspiracy.
    I know, right? These conspiracy theories are idiotic. Everyone knows that what's actually going on is that the Russians secretly control everyone who isn't part of the identitarian left.

  24. #99
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Your sarcasm is roughly as sane as what people on Twitter actually think. Literally any support in favor of Assange gets you called a "Russian".
    Well when Assange concentrates his efforts on the US and eschews mention of a nation which is essentially a kleptocracy it becomes obvious who he is for and against. Russia is a nation run like the mafia and Putin it's don. Any dissent is poisoned. That isn't a figurative statement. Assange isn't difficult to figure out. It's not like we can't tell from his actions what side he favors. It's not like Putin hasn't showed his hand in his statements and actions. Take him at his word he is expansionist. He wants the USSR back. He isn't secretive about it. Anyone who purposely overlooks that has a vested interest by definition. Assange supports that and in his actions seeks to weaken the country most in position to block that expansion. It's not a difficult puzzle to fit together. Just accept folks at their word and action.
    Last edited by Tocky; 23rd Apr 2019 at 11:01.

  25. #100
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    I disagree. He revealed stuff about Australia and other countries as well.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •