Australian Politics Forum - defending terrorists with misleading statistics

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #315 - Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99015

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #316 - Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:56pm

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 7:22pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 3:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 1:53pm:

You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops.

really? Says who?

Big call there.

How would ISIS be fairing without Islam?

Ask him how the white supremacists would be faring, FD.

If that's not too racist.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51451
At my desk.

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #317 - Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99015

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #318 - Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:35pm

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

That's true, FD, but as you said, white supremacists wouldn't exist either, so we need to take the good with the bad, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 146477
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #319 - Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:46pm

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #320 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 9:39am

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

Thats just evasive waffling FD. I asked you a specific question - what "call" are you specifically making?

You don't seem to be making any call at all - other than to basically agree with me that there is no real reason or evidence at all to contend that Islam is a cause for slaughter/terrorism, as opposed to an excuse for it.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51451
At my desk.

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #321 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:25pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 9:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

Thats just evasive waffling FD. I asked you a specific question - what "call" are you specifically making?

You don't seem to be making any call at all - other than to basically agree with me that there is no real reason or evidence at all to contend that Islam is a cause for slaughter/terrorism, as opposed to an excuse for it.

Islam causes people who otherwise have no links to the middle east to travel there, engage in rape and pillage, destroy democracy, and post photos of headless corpses on facebook.

Greg I believe (or perhaps one of the other apologists) has previously argued that these people would be doing the same sort of rape and pillage across western sydney if they were not Muslims. Is that the position you are taking? Or are you trying to disagree with me while not taking any alternative position?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 146477
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #322 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:30pm

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 9:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

Thats just evasive waffling FD. I asked you a specific question - what "call" are you specifically making?

You don't seem to be making any call at all - other than to basically agree with me that there is no real reason or evidence at all to contend that Islam is a cause for slaughter/terrorism, as opposed to an excuse for it.

Islam causes people who otherwise have no links to the middle east to travel there, engage in rape and pillage, destroy democracy, and post photos of headless corpses on facebook.

Greg I believe (or perhaps one of the other apologists) has previously argued that these people would be doing the same sort of rape and pillage across western sydney if they were not Muslims. Is that the position you are taking? Or are you trying to disagree with me while not taking any alternative position?

Maybe not the same sort, but definitely some sort.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51451
At my desk.

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #323 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:41pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:30pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 9:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

Thats just evasive waffling FD. I asked you a specific question - what "call" are you specifically making?

You don't seem to be making any call at all - other than to basically agree with me that there is no real reason or evidence at all to contend that Islam is a cause for slaughter/terrorism, as opposed to an excuse for it.

Islam causes people who otherwise have no links to the middle east to travel there, engage in rape and pillage, destroy democracy, and post photos of headless corpses on facebook.

Greg I believe (or perhaps one of the other apologists) has previously argued that these people would be doing the same sort of rape and pillage across western sydney if they were not Muslims. Is that the position you are taking? Or are you trying to disagree with me while not taking any alternative position?

Maybe not the same sort, but definitely some sort.

Starting a new Caliphate?

Anything remotely similar to what they are doing in the middle east?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 146477
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #324 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:47pm

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:30pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 9:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

Thats just evasive waffling FD. I asked you a specific question - what "call" are you specifically making?

You don't seem to be making any call at all - other than to basically agree with me that there is no real reason or evidence at all to contend that Islam is a cause for slaughter/terrorism, as opposed to an excuse for it.

Islam causes people who otherwise have no links to the middle east to travel there, engage in rape and pillage, destroy democracy, and post photos of headless corpses on facebook.

Greg I believe (or perhaps one of the other apologists) has previously argued that these people would be doing the same sort of rape and pillage across western sydney if they were not Muslims. Is that the position you are taking? Or are you trying to disagree with me while not taking any alternative position?

Maybe not the same sort, but definitely some sort.

Starting a new Caliphate?

Anything remotely similar to what they are doing in the middle east?

There would be violence; murder.

Or, are you suggesting that if it wasn't for Islam, the individual members of ISIS would all be good little law-abiding citizens?

Surely not.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51451
At my desk.

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #325 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:53pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:30pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 9:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

Thats just evasive waffling FD. I asked you a specific question - what "call" are you specifically making?

You don't seem to be making any call at all - other than to basically agree with me that there is no real reason or evidence at all to contend that Islam is a cause for slaughter/terrorism, as opposed to an excuse for it.

Islam causes people who otherwise have no links to the middle east to travel there, engage in rape and pillage, destroy democracy, and post photos of headless corpses on facebook.

Greg I believe (or perhaps one of the other apologists) has previously argued that these people would be doing the same sort of rape and pillage across western sydney if they were not Muslims. Is that the position you are taking? Or are you trying to disagree with me while not taking any alternative position?

Maybe not the same sort, but definitely some sort.

Starting a new Caliphate?

Anything remotely similar to what they are doing in the middle east?

There would be violence; murder.

Or, are you suggesting that if it wasn't for Islam, the individual members of ISIS would all be good little law-abiding citizens?

Surely not.

Violence and murder on the same scale? Or completely different ballpark?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #326 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 1:01pm

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:25pm:

Islam causes people who otherwise have no links to the middle east to travel there, engage in rape and pillage, destroy democracy, and post photos of headless corpses on facebook.

You have given no convincing case for why this is necessarily true, and not "Islam gives people an excuse who otherwise have no links to the middle east to travel there etc". The only reasonably certain thing you can see in this regards is that without Islam, these people wouldn't travel to the middle east to fight for Islam. But thats not saying anything useful or interesting at all.

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:25pm:

Greg I believe (or perhaps one of the other apologists) has previously argued that these people would be doing the same sort of rape and pillage across western sydney if they were not Muslims. Is that the position you are taking? Or are you trying to disagree with me while not taking any alternative position?

My "alternative position" is merely to point out that your insistence that "Islam" is a cause of violence, as opposed to a mere excuse for it, is based on nothing whatsoever - save your own prejudice. Furthermore, you effectively concede this point when you candidly agree that there is no way of knowing whether or not something as bad or worse than Islam, or Hitler would have stepped up and caused at least as much suffering if those two had not existed. So you seem confused about what you are actually trying to say.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #327 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 1:03pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:47pm:

Or, are you suggesting that if it wasn't for Islam, the individual members of ISIS would all be good little law-abiding citizens?

Surely not.

This is the crux of it. FD is this your position? So far you've really only managed to argue that if not for Islam, there would be no "Islamic style" violence.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99015

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #328 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 1:45pm

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 9:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

It is a big call, yet I make it, and you have not disagreed with it.

What call is it exactly though?

You pretty much said you couldn't be sure if less net people would have died without Islam. So what exactly do you mean by "You take away Islam, and the slaughter stops"? Are you merely making the rather pointless point that without Islam there would be no err.. "Islamic" slaughter - but says nothing about who else might take up the slack? If you really have nothing else, then you are not making any sort of case that Islam is a cause for violence, as opposed to an excuse for it.

For starters, it means ISIS would not exist. Given how unique ISIS is in both stupidity and evil, it's kind of hard to say that something equally sinister would just replace. Though plenty appear to make that argument, but they tend to run away from it in the end. You are clever enough to not make it in the beginning.

Thats just evasive waffling FD. I asked you a specific question - what "call" are you specifically making?

You don't seem to be making any call at all - other than to basically agree with me that there is no real reason or evidence at all to contend that Islam is a cause for slaughter/terrorism, as opposed to an excuse for it.

Islam causes people who otherwise have no links to the middle east to travel there, engage in rape and pillage, destroy democracy, and post photos of headless corpses on facebook.

Greg I believe (or perhaps one of the other apologists) has previously argued that these people would be doing the same sort of rape and pillage across western sydney if they were not Muslims. Is that the position you are taking? Or are you trying to disagree with me while not taking any alternative position?

True, FD, but does it cause people to travel to Europe to become white supremacists and ethno-nationalists?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99015

Re: defending terrorists with misleading statistics
Reply #329 - Jan 15^th, 2019 at 1:46pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 1:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2019 at 12:47pm:

Or, are you suggesting that if it wasn't for Islam, the individual members of ISIS would all be good little law-abiding citizens?

Surely not.

This is the crux of it. FD is this your position? So far you've really only managed to argue that if not for Islam, there would be no "Islamic style" violence.

Moslem == a follower of Islam.

Back to top

IP Logged