Fighters from the terror group ISIL, which is so atrocious it was kicked out of the Al-Qaida network due to its brutality, just captured Tikrit after recently capturing Mosul. Iraq seems poised to be split into three parts, a Kurdish state in the north, an Iranian puppet in the east, and a salafist terror state in the west - in fact, you could very well argue that is already the case.

In 2007 there were less than 30 terror groups like Al-Qaida, now that number has risen to around 50. In 2007 there were 18-42.000 terror incidents, last year it was 44-105.000. Deaths from terror attacks has risen from around 7.500 in 2007 to almost 18.000 in 2013, and this doesn't even count the Syrians which has been killed by the terrorist actors, ISIL among them, in the civil war there.

Safe to say, the mission hasn't been accomplished and the war on terror has been going badly lately, if not outright lost.

So, any good ideas..?

Views: 1076

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Gallup: Show me where I've ever asserted myself as a subject matter authority...

Unseen: I didn't use the descriptors "subject matter."

You said "unless someone recognizes GM as an authority on the subject such that your analysis is not to be missed, you dismiss them..."

The subject is not the matter to which you're referring? You're referring to a different matter besides the subject of the conversation at hand? Tell me another one.

You seem to want to strive for being an authority in a more general sense as the local expert.

You're telling me what I want?

Please.

You specifically said I dismiss people unless they recognize me as an authority on the subject (matter). I've asked you to support that claim by showing where I've done that even once. You can't do it.

You're a liar.

Gallup: I dismiss fallacy and dishonesty using reason, evidence and exhibits, not by asserting myself as an authority.

Unseen: You probably won't recognize the pompous bombast in that statement, so I'll just leave it lay for others to appreciate.

I recognize that you claim my work is meaningless bluster because what I said above is reasonably true and you have no legitimate response to falsify it. Failing that, you turn to the personal insult: the last result of the incompetent.

Note that even if someone is arrogant-- or humble-- it has no bearing on the argument he presents. That you attack irrelevant personal qualities to discredit the arguer instead of addressing his argument is an ad hominem fallacy.

I'll leave that for the teacher of logic to appreciate.

Unseen: [you dismiss people] as though their education on the subject isn't complete until your views have been dealt with.

Gallup: Your education on the subject-- namely the argument I am presenting and supporting-- isn't complete until you read it.

Unseen: So, you've read it and your education is complete now. There's a sense in which education can't be complete until one has read everything. We all read what we choose to read and follow our own noses to whatever conclusions we reach. But here we're back to your tendency to think that something is important because you think it's important. 

You're telling me what I think?

Please.

The point is that you attack me falsely for dismissing people unless they acknowledge me as an authority. Nothing you've said here supports that. I do no such thing.

I give the reasons when I dismiss a point or counter-point. None are on the basis of a claim that I'm an authority on the subject.

As I said, you're a liar.

So, there's something wrong with the rest of us who don't follow and read all of the many links you're so fond of providing.

This is a strawman fallacy.

I said nothing of the kind. You are faulting me for sourcing the information I cite using links in my posts.

This is your classic tactic: provide more research opportunities than anyone owes to you, and then you can sit back, fart, and pretend that we're ignorami because we didn't pursue your reading assignments. 

Is that a royal "we", Unseen, or have you been given sanction to speak for others?

I don't pretend that you refuse to read my posts. You refuse to read my posts by your own admission. You do this on the basis of exaggerated protests, personal attacks or outright lies, as I've demonstrated here.

For instance, it's common to include cited sources of information in writing which is supported with research. Published papers and articles often have bibliographies. They are there primarily for the writer to support his claims with verifiable sources. There is no actual or implied demand to check all of the sourced research, let alone read it all, and I made no such demand.

But you claim I do this classically, as if it's my signature approach. Show me where I've ever done it once. You can't because it doesn't happen.

You're a liar.

Gallup: Given the frequent compliments, expressed appreciation and requests for help and advice I receive, both in public and in private, I'm satisfied with the TA audience I am reaching.

Unseen: I did follow those links to discover two things: 1) those were very very short posts by your general standard...

You've established the average word-length of my posts as a general standard? All 2,000 of them? Do tell me what it is.

Or did you yank another log out of your ass?

...and 2) those posts got only one response each, which effectively supports my contention that your bedsheet posts garner very little general attention. Most people here scroll right past them.

This is a strawman fallacy wrapped in a non sequitur fallacy.

I listed the three as examples of expressed appreciation, not as the number of replies I get.

Your conclusion that the number of written replies equates to a metric of readership does not follow. As of this writing, this thread has nearly 600 views of about 80 posts in total, of which about 50 are replies from a dozen or so members. Do the math. The vast majority of the readership metric does not post a reply at all. There's no way to tell on that basis what people read or don't read.

Besides, as I said, even if I have a small readership, it's not a valid criticism or a reason to dumb down my writing and research. I'm satisfied with the level of response I get, which includes responses in public and private to the majority of my posts (no matter how long they are).

I know I don't read them.  I tried for a bit, and found that in general they wandered a lot and spoke mostly to the argument he was having in his own head, not the one that was being posted.

I've tried to follow the links, too, but they turned out to be mostly smokescreen.  Low-quality sources, out-of-context references, or self-referential silliness.

So for example in the reply to Arcus:

Yes, Arcus. We have established that willful ignorance is the basis of your intellectual dishonesty....

The NSA's secret domestic and international spying program goes back at least 50 years and the unsuspecting world was "shocked" at its recent discovery.

  • "we have established" links to an @Gallup ad hominem directed at Arcus.  GM was apparently using the royal "we".
  • "unsuspecting world" links to a religious right-wing rag called Now the End Begins.  That's an odd thing for an atheist to list as a reference, and the low-quality source can be immediately dismissed.
  • "shocked" at least links to a CNN article from a year ago related to the Snowden disclosures.
  • "50 years" links to a brief blurb on the Church Commission from the U.S. Senate site.

His claim was that NSA spying was a [successful] deception that had been going on for 50 years or longer. 

However, the only reference that supports 50 years was the Church Commission, and the Church Commission was in response to the CIA, not the NSA, and those CIA abuses were to a large degree outed.

So despite all of the links, the claim isn't at all supported.  We've wasted quite a lot of time for nothing, and this was just a fraction of the entire post.

There's the rub.  It takes a long post like this one just to expose all of the dreck he put into just a pair of sentences.  Sorting through one of his longer broadsides would take a book chapter.

I listed the three as examples of expressed appreciation, not as the number of replies I get.

I noticed.

I know I don't read them...

My reply to Bob is here.

Fun side note about the above video: Can't be viewed in Australia... in consolation, the Daily Show says:

"But hey, at least you have kangaroos and boomerangs."

Try Hotspot

spot on erock

Well, the world is certainly better off with a removed Saddam Hussein.

I don't understand. Doesn't your opening post to this discussion prove otherwise? Iraq's screwed now, and has transformed into terrorist havens.

Iraq would be screwed in any event, see Syria.

So, any good ideas..?

Yeah, get off the oil and let the theocrats slip back into oblivion where they used to be and still belong. Its our fault, pumping oil out.... and money/arms in. Yeah, lets arm and train the good guys. How stupid.

Good, not outlandish.

Yeah, it's "outlandish", to shift focus to non-carbon based clean energy solutions and in the process eliminate economic dependencies on unstable radical theocracies.

I guess being smart is outlandish to you.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 1 Comment

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 3 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service