Vae on 17/4/2019 at 18:58
The political disposition of the channel is irrelevant to the basic factual information provided in the video...and 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.
froghawk on 17/4/2019 at 19:01
Ok, well maybe next time you do that, don't give more views to a white supremacist with frothing followers, ok? And try posting an actual reputable source when you want to prove a point?
Vae on 17/4/2019 at 19:20
I took the liberty of updating the video with the same one on the original author's channel "Dr. Bill Warner PhD (Political Islam)".
Also, here are the references for the Islamic Battles...(
http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf) http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
Vae on 17/4/2019 at 19:40
Your misguided attempt to disqualify the professor does not impact the fact that these Islamic battles occurred. Nor does it successfully refute the initiation of force via Jihadism, before and after the Christian Crusades occurred.
froghawk on 17/4/2019 at 19:43
Actually, the link that I posted completely deconstructs his argument on islamic battles:
Quote:
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/2018/05/15/anti-muslim-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.
Vae on 17/4/2019 at 20:35
Quote Posted by froghawk
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".
Quote:
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 Posted by Vae
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.
froghawk on 17/4/2019 at 21:18
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?
Vae on 17/4/2019 at 21:48
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.
froghawk on 17/4/2019 at 21:54
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.
