A small background story so as to illuminate the few reading this of how I got to read this utter nonsense. Elver Loho wrote a blog entry some time back in which he gave us the link to a quite funny little movie.
Interestingly – there was a fellow called Kip Watson who went ahead an questioned (actually he was quite unfair – his first sentence being: “OK, now you’re just being silly.“)
Anyhow, having not much to do at the moment I went ahead and checked Kips website. I’ll just quote the most probably best collection of examples of flawed logics and factual mistakes I have ever come across in a single blog post.
1) The massive upsurge in terrorism is a post war phenomenon, coinciding with the period of greatest attempted Soviet expansionism.
2) The great majority of terrorists, much greater in number and equal in savagery to Al Qaeda, have been Socialists (usually referred to as ‘Communists’, which is a faction of Socialism).
3) While a backward and violent society during most of the cruel Ottoman domination, the Arabs didn’t learn the particular sadistic effectiveness of modern terrorist tactics until they fell deeply under the Soviet sphere of influence.
4) Sayyid Qutb, the political philosopher behind Al Qaeda, owes at least as much and probably more to Hitler (Nazism — National Socialism — being another faction of Socialism) than to Islam.
5) Socialism is nothing but the logical political consequence of the philosophy of Materialistic Atheism.
Therefore the cause of terrorism is not ‘religion’ but Athesim.
Wow, ey? I kind don’t even know where to start. Then again, he has been so kind as to list his statements with numbers, so I guess that the best way to get over with this is to just take them one by one. I can’t possibly be told that I am taking his statements out of context, as each and everyone is a new entity.
The massive upsurge in terrorism is a post war phenomenon, coinciding with the period of greatest attempted Soviet expansionism.
Wait… post war? Which war? World War 2? Or the soviet war in Afghanistan? Or are we talking about wars where the United States took part? Damn it, I just don’t know which one he is talking about. Or maybe the last Iraq war? Na, that wouldn’t fit. There is no soviet anymore.
Massive upsurge in terrorism? Wait, weren’t the French revolution, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand no terrorism? What about the Russian Revolution of 1905 or 1917? What do you define as terrorism Kip? If it is a fight against an established piece of society, against a government, against oppression, these sure are valid examples. Better yet, they all took place before WW2, which I believe you are talking about.
What about the greatest attempted Soviet expansionism. What do you mean by greatest attempted expansionism? You don’t try expansionism. You either do it, or you don’t. Depending on what exactly you are talking about. Every god damn war is to some extend at least caused by expansionism. And I really mean every war. You could cite the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and I’d say: “Hey look, an interesting example.” You could cite the Russo-Turkish War but that wouldn’t be soviet expansionism anymore, now would it?
The great majority of terrorists, much greater in number and equal in savagery to Al Qaeda, have been Socialists (usually referred to as ‘Communists’, which is a faction of Socialism).
Excuse me, what? First of, please contact your Department of Defense. You seem to know a hell of a lot about those fancy terrorists. Maybe you can be of some value to whatever your country does. Anyhow, let’s get on with this.
On what information do you base what you just said? In which way do the terrorists you know behave like, or remind you of Socialists? I suppose you are talking about Muslims here – as you are naming Al Qaeda. I fail to see how you can say that those people or there entourage is socialistic. Most of the Arabic countries have very conservative politics, and nothing at all in common with socialism. Whomever you talking about that, that’s not the main point here.
The point is: Saying that socialists are often referred to as communists shows that you have no idea at all about what socialism is in the first place. Even then: saying that communism is a part of socialism is in my eyes the same as saying that nationalism is a part of republicanism (or conservatism if you want).
While a backward and violent society during most of the cruel Ottoman domination, the Arabs didn’t learn the particular sadistic effectiveness of modern terrorist tactics until they fell deeply under the Soviet sphere of influence.
Well mate, I come to think that you just don’t have a fucking clue what you are talking about. Truly amazing and fascinating stuff. No offense, but perhaps you should go back to comic books. It’s unbelievable through which amount of pain certain people go to publish some crap like that. Astonishing I say.
Are you really comparing modern terrorist tactics with the things people learned from each other about 350 years ago? That’s when the Ottoman Empire was at the verge of it’s geographical size.
Let’s ignore the subtle placement of the pleonasm – cruel domination – and get on to other things. When exactly were the states who formed after the ottoman empire shrank in size over the years in the soviet sphere of influence? I mean, we are not talking about the Greece, Austria, and the like, are we? Otherwise your reference earlier on to “Al Quada” wouldn’t really make any sense. We can’t be talking about the Mahgreb either.
Let’s see what we’ve got left over.
Iraq? Was ruled by the Hashemite until 1958. It then was – yes, I acknowledge you this one – for 5 whopping years in quite good standings with the Soviets. Saudi Arabia never even got close to a similar situation.
And Iran was for the majority of the 20th century a close ally to the U.K. and the U.S. We certainly aren’t talking about the post revolution area, or are we?
So, which country have you been talking about? Or which regions?
Sayyid Qutb, the political philosopher behind Al Qaeda, owes at least as much and probably more to Hitler (Nazism — National Socialism — being another faction of Socialism) than to Islam.
Excuse me – what? You certainly know that Sayyid has been dead for about 40 years? Nevertheless, I give you the point that his writings might have inspired one or the other. The relation to Hitler however…
And what on earth allows you to state that Hitler had anything to do with socialism? Or that his movement was a part of socialism? Are you mad? I mean seriously… claiming that his regime was a socialistic one is utter nonsense. If anything he was rather a pure anti-socialist or anti-communist if you want.
Socialism is nothing but the logical political consequence of the philosophy of Materialistic Atheism.
Ya, right. Using a lot of words which sound intelligent doesn’t always end up forming an intelligent sentence. In this case, it definitely didn’t. Would you please be so kind as to illustrate on how socialism and atheism are linked? You claim that it’s a logical consequence; but why would that be so? Where is the consequence, where is the logics behind such a statement?
Therefore the cause of terrorism is not ‘religion’ but Athesim
Brilliance. You actually went through the pain of posting 5 different statements but use only one to base your conclusion on? Nice.
I can’t even be bothered to reply to the conclusion in the first place. Just let me give you a hint on what to do next time.
Read about what you are writing (and I really mean something else then the Bible) before you go ahead and publish something.