Is the "War on Terror" changing us?

[Qfwfq]

A Mohammad feels there is only one god and...

and so does a Jew and so does a Christian. They all believe in the same one God with many names. The Qur'an cites five prophets previous to Mohammed, from Abraham to Yeshuah ebn al Miryam.

 

...he does not care to answer if that is so why did this god create others like him who have freewill of their own?. Obviously there is something wrong with his concept of an Islamic god.

Non sequitur.

 

The problem is not with god or religion. it is with one evil character who called himself prophet. He wanted to create an army of unquestioned loyal crusaders for whom crime would become a passion without a conscience. And who would serve his purpose of looting and dacoity and expanding his empire. These desert crazy guys were promised lots of water and virgins and sweetsmelling fruits to get themselves killed and to enjoy these goodies in "heaven." Thus was born a perversion that refuses to go away. Chill you are right 500 million cobras are waiting to destroy all that are decent and humane. Before the crisis becomes out of control the evil Mecca must be wiped out from the face of the earth.

Just like many wars to expand Christendom and wars to conquer the Holy Land.

 

One thing we don't need here is yet another crusade agitator.

[TheFaithfulStone]

These groups have a high tendency for self-isolation, hence strenghtening social identity amongst themselves and defining the boundaries between themselves and other societies.

 

Excellent! This is one of the reasons that Shrub scares me so much. It's the exact same kind of thinking it's "us vs. them" mentality. Groupthink is dangerous no matter who is doing it.

 

I think this goes to the heart of why our little mis-adventure in Iraq has not gone according to plan. For Americans, the idea that we would kill each over the difference between being white and black is just knowable enough to be repugnant. (For most) We've been there, and we solved it and know we find the whole thing distasteful.

 

The idea that the Methodists and Baptists would get in a shooting war is, to us, so absurd as to defy serious thought. Can you actually picture this?

 

But effectively, that's what's happening in Iraq. Seriously, when you think about what it means when they say "diversity" in Chicago vs what it means in Baghdad - I work next to a Hindu, a Wiccan, a Catholic, white people, gay people - the mind boggles!

 

In Baghdad, they have to keep the Shia and Sunni seperate so they don't kill each other.

 

I've said before that the big contribution of American democracy to the world is that it short circuits the argument to the question - "Who is special?" by answering "Nobody." (Or "everybody" if you like.)

 

The question of how to spread democracy and win the war on terror (because, frankly, I think that's the same question) is how to get people to agree on that answer to the question - rather than immediately saying "I am!" and voting for whoever confirms it.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

That there is hate in the world needs no further evidence than the posts in this very thread. If only so much energy and effort were spent finding the solution as opposed to building a case for the problem...

Dear IN,

 

- I suggest you modify the posts to some of the posts...

Point taken. My intent was to show that one must not go very far to find hate in the world, as evidenced by many of the posts in this thread. I do try to avoid speaking in absolutes, because, when I do speak that way, I'm instantly wrong. ;)

 

- And I'm curious about the meaning of 'energy spent...to building a case for the problem...' and if 'solution' here refers to 'terrorism' or to 'it is changing us'...

Really, all of the above.

 

You look at folks with these strong and passionate views. There are many points with merit, and valid comments being made. But emotions and bias sway the presenter to find even more data to support a point, and often leads them to absolutist thinking... "All muslims are terrorists... We should bomb everyone... A dingo ate your baby..." :) :)

 

It's a self-reinforcing cycle, and the more one continues that path, the further from the solution they will find themselves.

 

These efforts, this mental energy, if spent with a motivation toward improving the future instead of convincing others of the problems of the past... might just change the world and move us beyond the current state of fear and hatred. Amazing things can be accomplished if approached by open minds who truly wish to get things done. "Here's the issue, here's the obstacles, now let's figure out what we can do together."

 

The key words here are open mind and together. Us/Them thinking is what needs to be carpet bombed, not localities or groups of people...

 

Spending all of one's time ranting about the problem takes away from our ability to find the solution.

 

To answer your question, solution refers both the terrorism and it's effect on us, but more importantly, changing ourselves and letting go of our own hatreds. If enough people let go of their hatred, then real progress can be made.

 

These are problems that must be approached from many angles to have a reasonable chance at success, but the one angle that is consistent across the entire population of the Earth is to look within ourselves. You can call me a peacenik or naive or any other term you feel appropriately derogatory, but by doing so you increase your own addition to the problem we're all trying to solve.

[ronthepon]

Sure. The truth is always bitter and it is very easy one can act like a cat thinking that the world has become dark when it shuts its eye.

This your kind of idea, then.

 

That's what guys like you on the 'other' side of the wall think. Truth may or may not be bitter, but ranting never helps the situation. Especially when you're not making sense. Get practical. Open your own eyes. See the truth. You-are-not-helping-matters. I'd say that people holding opinions similar to your own are responsible for the very creation of the ideology involving 'reasons for jihad are real'

[chill]

Percieved Injustice (which may or may not have been brought about by, and be validated by) inequality. Does everyone so far agree that this breeds hate?

 

Then let us try to build upon this. Logically speaking, the way to resolve hate is to hence abolish the perceived injustice. Sebby's point is that this perceived injustice is so great in the minds of Palestinians that it cannot be abolished. InfinteNow's point is that we should let go of this perceived injustice and hence hate.

 

Seen from another viewpoint, perceived injustices are held by certain groups of people. This arose from the conflict of interests between 2 groups (simplistically speaking of course). Hence TheFaithfulStone's point is that if these groups are abolished, and no one is special (or everybody), the concept of injustice would simply not exist (this is a very big topic and might need its own thread).

 

Notice that I'm not even talking about religion anymore. I've mentioned previously that this applies to any group of high self-isolation. But does the abolishment of groups really lead to peace? Is it even possible? (This is not a simple question)

 

What about conflicts of interest? At the other side of conflict of interest there is common interest. Perhaps bridges between groups can be made through common interests? In the Watchmen by Alan Moore the Cold War was stopped by a perceived alien invasion; a common enemy, a common interest. I'm not suggesting anything so radical, of course, but what about the impending energy crisis? The depletion of oil can be made into a common enemy; the search for new fuels? Afterall most of the oil in this world is owned by Muslim nations, and when it is depleted they will be hit the hardest. Furthermore, the Middle East isn't exactly known for its fertility..

[Dov Henis]

IN,

 

Hi, peacenik.

 

I refrain from taking part in this discussion because I do not like generalities when the problems are several and different per location and per case and non-involved outsiders cannot appreciate all the essential aspects involved.

 

Israel case: The Israeli people are circa 75% Jewish + 20% Muslim + others, getting along reasonably, with our specific situation problems which we all do best to correct. Outsiders would never be able to comprehend and amend our problems...refering to them in generalities/cliches is grossly irritating... and most irritating is throwing them as a package into the subject of terrorism. There is no terrorism in Israel between Israeli Muslims and Jews. We are neighbors and citizens, with some problems specific to our circumstance, but we keep working on solving them. The terrorism directed at us is from some fundamental Muslim groups, with various religious and cultural and political justifications from their point of views. Their threats are REAL and take my words that they simply and clearly cannot be overcome by discussions/arguments. This is the nature of our specific problem with terrorism. Israel's survival from terror can be based only on military strength/capability and may be enhanced by accords with countries that have their own reasons-needs to eliminate terrorists.

 

Dov

[TheFaithfulStone]

Hi, peacenik.

 

OT: Why is this an insult?

 

Outsiders would never be able to comprehend and amend our problems

 

Us vs. Them, eh? If you're not one of us, you're one of them - or at least unable to help.

 

I'm not saying that terrorism isn't real, or that killing terrorists isn't justified, or that some of them cannot be reasoned with.

 

But when you won't participate in the discussion because "outsiders can't understand" isn't this the exact same attitude? It's "me" versus "everybody else," and anything other than total agreement with you constitutes agreement with them.

 

TFS

[jackson33]

the list of ideologies that have been negotiated, fought over and resolved are there. pick your point in history and find any number. in the past this has been done with brute force slowly turning to economic torture of a people.

today there is no question which nation could defeat another. since the will of a people, determines any outcome its up to those with a will to give logic to blocking internationally unacceptable ideologies.

 

the bloodiest US war, was not the world wars, with the British or the Spanish.

it was with ourselves. this Civil War should have been an example for the world communities that followed. nothing is achieved by total destruction of another and in some manner we are humbled by the conditions we survive in.

 

when this becomes the issue and the conditions are an end of mankind and the future of existence itself, is not on the earth the problem goes beyond the comprehension of 99% rational, non believers of that ideology. the turmoil in the Islamic World, has been going on for a very long time and the final days have come and gone a hundred times. a few in this world think its time to bring these ideas to a realistic end, before this end can become a reality.

this day to me is not that far away, with out concrete actions.

 

i have tried to show why terrorist cannot be bargained with, negotiated with or in some way be compromised with. when the goal is total destruction inhalation of many peoples and a hope of self death a goal there is nothing offered and only total surrender to offer.

 

currently the world powers with the power to destroy most if not all the planet, have no theological reason to do so. governments of the US, Russia and China and even India are not motivated by this purpose. north Korea wants the power, but for reasons that do not include an implied eternity in some mystical place.

 

infinite; if hate is equal to realistic valuation of a problem, then maybe some of us are hateful. hate would also mean a desire to be part of a free world with out religious obligation, choice of many things and some voice in what is to be our destiny and that of our descendants on this planet. none of this is to any person or group, but is directed to a philosophy that is present in many places and presents itself daily.

[Dov Henis]

Why is this (peacenik) an insult?.

 

(I shrug shoulders...) sorry, no understand you...

 

Us vs. Them, eh? If you're not one of us, you're one of them...

But when you won't participate in the discussion because "outsiders can't understand" isn't this the exact same attitude? It's "me" versus "everybody else," and anything other than total agreement with you constitutes agreement with them.TFS

 

Something must be ailing .. I sincerely offer my sympathy...

I have no idea what it is that I said to earn this statement...

But thanks for augmenting my statement that "outsiders can't understand".

 

Shrugingly,

Dov

[sebbysteiny]

Firstly, I notice that people are no longer asking for more information to back up my statements. The reasons for that are simple. The evidence I produce is clear and points one way. There are no rational arguments against. The conclusions formed are alarming and contradict people's world view. Ostrich syndrome takes over.

 

It's a shame because the only person who actually launched a decent challenge was CraigD, the statistician. But he has not replied to my counter points.

 

So do I waste more time providing evidence for people who are willfully blind?

 

I'll continue only if asked. And all you moderators should take back your 'infractions' since one of your main reasons was 'un substantiated claims' or 'claims without evidence' which has been exposed as patently false.

 

It's a shame, because I was about to give damning evidence that there is no real distinction between Fatah and Hamas and that neither has any desire to recognise Israel and that the Palestinians support this view.

 

Percieved Injustice (which may or may not have been brought about by, and be validated by) inequality. Does everyone so far agree that this breeds hate?

 

I don't entirely. I say that hate propaganda breeds hate. It also breeds perceived injustice. But perceived injustice is necessary in hate.

 

Demonisation stages

1) Create a loved party playing happy.

2) Create a demonised party inflicting an injustice (to use your words) on the loved party.

3) Propose a solution (kill all the Israeli Jews in the case of the Palestinians; suicide bombings in the case of Islamic terror in general).

 

 

Excellent! This is one of the reasons that Shrub scares me so much. It's the exact same kind of thinking it's "us vs. them" mentality. Groupthink is dangerous no matter who is doing it.

 

I suspect this is a new realisation you have recently made which you think makes sense, and you are currently exploring the implications of this seemingly sensible statement.

 

So I wish to stop it now before it distorts too much of your world view, although you are quite welcome to have a distorted world view, but don't complain you did not have the opportunity to know better :)

 

There is 1 fatal flaw I percieve with your statement.

 

It only takes 1 to tango.

 

If a group thinks it is "us vs them" then the only way to describe them is by using "them". Implied within that description is the term "us". The only fault and blame lies with the party that originally created the "us vs them" mentality. That is the Islamic terrorists.

 

What you are doing is putting a huge moral yoke over your perception by making it impossible to condemn any party no matter how evil simply because that may require the word "them".

 

 

And infiniteNow, I love your insight. It's like suffering termanal cancer and when the doctor tries hard to explain to you that you are dying and there is nothing medical science can do, you turn around and say that if the doctor spent as much energy on the opporating table finding the cure as he is explaining painfully slowly to you why you will die, the doctor would find a solution.

 

I really cannot say this any more. THERE IS NO SOLUTION TO THE ISRAELI PALESTINIAN CONFLICT UNTIL THE PALESTINIANS LEARN TO LOVE THEIR CHILDREN MORE THAN THEY HATE ISRAEL.

 

THEY MUST ACCEPT ISRAELS RIGHT TO EXIST WITH DEEDS AND WORDS IN ARABIC, NOT JUST WORDS IN ENGLISH INFRONT OF WESTERN MEDIA TO WESTERN AUDIENCES.

[InfiniteNow]

I have no idea what it is that I said to earn this statement...

But thanks for augmenting my statement that "outsiders can't understand".

You seem to assume that the rest of us have not family, friends, peers, etc. in these locales, or that we ourselves have not personally experienced the turmoil first hand. Your assumption serves to imply that you have some elevated position in the debate, and that is false. It's this continued thinking of "us and them" that is making the situation so difficult.

 

I do not negate that you have your own experience in the matter. I do not negate that your experiences and opinions are valid. I do not negate that these issues have a very real impact on your daily life, but you should not negate the experience or proposals of others simply because they do not live in the same house with you... This way of thinking only exaserbates the problems.

 

 

One does not have to be diseased themselved to be the doctor who finds a cure....

[HydrogenBond]

The "war on terror" has not changed me living in the US. The reason it hasn't is because I refused to play the irrational game that our culture seems to enjoy, too much. Think logically, the terrorists are limited in number and capability and there are thousands of potential targets, with most too low in profile to maximize the needs of the media. At the same time a strong defense is already in place. The odds are so slim, I should be worrying about slipping in tub, shark attacks, lightning strikes, getting hit by a meteor, etc, since these pose similar risks to me.

 

The problem is not rational reality but living in irrational reality. The pet rock syndrome has taken over too many people. Too many have been conned into believing the odds are higher than reality. Once the herd begins to migrate down the hill or common sense, it is easy to get pushed back if one is trying to move upward on onward.

 

I think the fatigue with terrorism is a good thing. It means common sense is coming back to life and irrational fear is getting boring. Think logically, those who have worried for the past x-years have worried for nothing since all the hype was just hype. If the media says something is so, remembers they are entertainers. Enjoy the movie and then get back to reality.

[jackson33]

The "war on terror" has not changed me living in the US. The reason it hasn't is because I refused to play the irrational game that our culture seems to enjoy, too much. Think logically, the terrorists are limited in number and capability and there are thousands of potential targets, with most too low in profile to maximize the needs of the media. At the same time a strong defense is already in place. The odds are so slim, I should be worrying about slipping in tub, shark attacks, lightning strikes, getting hit by a meteor, etc, since these pose similar risks to me.

 

The problem is not rational reality but living in irrational reality. The pet rock syndrome has taken over too many people. Too many have been conned into believing the odds are higher than reality. Once the herd begins to migrate down the hill or common sense, it is easy to get pushed back if one is trying to move upward on onward.

 

I think the fatigue with terrorism is a good thing. It means common sense is coming back to life and irrational fear is getting boring. Think logically, those who have worried for the past x-years have worried for nothing since all the hype was just hype. If the media says something is so, remembers they are entertainers. Enjoy the movie and then get back to reality.

 

surely you do not live in Israel, Afghanistan or a few places where this has been an on going issue, long before 9-11.

 

here in the US, my concerns are primarily economic. if one little incident happens and it will, the markets will plummet. the terrorist know this and the object of their dreams. if the attack is major or say nuclear, biological or an event that kills a few hundred thousand the economics of an economy driven by 70% public participation will take a year or more to recover.

 

as to worry about nothing; we have no idea what that nothing has been or what has been prevented. little things that pop up, may indeed be the new program and the frequency is getting higher. what has been prevented may never be known.

 

there is a saying in politics, saying "pay no attention to what they say, but what they do". this is what your thinking and may hold some weight, but my concerns lay in what they do next....

[sebbysteiny]

The problem is not rational reality but living in irrational reality. The pet rock syndrome has taken over too many people. Too many have been conned into believing the odds are higher than reality.

 

If you wish to be an ostrich, that's cool.Take a mango and dance reggay. Somebody in charge will take care of that threat for you and you will know nothing about it.

 

But would you at least agree that if terrorists get weapons of mass destruction, EVERYTHING changes? :doh:

 

And to all those other ostriches (there is no unusual problem of extremism with Islam as it is taught today or its culture at all), bury your head in the sand. Ignore the evidence. But you can be rest assured that those around you will not as the truth will win out in the end.

 

Even Tony Blair has converted to my views almost to the letter. This whole vail debate further challenges the isolationist nature of the conservative Muslims. You guys in your liberal armchair dream world must be becoming increasingly frustrated as more and more people start to see the problem.

 

The only thing I hope is that the centre parties act before the far right gets and abuses a monopoly on truth. That truely would be awful.

 

But emotions and bias sway the presenter to find even more data to support a point, and often leads them to absolutist thinking... "All muslims are terrorists... We should bomb everyone...

 

That's a very bold strawman. Find me one person who said "all Muslims are terrorists". Perhaps it comforts you to distort what others say to the point that it looks stupid.

 

I think you should also think again about what you mean by 'bias'. Newsflash: EVERYBODY IS BIAS. You are extremely bias in that you refuse to even look at evidence that suggests that any one party of a conflict can on mass (>>10%) be full of vile hatred. You are bias towards political correctness.

 

These efforts, this mental energy, if spent with a motivation toward improving the future instead of convincing others of the problems of the past... might just change the world and move us beyond the current state of fear and hatred. Amazing things can be accomplished if approached by open minds who truly wish to get things done. "Here's the issue, here's the obstacles, now let's figure out what we can do together."

 

Oh my god, are you for real? Are you actually putting this forward in a real intellectual debate, or do you think that you are talking to ignorant stupid children with a brain disorder?

 

Infinite Now's great idea. Hold on folks, this will change the world: we should try and find a SOLUTION to the problems in the Middle East. Oh my god. That's just genious. The finest minds in the Middle East have been spending years and years in think tanks trying desparately to find a way of getting the Israelis and the Palestinians to live together, and that was the missing piece, they should actuallly try and find a SOLUTION. Wow.

 

Oh wait folks, there's more. 'We should be open minded'. Nooo. Really??? Noooo. Really??? I, and everybody else who spends a large part of their time on this issue thought that if we were close minded, it might really help us. But it's really great that Infinite Now has told us to try to find a solution AND be open minded.

 

And now for the finale. He even suggests a completely genious approach: here are the problems, here are the obsticles, here are the solutions. I mean, wow.

 

Seriously InfiniteNow, if you actually spend at all getting your hands dirty talking to both sides and trying to expose the issues, you will see that peace is fundamentally impossible because the Palestinians will not accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

 

I have spoken to dousans of Palestinians in an attempt to find a working peace deal with them and they all fall down on this issue.

 

Sure they start off talking about 'end of occupation and just want our little rights' but in the end every single one of them admits, after my pushing, that what they want is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.

 

And until that changes, how can there be peace? :D

 

Another impassable block is that negotiating with the Palestinians is meaningless. You negotiate hard and come up with a list of committments on both sides. Israel does hers and the Palestinians will not to do any of theirs. And then they cry foul when Israel finally decides the agreement is worthless.

 

And when I have suggested makeing clear conditions that are easy to measure and carry penalties for non compliance, the Palestinians (at least the ones I have talked to) will winge that 'Israel is being arrogant and patronising'.

 

Another problem is that Fatah has made it quite clear that a negotiated peace is only the FIRST STAGE in their three stage plan. Stage 1 must weaken Israel severely by negotiations. Yes they actually think Israel will give the Palestinians their balls on a plate. Stage 2 is a 'Hudna' = a temporary cease fire to rebuild. Stage 3 is to restart the war and eliminate Israel and / or commit genocide.

 

If you have a solution, give it. Maybe you are the chosen one. But I cannot stand people with almost no knowledge of the issues think that if only Israel or the world TRIED to get peace, they would get it.

 

And now we have a stupid road map that makes it impossible to negotiate with the only man who might actually accept genuine peace (although he will almost certainly be assassinated, he was a holocaust denier in his youth, and he will not be able to enforce that peace on his people).

 

One does not have to be diseased themselved to be the doctor who finds a cure....

 

Yes, but you do need to be educated of the issues. Those unable to empathise with Israel as they cannot put themselves into the shoes of a nation under constant attack do not have that necessary grasp.

 

You seem to assume that the rest of us have not family, friends, peers, etc. in these locales, or that we ourselves have not personally experienced the turmoil first hand. Your assumption serves to imply that you have some elevated position in the debate, and that is false.

 

Actually that is true. Experience in the front lines ALWAYS changes a persons understanding to the better. Without that experience, you are an armchair critic.

 

But if you disagree, then perhaps you might like to come the the defence of the WW1 generals who have got a lot of criticism in history for moving pieces around in a comfortable room without every actually visiting the front line.

[IDMclean]

If you wish to be an ostrich, that's cool.Take a mango and dance reggay. Somebody in charge will take care of that threat for you and you will know nothing about it.

 

But would you at least agree that if terrorists get weapons of mass destruction, EVERYTHING changes?

 

And to all those other ostriches (there is no unusual problem of extremism with Islam as it is taught today or its culture at all), bury your head in the sand. Ignore the evidence. But you can be rest assured that those around you will not as the truth will win out in the end.

 

Strawman

 

You guys in your liberal armchair dream world must be becoming increasingly frustrated as more and more people start to see the problem.

 

Ad hominem

 

EVERYBODY IS BIAS.

 

irrelevant conclusion

 

You are extremely bias in that you refuse to even look at evidence that suggests that any one party of a conflict can on mass (>>10%) be full of vile hatred. You are bias towards political correctness.

 

Ad hominem

 

Oh my god, are you for real? Are you actually putting this forward in a real intellectual debate, or do you think that you are talking to ignorant stupid children with a brain disorder?

 

Infinite Now's great idea. Hold on folks, this will change the world: we should try and find a SOLUTION to the problems in the Middle East. Oh my god. That's just genious. The finest minds in the Middle East have been spending years and years in think tanks trying desparately to find a way of getting the Israelis and the Palestinians to live together, and that was the missing piece, they should actuallly try and find a SOLUTION. Wow.

 

Oh wait folks, there's more. 'We should be open minded'. Nooo. Really??? Noooo. Really??? I, and everybody else who spends a large part of their time on this issue thought that if we were close minded, it might really help us. But it's really great that Infinite Now has told us to try to find a solution AND be open minded.

 

And now for the finale. He even suggests a completely genious approach: here are the problems, here are the obsticles, here are the solutions. I mean, wow.

 

Seriously InfiniteNow, if you actually spend at all getting your hands dirty talking to both sides and trying to expose the issues, you will see that peace is fundamentally impossible because the Palestinians will not accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

 

Ad hominem

Style over substance, judgemental language.

you will see that peace is fundamentally impossible because the Palestinians will not accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

 

Fallacy of Many questions

Hasty Generalization

False Dillema

Package-deal Fallacy

 

I'm not even going to finish. This post is so full of holes, swiss cheese looks better. Sebbystein, I will ask that you improve your objective critical thinking and argumentation, back up your claims with evidence, and cease hostilities towards those who are critical of your pet theorems.

[sebbysteiny]

I will agree that a strict logical argumentative approach was not my main priority in my last post.

 

Is not answering the question a logical fallacy by the way? Can't remember.

 

Anyway, I will deal with one of your alleged spots.

 

you will see that peace is fundamentally impossible because the Palestinians will not accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

 

Fallacy of Many questions

Hasty Generalization

False Dillema

Package-deal Fallacy

 

The statement was a summary statement. By 'Palestinians' I of course meant 'most Palestinians'.

 

Other than that, every apparant assumption and logical leap is true.

 

The 'right of return' means the destruction of Israel, and the 'national rights' and 'justice' means 'the right of return'. If you havn't done your research, that's not my problem.

 

But you will only see it with startling clarity when you look up the facts as long as you look at what Palestinian leaders say in Arabic to their people.

 

I'll bet a nickel you have never done such research.

[IDMclean]

Has nothing to do with research Sebby.

 

Pure and simple you make your proof by assertion.

 

My assertion of the fallacy of your argument is self-evident. All that is required is an applicable understanding of logic which is required by site rules.

 

Right now what you are doing is attempting to invalidate my contentions with your fallacious reasoning by virtue of an indirect ad hominem, questioning the validity of my person and expertise in this area. You are attacking the messager.

 

Also, silence on a proposition is in no way a fallacy. However drawing conclusions from the silence of an individual on the subject of a given proposition can be.

 

Your argument, as even you admit is illogical, and as such has no place on this site. A site of science not political, ideological, illogical rhetoric.