First, a statement. Typically, it is when a person makes an assertion about something where the truth of the assertion is implied in the seriousness with which that statement is made. An example might be,
‘The moon is made of roasted turnips. In fact, those who say that the moon is not made of roasted turnips is an enemy of the moon’.
An even better example of a statement is here, in this official US government document about the Islamic State. (Please note paragraph 3)
ISIL does not represent Islam and Islam does not condone or honor such depravity. In fact, these actions are a reminder that ISIL is an enemy of Islam. The international community and religious leaders of all faiths have strongly and repeatedly condemned ISIL’s horrific acts; we urge them to reiterate their commitment by condemning in the strongest possible terms the commodification of women and children as spoils of war, including through their subjection to horrific physical and sexual violence, intimidation, and deprivation of liberty.
A statement does not even do one the courtesy of what I think of as a kind of ‘logical reach around’ of a tautology. For example a napkin that says:
“This Napkin is god. I know this is true because it says so right here on this napkin”
With the above tautology, the statement is self referential and made correct almost exactly like the koran does, by twigging back to the initial statement as authoritative and true.
The government statements, both by the UK and US, typically do not even attempt that bit of logical contortion and content themselves that the mere statement. “This napkin is god” is enough for them.
Now an argument:
Basically an argument is where an assertion is explained by way of evidence laid out in accordance with the rules of logic.
“A tree is a type of plant. A plant has all these defining attributes, each one of which trees share, and trees have no other attributes that would differentiate them from the broader category of plants, and therefore, a tree is a kind of plant”
This would be an argument which can be detailed and verified, studied and most importantly, can be falsified. If an argument cannot be falsified, it is not an argument at all. It is likely a statement or a tautology.
There have now been many arguments made which refute the statements of the US and UK governments concerning the Islamic State and the nature of Islam. My favorite ones are made by the Islamic State themselves as they clearly cite Islamic scripture in context and Islamic history etc. with each action they make.
I will post below the video we made with Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, Geert Wilders, Christian Zeitz and others which make an actual falsifiable argument on the nature of the Islamic State and its relationship to Islam.
(Many regular readers will have seen this video before. We first published it September 10 2014)
The US Government must know that their assertions are false and therefore are likely part of a larger strategy. Whatever it is, it isn’t working in the interests of the peoples of the Western World and we should be fighting it with truth at every possible opportunity, even if it is meant to be helpful. One seldom solves a problem by lying about it as a long term solution. In fact when people discover that authorities are lying to them, it often drives them to harsh and violent reactions. Especially when the deceptions come from trusted authorities.
I wonder if this could have something to do with the number of young cultural Muslims who, upon learning that all the leaders of the free world are utterly lying to them about the nature of Islam, its history, its scripture and so on, become so angry at the lies that it pushes them into religiosity. Imagine if you were a teenaged male and the government had been making loud and unsupported statements about your heritage, and upon even a cursory glance to verify the truth of it, discovered you were being lied to in every conceivable aspect of it. By both the government, and the ‘official state sponsored clergy’.
Would that make you mad? It would make me furious. Frankly I would argue that government lies about the nature of Islam are far more likely to ‘radicalize’ (make a more or less indifferent person religious) than people opposing the genuine nature of Islam. At least we in the counter jihad, even the harshest critics and koran burners such as Rev. Jones, have enough respect for Islam to actually say what it is.
Eeyore for VladTepesBlog