They want to de-emphasize "scientific processes" (whatever that means) in favor of "scientific knowledge" and to you that means they want to ban the teaching of science like ISIS?

Quite an exaggeration there, don't you think?

Every country has border controls. Your argument makes as much sense as calling Mexico a "walled-in open-air jail" because they aren't allowed to freely come to the US.

Israel has a right to control its border, especially when its neighbors harbor and support terrorist groups.

I did not know that, but having looked into it just now that's interesting. I had no idea Scotland ever tried to establish a colony, and it's remarkable that a country could come together enough to put 20% of their entire currency into one business venture.

See now that makes no sense. We were talking about assets and debts, and now you're talking about charging Scotland for the ability to become wealthier. How do you put a price on that that makes sense? If you're going there, you'd have to also charge to England the cost of the privilege of ruling them for so long. I think that's stupid and it makes more sense to focus on things that can be priced reasonably.

I don't see why talking about actual physical assets like oil and gas is "one of the most absurd set of arguments" you've seen, though if you conflated those easily quantifiable things with garbage like "the privilege of being saved from poverty" then I actually understand your confusion and frustration.

I'm sure you can explain if I'm wrong.. but yes... surely if you earn a pension in England and then leave you don't give up your pension? That's incredibly uncivilized. My mom is from Germany and worked there for a time before coming to America, but she gets her small stipend still. My grandmother lives with her and she receives her retirement income. Are you being serious right now?

Wow. Do you not understand that the national debt is not a shared debt for some random guy whose pension you want to steal? If I leave America today and move to Switzerland and give up my citizenship, guess what, I do not have to pay off my "share" of the American national debt!

Are you seriously this mixed up that you are confusing national debt with an obligation by individual citizens?

Talk about an absurd set of arguments.

No I don't think we need to reinvade Iraq, I think we need to help the Kurds who have shown themselves to be the most moderate and practical force in the north of the country. The Kurds helped us in the 1st Gulf War, and we abandoned them. They were killed by the thousands by a vengeful Saddam. Now they're helping again against ISIS and are the most effective force in the region. And we're like.... ohh geee we don't know about giving them weapons, let's focus on helping the central government, because this artificial state with warring Muslim sects made so much sense on paper when it was drawn up by the British, let's keep it going!

To solve the ISIS problem, what I would do is give automatic weapons to every Christian, Yazidi, Kurd, and other members of religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq. And a few tanks and heavy machine guns to each of their villages. And set up a drone program in those areas. Then let them fight for themselves, with help at a distance from us (airstrikes, etc).

What you're not considering is that where you and I see sects, ISIS sees false Muslims and illegitimate rule. The area is not ruled by good Muslims, thus they are establishing a caliphate.

I'm not making this up, that is their stated aim. That's why I said "That's the stage ISIS sees themselves at" -- not because I see it that way.

I read the critique you posted, but really it's a critique of just one article posted on that blog, not the blog itself. I'm not even sure the critique makes sense for that article. I haven't read the article it's referring to, but the excerpts in the critique don't support the points its trying to make. For instance, look at the first claim, that the article is calling for a holocaust against Muslims. The author quotes another blog, not Gates of Vienna but Little Green Footballs, saying "At Gates of Vienna, an author referred to as “thoughtful” has a piece that lovingly describes the coming genocide of Muslims in Europe."

Note, not calls for, but describes.

And the critique has this quote from LGF (not from Gates of Vienna):

[emphasis in the source, not mine... also, the abrupt end of the quote is as in the source, not because of me... also the extraneous single quotes are in the source... what I'm trying to say is this source is poorly written]

It seems pretty clear that this moronic author bolded that line and said oh look, they're calling for people to kill anything that looks Muslim, that's a holocaust.

Clearly that's incorrect.

That being said, I'm not familiar with the Gates of Vienna blog, so perhaps it's true they post radical viewpoints. That does not mean that everything they post is incorrect, and having looked at the article about the crusades, it's pretty accurate. Do you disagree? If so, I think it's more fruitful for you to share that disagreement directly, not link to a 3rd party blog filled with vague criticisms that hardly even make sense.

Wait, so the group that has taken over large amounts of land and imposed the laws that they want and believe in is LESS EFFECTIVE than the small terrorist group that hides in caves?

No. Almost no original mathematics was developed in Islamic countries. There was some, but the vast majority was simply transmitted by Arabic/Muslim scholars from earlier Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc sources.

Arabic numerals were developed in India and were called Hindu numerals. The reason we call them Arabic is we learned about them from a book written in Arabic, not because they were invented in Arabia.

Linear algebra is not required to figure out Islamic inheritance. The primary rule is that sons get twice as much as daughters, because men are worth twice as much as women. Here are some sample problems: http://www.deltacollege.edu/de...

Here's another take on it: http://intermath.coe.uga.edu/t...

It was not groundbreaking mathematics. I think you probably underestimate how advanced mathematics was in ancient times. And people like al-Kwarizmi -- from whom we get the names for "algorithm" and "algebra" -- did very little original mathematics themselves. His book on algebra, called "Calculation by Restoration and Reduction," was talking about a method known to the ancient Babylonians 2000 years before Islam existed.

You do realize that "gates of Vienna" is a reference to the Islamic expansion into Europe which was only halted at... Vienna?

Seriously the lack of education about Islamic history is astounding. It's an important religion and culture and you'd think people in this day and age would at least know the basics, like what the crusades were about!

The so-called Golden Age of Islam was still marked by harsh caliphate rule and Islamic expansion. Your example of al-Kwarizmi is someone in an area that had been taken over by the Muslims for 150 years. Do you think DURING the conflict that resulted in Muslim rule there was a lot of stability and promotion of the arts? That's the stage ISIS sees themselves at.

That is ignorant. The Islamic Golden Age coincides with Islamic expansion and the taking over of established, advanced cultures. Did you even read the Wikipedia article you linked?

Oh, unless you actually consider Islamic holy war to be a good thing. In that case carry on, but your characterization of ISIS as "the polar opposite of 12th century Arabs" is incorrect. You should be cheering them on, they are marching down the exact same path as expansionist Muslim armies of the past that you seem to esteem so highly.

I don't think oil is the only problem. Surely you have some compassion for the innocent people being destroyed in this conflict? It would actually be more merciful to nuke the whole area than to leave these poor Yazidis and Christians alive to see their daughters sold off as sex slaves.

By opposing "moderate" rebels, who are still actually hard-core Muslims (even heard this on NPR this morning, "who are the moderate rebels"), we support ISIS? Are you stupid?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a bit too simplistic to... ah never mind.

That's a bit tricky because whose assets were they to begin with? If the UK says "If you want your North Sea oil and gas, you have to do so and so" then is that fair? Don't those assets belong to Scotland by right anyway? It's not like the UK (or anyone) created the oil and gas, so they have no claim on it in terms of debt.

But in principle I agree with you and Scotland should in my opinion take responsibility for some share of debt if it's determined that they benefited from that debt. I'm just not sure it will come to that. It seems entirely possible that through their contributions over the years of fish, oil, gas, usage rights for the military, etc, they have paid more than they received. If hypothetically that were the case, would you agree that instead of Scotland taking on shared debt, the UK should actually reimburse them and be in Scotland's debt?

It's the opposite of that, right? The UK still exists, so the UK owes those pensions. If the UK ceased to exist, then yes the pensions would disappear. Like when a company goes bankrupt and ceases to exist.