“Saying that Hedges’ faith is not real is the same as saying to a gay man that his love isn’t real”

You mean like the bible does?
Lev 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Interpret that for me Cat. Make it have a good meaning. Get some help from clergy if you need to. But you shouldn’t need to right? You said yourself:
“but I would hope that those who read the Bible have enough of a conscience to tell them that slaves should not have to obey their masters”

You should have enough sense to find the positive interpretation quite easily without any danger of taking it literally right?

How about these:
Timothy 2:11-12
Let a woman* learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman* to teach or to have authority over a man;* she is to keep silent.

Luke 14:26
Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

Ex 21:20-21
20 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

Deut 20:10-18
10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. 12If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

Isaiah 40:8?The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

The book says that these are all the words of god.
A supposedly timeless god.
And the religion is completely based on the book.
If you disregard huge chunks of this book because it was obviously written by power mongering lunatics, why would you want to believe that what remains is proof of god?

You are welcome to. I don’t stop anybody from believing whatever they want.
I don’t tell people what to believe as you insinuate.
But I will call anyone who believes in a religion based on that book that they are the most brainwashed of dupes, and that for obvious reasons, religion is the most dangerous and divisive ideology in history.

You and your friend believe what you want Cat.
I will call you idiots for it.
And that’s not only free speech. It’s nessessarry free speech.

As for the other stuff.
If you believe that the free world would exists right now had the US not achieved complete military dominance then you are equally delusional. The military might of the US is the only reason that mad men have not taken control of the world. And if you think that freedom is secure now? You are so very naive. There are nuclear and chemical weapons out there and literal jihadists with internet savvy. You think the US is the bad guy?
How about this then.
GET OUT!
Go live in Iran or Saudi Arabia where you can see first hand what it’s like when an entire society lives by god’s word.

Timmy,

Dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terror.  The Japanese were no match for the U.S. troops at the end of World War II.  They became so desperate that the fighter pilots began “Kamikaze” missions where they would smash planes into the sides of DDX destroyer ships.  The Japanese forces were clearly loosing. 
 
The bomb was definitely not necessary, and in many U.S. History textbooks, the fact is that Truman dropped the bombs to flex the muscle of American power.  It was to scare the Russians. 
 
The bombs were also timed to drop exactly at the moment when Japanese children were going to school.  All of these facts seem like terrorism to me.  What is the difference between suicide bombings and the nuclear bombs dropped in Japan? I fail to see how one is moral and the other is not.

In regards to taking the Bible seriously, I would like to see the passage that says “it [the Bible] is not to be taken loosely, but rather very seriously”.  Chris Hedges once said that “we [his family] took the Bible seriously, and therefore could not take it literally.”  The Bible is not scientifically true.  It is rather written by a group of men who struggled with the questions of life.  Some were racist and intolerant, but I would hope that those who read the Bible have enough of a conscience to tell them that slaves should not have to obey their masters. 

Saying that Hedges’ faith is not real is the same as saying to a gay man that his love isn’t real.  If people appreciate and have faith in a religion, but do not kill non-believers and believe in slavery, than why isn’t that religious?  Why do you, the atheist, get to define what is religious and what isn’t?

Cat,

“I would like to ask why someone cannot be a religious person and believe in a loose interpretation of the Bible”

Because that sentence is an oxymoron. The book states very clearly that it is not to be taken loosely, but rather very seriously. It is simply idiotic and disingenuous to belong to a religion who’s main doctrine is the complete submission to the will of god, and who’s book sates very clearly that it is the infallible word of god, and to decide to disregard many of the main doctrines because they are not socially acceptable in the western democracy you have decided to live in.

Besides. You tell me, or ask your friend what the loose interpretation of that doctrine is. What is god really saying when he says that a woman’s vote is worth half that of a man? What’s the interpretation your friend takes from that. He must have one. Or doesn’t he take his religion that seriously. And if so.
WHY ARE YOU TWO BITCHIN SO HARD ABOUT OUR CRITICISM OF IT.

“you are subtly justifying the mass killing of innocent men, women and children.  A preemptive nuclear strike is a scary, and dangerous argument, one that I find shocking.”

What you’re going to find even more shocking is how quickly Israel turns to vapor once fundamentalist islam gets ahold of nuclear weapons. Or NY city,.
We all need to be very afraid of an islamic theocracy getting it’s hands on nuclear weapons. Not just because of the horrors that they will without doubt rain down on the western world, but also because of the horrible things we might have to do to stop them from doing that.
Sam’s point is not that we nuke them, but that we wake up to this threat before they put us into a position where we have to.

“Who is the only nation in the world to have used a nuclear bomb?”

More hyperbole. Meaningless to this situation.
You would be serving your emperor or kneeling before your tzar right now if the US hadn’t done what had to be done 60 years ago. You owe your freedom to speak your mind on this forum to the United States nuclear arsenal. You need to wake up lad.

Timmy,

About my Muslim friend, I would like to ask why someone cannot be a religious person and believe in a loose interpretation of the Bible.  When the U.S. Constitution was first written, there were the Broad Constructionists, who believed that the Constitution could be loosely interpreted, and then there were the Strict Constructionists, who believed that the Constitution was a word for word document.  These positions, however, are both valid in terms of supporting the Constitution.  They were both considered Federalists.  So why can’t someone who loosely interprets the Bible or the Koran be religious?  You are saying that they must believe their Holy book word for word, which I think is unfair. 

You also said

“If an oil rich fundamentalist religious theocracy were to obtain nuclear weapons, we would, as Sam Harris laments, have no choice but to eliminate those nuclear weapons by whatever means necessary.”

By saying this, you are subtly justifying the mass killing of innocent men, women and children.  A preemptive nuclear strike is a scary, and dangerous argument, one that I find shocking. 

You also write, when comparing the Islamic world to ours: “They also don’t have the widespread and habitually violent extremists reeking havoc all over the world and threatening to destroy the west and turn the entire world into an islamic theocracy.”

Who is the only nation in the world to have used a nuclear bomb?  The U.S. has just as much of a violent history as the Islamic world.

Cat,

We can not have a conversation if you do not understand the difference between a religion and a race. Being a member of a particular race is not a decision that anyone makes, nor does it make you any different from anyone else except for extremely minor physical appearances. It is therefore, abhorrent and ignorant to criticize or make threats about anyone’s race. A person’s religion on the other-hand is a decision they make to adhere to a tribal doctrine that claims to hold the rule book for all humanity as written by the creator of the universe. There is no more divisive and dangerous ideology in existence. Couple that with the fact that there isn’t a scrap of credible evidence for it, and a mountain of credible evidence against it, and it is not only acceptable to criticize it, it is our responsibility to.

Muslims are all races. Arabic, Persian, Philippino, caucasian…..
Islam is not a race. It is a hideous and primitive tribal ideology.
And it is very dangerous in todays world.

To call Sam Harris a racist for attacking a religion is either complete ignorance, or willfully fallacious hyperbole. Or both.

You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between a religion and it’s adherents. The adherents are dupes, victims, brainwashed pawns of ancient tribal priests. They more than anyone need to hear Sam Harris’ words so that they might be liberated from primitive thought and wake up.

If an oil rich fundamentalist religious theocracy were to obtain nuclear weapons, we would, as Sam Harris laments, have no choice but to eliminate those nuclear weapons by whatever means necessary. This goes for christian theocracies, jewish theocracies, or muslim theocracies. But there aren’t any of the first two. Christians and Jews live in secular democracies. That is why there was no need for Sam Harris to include them in that paragraph. They also don’t have the widespread and habitually violent extremists reeking havoc all over the world and threatening to destroy the west and turn the entire world into an islamic theocracy.

Your hyperbolic statement that I correctly called “flat wrong” insinuated that Sam harris was advocating the use of nuclear weapons to wipe-out the muslims. 
Irresponsible, and flat wrong hyperbole.

call him a religionist if you like.
Or, if you want to appear ignorant, a racist.

You still haven’t answered my question about your muslim friend.
It’s an important question. Because it illustrates that it is your friend who is practicing a perverted version of islam not the extremists. He either thinks that a woman’s vote is worth half that of a man, or he is questioning the infallible word of Allah. In which case he is not a muslim, because muslims can’t do that. Complete submission to Allah. Or whatever words that homicidal maniac suffering from heat induced hallucinations named mohammed wrote down as god’s words 1400 years ago.

Timmy:

When I mentioned Sam’s argument that we should use nuclear weapons on the Muslim world, you responded: “Flat wrong. He says nothing of the sort.” Read this passage and tell me what you think.

“What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?  If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them.  In such a situation, THE ONLY THING LIKELY TO ENSURE OUR SURVIVAL MAY BE A NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE OF OUR OWN.  Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime – as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day – but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.”
—Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 129

He also says:

“It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap.  But benignity is the key – and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without.  The means of such imposition are necessarily crude: they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.  While this may seem an exceedingly arrogant doctrine to espouse, it appears we have no alternatives.  We cannot wait for weapons of mass destruction to dribble out of the former Soviet Union – to pick only one horrible possibility – and into the hands of fanatics.”
?  Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 151

And this is working great in Iraq, isn’t it?

He even writes this:

“SOME PROPOSITIONS ARE SO DANGEROUS THAT IT MAY BEVEN BE ETHICAL TO KILL PEOPLE FOR BELIEVING THEM.  This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”
—Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 53

It seems as if Sam wants people to believe only what he believes.  This is interesting because this is what religious extremists say.  Sam, like fundamentalist Christians and Islamists, separates the world into “us” and “them”.  Sam’s words “logic” and “reason” are only replacing the words “God” and “Jesus”.   

You also said this about me:

“You said: ?“If it weren’t religion, it would be something else: Communism, Socialism, any kind of political movement could take its place.”
Yeah, like one of those god awful secular democracies. Not that. Oh no!

Political ideologies can replace religion anytime.  Here are a few examples: the Nazis use/excuse of radical socialism to gain control of Europe and then killing 6 million Jews and 5 million gypsies, the Camer-rouge using Communism as a means a means to carry out one of the nastiest genocides in the history of the world, the Red Scare and the U.S. prison internment camps set up for Japanese-Americans.

Religion is just an excuse.  It is not the cause.  The cause is our innate capacity for evil, which will always be present.

The main marker I traced throughout the debate, and which remained in place to its conclusion, is that Hedges consistently eluded the most salient concept of Sam Harris’s stance, namely, that the religions addressed in his critique have as core principles ideologies that isolate, repress, alienate, and subjugate the “other.” I put the term in quotations because it is problematically laden with nuances that have been strengthened and stringently codified through the very institutions this debate was supposed to address.
Personally, I am more mortified and terrified of fundamentalist Christians than I am of Muslim extremism, perhaps simply owing to the fact that I am viewing it from the monocle of my own societal constraints and not through a cultural lens.
However benign many Christians may be, however their altruism and compassion may manifest itself, the very epistemology of Christian doctrine is eroded (and I feel discredited) through the hypocrisy of its key tenets. The zeitgeist of Christianity is homogeneity; that one assertion should be enough to scare us witless and demand response.

Cat,

If you did have a point it would be completely discredited by your tendency to make statements that are completely fallacious.

You say:
“But what I am saying is that Harris condemns the Islamic people as evil doers.”

No he does not. Harris condemns Islam as evil.
“Islam” is not “Islamic people.”
Huge difference.
Islamic people are the innocent victims of the religion of Islam.
Get it straight if you want to be taken seriously at all Cat.

You say about Harris:
“He explains many times in his book, which I have somewhat read, that Islam needs to be stopped, even if we must attack them with nuclear weapons.”

Flat wrong. He says nothing of the sort.
I guess this highlights the idiocy of commenting on the contents of a book you “somewhat read”.
It is the height of irresponsibility to make comments like this when you are flat out wrong.

You say:
“The perverted version of this religion, which I wouldn’t call religion, is poisonous and harmful, I agree, but that is true with any religion.”

Yes it is. But unlike with any other religion, the “perverted version” is much much more widespread, and not condemned widely or vocally enough. There is just no comparison. Everyday there is an endless line-up of hopeful islamic suicide bombers ready to kill for no other reason than for their god. Name another religion with this kind of widespread perversion.

You said:
“If it weren’t religion, it would be something else: Communism, Socialism, any kind of political movement could take its place.”

Yeah, like one of those god awful secular democracies. Not that. Oh no!

Finally you say:
“Religion is not a producer of evil.  We all, as human beings, have the innate capacity to be evil.  It’s natural, and to blame religion is to waste an active protest.”

In the words of Dr Steven Weinberg:
“Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But for a good person to do a bad thing, it takes religion.

There is no racism here Cat. It shows ignorance to refer to Sam Harris as a racist.

What is the race?

And you still haven’t answered my question about your Islamic friend.
Does he believe that a woman’s testimony is only worth half that of a man?

If he does not believe this, then it is him that is practicing a perverted form of that religion. Because the religion is very clear about this.

Lindadugan:

(As a side note, my participation has diminished because of problems posting notes.)
I defend Chris Hedges because he has the experience of living in the Middle East.  I trust him.  It shocks me that some people would argue that reading a Poll in the United States about the Middle East would say more than living there for 10 years or so as a reporter.  Doesn’t that seem naïve? 
  I see where you pull your Martin Luther King example out of but this is not what I am talking about (let’s also remember that King was a preacher, a Holy man who did good for the world).  But what I am saying is that Harris condemns the Islamic people as evil doers.  Sam says the things a racist would say, but labels himself as something else.  He explains many times in his book, which I have somewhat read, that Islam needs to be stopped, even if we must attack them with nuclear weapons.  He also talks about how they are violent and unreasonable people because of their religions.  He says, for example, that women do not grieve for their sons.  That is a form of racism.  They grieve like any other mother.  (Hedges then depicts what the funeral is really like.) 
  I find it insulting that you call me naïve.  I grew up in the Middle East.  I wonder if you have more experience then I do.  I have lived in this kind of culture, and the people living in it are not corrupted by the Islamic faith.  The perverted version of this religion, which I wouldn’t call religion, is poisonous and harmful, I agree, but that is true with any religion. 
  If it weren’t religion, it would be something else: Communism, Socialism, any kind of political movement could take its place.  Religion is not a producer of evil.  We all, as human beings, have the innate capacity to be evil.  It’s natural, and to blame religion is to waste an active protest.

Cat:

While I appreciate your participation on this blog (which I thought had recently come to a slow death), you are incorrect about Sam Harris.

Stating Sam Harris is a racist towards Muslims is like saying Dr. Martin Luther King was a racist against Caucasians when he stood up to the legal sanctity of white supremacy beliefs and unveiled—and directly challenged—- the cloak of hatred, oppression and injustice in   Jim Crow laws and hypocrisy rampant in the early and middle 20th Century.

MLK spoke out against lynching, segregation, denial of civil rights, individual liberties, etc. which white supremacy beliefs perpetrated for centuries.  He was not a racist by doing so.  In fact he denounced a tradition of dogma and oppression, liberated millions of people, educated the masses and held society accountable to the values and laws of our Constitution.  Neither Sam nor MLK are/were attacking any particular ethnic groups. They are/were attacking the immoral ideas, beliefs and actions of specific groups of people who can be inebriated in their own unique and (sometimes) psychopathic dogma, drama, evil, etc… 

Sam has stated publicly the worse enemy of Muslims is the practice of Islamic law and the religious beliefs that uphold the law (or hide behind it.)  Islam practices atrocious acts on its own people, especially females. No one is suffering more from Islam than Muslims themselves and Islam has a remarkable record against Muslim women as Ayaan Hirshi Ali writes in her book Infidel.

That your good Muslim friend (in NY) is fortunate to live in a country where the fortitude of Islamic law is absent, in no manner exonerates barbaric Islamic religious laws and practices embedded in various Muslim countries today and Timmy has laid out a valid explanation about how moderates, like your friend, play into this equation.

If we (as a global community) can agree——and many, many do not——that the offensive acts perpetrated by Islamic beliefs, including some of the most egregious behaviors against humans occurring on our planet in the 21st Century (such as stoning women for adultery or premarital sex, mutilating their private parts, forced marriages, suicide bombings, head drillings, beheadings, genocidal wars… and the list goes on and on…) are rooted in metaphysics instead of cultural depravity, then and only then will we be capable of having honest discussions and challenging needless suffering instigated and perpetrated in the minds of such believers.  This problem indicates the innumerable masses that fail to understand the cause and effect relationship of this situation: that (religious) beliefs do indeed have consequences.


Sam Harris is not a racist.  And I am suggesting you either have not read his books, are naive about the state of Islam in the world today and/or do not comprehend the reality of Islam and the historical context of how and why the religion of Islam has evolved to the present day.

Cat,

Does your friend believe that a woman’s only roll in life is to honor her father first, and then the husband her father choses for her with complete and humble obedience?
Does he believe that a woman’s testimony is worth only half of any man’s testimony?

Your friend’s religion is crystal clear about this.
But what does he think?
If he agrees. He is a muslim.
If he disagrees, he needs to wake-up, and question everything that his parents told him about religion, and everything that his parents parents told them, and so on, and so on, all the way back to when a small Bedouin tribe, led by a genocidal maniac, forced his version of religion on millions and millions by brutal bloody holy war.

How was a small Bedouin tribe able to be so successful in war as to conquer half o the known world?  In their own words.
“Because we love death more than life”

God grief

Cat,

I have no doubt that your friend who is muslim is everything that you say. Many muslims are. You need to pay closer attention to my words. You misrepresent my point in exactly the same way that Hedges misrepresents Sam’s point.

Pay close attention. There is a big big difference between these two statements.
1. Islam is racist.
2. Muslims are racists.

One statement attacks the religion and it’s doctrines.
The other attacks people who were innocently born into the religion.

Harris and I attack the religion, but you and your big hearted politically correct (god bless you) brain heard me attack your school friend. I did not.
Muslims are not Islam.
They are victims of Islam. Brainwashed by Islam.
Your friend is a muslim because his parents are muslim, and so he or she was told from early childhood that he or she is muslim. Your friend did not choose to be a muslim at a mature age after investigating all of the various religions.
You friend was told that he/she is a muslim, and that is that.

Your friend is an abomination in the eyes of the god described in the Koran because your friend is living in a country that is not under Islamic rule, and your friend is not fighting with his/her life to correct that situation. Allah commands it. But your friend probably doesn’t know that because your friend’s family subscribes to an illegitimate, watered down, westernized version of Islam. It’s not the real thing (thank god). Just like Jews and Christians who do not stone their disobedient children to death.

This highlights the point that Sam Harris makes about the problems with moderates. They don’t follow the evil and repulsive doctrines that are written in their holy books, making them not real Muslims, Christians or Jews. But they defend attacks on those religions (repulsive doctrines and all) as though they are attacks on themselves.

Cherry pickers of the Bible and the Koran are not real Muslims, Christians and Jews.

When you and your friend defend Islam, you are defending doctrines of misogyny, racism, slavery and holy war even though you yourself are against those things. 

You friend needs to stop describing himself by what his parents told him he is and learn to think for himself. By describing himself as a “muslim”, your friend (like it or not) is identifying himself with the most extreme elements of that religion, because they are the ones who are following the religion as it was meant to be followed. Your friend is an abomination to their religion, not the other way around.

So no Cat, I did not call your friend a racist.
I called him/her a brainwashed dupe who needs to wake up and think for him/herself.

Timmy,

Here is a thought: A good friend of mine is Islamic. He lives in New York City and he’s a really good kid. He’s kind to other people, and, from having him as a classmate, I know that he was not intolerant of other religions or cultures. In fact, he loved to talk with me about different religions.

My point here is that you are being unreasonable by calling all Islamists racist. That, in itself, is racism. What you should say is that that most Islamic Fundementalists are racist. But then again, our Christian Fundementalists are racist and discriminate as well. Every religion has its extremists. The reason you hate the Islamists most is because of the media portrayel.

lol
This should be good.
Wavelength will handle you fine Cat, but a note from me on racism.

To refer again to a great Bill Maher quote:
“Lets not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance”
This sums up people like Hedges and yourself Cat, when you call someone like Sam Harris a racist. You are defending intolerance, not pointing it out.

There is no society, no world view, no religion that is more racist that Islam.
It is blaspheme to the religion of Islam that the Koran was ever translated into any language other than Arabic.
Non muslims in a muslim society are treated like black people in 1930’s Alabama.
Islam = Racism
To criticize Islam, is to criticize racism, tribalism and intolerance.
Sam Harris is an anti-racist.
He is racist towards racists.

Political correctness in the hands of dumb people results in the naive and misguided ideology of people like Hedges and Cat.
Good grief.

Or should I say, God grief.

Wavelength,

Notice how you said nothing to back up your argument in your post? I will give you another chance to respond to my previous post rationally. I will not respond to you if you maintain the tone of an unreasonable evangelical preacher.

Cat,

I disagree with everything in your post.  You present several weak points without backing them by real reasons.  You just want to assert that Hedges won.  Well, I’ve got news for you, Hedges didn’t win.  In fact, he lost that debate in the most embarrassing way.  Most bloggers at this forum recognized that. 

If you left that debate thinking Hedges pulled out a victory, you must suffer from some sort of cognitive disorder.  I mean really.  Harris won in a landslide.

If you are a relative of Hedges, like his wife or aunt or cousin, you should just come out and admit your bias.

-wavelength

I find it clear that Hedges destroyed Harris in the debate. Some of the other bloggers wrote that Hedges bends the statements Harris makes. This is not true. Hedges is merely taking a closer look, an indepth analysis of what Harris is really trying to say. While Harris says he is not racist towards arabs, his arguments, ideas, and responses most certainly are. Hedges is only calling a spade a spade.

As for people accusing Hedges of bearing similarities with an evangelical, Hedges is so assertive because he does in fact understand what he is taking about. He covered the Middle East for the New York Times, based in Cairo, Egypt. Sam is an idiot for saying that he knows more about the situation from reading a poll. Robert Scheer’s reaction, I thought was great. Any neutral party knows that Harris’s claim was foolish and naive.

BT/WL,Etc.

Like true love and mature wine, you are getting better with age.  Your last several posts were defining.  And yes, the Sam Harris quote from WL is one of his finest.  It almost brought me to tears when I first read it (and heard it from the Aspen audio tape)…I am not being facetious in the least.

Timmy: Your suggestion about the ill-humored and inharmonious Ann Coulter is risible and such wit is timeless. It is appreciated.

Perhaps we could canvas and hasten another blog from Sam Harris on Truthdigs:  boisterously deploy strategic emails from several avowed readers to him directly; announcing, in a manner of speaking, a mutiny among us, to solicit additional truths and perceptions on his end; and, thereby eliciting more reactions from the world at large.

Realistically:  I suspect when Sam Harris decides to blog again on Truthdigs, only then will Sam Harris blog again on Truthdigs.  While we await his symphonic, pregnant and unimpeachable words we will, alas, be on our own.

In the meantime, lest we forget that the fallacious and fallible Nahida and Barry have avoided my questions, and having sought sanctuary elsewhere—- arising dashed hopes and bouts of infelicity in my mind—- what will inevitably remain, is the continuance of individual and collective words of intellect and reasonableness, from us,  and hopefully others,  for future contemplation, speculation and discussion.

Sam’s points are indeed, THAT undeniable.
Those who chose to take a stab at denying them have now either left us, or resorted to desperate cut and paste propaganda tactics.
Cyrena and Barry left us because they were soundly defeated.
Their “go to”  arguments didn’t work here. And so they fled in frustration back to threads where like minded bleeding hearts can accuse Sam Harris and company of racism and pat themselves on their politically correct shoulders.

I felt so alone before Harris and Dawkins and Hitchens. Through them I found Wienberg, Dennett, Segan and you guys. Before that I was certain that I, along with a few others, were an extreme minority. I thought, “what a lot in life I’ve been dealt.” I felt like I was 500 years more evolved than most of the people around me. I felt this strange disconnect with society in general from a very young age.

I understand now why religious people don’t believe in evolution.
How could you, if you have not yet evolved yourself?
Evolved away from monkey-like tribal superstition.

I have accepted that I will live the rest of my life in the righteous minority.
I have hope though that my children’s children will live in the world that I would like to know. For their sake, I will remain a mouthy minority.

I feel like hitting Ann Coulter’s site and letting them know about our thread.
“Hey Coulterites, there are infidels speaking freely against our lord on Truthdig. Get’em!”

I miss Cyrena and Barry, and Nahida when she used to speak her own mind.
It would be interesting to have some Coulter minions here. They would agree with us on Iraq and militant Islam, and think that we’re out of our minds when it comes to Christian dominionism in America. That would be fun.

Hopefully Sam will publish another article soon on Truthdig and we can start all over again. This is the third such thread that I have participated in stemming from a Harris piece. The last one lasted a long long time.
Has anyone ever run into Jason Bradfield on these things?
He’s rich. Much fun to be had debating him. 

PS. My spell check doesn’t know the word Dominionism.
Wake up spell check! They’re everywhere.

BF Skinner :
You ask a good question about this thread (“Was Sam’s point THAT undeniable?”)  And your observation that there are so few “leftist” dogmatists participating on it is indeed accurate. 

I have thought about this as well, realizing the blog has been going on for about a month.  It seems a long time, yet it continues to keep (some) of us coming back (and Truthdig has their reasons for keeping it up and running).  Those of us in the majority—-in support of Sam’s views—(I will speculate here) are likely to be perceived by others (Hedges?) as a “fringe of Harris’ groupies” using each other to boast up our own belief systems.

While I don’t think that is the case—and instead I would suggest we are exchanging ideas, (and extolling the virtures of the “market place of ideas”),and inviting others to enter the discussions with us—-the fact we are so adament about our thoughts may send others a different message.  And this fact also suggests those of us in line with Sam’s ideas tend to take this business very seriously, as he does.  Remember he is losing sleep and how many others will claim the same?

I bring up the issue of sleep deprivation (as I did on an earlier post) because Sam’s sleep deprivation, whether real or metaphorical, indicates the magnitude of sobriety he and we (you, myself, others…) attach to this topic.  Those of us embroiled in discussions with Nahida, etc. realize fully the dangers of religious dogma and continuously question its relevance.  This realization has created an immense fire in our psyches.  The reason for this I will leave for others to ponder.  It is evident (from my own personal reaction to Sam and his books) that he has touched a deep and penetrating chord with those who embrace his ideas.

In contrast, the moderates (whom I find most perplexing) and the Left to some degree as well, I suspect, have a small flicker of light that wavers from topic to topic.  They lack a certain passion for our discussions because they are not holding onto anything steadfast in the way of religion.  (They may own other passions but they are generally detached from religion and to a lesser degree, politics.)

While today the moderate, etc.. might reflect on religious “intolerance” for a scant moment (mind you), yesterday she was attuned to Albert Gonzales (a serous consideration I will not argue) and tomorrow she will be thinking about her son’s 5th birthday party on Saturday.  And while I am not judging someone’s interest in their child (or their disgust with Gonzales) in lieu of Sam’s books—-it is in the best interest of the child and society, afterall,  that your 5-year-old child ought to be your priority—but by chance, if that parent-of-the-5-year-old would take the time to focus on the child’s birthday AND read Sam’s books, instead of, for example—spending 4.5 hours per day watching mindless television as the average American is known to do—-then we would have the opportunity to hold more authentic discourse with more informed individuals.

Frankly, I’m stunned at the overwhelming support for Sam Harris on “Truthdig”! 

Any ideas as to why?  (Was Sam’s point THAT undeniable?)

I was expecting more Cyrena (dogmatic leftist) style posts given the severe slant of this web site.  Nahida, unfortunately, was the only Muslim voice here.  If she’s still around, I encourage her to recruit other religiously inclined friends to join in…surely she has some who have the capacity to respond directly.

On a side note:  Do you think Hedges is the least bit embarrassed by this event?

Skinner, Wave, Linda, Jt,

I enjoy reading all of your posts very much. I hope you keep it coming.
Wave thanks for that Harris Quote. You’re right, it’s definitely one of his best summations.

I think the most valuable thing that Harris has brought to this conversation, in general, is his focus on the moderates and soft believers as the enablers of extremist religious interference in our lives and politics. Without them, particularly in the U.S., religion is reduced to a fringe cult. 

And I appreciated Hitchens’ optimism about the atheist, or “anti-theist” movement in the United States I am similarly optimistic. I loved Hitchens’ story about his book-tour through the bible belt and the turn-outs so big they had to move one Hitchens appearance from a book store into a local church. And the reverend told him that his church had never been so full.

The moderates are going to be the easiest to sway towards a world view free from dogmatic beliefs based on “rumors of ancient miracles”. And because the soft believers outnumber the fanatics by far, I am hopeful that there is a snowball effect that is currently building speed. I give Christian dominance in American politics two more generations at best. 

I’m still not sure what to do with the “Barrys” of the world.
The hyper left atheists who are “so tolerant that they tolerate intolerance.”
Worse that that, they defend it. Offer it a cloak of righteous protection, employing insidious and baseless accusations of racism.
These are the most lost souls on earth.
God help them.

Since cut-and-paste is apparently OK with Truthdig, I’d like to make a single contribution of my own.  I transcribed this from the recent Sam Harris talk in Aspen.  It is one of my favorite quotes:

“The fact is that whenever human beings make an honest effort to get at the truth, they reliably transcend the accidents of their birth and upbringing.  It would be absurd to speak about Christian physics, though the Christians invented physics.  And it would be absurd to speak about Muslim algebra, though the Muslims invented algebra.  It will one day be absurd to speak about Christian or Muslim ethics or spirituality.  Whatever is true about our circumstance in ethical and spiritual terms is discoverable now, and can be articulated without offending all that we’ve come to understand about the nature of the universe.  And certainly without making divisive claims about the unique sanctity of any book or pegging these most beautiful features of our lives to rumors of ancient miracles.”

-Sam Harris, Aspen Ideas Festival, July 2007

I was so happy to hear that our benevolent ruler underwent colonoscopy the other day.

But really now –wouldn’t Jesus whisper a cautionary word to Bush if evil polyps were invading his colon?  Why go through all the effort of cancer screening?

And thank goodness Cheney is kept alive with an implantable cardiac defibrillator.

Evidently when their personal health is at stake, only the finest in scientific gadgetry is appropriate.  Spare no expense.

But when the public welfare is at stake, the lowest of standards will do.  The fate of our nation is trusted to fantasy and fairy tales.  Our wounded veterans are given a red carpet treatment of mold, mouse droppings, and bureaucracy.

Our leaders deny the worldview of science, all the while availing themselves of products that would only be possible through science.

Let’s end the hypocrisy right now.  If you use a position of power to oppose scientific progress, then you don’t deserve the latest medical therapies. 

Go home, pray, and burn incense.  When you die, we can “teach the controversy” about your early demise and whether it stems from adherence to alternative medicine or neglect of allopathic medicine.

——————————————————————————————
“Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins.” 
-Emerson

I concur with BFSkinnerPunk.

I applaud your efforts Linda, but I think they’re unlikely to be successful. 

Nahida is living inside of a grudge.  An all-consuming, time-wasting, scapegoating, hateful grudge. 

None of Allah’s territory (human or otherwise) can be relinquished without a life or death struggle.  Why do you think apostasy is punishable by death in the Muslim world?

We’re talking about tribal hatreds originating over events that took place 60 years ago!  To be honest, I think some sort of cognitive re-structuring or deprogramming is in order.  Regular conversation is so orthogonal to her ideological mindset that it will glance off without penetrating.

On a separate note—

I urge all free-thinking people to watch the latest Christopher Hitchens video posted to the Dawkins website (http://www.richarddawkins.net).  The video is entitled “Town Hall Seattle:  God is Not Great”.  One of the best speeches I’ve ever heard!

I have my doubts about the prospects for an honest conversation with a religionist.

In an early example, I compared the kinds of people below to a sports team fanatic. 

I am a sports fan, but when I meet a *real* team fan…it blows me away.  These people are incapable of a clear headed thought with respect to their team.  No referee can correctly make a call that goes against their team, all losing games are explained away through the faults of others, and loses produce everything from depression to rage.  Reason isn’t involved.  Sound familiar?

Now, take that kind of culturally produced fanaticism for a sports team and turbo charge those effects by the heady claims of religion.

Once a person truly “invests” themselves with a religious view, the hope of a conversation is gone. 

It doesn’t hurt to try, but be prepared for disappointment.  It’s a learning experience.

For me, the most eerie situations arise when I meet an otherwise professional (educated) person that subscribes to a religion. The things that they believe can be truly stunning.

Barry Seidman:

In reference to your July 12 post ( # 86514)  I would like to take you up on the offer to “…ask me pointed questions make it direct and polite…”

As with Nahida,  I would like to have a conversation with you.

My impression is you are lumping many people on this thread together and accusing them of waging a battle “…to fight y’all…” 

It must be part of human nature for intelligent and not- so- radically- different- minds to oppose each other with vehemence.

But I will stick with your dictums and poise a few simple questions to you to start a dialogue:

Have you read either of Sam Harris’ books THE END OF FAITH   or LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION?    If you have, describe your thoughts/reactions to them.  If not, would you consider reading them and if not, why not?

You stated on a different post in reference to a list of books wavelength posted that all of them with the exception of Hedges and Sheer are “…Non sensationalis….t and above most people’s head…”  Please comment a little further on this. Are you claiming Hedges and Sheer are sensationalist and the others are not OR vice versa?

Nahida:

I have practiced the art of self-restraint over the past couple of weeks while attending to this blog by not commenting on any of your personal diatribes.  I have intentionally kept myself from this murky, muddy and cloudy fray while others have marched forward into your world with episodes of honor and courage. 

But my intent is not to insult you!  I know you are an intelligent female and you have similar hopes that the rest of us share for humanity:  peace on earth.

I am also aware that attempts from others on this thread—- those like myself who believe Sam Harris and his like-minded non-believers have important words to say—have tried unsuccessfully to have a dialogue with you.  For a bevy of reasons, you find him—-and those who tend to agree with him—-intolerant and perhaps even evil. 

Be that as it may, I would like to suggest we start this conversation by discovering some common ground between us. Whatever personal ideologies we both hold close to our hearts, nothing is ever so black and white as to assume no common ground will exist.  Let me suggest, or even pretend for the moment, that such common ground can and does endure.  This will allow us to open a windowof opportunity and to exchange our ideas, which surprisingly, may have similarities.  Oftentimes on these threads people insist on flaying upon the reader their own individual beliefs—-without actually opening the way to a discussion—so, I am determined and I promise—- not to do that with you.  (If you find I am doing so simply give me a gentle or not-so-gentle reminder, as you deem necessary.)

So, will you accept my invitation?  I will begin by stating observations I have made from reading this blog and will end with question(s) posed to you.  I invite you to respond as honestly and reasonably as possible.

It is a fact we are both female and enjoy “blogging.”  That in and of itself is a somewhat unique phenomenon because my experiences indicate most bloggers are male.  I deduce from this that the majority of   females are simply too busy providing care to significant others and working to make a living.  Blogging is not on their antennae.  So perhaps I can jump to the conclusion that you and I—at least in the immediate present and future—have some free time on our hands to pursue this endeavor.

I know you live in England and I in the States so we mingle among the ideals of Western culture.  I hold (most of) these ideals in adoration while it is apparent you do not.  To be specific the ideals I am thinking of are democracy, justice, peace, equality, humanitarianism, education,  love,  charity,  individual rights, freedom, independence and the pursuit of happiness, to name a few. Please add to my list if you so desire.  Democracy, the most immanent of these ideals is something I cherish magnanimously.  And as a female—-in a world where females are not always given precedence in matters—- democracy is literally my salvation for many, many reasons.

I would like to ask you, with all due respect and no judgments made, the following question(s):
If Western culture and democracy are abhorrent to you (and I am assuming they are so correct me if I am wrong) then what principles of government do you ascribe to, cherish and believe in?  Which, if any of the ideals I mentioned above do you respect and embrace?  And in what manner do you suggest these ideals be instituted by governments if democracy is absent from the equation?

I look forward to hearing from you.  Linda

Oh well,

I guess you shouldn’t have started trying to wipe them off the face of the planet back in 48. Dumb move.

A dumb move motivated by… anyone?....anyone?.... Beuhler?
Religion.
A claim to the holy land.

The UN created Israel.
Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt attacked. Invaded.
You were soundly defeated. And righteously so.
You’ve been trying to wipe them off the face of the planet ever since.
With the most vile tactics the human mind can conjure.
Defying the world community.
Over a patch of useless desert.
Why?
Because Allah wishes it.

Just look at the fine mess Allah has gotten you into.

I just hope for your sake Nahida, that you spend as much time being joyous about your relationship with Allah, as you do whining about all of the trouble your belief in him causes you and your people.

You’ll find no sympathy here.
The wounded animal routine won’t work here.
Try somewhere else.
GL

The never-ending injustice, and racism:

Bill allocating land to Jews only passes preliminary reading:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/883536.html

{The Knesset plenum approved a bill Wednesday, in its preliminary reading, which calls for all lands under the Jewish National Fund (JNF) to be allocated to Jews only. The bill passed by a massive majority of 64 MKS to 16….........

Hadash Chairman MK Mohammed Barakeh called the bill an “abominable legislation” and added that “the Knesset’s face is the face of Uri Ariel, the radical of the settlers.” He maintained that, “this is another expression of a series of racist laws that are passed every day in the state of the Jews. The Arab population won’t accept the theft of their rights to the lands that have been expropriated from them for years.”

In response to the bill, MK Ahmed Tibi (Ra`am-Ta`al) said “this is institutionalized Jewish racism and ethnic democracy that is raging against anything Arab.”}

Thanks for that Bill Maher quote JT.

“Let’s not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance.”

It really does point out where the extreme left lose rationality in ideology.
It’s a nice polite smack in the face wake-up call.

As for labels. I call myself a centrist these days because it implies the dismissal of a set ideology when forming an opinion on any issue.
Why anyone would choose to call themselves left or right is beyond me.

We all have our own personal ideology, and that’s how it should be. Trouble arises when people try to form group ideologies. Strange, even repulsive bedfellows are sure to rear their ugly head. Then dogma.

Wars can not be fought over personal ideologies. Only over group ideologies.
Political parties were never meant to be a part of the democratic system our brilliant forefathers created. It was something they neglected to build safeguards against. The unwanted existence of partisan politics is the one major aspect of western democracies that needs to be fixed. If someone figures out how to do it, it will be as revolutionary as democracy itself.

My rallying cry for the centrist movement is:
You gotta fight, for your right, to not party.

It’s good to see you again LindaD, and I agree with your latest comments (as usual).  I also consider myself a liberal on nearly every social issue however, it is the sanctimonious political correctness that I find so repulsive.  Bill Maher once stated: “Let’s not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance.”  That pretty much captures my frustration with the far-left.  Why is it the ACLU diligently fights any effort to place prayer in our public school system throughout the country (a position I fully agree with), and yet fails to file a lawsuit (to date) when the San Diego Public School system allows Muslim students a prayer break every school day?  How can liberals dismiss such despicable acts like female genital mutilation by calling it “cultural self-determination?”

Centrist? Libertarian? Progressive?  In the end, what it comes down to is our abilities to deliberate on each, individual issue based on its merits, values, moralities, and humanity.  There just isn’t a label for those of us who hold distinguishing viewpoints that are contingent on the variables of the particular issue and circumstance – that is unless we are called “human.” 

It is the dogmatic adherence to an unwavering, and constricted label like “liberal” or “conservative” – merely because one forms their identity around such a label – where we begin to see trouble.  Nevertheless, I agree with Timmy that liberals try to get it right and for most part have their heart in the right place, which is more than I can say about most conservatives these days.

It is definitely frustrating when it is a persons big heart that is the cause of their misunderstanding of such a complex and dangerous situation. You know that they just want the best for people and you know that their misunderstanding of the situation makes them think that you are an extreme right wing hawk/war monger with no heart at all.

It reminds me of a joke a friend of mine does on stage. (He’s a comedian)
It goes like this.

Have you ever met someone so stupid, they think you’re stupid?
I was in a restaurant the other day and I asked the waitress:

Customer: Excuse me miss, what is the soup du jour?
Waitress:  It’s a french term sir. It means soup of the day.
Customer: I know that. I’m asking what is the soup of the day?
Waitress: (frustrated, condescending) Every day, the chef makes a different soup…..

This debate with the extreme left is a similarly frustrating experience.

Timmy/Wavelength/JT/BF:

One of the problems with the “Left” in the US is their pervasive notion of political correctness that   blinds them to the realities of religious fundamentalism, especially Islam.  Part of this correctness lies in the post-modern belief of moral relativism.  Sam Harris touches on this in his first book.  People congregate around the idea that cultures are relatively different in their practice of moral deeds and when those behaviors are different from standard Western values,  we—- those of us finding said deeds unacceptable—- are criticized by the Left as being overly judgmental, harsh and prejudicial. If said deeds are practiced by “people of color” we are called racists.  (Sam has been called racist for his intolerance to violent Muslims who follow the tenets of the Koran.)

Yet, while Western civilization has its own plethora of faults, our system of government of the people, by the people and for the people is the best we have to live with (and in the 21st century there is certainly no other government I would choose to live under.)  Our government is far from perfect, and the Bush years have made living in this country an excessive exercise in frustration and futility, but I have come to accept this realism , albeit with great difficulty, until the changing of the guards in January, 2009.  Even then, there is no guarantee of much enlightened change.

People on the Left may find many Islamic behaviors immoral and offensive,  but are seemingly more offended by those judging the offense.  (That is baffling to me!)  The Left is geared towards criticizing the immorality of governments—-their own in particular—and tend to gloss over or dismiss the immoral actions of individuals and religious groups.  Their talk of   “human rights ” sounds hollow to me in the face of atrocities many Muslims are perpetrating on their own people in the Mideast.

I bring up the subject of Darfur to make my point:
While I wholeheartedly   support the efforts of ending the killings/genocide in Darfur, and many Liberals support and are leading efforts to terminate it as well,  they——Liberals—are mysteriously silent on the deeper cause of the genocide, which is a religious war against Christian Africans (South Sudan)  by Muslim Arabs (North Sudan).  This religious battle has been simmering for many decades and has become today a full blown killing fields.  While it is true there are political aspects to the war—-what war does not have politics involved?—-the Liberals are describing the war in Darfur as a war between the Government (and their thugs the Janjaweed)  and its people.  There is truth to that of course, but few are talking about the potent religious components of the war.

While I tend to perceive myself as a “Progressive”  and stand firmly beside my libral brothers and sisters on most social issues perhaps I am more of a Centrist than I think I am.  I live in an extremely “red” state in the Midwest and the religious/conservative rhetoric elicited by many of my neighbors and colleagues   leaves me chilled to the bone much of the time.  Yet the Left leaves me completely exasperated.  As   WaveL stated recently ,...”though their hearts are in the right place,  religious liberals and secularists present a great obstacle …( if they) can’t speak honestly about the obvious liabilities of religion then where does that leave us?”

It is a good question and one I wrestle with often

Thanks so much for your tenacious observance of reason Wavelength, Timmy, and BFSkinner, and many thanks Wavelength for taking that action concerning Nahida.  It is posts like her’s, cyrena’s, and B. Seidman’s that continues to undermine genuine discourse and surrender the intellectual to the ideological.  I’ve understood some time ago that responding to posters like these only leads to annoyance and frustration.  These types of people are inflicted with what I define as: “militant ignorance.”  It is a by-product of intellectual laziness and the unnatural outcome of investing one’s personal identity in a dogmatic belief system – regardless whether it’s on the right or left.  In fact, the similarity is astonishing despite whether it is from the ultra-radical left, or the reactionary right. 

Clearly, the two polarities have so much in common it is no wonder intellects like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens draw comparisons between them continuously (and find most dissention coming from them, e.g., Chris Hedges or Rick Warren). 

One of the oddest and most baffling things about these two groups is their failure to see their own similarities – their stubborn persistence in defending their ideologies in the face of withering evidence to the contrary and their astounding inability to recognize their own inflexibility and intolerance.  Combine this with a systemic failure to adapt their ideologies as new information creates conditions that normally challenge most of us to evolve, and it leaves us with a glaring reminder of what is coming directly at us in the 21st century.  Frightening thought, I know. 

Nevertheless, your posts have been consistently insightful, informative, and profound.  Often your ideas are so well written and thought-out I feel it’s unlikely to improve on them, and I thank you for this.  You are the kind of persons I’d like to call friends.  Please continue.

Hey Timmy,

Very well done.  I agree with your points.

Though their hearts are in the right place, religious liberals and secularists present a giant obstacle.  If these people – the ones who truly care about poverty, social justice, and equality—can’t speak honestly about the obvious liabilities of religion, then where does that leave us?  Who is going to fill the void?

The silence on this board is deafening.  I still have not read a reasonable rebuttal to any of the dozens of points I’ve made.

Lets take a hypothetical example based on my last post—

Sunni extremists blow up dozens of Shiite pilgrims on their way to a religious shrine.  The victims include women and children, none of whom are armed. 

The best interpretation of the data is that the Sunnis are freedom fighters resisting the American occupation of Iraq? 

And if these are just freedom fighters, why do they feel the impulse to blow themselves up along with their enemies rather than kill them while seeking to survive?  That way they could kill more of them in the future?

I still haven’t heard good answers to these questions.

Wavelength,

Don’t you find it interesting how Nahida begins all her posts with:
“For truth seekers only”

People like Nahida are always looking truth seekers.
Not because she herself is a truth seeker. But because she is a truth holder.

This is the difference between the religious mind, and the atheist mind.
The atheist mind is constantly seeking the truth. Because the atheist, or scientific mind, is the one that admits that the origin of the universe remains a mystery. It is the one that can admit to having no answers, only current theories, that will be questioned and scrutinized for eternity.

The religious mind, on the other hand, can not seek the truth, because it already has the truth. There is nothing left to wonder about, or investigate. All of the answers you will ever need are in the perfect book.
Hey atheists. Why are you looking for the truth? We have it already.
Why are you still looking for the truth? We told you, we have it.
Seriously, stop looking for the truth damn-it, we have it.
Stop looking and just listen to us.
Stop damn-it!

It is quite obvious why atheists and believers can not have a rational debate.
The real mystery is why non-believer lefty’s like Cyrena choose to defend and give comfort to the most dangerous religious minds in the world. As you pointed out, they despise the Jerry Falwells of the world (white skin), and defend the jihadists and theocratic dictators who keep their populations in the dark ages. (brown skin)

The reason I point out skin color is that it is the only explanation I can think of for their misguided reaction to the calm rational words of authors like Sam Harris. It’s their anti-racism impulse run amok out of control, creating a bizarre self loathing that is pitifully naive . Political correctness in the hands of the big-hearted, and small-brained.

I don’t believe that these reactionary ideologues are disingenuous. I believe that they have a big big heart that makes their emotions scream so loudly that reason can not be heard. This is what is most troubling to me about this debate. We really do all want the same thing. Peace and happiness for all.

Gene Rodenberry (creator of Star Trek) was a brilliant man. A progressive liberal if there ever was one. But reasoned and rational.
There was a Star Trek episode from the original series where the crew go back to Earth’s past circa 1935. Captain Kirk falls in love (what’s new) with a woman who runs a hostel and he saves her from getting hit and killed by a car. For some reason, this causes earth’s future to change. Suddenly all earth (in the future) is ruled by a Fascist regime. After some investigating, Spock figures out what happened and explains it to Kirk.
“Captain, when you saved that woman, you altered earth’s future”

The woman Kirk saved went on to start a peace movement that prevented the United States from entering WW2, which allowed Hitler to eventually take over the entire world.

Kirk: But peace is good Spock. She had the right idea.
Spock: Yes captain, peace is good. But it is too soon. Freedom has not been secured for the world. This peace movement allowed evil to walk all over the peaceful and now the peaceful are powerless slaves of an evil empire.

Today’s “war is wrong no matter what” lefty’s are guilty of believing that freedom has now been secured for the world and so there is no more reason for fighting. The cold war is over. Evil lost. So let’s all lay down our weapons.
Love and understanding will take it from here.

Wrong.
A nice thought.
A peaceful thought.
But wrong.

Several authors propose that Islamic suicidal terrorism is primarily driven by nationalism and rebellion against foreign occupation.  Religion does not explain any of the data. Religious beliefs are either not operative or serve as identities through which other types of grievances (mainly political ones) are merely funneled.

Then you learn the following facts:

-The majority of Iraqi suicide bombings have been carried out by Sunnis against Shiites.  Far from being foreign occupiers, the Shia constitute roughly 60% of Iraq’s native population.  They happen to be—from the Sunni perspective—religious heretics.

-The July 2005 subway bombings in London were carried out by British Muslims against their fellow citizens.  The innocent victims of these bombings were not occupying any foreign countries.  To claim that terrorist motivation stemmed from Britain’s involvement in the Iraq invasion is to admit that religious solidarity is the core problem.

-The majority of the September 11 hijackers were Saudis.  At the time of the attacks, the US was not occupying Saudi Arabia.  The presence of US troops in the region was fully sanctioned by the Saudi government.  The principal issue was religion.  Bin Laden had a set of religious grievances.  He was upset that non-Muslim soldiers were invited by the Saudis to defend their country during the first Gulf War.  He was inflamed by the mere presence of “infidel” troops on the ground, even when their intention was defense of a Muslim country.  There was no “occupation” –military or otherwise—by any reasonable definition of the word.  The September 11 hijackers were predominantly Saudi because their country is the focal point of Wahhabi Islam, a puritanical form of the religion.

-Bin Laden recently declared Jihad against India (June 2007).  Islamic terrorists have a history of attacking India – the Indian Airlines hijacking of 2000, the failed 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament, attacks on the US consulate in Calcutta, as well as attacks at the Gandhinagar temple and at Ayodhya.  India is certainly not a Western power.  It is not occupying any Muslim country.  They are largely Hindu, however, which makes them—from the Muslim perspective—religious heretics of the highest order.  They also represent free, multicultural democracy.

-If suicide attacks were a weapon of the weak and oppressed, we would find them everywhere.  We don’t!  There are no Christian or Jain or Native American or Tibetan or North Korean suicide bombers.  If the Tamil Tigers were secular, this single exception to the rule could be pounced upon in order to obfuscate an otherwise clear picture.  Unfortunately, the Tamil Tigers practice a form of Marxist Hinduism and cannot be misappropriated as a secular organization.  They are at best a quasi-religious group.

You the man Wave.
Well said.

Anyone who is optimistic about the prospect of rational dialogue with the Muslim world should read this thread.  The sample size is very small (N=2), but the results are not at all promising.

Tribal hatreds and anti-Semitism live on in the minds of “liberal” Muslims, even those living in Western democracies.  They benefit from the multicultural landscape of their host countries, without expressing even a modicum of respect for the values and institutions that protect them. 

They do not share the liberal values of Hedges or Scheer, but find shelter in their common blind spot by claiming rhetorically to speak for the world’s oppressed peoples.  From this cover, they advance an anti-American and anti-Israeli agenda. 

When discussing terrorism, no distinction is made between intentional killing of an innocent family at a wedding, and accidental killing of civilians (either human shields or bystanders) in attempts to retaliate against known terrorists.  Muslim-on-Muslim violence is swept under the rug.  Religious tribalism trumps all else.  Ranks are closed.  No concessions are made.  Homicidal actions against innocent people are met with silence or obfuscation.

In broad terms, dialogue itself is viewed as an opportunity for exploitation.  They are not interested in alternate viewpoints that might persuade them to refine their arguments.  There is no gradual revision over time as new data are revealed.  “Discussions” degenerate into one-way exchanges for the dissemination of propaganda. 

Anyone who thinks Nahida will embrace tolerance and diversity –under any set of circumstances—should read her posts on this forum.  She locates all the world’s problems with the US and Israel, expresses vehement hatred for them, and thinks any actions against them are appropriate, no matter how hideous or vile.

In the modern world, it’s incredibly easy to allow strongly held ideas to go unchallenged.  Media is fractured into small, niche markets catering to the bias of various fringe groups.  Anyone sympathetic to say, the White Power movement, can plug into an echo chamber of similar minded folks intent on promulgating a distorted view of reality.  The same phenomenon applies to both ends of the political spectrum, as evidenced by Nahida and Cyrena.

If we are to rid ourselves of the Bush administration and limit American power, the solution will come through reason, evidence, and balanced thinking.  There are boatloads of chicanery and outright criminality for us to uncover.  To do so we must continue to apply pressure within the confines of rational dialogue using the best evidence available. 

We should not take another (liberal) style of dogmatism and oppose it to the neoconservative dogmatism currently in power.  This doesn’t get at the roots of the problem.

——————————————————————————————
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image, when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
-Anne Lamott

Of course you can speak your mind Nahida.
But you haven’t been doing that.
As everyone has pointed out, you just cut and paste propaganda that no one here gives any credibility to. By all means speak your mind. Discuss this topic.
That’s what we’re here for.
But you’re not doing that are you Nahida?

And Israel having nukes is not a big concern because they have not vowed to wipe other countries off the face of the map. nobody thinks that Israel would use it’s nuclear power for anything other than a deterrent. And an important deterrent at that.
On the other hand, they are surrounded by nations (including Iran) that vow daily to wipe the Jews off the face of the planet.
If you do not see a big big difference here, then you truly are blind to reality.

Here’s what I think.
You Nahida, like the leaders of Iran, and Hamas, and Hezboleh, would like to see Israel wiped off of the map.
The day that Israel is replaced by a mushroom cloud, Nahida will smile.
All will be well then.
Right Nahida?
It will be justified. Right?
Leave Iran and their nuclear ambitions alone. Right?

Nahida,

No one wants to take away your freedom to wear burkas, walk 10’ behind men, bark and crawl on your knees, or even offer yourself as a personal slave to anyone you select.  You need to give up this disingenuous concern of yours.

Religious states that insist upon second class human behavior from it’s women is what concerns the world…to say nothing of the openly stated religious-military objectives of Iran for instance.

So you would be comfortable with Iran having nukes?
Even though you fail to disavow the terrifying actions of your fellow muslims as the slaughter each other in the streets of Baghdad, Pakistan, and Palestine, I would be interested to know if you would go so far as to want Iran as a nuclear power.

The web is chock full of Iran torture photos.  Can you make any guesses as to how these tortures are morally justified? 
Hint:  It comes from your favorite book.

Let me harp on one more thing:
I am a white guy living in America.  Yet, I do not pretend to be able to speak for other white guys.  When the Ku Klux Klan uses Christianity as their justification for their views, I do not attempt to re-interpret their views for them.  That is arrogance.
When your Muslim cohorts torture and/or slaughter one another (or civilians) as they shout Koranic texts, I suggest that you resist telling us what they *really* mean.
I see that President Hamid Karzai has pardoned a young suicide bomber caught before “the act”.  The suicide bomber learned that such violence was justifiable at a madrassa: is that a religious school, Nahida?

Truth-seekers… Truthdig readers:

where is my freedom of speech?

If I was a Muslim woman attacking Islam claiming that it’s repressive to women, and accusing that religion of being a backward, oppressive, hateful, barbaric and violent religion, if I was to lie about the teaching of Islam and if I was to twist and mistranslate verses to suite those criminals in the White House in order to justify their attacks against many Muslim countries; I will be given red carpet treatment in all major news outlets, my books will be published, and I will be celebrity figure in no time.
Does the name “Ayaan Hirsi Ali” ring any bells??

http://fanonite.org/2007/02/20/lifting-the-veil-on-ayaan-hirsi-ali/

Because I speak of what I believe to be the truth about my faith, and because I dare to say that I -as a woman-  don’t feel oppressed by Islam, and because I condemn the injustice and the massacres against my people, my voice must be silenced!!

Don’t I deserve to have my say??

Or am I a lesser human??

WOW !!

More of the American freedom and democracy!

==============================

Please also read:

Fading U.S. democracy agenda evokes Arab scorn

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSHO33327620070713

Who is beating those war drums!

============================ 
From Haaretz:

By Sara Miller, Haaretz Correspondent

New envoy to U.K.: Jews must do more to put Iran on the agenda

{The Israeli ambassador-elect to Britain, Ron Prosor, said Tuesday that the Jews around the world and the global community should do more to focus attention on Iran and its nuclear aspirations.}
============================

Is it because Israel DON’T have nuclear weapons!!!

or is it because Iran have them, I wonder!

Absurd logic:

If Iran have them it’s a threat to neighboring countries (including Israel), but if Israel has them, it is for the security of the neighboring countries (and the world)!!!

Read whole article here:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/880388.html

Thanks for dropping in to say nothing substantive at all Cyrena.
Another post of broad ad hominem attacks with no specifics to be scrutinized.
It is Interesting to see you actually using the word “hyperbole” as opposed to your usual spewing of nothing but.

FYI: I post on numerous threads discussing this topic.
And I am happiest on the ones where most people disagree with me.
It’s more fair that way.

Here is a copy of my feedback sent to Truthdig on July 16, 2007—

SUBJECT:  Inappropriate Posts

FEEDBACK:

Hello Truthdig,

I am writing to report that a Truthdig member with the screen-name “Nahida” is making inappropriate use of your “Religion, Politics, and the End of the World” forum.

Despite repeated efforts to draw her into debate, she insists on using the discussion board as a cut-and-paste exercise for materials she finds on other websites.  Rather than an exchange of dialogue, your members have been subjected to a barrage of links to various propaganda websites.  These links are tangential to the issues at hand and subtract from the natural flow of ideas in the forum.

“Nahida” is in clear violation of Article #12, Section A of the Truthdig Service User Agreement, which states “…you are the sole author of the Comments and the Comments are original with you and not copied in whole or in part from any other work…” 

These violations are not isolated.  Nearly all of her posts can be labeled as spam—by any reasonable definition—and examining her user history will bear this out.

Why does Truthdig allow free advertising within their discussion forums at the expense of honest dialogue?  How can you justify committing disk space to someone who uses your website as a launch pad for spreading propaganda?

I urge you to take action against this member if you are concerned about the integrity of your service.  If you do not address the issue I will not contribute to your forums in the future.  Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Wavelength

Comment#87311 by nahida on 7/16 at 6:00 pm

Nahida:

Thanks so much for the additional viedo links. I would have missed them, since I’ve pretty much departed from this thread, which has turned into a personal attack thread from the likes of the disillusioned, who are doing their best to move the attention away from reality, and make this all a “competition” based on their own parallel universes, and alternative realities.

They would prefer to ignore that we are in the process of literally destroying huge chunks of humanity in the Middle East, and they think it’s all perfectly fine, as long as it can be blamed on “religion”. These are dangerous mentalities, and continuing to engage in such discourse is a dangerous pastime. But, they will not stop. So, they simply have to be ignored, without forgetting that these types do indeed exist, and that they are specials in hyperbole, but nothing more.

The thing that CAN be guaranteed, is that none of these posters (who maintain alternative realities) are inclined to take up this nonsense on any other threads. They simply lack any real intellect. So, it’s easy enough to avoid them, (which is why I haven’t linked to this thread in so many days, and plan to make sure that I don’t receive any additional notifications on future comments. (just makes life easier and saves time.)

Meantime, here’s a link to a story of hope. (at least for me.) This is progress for us here, and especially in this part of our country.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071607A.shtml

Again; only for truth-seekers

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-768956312207897325&q=when

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312980342283025421&q=empire

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7502243539190558658&q=empire

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=94144204270367302&q=empire

Report this

Nahida and Cyrena are just the tip of the iceberg.  I suppose there are an endless supply of people with empty arguments and wildly biased web site links.  Disingenuous outrage seems to be the primary ingredient on which they rely. Surely, the clerics and dictators of the world appreciate their work.

Wavelength did a brilliant job of characterizing their ilk in post #86459.  Basically, it was a spot on description of the mindless activist mentality.

To those who are viewing the video for the first time and want a quick recap of the comments, there are only two active posters who support Hedges view (Nahida and Cyrena), so take a look at their contributions.  Wavelength probably does the best job of succinctly and elegantly offering support to Sam Harris’s view point…so take a look at a few of his posts. 

I believe most of the comments below feel this way:
1. There was no moderator:  It was Hedges and Sheers vs. Sam Harris.
2.  Sam won the debate.  Hedges/Sheers were embarrassed.  (this also appears to be the consensus on YouTube)

This thread seems to be winding down anyway Wave.
It’s just the reasoned and sensible vs the emotional propaganda machine that is Nahida.

Nahida,

I have never seen such blatant manipulation of a discussion board in all of my life.  Your participation here—if you want to call it that—is astonishing.

Discussion boards are for dialogue, give and take, expressing opinions and unpacking the details of an issue.

They are not intended as a cut-and-paste exercise for all the neat stuff you see on other websites. 

If you persist with the cut-and-paste antics, I will start flagging your posts.  I will also contact Truthdig to ask why they are allowing free advertising within their discussion forums at the expense of honest dialogue.

If we continue to tolerate your disregard for basic rules of conduct, then the quality of debate here suffers and we are all to blame. 

I hope you continue to talk with us.  But please play by the rules.  Reserve this space for your original contributions.

Only for truth-seekers:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13749.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3499.htm

I love how everyone takes the weekend off, like this is a full time job.
It seems Nahida’s full time job is saying absolutely nothing.

Her last post says absolutely nothing relevant. Nothing.
Actually it does demonstrate the main reason the people in the middle east need liberation. Because so many of them don’t even know that they need liberation.
An entire society suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome.

When women are physically harassed in the West, it is considered a crime.  Even simple discrimination is taken seriously and can end up in court! 

We have already established that individual crime does occur at a higher rate in the U.S. than other nations. Again, these crimes are considered bad things in the west and are met with police action. 

I suspect that a rape victim is far less likely to step forward in an Islamic nation for fear of being condemned to a life of ostracism (ostracized for what? oh yes, religious reasons!) So rape data from Islamic nations is probably invalid.

Importantly, the crimes you name aren’t performed in the name of religion, or as a personal favor to Muhammad, God, Allah, Zeus, etc.  They are simply the actions of bad people.

The violence discussed in the video debate above, on the other hand, *is* influenced by religion.
I wonder which religion that might be?

So let’s continue with a visit to the daily news:
Within the past 24hrs, 40 were killed in Pakistan because the Islamists want a Taliban style government.  This was a suicide bomber.  Also, 18 were killed in an Baghdad market square… women and children died… at the hands of another suicide bomber.

If I were to ask these suicide bombers about their intended actions before the blasts, I get the feeling that they would have much to say about their Islamic world view!

Nahida,
I think its ironic that you sit in England with all the laws of a democracy protecting your freedom, but still have the gall to say, ‘us’ when talking about the women in Iraq.
I watched the first video and want to make the point that while there are bad people in our army, that do bad things, we report them ourselves (we tattle on ourselves) and then guess what—he’s being tried, so will be punished. 
Now, contrast that with the religiously fanatic countries where their people commit horrible crimes, and no justice is demanded/handed out by your government/leaders.
Many times, they are lauded as ‘great martyrs, and will be rewarded in heaven’.  (look at Bin Laden…instead of demanding his death, many leaders in your religion have bestowed him with a title of honor). 
Do you see the hypocrisy you’re spouting?
It appears, Nahida, that you’re so committed to ‘being a victim’ (even though you aren’t even living where you’re claiming the victimization is occuring) that you’re ignoring everything else. 
If the US left Iraq as you keep telling us to do, I imagine that you’d then start bemoaning the state the US left you in…something to the effect of:
“The occupiers came, destroyed, and left without fixing things!”
You’d show pictures of rubble and say, ‘Thanks for your version of FREEDOM.

To all supporters of war:

Before you come to “liberate” us and give us “freedom”, and before calling for our rights as Muslim women; why don’t you give that “freedom” and “liberation” to your women? Why not show them some respect?

We desire not YOUR style of “freedom” ... keep it to yourselves! Thank you!

Some Iraqis Liberated:

http://fanonite.org/2007/06/28/some-iraqis-liberated/

************************
Who are “The Oppressed Women In Iraq?”

{The British state propaganda organ, BBC, seems to have developed overnight sympathy for Irani women. While doing so, it seems to have overlooked the infinitely higher degree of oppression expereinced by women next door — by those females serving in the occupation Army.}

{...With the increased number of women serving in the US military, something else is on the rise, too: rape and sexual assault by their male comrades. To make matters worse, female soldiers say they can’t trust the US military to protect them.}

http://fanonite.org/2007/03/08/the-oppressed-women-in-iraq/

*************************************

{The Private War of Women Soldiers: Female Vet, Soldier Speak Out on Rising Sexual Assault Within US Military}

FULL REPORT;
by: democracynow

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/08/1443232

I hear you, I hear you.
Like I said, I don’t completely disagree with you on this one.
But do you really think that our security will improve by deserting Israel and the Suni?
Israel nukes Tehran, then Pakistan nukes Israel. Then what? We’re all safe over here? The world is better off?
It would make the current situation look like a smooth running police action.
I feel sorry for the American soldiers and their families right now but in terms of death numbers, it would be far greater if we leave. It just won’t be Americans that are dying. Maybe that’s all you care about. Again, not judging, just thinking out loud.

Palestine is A DEMOCRACY!!Heheheehehehahahhah One of Bush’s biggest blunders in a very long string of them was pushing for democratic elections in Palestine…that put Iranian backed Hamas in power.  Now we are in the position of working against a democratically elected gov’t that disagrees with our policies.  BTW, you know you do realize that Israel is a democratically elected SOCIALIST gov’t, despite recent attempts to move away from it, at least by changing some of their constitutional language.  Also, in their parlimentarian format, the right wing Zionist Likud maintains a strong enough voting block bring the gov’t to a screeching halt, so Israel is an extremely disfunctional democracy.

But none of that matters.  We don’t owe them anything, and propping them up is detrimental to our own interest.  If attacked, they will nuke Mecca and Tehran, which may be the BEST thing that could happen, as far as we are concerned.

Ender,

I don’t completely disagree with you on the Israel issue.
But there is one reason to prop up Israel, even if you think (as I do) that Zionism was the biggest blunder in world political history. It can not be reversed at this stage of the game. But why help Israel survive?
It is a Democracy. Surrounded by kingdoms and theocracies and terrorist regimes who are stuck in the 16th century.
Is that not a good enough reason to lend support?
In the name of modernity.
Just a question.

Bashing any U.S. administration for any particular act is healthy descent.
Freedom of speech at work.
Bravo to all of those who stand-up for what they believe in and speak out against the policies of an administration that they feel are harmful to the well-being of the citizens of the world.

But notice how many of the posters on this thread attack, not just an administration, but the U.S. itself as an evil in the world. And you get the feeling that for some, this destructive self-loathing goes far beyond that, to the point where they hate their own species. Rational debate on such a complex and difficult situation as the middle east can not come from a place of such self-loathing. One needs to have a calm understanding of the omnipresence of human greed and aggression as manifestations of our human survival instinct. It does us no good to hate ourselves for being the animal that we are. Such hatred will only blind us to what we need to do to govern ourselves as such.

The U.S. is not to be hated. It is responsible for the freedom of the world.
All western democracies live in the comfort of knowing that their way of life is relatively safe due to the fact that everyone knows that the big and powerful U.S. would never allow a communist or fasciast regime to invade or take over a western democratic country.

And yet many who live with that comfort loathe the U.S. for being in the world dominant position that it is. Not realizing that there is and will always be one major military power that exerts it’s ideology on the world. Right now it’s the U.S. There are only two other countries that could possibly (although not likely) usurp the U.S. in this capacity. They are Russia and China. Would those U.S. bashers out there prefer it was one of those two other countries that was using it’s military might to push it’s style of government on the world?
I’t not like you have a choice of none of the above.
It’s the U.S., China or Russia.
Take your pick.
I for one (and I’m Canadian) am glad as hell that it’s the U.S.

We have propped up an Israeli regime that inspite of the desires of a majority of it’s own citizens, refuses to comply with more than 100 UN resolutions to return land confiscated legitimately in wars, and illegitimately by acts of terror.  We make that possible at the tune of more than $20billion dollars each year.  Enough is enough.  Let them stand on their own or die trying.  The state of Israel is just as artificial as the nation of Iraq, and we do not either of them enough to sacrifice our national security, which is what we are doing, to maintain their existance. 
On the other hand, we supplied the kurds in Iraq, not kurdistan, with weapons and motivation to stand up against Saddam, then abandoned them to mass murder after Desert storm.  They have avoided the tribal brutality being committed by shia and sunni iraqis, and behaved like reasonable humans.  Iran hates them quite a lot also.  By establishing a military presence in the kurdish areas, and along the Iranian border, we have the best chance of avoiding an Iranian takover of Iraq by Iran, which is a very real, and even likely occurance, and the reason Bush Sr. had better sense than to take Saddam out completely.  Unless you are an xtian that supports Israel because of some eodays myth, or jewish, Israel is not worth the cost to our nation.  I hope they survive but it’s not our problem, or our nations ‘karma’.  Iraq’s civil war is, since we unleashed it, but we can’t do anything but keep it internal to Iraq and congradulate the winner.

You can’t unscrew the pooch.

Ender you confuse the hell out of me with your last post.

The U.S. should set up bases and defend Kurdistan but tell Israel to go take a hike?
The only U.S. presence in the middle east should be Kurdistan???

You ask BF what his solution is, and this is what you offer???

I’m not criticizing it (yet) I just want to clarify if that is your solution.

And what is your solution BF?  More dead Americans in the middle of an Iraqi civil war?  This war was lost when the first American tank crossed the Kuwaiti border four years ago.  The Kurds have been able to act like rational humans for the most part, and we shouldn’t abandon them as we did post Desert Storm, but the rest of this mess should has no solution other than genocide or exile of one tribe or the other….or, split Iraq into three separate nations.

You and Momma’s Little Cocaine Cowboy and a few remaining Republican Idiots in Congress keep saying we need to ‘win’.  There is no winning in Iraq for the US, or the Iraqia.

Iraq should not exist.  It is an artificial state created to maintain unrest in the area, as are Israel and Palestine.

The Sunnis were perfectly happy to take advantage of their tribal power under Saddam, and ignore the brutilization of Shiites.  The Shiites are not going to stop until the Sunnis are gone. 

This is no bleeding heart bs or hate bush rant.  It is the truth.  Say it with me.  We cannot ‘win’ in Iraq.
We cannot ‘win’ in Iraq.
We cannot ‘win’ in Iraq.
We cannot ‘win’ in Iraq.
We cannot ‘win’ in Iraq.
We cannot ‘win’ in Iraq.
We cannot ‘win’ in Iraq.
We cannot ‘win’ in Iraq.
We cannot ‘win’ in Iraq.
I would suggest we pull out to the Kurdish area, and establish a strong presence on the Iran/Iraq border, and shoot anything that comes near either one.

When the Iraqis have finished killing each other, we apologize for this administrations idiocy to the winner, and offer them money to help them rebuild.  Not Haliburton, money.

It’s time we let Israel stand on their own feet, without our billions supporting zionism also.

Then however brutal, who can accuse us of being anything but fair?

Barry,

It’s probably best that I don’t group all of the “other side” into one group.  Your opposition isn’t quite like that of others in this thread.

The U.S. and the U.N. have made mistakes.  Agreed.  Not much we can do about that now… not that I can think of!

Leave Iraq now? Well it sounds nice, but do we want things that sound nice even though the carnage would make the entire war look like a peace march?  (I’m not sure if you are of the “get out now!” ilk.)

There are some complex scenarios which can result in unpredicted and unwanted results. The U.S. is guilty of a number of mistakes and greedy actions.  Are there any nations that are devoid of these flaws?  The U.S. (and the West in general) does an excellent job of exposing it’s flaws and taking corrective action thanks to the free press.

The U.S. intervenes in some situations and, after some growing pains, things go swimmingly.  The most obvious example is Germany & Japan post WWII… those nations are free and enjoying an admirable quality of life.  You win some, you lose some.

The actions U.S. would have been controversial no matter what, but Bush has made things even more difficult.  He is not a real leader, his verbal abilities embarrass the fool out of me as an American, he seems to have acted on bad evidence, etc. etc.

In its own bumbling way though, the U.S. has uncovered a hornets’ nest of religious fever.

Once we are done throwing tantrums about big daddy Bush and historical events, we need to take a look at the **current** situation. 

Perhaps it is a good thing that the U.S. has revealed, for the world to see, that the dark ages never ended.  With all of the mistakes that were perhaps made by the west, something needs to happen to deal with what lays before us as it stands today.

In the end, the current mayhem may be a necessary part of bringing an end to the grip held by the religionists in the region. 

This is a worldwide conversation that needs to happen.  The world needs to take a moment away from their Ipod to notice that there is a grouping of nations stuck in the 16th century that no longer fight with just swords and stones… they now have bombs and money.

Sure, we can discuss historical complaints, but remembering that every nation and subgroup has endured brutal and unjust issues in it’s past.. but the time has come to be so bold as to question certain religious world views.  We seem to be doing everything *but* that!

Ask any Sunni that slaughters Shiites about his after-life should he die fighting, and he will tell you that he is certain that his violence is a personal favor to his god…and that he will be assured of a paradise upon death for his deeds.

If I could somehow be convinced of these same infantile beliefs, I would do the same thing as a militant Islamist in Iraq.  Who wouldn’t?

Beliefs matter.  We need to talk about that!

Barry would you like to see the Jews leave the middle east?
Should we reverse Zionism?
It really sounds like you think that the solution is to reverse the decision to create the state of Israel. And it really sounds like you think that the rise of Hitler was understandable due to the treaty of Versailles. I sometimes think that my side of the argument throws around the word apologist too loosely but my god, if the shoe fits.

And you should never use the word libertarian again until you learn what it means. It can not be associated in any way with the left end of the political spectrum. For a lefty, you sure don’t understand left.

Now this one kills me to no end. You call us the “right?”
Are you joking? Have you been paying attention at all?
This is where you are all messed up Barry. You are a classic example of someone so left they think everyone else is right.

I will assume to speak for Wave and BF here and inform you that we are centrists. Who in their right mind would want to be anything else? Why would anyone think that one of the extremes is the right way? Sanity lies in the center. Taking the sensible stance from both the left and right end of the political spectrum and creating a reasoned centrist policy.

I am for gay marriage, a woman’s right to chose, healthcare for everyone and social housing. I am an environmentalist who believes that we are causing the destruction of our planet and need to do something drastic about it. I think that the laws governing corporations need to be rewritten so that a company is not beholden to it’s shareholders to lie cheat steal and destroy the environment to turn a profit. I would much rather have Bill Clinton as president than George Bush. (By the way Bill Clinton also bombed Iraq. Were you out there with your protest placards then?)

Does that sound like a righty to you Barry?
We are centrists dude.
You, on the other hand, are a walking talking knee-jerk reaction.
Blinded by passion and emotion and hate into thinking that you are currently in an argument with the right.

Oh yeah, I forgot to include my most important left leaning ideal.
And that is the absolute separation of church and state. Keeping religion out of politics is paramount to any healthy society. I’m sure you agree.
Why?
Because RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING!
But is that just for us? Are we the only ones who get to live, not only with freedom of religion, but freedom FROM religion?

This is the debate Barry. For some reason you would fight to the end to keep religion out of our political discourse, but you defend the mullahs right to subjugate their poor uneducated masses with the most archaic draconian style of religious governance imaginable.

The point you are missing here Barry is that you think we (BF, Wave, Josh and me) are attacking those poor little brown skinned people with some kind of racist ignorance. Those poor people are being attacked alright. But not by us. By the medieval mullahs who currently lead them.
You think they need to be left alone, when in fact they need liberation.
It’s going to be an extremely difficult and bloody liberation.
All important liberations are.
Your big heart simply has you confused about what the right thing to do is.

You can continue to call us centrists “righty’s.”
It’s what you lefty’s do best.
But to what end?

Barry, You’ve made a couple of typos that were irresistible because they were written at the exactly perfect spots in your writing.  As I said, I make this mistake more often then you. 

Your typos are not to be taken seriously as our point of departure.  Claiming that you are precise and brilliant while including a typo almost looked like a kind of comedic wit.

I’m being verbally economical with my accusations of “leftists” and “leftwing”.  You should know that I am considered “left”, “alternative”, and “counter culture” by many of my peers.  This is silly, too.

While you may be to the left, this is not where our styles of reason differ.  There is something else going on which I can’t quite articulate. 

I offered a comparison with those who apologized for Hitler’s rhetoric.  The excuses for his words were heart felt, clever, peace loving, and well intended…. they accused their opponents of being interventionists and war mongers (with sprinklings of conspiracy).  In reading, hearing older folks discuss the matter, and watching documentaries…as I said… I simply felt certain that THAT mistake would never happen again.

As some have said of the holocaust: “never again”

It seems that the apologist mistake is still present.  Of course, I am accusing you and others of making the same mistake.

The extreme Islamists take the word “extreme” to a whole new level.  Many self proclaimed moderate Muslims make moderate Christians look like atheists.

The speeches of the Islamist are comparable to Hitler’s early speeches… (actually, the Islamists are a bit more brazen!). They offer sweet talk in mixed company, and (with the exception of a wildly religious world view) they may be great neighbors.

A literal belief in the Koran is a petri dish for unspeakable acts.  Once one claims to follow the Koran literally, it is a very small step to act in ways that would make Hitler blush.

Given the sheer numbers of people involved,and the inexpensive and readily available destructive technologies, it’s no longer charming to watch the pre-scientific behaviors and rants of the unreformed religious believers.  Further, these folks aren’t just dancing in circles for rain, but they are actually telling us of their intentions. 

Interpret and apologize all you want, but I submit that these folks actually mean what they say.

In itself, this religionist situation is purely dangerous.  Start making “socio-political” or otherwise sympathetic excuses for it, and folks, we have the perfect storm.

Hitler enjoyed the same storm.  Unfortunately, much hell was wrought before those apologists finally became embarrassed by their own intellectual gymnastics.

Wavelength writes: “Conserved elements include:  grandiosity, feelings of persecution, emotional upset at challenges that is out of proportion to stimulus, and demands to respect revered source materials.  This is only a partial list.”

Well said.

I loved it when someone asked you why you are wasting your time in this thread when you should be saving lives!  Gosh…that was so on point (eyes roll).

You’re actually quite a good writer! Perhaps we should ask, “Why are you saving lives when you should be writing?!”  I communicate privately with another person in this thread, and we both agree that you are setting the standard here.

Truthdig should hire you as the counter-point writer.

BFSkinnerPunk,

Exactly.  Very well put my friend.

There is an almost cult-like quality that comes through in the writing of our opponents on this board (Cyrena, Nahida, and Barry).  Challenging them on specific points results in an onslaught of sanctimonious chatter and calls to read up on the sources they are so enamored of (ie - Chomsky, Pape, left-wing websites).  Like religious apologists, they do not present crisp, parsimonious arguments.  Instead, they go on for pages and pages without really saying much of anything.  Lots of heat is generated, but not much light.

In the future, I’m sure neuroscientists will better understand the neural substrate underpinning these cult-like commitments (political and religious).  A similar biology is expressing itself in someone like a Limbaugh (good call on your part BFSP!) and someone like a Barry.  Only the focus is shifted.  Conserved elements include:  grandiosity, feelings of persecution, emotional upset at challenges that is out of proportion to stimulus, and demands to respect revered source materials.  This is only a partial list.

I was going to put together a “Barry’s Greatest Hits” –“niave”, “intelegently”, “percise”, etc.—but I didn’t want to upset the delicate sensibilities of the Truthdig crowd.  I can’t point out even the most hilariously ironic spelling mistakes without being chastised by someone.

I am trying to be sensitive about wasting space with off topic issues, but…

The posts of many below (Nahida, Cyrena, Barry) reveal that, even today, there are still those who will apologize for Hitler. 
Reading about Hitler, his rise, and the shocking and clever ways that were found to explain away his frightening rhetoric - it occurred to me that this mistake would probably never rear it’s head again.  But I guess history never changes.  The circumstances aren’t *exactly* the same, but the important bits are.

The amazingly biased remarks (putting it nicely), and the shameless links to outrageously leftist web sites are remarkable and frightening.  The depth of this dogma, the insults, and the way it cripples one’s ability to discuss a topic borders on a kind of craziness. 

The craziness, I guess, is similar to the type seen among many religious people.  I suppose the message here is that dogma is bad. 

Those lefty web link suggestions are as silly as having someone suggest a Rush Limbaugh web site (actually worse!). 

ridiculous.

Barry wrote:
“My opinions come from all of this, and my writing is VERY percise and has been often called brilliant.”

“percise”  That IS brilliant!

That mistake was rather revealing.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.  Me?  I am the king of typos.

Barry,
I thought you were leaving us, but I’m glad you stayed. Condescension from below makes me giggle.

You said: “Left wing should never be authoritarian.”

Really? How is that possible?
Left wing = socialism = authoritarian.

The United States is not a completely capitalist country. There is medicare, and social security and subsidized housing public works of all kinds. There are many people in the U.S. who do not want to pay for those things but they have to because the government takes the money for them right off of their paycheck. Being authoritarian is the only way that they can do this and get away with it.
So even the U.S. (the least socialist country in the world) has some element of socialism in it, and is therefore, somewhat authoritarian.

I live in Canada. Slightly more socialist, and therefore slightly more authoritarian. For example, right now I’m having some stomach problems and the doctors are concerned that I am losing weight dramatically. I can’t eat very much. Something is wrong with me, and it might be serious, but I won’t know for another 2 months. That’s the waiting list time to see a specialist and get a scope done. When I do finally get to go, it will be free, but here’s the kicker Barry. If I decide that I don’t want to wait to go and see a specialist for free; if I decide that I’d rather pay for the procedure myself instead of waiting; guess what Barry? I can’t. It’s not legal in my country.

Pay close attention Barry. It is both illegal for me to pay for medical services, and for any physician to accept money from me for any medical services. If I want to find out if I have stomach cancer now, I have to (as many Canadians in desperate situations do) go to the U.S. where paying a doctor is legal.

So once again Barry, my government makes it illegal for me to pay for medical services that I need, because to do so would be unfair to all of the people who can’t afford to pay. That’s pretty bloody authoritarian and left wing wouldn’t you say Barry? And that’s just Canada. A capitalist democracy.
By the way there is only one other country in the world that makes it illegal to pay for your own medical services. It’s Cuba. Another one of Michael Moore’s favorite countries.

Do you see what I’m getting at Barry? Left wing equals authoritarian. It’s just a matter of how much authoritarian you want in your government. The U.S. has a little, Canada even more. But what history has shown us, and you seem to be a man who knows his history Barry, is that a government can only be so socialist, or left wing, before the authoritarianism becomes too much. It becomes communism. Remember Marx? Remember Lenin? Nothing but the best of intentions for the working class those two had. But look how that turned out.

People have a natural altruism in them (Although the people you are siding with think that it comes directly from God) and they are willing to share some of their wealth with their neighbor. But if you want them to share more than they are naturally willing to, then you need to point a gun at their head.

But I know Barry. You think that a left wing government shouldn’t have to be authoritarian. We should all just be less selfish shouldn’t we. And then the government wouldn’t have to point a gun at our head. I’d like that too. But I’m not an idiot. I can see the reality of the situation. People need to feel FREE to decide how generous they want to be. And they will. But if you try and force them, it’s the Soviet Union.

Go ahead Barry. Argue with all human history. Dispute the fact that:
Left wing = socialist = authoritarian.
In the meantime, I have stomach issues to worry about.

Barry,

I admire your passion for politics and religion.  It is obvious to me that you care very much about what you’re writing.  You are a well-intentioned person.

Unfortunately, your enthusiasm for these subjects far exceeds your ability to communicate them effectively through the written word.

Lets take your most recent post as an example.  Several passages in it are nearly unintelligible.  At one point you state “Just to think that I compare Islamic Fundamentalist to Left Wing ideology is absurd.. Unless by left wing WL or Timmy are thinking about Stalin or Mao whom I DO NOT call left wing (left wing should never be authoritarian). “  This forces me to ask – do you even know what the hell you’re trying to say here?!  This is just plain gibberish to me.  Since you cannot state your point in a cogent way, I am left to guess what it actually means.  A cursory reading suggests to me that you completely missed my point.  I did not accuse you of comparing ‘Islamic fundamentalism with Left wing ideology’.  I argued that the Left does not recognize fascism when it sees it, since it mistakenly views radical militant movements through the lens of cultural relativism.  I am curious Barry—do you even bother reading opinions that are different from your own?

You take the unfortunate stance that Noam Chomsky et. al are correct, and that everyone you debate needs to prove them wrong.  This is not a good prognostic sign if your goal is reasonable dialogue.  You seem to be completely blind to this fact. 

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  And so you set out with your Chomsky tool-kit, ready to find America’s greedy fingers lurking behind every corner, under every bench, and inside every cabinet across the globe.  Wait!  Isn’t Islam derived from a popular American religion, namely Christianity?  I see the link—America must have invented Islam in an effort to placate the masses and engender mass ignorance in the region.  What an evil scheme!  We stop at nothing to expand our ruthless hegemony.  You see, it all comes back to us in the end.  It’s our fault.  We did it.  Yeah, that’s the ticket…

I’m not sure Josh, about how I let you thread me into this discussion on the airport versions of the mania that has taken over our collective society.

And I admit, I’m overwhelmingly GUILTY of being passionate about THE TRUTH. So, when I read some of these posts that are based on what the media has been feeding you and/or keeping away from you, for several years now, it admittedly raises my ire and frustration.

I have all of the records from the MIA incident, as well as others. You cannot have my own files, but you can certainly request this information from the appropriate agencies, via the Freedom of Information Act.

Be prepared to wait a very long time, and get multiple runarounds, and finally, maybe….depending on how tenacious you might be, (and I don’t think you are, at least not in the sense of really tracking and/or analyzing anything) you could eventually receive some documents where the redacted stuff takes up more room than the text left visible. And, if you’re already very familiar with all of this type of documentation, you’ll be able to fill in the blanks that have been redacted.

Mine are all clean copies however, and I am familiar with these sorts of “incidents” and yep…I was there as well. So, rather than do all of this work yourself, you could probably be safe with my assessment.

And basically, that’s what it is in the nutshell. A result of multiple observations on my part, over an extended period of time, has proven my points. I’m not happy to be “correct” about any of this, because it’s brought us to some really perilous times. None of what is going on right now, ANYWHERE, is the least bit funny. But, we need to see it for what it is, and see it clearly, instead of going off on these nit-picking little journeys, to try to rationalize what cannot be rationalized.

All this religious stuff is a distraction, and nothing more. It’s something to keep you brain-dead, and dumbed-down, so that you don’t have to think about any of this stuff yourself, or you can attribute all of it to some vague and ghostly “terrorist” organization, or honor killings, (that’s BF’s favorite…he’s real mesmerized with stonings, which is kinda creepy). And then wavelength is a wannabe “therapist”, passing him or herself off as an actual medical doctor, who weighs in on everything from A-Z, and most of it sounds like he/she is the “patient” and not the doc.

You’re right about my exaggeration on my “jetbridge hours). Probably closer to about 8 years, of “jetbridge time” alone.  But, the long and the short of it, is that I spent a lengthy career in airport operations. ALL of the operations that go into it; it’s been a very educational career.

Now, could I recommend that you all check out some of the OTHER articles that truthdig regularly posts? I mean, if this is the only thread that you feel comfortable on, and you’re somehow attracted to only this real “sensationalized” stuff, then you’re kind of limiting your own legitimacy.

Besides, learning things isn’t all so bad. I admit the mainstream media has made things really difficult, by the blatant lying, but you can find information if you really want it. So, you should take advantage of that.

Link over to truthout.org. They always have the latest collections of excellent media, which includes many of the mainstreamers, and much more. Broaden your horizons a bit.
Alternet.com (or maybe it’s org) is also a good one. Read up, and happy learning.

Cyrena,
Ok—you’re resorted to insults…while I will stand firm and make my point with facts.  You state you’ve spent maybe 1 billion hours on jet-bridges.  That’s 115000 years. 

Then, you state that I missed your point.  Again - you’re way off.  It appears you don’t read people’s posts.
I never said that nobody hear him, I simply suggested two alternatives to your ‘statement of fact’—something that seems to get you all riled up..very similar to the religious zealots that can’t bear to hear someone ask a question that is contrary to their belief. 
As far as this story, I can only go by the news reports as I was not there.  now…to turn your own words back on you:
“People should not say things they they cannot backup.”

Backup your entire story of ‘how it happened’, or stop wasting people’s time.  If you say ‘I was there’—then prove it. 

Another thought to ponder—If a marshall shot a man in front of an entire plane full of people—nobody talked about it?
Hardly likely. 

Now—if you look through all the articles, (even the left-leaning blog type things) there is nothing that matches your description.

There is a quote in several from Mica which I find disturbing, regarding the shooting of a man that was not engaged in terrorist activities: “This shows that the program has worked beyond our expectations,” said Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House transportation subcommittee on aviation. “This should send a message to a terrorist or anyone else who is considering disrupting an aircraft with a threat.”

You know what’s the funny thing—I allowed you to distract us with this Air Marshal thing—it has nothing to do with religion or anything…why did you bring it up?

Cyrena,

Meticulous records are kept of coalition casualties in Iraq.  As of July 11, 2007, the figures for the Iraq war include roughly 3,600 American soldiers killed and 27,000 American soldiers wounded since the inception of the war.  These numbers are not in dispute.

The Iraqi civilian casualties are more problematic because there is no single source to collect and organize the data and no source is totally free from bias.  That said, the Lancet study figures you cite—with a death toll of roughly 650,000—were obtained by survey, not actual counting of bodies.  People were relied upon as honest reporters, a difficult step to take given the political significance of the figures, animosity toward the US, and the competing agendas of everyone involved.  The conditions for inclusion were very broad, including deaths due to malnutrition, poor healthcare, lawlessness, etc.  No distinction was made between American vs Muslim or Muslim vs Muslim violence.

On the other hand, the Iraq Body Count Project (IBC) has tallied violent deaths as reported to media outlets.  These were exclusively violent deaths, fully witnessed, and reported to the media.  Their tally is roughly 66,000 to 73,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

Given the conflicting nature of these studies, the absolutist assertions you and Barry frequently make about the Iraq war are totally unjustified.  You try to leave the impression that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died by gunfire at the hands of American soldiers.  This claim is entirely bogus.  Neither of the above studies supports that claim.  The only conclusion I would make is that both studies can’t be correct.  The manner in which they were conducted must account for the one order of magnitude difference in their results.  When the reporting bias of each study is factored in, a plausible case can be made for an overestimation of casualties by the Lancet study and an underestimation of casualties by the IBC study.

The broad strokes here are not open to debate.  Anyone who wants to can consult a variety of internet search tools –Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, etc—to investigate sources and verify the data for themselves.  Honest inquiry in this case should not be construed as support for George Bush.  People should simply be interested in an accurate presentation of the available studies, while noting the margin of error for each study, as well as the biases that can make the data more or less reliable.

I have yet to read a left wing blogger who exaggerates the number of Americans killed or wounded.  Yet they regularly seize upon the high-end figure for Iraqi deaths despite the obvious methodological flaws and potential for bias.  Are you less scrupulous about the data when it appears to lend support to your position?

#86076 by Josh on 7/11 at 5:05 pm

Ok Josh,

You’re just not too smart, and you miss the points, but, you DO prove mine.

First, I’m familiar with a jetbridge, having spent maybe…just a wild guess here…maybe about a billion hours of my life, on, in, and around those little things. I’ve probably driven the jetbridges of the major US airports over a thousand miles. So yeah, I’m real familiar with them.

However, you do not have your own facts straight, because the man did not make the comment on the jet-bridge, even though that’s what they are claiming.

Here’s how it happened. The passengers (the man and his wife) had already boarded the aircraft, along with all the rest of the passengers. Most importantly, he had been through each and every single standard security protocal, (like every other passenger) prior to boarding the aircraft. Therefore, using REASON, and standard LOGIC, there was no expectation, that ANYBODY sitting on the airplane, would have a bomb. Period.

Now, this passenger was seated, with his wife, in the rear of the coach cabin. So…toward the back.
And, he was apparently “figgety” (if that’s a word). The most CORRECT way to describe his actions, would be the truth…he was bi-polar for starters. And, from what we now know, he was returning from a six-week vacation, and had possibly/probably run out of his meds. We know that now, and any “professional” on the scene..could have immediately discerned that as well.

But, back to the real report..The passenger got up from his seat in the back, and began walking toward the front of the aircraft. A few people noticed him, and then noticed his wife attempt to follow after him. (She obviously knew what was wrong), but by the time the guy makes his way up to first class, (WHERE THE AIR MARSHALL IS SITTING)air marshall pulls his weapon and tells him to drop his back back.

(there is still no mention of a bomb) The guy keeps on walking (he’s in a panic attack, and wants to get off of the airplane), and meantime, mr marshall blows him away.

And, because the aircraft WAS still parked at the gate, and because the jetbridge WAS still attached, and because they were nearing departure time, there WERE agents on the jetbridge at the time, and there was a mechanic on the steps leading up to it.

NONE of them ever heard the guy say that he had a bomb, and we know now, that he DID not, and we know (as would any professional) that the chances of him getting through 15 security checks on onto that airplane -with a bomb- are NIL.

That’s my point. People should not say things they they cannot backup.

Cyrena,

Another good example of poor logic:

you say, “The feds claimed that the gentleman in Miami claimed that he had a bomb, except that nobody else on or around the airplane heard that, except for the feds. And as we know, the man did NOT have a bomb.  So, the feds lied. It happens all the time these days. “

Note, that when he was reported to have made the bomb claim, he was on the jetway,in case you’re not aware—that’s the neat little thing that connects the airplane to the terminal…and thus, nobody would have heard him saying he had a bomb. 
Now here’s where it gets rich—you then move on to state, as if it were fact, that since nobody heard him say he had a bomb, that he did not make that statement, and thus, the feds were lying.
You don’t consider the following possibilities:
a) he said it in a location where only the 2 feds could hear his utterances
b) he said something that the feds mistook for ‘bomb’—a mistake, but not a lie

You blithely plod forward making statements as if they were fact—ignoring the idea that most likely, if he were to make that statement on the jetway, nobody would have been able to hear it.

Here’s a helpful hint for anyone going to airports—if you are rushing out of a plane (after its been boarded) wearing a backpack, and two men in uniforms draw their weapons and state, ‘Get Down’—it is in your best interest to do so.

Cyrena, I suggest you read wavelength’s posts, very carefully, and see if you can attempt to deconstruct any of what he posits.

Josh,

You are absolutely correct. I should not have said “gun”, and I realized my error as soon as I sent it, so I should have followed it up with a correction.

But, you are right. The feds claimed that the gentleman in Miami claimed that he had a bomb, except that nobody else on or around the airplane heard that, except for the feds. And as we know, the man did NOT have a bomb.

So, the feds lied. It happens all the time these days.

Cyrena,

What a vacuous and fluffy piece of writing.  It is just a string of ad hominem attacks.

Your best comeback is that I’m lying, I don’t understand Islam, and I wasn’t there to witness the six imams incident?  Is that the best you can do?

Newsflash – you weren’t there either!

Anyone interested in reading about the six imams should do a Google search on the topic.  They will quickly see that your account of the incident doesn’t match with the actual data.  You are notably silent on the issue of Muslim intimidation in the form of lawsuits against individual witnesses.  What do you have to say about that?

By the way, I have read the Koran in its entirety.  I am well aware of the commentarial tradition surrounding the prophet Mohammed in the form of the Hadith.  I fully understand that religious edicts such as fatwas are rulings on Islamic law.  I appreciate that the Sunni/Shia division traces back to differences over who should assume leadership of the Muslim nation at the time of the prophet’s death.

I do not deny that America is guilty of unwarranted aggression.  I am no fan of our current president, as I’ve detailed many, many times.

For our conversation to begin, however, you must make several concessions.  First, you must acknowledge that targeting non-combatants is morally repugnant and never justifiable, no matter what your political or religious grievances.  There is a difference between an intentional act and an accidental act.  Second, you must acknowledge the true extent of Muslim on Muslim violence.  The most nihilistic and cruel violence in the world today is committed by Muslims against other Muslims. This is seen in Darfur (black vs Arab Muslims), Iraq (Sunni vs Shia Muslims), Pakistan (secular vs extremist Muslims), and Afghanistan (alliance forces vs “Taliban” or fundamentalist Sunni Muslims).  If you fail to even dignify these arguments, then you have derailed the conversation before it has even begun. 

If you latch on to left-wing opinion pieces as being factually true, then of course everyone whose opinion is at variance with it appears to be lying.  You need to stop the personal attacks, and start thinking critically about the differences I’ve specified above.

Cyrena,

I find it ironic/amusing that you call Wavelength a liar when you can’t get the facts straight on issues you’re bringing up on your own.  The Miami man didn’t mention a gun, he was reported to have claimed to have a BOMB in his backpack.  At least do a little research before posting here.  Here’s one place you can do so
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598/

Oh, and you’re ability to ‘KNOW’ what happened with the Imams…capitalizing it doesn’t make it anymore true.

Here’s a copy of the police report, according to Fox news, so check it out—I’m sure you’re going to allege that its a fraud, but anyways, its available for whomever.  http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2006/12/FlyingImamsPolice Report.pdf

You know less than are alluding, and I’d say no mor than the typical american in regards to the situation.
Not to mention you omitted some important facts.  You state that the only reason the Imams were removed from the plane is that they were praying and an ‘islamaphobic’ passenger called wolf out of ignorance. 
However, you neglected to mention that the Imams were praying loudly and seemingly in anger.  You neglected to mention that several witnesses heard them curse america and mention killing Saddam. 
Furthermore, you neglected that they were seating in very strange arrangement (2 in front, 2 in the middle and 2 in the back—rather than all clumped together), had no checked bags, and were all on one way flights.(each of which will raise suspicion regardless of your religion/appearance)
Finally, you neglected the fact that they requested seat belt extensions even though they were not over-weight, and when given them, did not attach them to the seatbelts.
All-in-All this is very bizarre behavior, and couple that with the fact that they were loudly chanting and while not directly threatening, engaging in indirect threats—no wonder passenger’s were concerned. 
Oh - and an aside, they didn’t have to pray—one of the Imams chose not to pray until he was at his house (so don’t try and say that they required to pray at that time because of their religion). 
A funny thing about America ...we allow you to engage in all the bizarre behavior you want, but then we hold you to it when there are consequences.  When you engage in bizarre behavior in an airport, regardless of who you are—expect consequences.

So, nice try, but still no go—you’re rant against wavelength is full of omissions and incorrect statements.

#85962 by wavelength on 7/11 at 11:05 am

Wavelength, you are truly full of shit.

I KNOW the details of that particular issue, and these passengers were NOT making threats or anything of the kind. You are lying through your keyboard, and I very much resent it.

The ONLY person who should have been “taken away” in that particular incident, was the extrememly ignorant passenger that first whispered her “fears” to the flight attendant.

No, I didn’t hear or read your weigh-in on this incident before, because I generally ignore your psychobabble stuff. I don’t believe you to be the “physician” you claim to be, because no medical doctor could be this stupid.

So, you’re lying. You’re lying through whatever mania you have, and you are misrepresenting yourself as someone who knows something. You are a danger to society.

In your last post, you claimed to be perfectly legitimiate in your neurotic Islamophobia, because you claim these people have an “ideology” that is committed to paper…in writing. (yeah, that’s mostly how we commit stuff to paper). And yet, it’s clearly obvious that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, when you claim that this is some “ideology” because it’s clear that you have NEVER read any parts of a Qur’an, and you wouldn’t know a Hadith from a fatwa, or the difference between the Sunnah school of thought, or any other of the Islamic doctrines. All of that stuff would be totally over your head.

Still wavelength, I’m calling you out for the liar that you are, and hopefully, anyone “accidentally navigating” to any of your very ignornant comments, will be able to see through them.

You really are a pathetic case, and prime example of the illnesses that are affecting our society at large.

btw, the Lancelot studies have proven their methodology over and over. And, they are not the only study in town. There are others. I have directed you and your comic strip partners to some of these, and you are not interested. You are only interested in justifying what are a series of horrific crimes against humanity, because of your ignorance and your psychological issues.

You’re a fake wavelength. And, a liar. Tell me you were there at MSP when that incident took place. Tell me you were in Miami as well, when our federal marshalls shot a man dead on a jet bridge, because they claimed he said he had a gun, even though not a single other soul on that airplane, head the man say any such thing. But, I bet YOU heard him say it too?

Right?

For all of you, a reminder….IGNORANCE is the most violent element of society.
-Emma Goldman

You are proving her so correct, every time you post something to this site.

Barry,

Either you do not understand or you have not read a single line from any of my recent posts.  There are at least a half dozen or so, many of which go on at length about the obvious problems with your style of cultural relativism and liberal partisanship.

I am still waiting for even a single instance in which you confront one of my points and try to deconstruct it to show that it is wrong.  You appear to be incapable of doing so.

Many issues are still on the table:

-the bogus charge of “messianic atheism”
-the bogus charge of “Islamophobia”
-Iraq war casualty figures
-Muslim exploitation of Western democracies
-moral differences between terrorism and responses to terrorism
-differences between the US and Hamas
-radical Islam as cause of poverty, rather than protest against poverty
-obvious counterexamples to the charge that Western nations are “anti-Muslim”
-Left wing identification with radical Islam (do you really think they’re your allies?) and comparisons with Soviet communism

This is only a partial list.  Do you think you could confront any of these issues head-on, without a sort of cut-and-paste from Noam Chomsky?

I’d like to deflate this notion that the atheist critique of religion is excessive or harsh.

As Richard Dawkins has pointed out many times, criticism of religion is mild by the standards of any other human enterprise.  Take movie criticism as an example.  Any movie released in this country is subjected to scathing criticism from every angle.  No punches are pulled.  A spade is called a spade.

Let’s take a specific example.  Look at the movie reviews for the recent film, “License to Wed” starring Robin Williams.  The website Rotten Tomatoes catalogs all reviews from the major newspapers across the country and provides percentage ratings reflecting the fraction of positive versus negative reviews.  On their site, “Licence to Wed” receives an 8% approval rating and is subjected to some of the most vituperative criticism imaginable.  I highly recommend reading these reviews as an illustration of my point: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10007597-license_to_wed/

No one is ever tempted to interpret criticism of the movie as personal disdain for individual actors.  No one needs to fear being labeled a “messianic movie reviewer”.  In the face of negative reviews, wouldn’t it be silly to come back with – “Well, you’re just an anti-romantic comedy bigot”.  Or what about – “You’re just a Mandy Moore-ophobic!”

Timmy,

You make some excellent points.  I am glad you brought up the issue of casualty figures in Iraq.

Without failure, left-wing nut-bags like Barry will seize upon the most gratuitous casualty figures, even when the actual numbers are still a matter of honest debate.  The most extreme numbers came from an Iraq physician study, which has not been vetted or subjected to a critique of any kind.  Despite this, the absurd figure of 600,000 war dead is floated out there as a reliable figure.  No discussion of methods, no mention of bias, no mention of secondary gain that might arise from skewing the results.  We are then led to believe that it is just a self-evident fact that not only did this number of people die, but ALL of them died at the hands of American soldiers. 

This is another instance in which ideology trumps evidence.  And again, I am a liberal who thinks the Iraq war is illegitimate and we should begin immediate withdrawal to defensive positions in Kurdistan and at the borders.

People like Barry must know at some level that the casualty figures they’re using are wrong.  They’re not doing anyone any favors by spreading propagandistic figures of this sort.  In fact, these casual standards and unflinching partisanship are a kind of treason.  They know that our enemies will seize upon these figures and use them for their own propagandistic purposes as well. 

Let’s criticize our own government.  Let’s have a debate.  But lets have an honest debate by discussing the facts.

Both Cyrena and Barry continue to fill their arguments with the insinuation that the violence in Iraq right now is U.S. on muslim.

It is in fact, almost entirely, Muslim on Muslim, or Muslim on American.

Barry and Cyrena continue to use statements that make it sound like Americans are killing hundreds of Iraqis a week. They know it’s not true, but it helps their weak argument to insinuate that it is true.

In the initial attack, thousands and thousands of Iraqi soldiers lost their lives fighting the Americans in front of them with Saddam’s gun pointed at the back of their heads.
Since then, almost all deaths in Iraq have been muslim on muslim, or muslim on American.
Just trying to keep the facts straight.
Probably makes me islamophobic. Or at least a damn racist.
lol

PS
Wavelength,

Boy oh boy, how does one debate a person who would compare the U.S. government to Hamas or Hezboleh?
This is a debate between intellect and emotion, and intellect can not win.
It can only be right.

Cyrena,

Needless to say, I don’t agree with your assessment of the six imams situation.  I discussed this in a previous post, but apparently you did not read it.

You neglect the fact that the imams were making statements about punishing the West.  Several passengers overheard the comments.  You must realize that anyone making threats in an airport—even indirect threats in a joking manner—is going to get taken away and questioned by security.  For the imams to not recognize the context, especially following the 9/11 attacks, shows how incredibly out-of-touch they are with the larger culture.

You also glossed over the most appalling aspect of the case.  The imams have subsequently attempted to file lawsuits against each and every passenger who dared to point them out to security.  Such blatant intimidation reflects very poorly on them.

Why do so many Muslims think the rules don’t apply to them?  Why do so many Muslims migrate to Western countries if Islam and Islamic law is so great?  Why do so many Muslims exploit the freedoms of our multicultural society while failing to respect the values and ideals of the host culture?  Why do they cynically exploit our freedoms by demanding respect for their misogyny, anti-Semitism, and homophobia?

As to racial profiling, I think it is appropriate.  I have several Egyptian friends who are quite reasonable about this and don’t mind the possibility of being, say, stopped at an airport.  They recognize that this is one of the costs of ensuring public safety.  They recognize that while not all Muslims are terrorists, ALL terrorists are Muslims.  You simply can’t avoid that fact, despite your repeated efforts to explain it away.

Barry,

There is a liberal fanaticism that runs through everything you write.  The clearest expression of this is in your reckless and defensive attempts to smear anyone on the opposite pole of the political spectrum.  If I didn’t know any better, I’d say many of your beliefs are not formed by dispassionate examination of the evidence, but by reacting out of defiance to various conservative positions.  To form opinions in this way (“…that sounds very right wing to me…”) and to try to close ranks among your fellow liberals is one way of conducting yourself.  It isn’t a very thoughtful one though.

You are also saddled by a kind of moral tone deafness.  Your failure to make very basic moral distinctions precludes a meaningful give and take on issues of terrorism and Mid East violence.  To simply look at body count, with no consideration of human intentions whatsoever leads you to make silly mistakes and ill-advised comparisons.

For instance, to equate the United States with fascist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is utterly moronic.  You may be filled with a sense of righteousness in making this statement.  It may sound good in a Green Day song or look cool as an emblem stitched on your backpack.  But the benefits of the comparison end there.  We can acknowledge the litany of failures and ill-advised interventions our government has made and still make the distinction between imperfect or even failing democracy on one hand, and fascism on the other hand.  Hamas and Hezbollah are anti-semitic and openly genocidal.  That you feel an impulse to defend these organizations is disgusting in the extreme.  To compare them to the United States is not just an overstatement on your part, but a shameful act that only reflects the degree to which you have been brainwashed by left-wing fanaticism.

The moral difference between the US and Hamas is easily appreciated by the following experiment.  Let’s cordon off some acreage in the countryside somewhere, fly in a cadre of Hamas leaders and several thousand of their followers.  Then let’s airlift you and Noam Chomsky into this newly formed city and let you live alongside these people.  You’ll need to live with them, exchange goods with them, negotiate with them, and collaborate with them on various projects.  Wear the green headbands, carry the AK47, the whole bit (if you don’t do this you’ll need to explain to them why not).  At the end of this experiment, you’d beg to get back to the US and you’d kiss the ground once you got there.  The obscurantist multicultural drivel you are continually muddling around with would be blindingly obvious.  There are stark differences between American democracy and Mid East fascism.

#85124 by wavelength on 7/08 at 1:13 pm
•  Cyrena, In a previous post you dismissed our criticism as “Islamophobia”.
I reject this term.
It seems to me that if you have a belief system I don’t like, it is perfectly justifiable for me to be phobic about it.  Islam is not a group of people, it is an ideology.  It is a set of religious principles laid down on paper. 
If I don’t like the Harry Potter set of books, am I guilty of Harry Potter-phobia?
Wavelength,

Sorry for the delay in the reply. I’m sorry that you don’t like the term Islamophobic, (and no, it isn’t in the dictionary) but it is EXACTLY what I’ve observed in real time, over the past several years, and with my own eyes, and again, in REAL time, as events play out. And, because I have a memory, and some life experience, I can in fact assign this “designator” to what has become an increased intolerance (based on ignorance) toward any person (particularly in here in the U.S.) who resembles a Muslim, in speech, dress, or other “actions”.

Here is but one example of what I see as “Islamophobia”, taken from some of my own observations, over an extended career in the commercial aviation industry.

Last November, (it was over the Thanksgiving weekend) six Imam from the Muslim Scholars Association, (or something close, I don’t have the file in front of me) were arrested, handcuffed, and removed from a US Airways flight at the MSP airport. I won’t describe the entire event, which just became crazier and crazier as it continued. In short, in turns out that one of the Imam had apparently made the mistake of doing one of his 5 daily prayer sessions, prior to boarding the aircraft. Prior to the created terror of 9-11, this would NOT have been a remarkable thing at all. Airports accommodate many people, including those who pray. As a matter of fact, there was a time when airlines made special meals available to its passengers including Kosher, Islamic and Hindu meals. IOW’s, airports are “global places”.

This particular incident came about because an obviously ignorant (and Islamophic) passenger on the SAME flight, decided that there was something very “sinister” about this group of men traveling home after a Conference, just because she saw one of them praying in the waiting area. So, she tells an equally ignorant flight attendant, that these “Middle Eastern looking guys” were “acting suspiciously” and the flight attendant then reports the same to the cockpit crew, who also don’t bother to check anything out. (or even talk to these gentleman themselves).
Instead, they contact airport security, and they come along, and take a stroll through the aircraft, without saying anything. By now, all of the passengers have been waiting on a fully loaded aircraft, for well over an hour, wondering what the hell was going on. And, that includes the “suspects”, who don’t even know that they are “suspects” until maybe another hour later, when the FBI shows up to take them off…in handcuffs.

The story continues to get worse, since the FBI interrogates these guys for hours, and the airline refuses them passage even after all of that, and even after it’s been determined that there wasn’t a single thing illegitimate or even “questionable” about their status, that couldn’t have been verified ON THE SPOT, from the airline’s own passenger data base, the second that the original Islamophobic made the comment to the flight attendant.

These incidents and similar ones, are occurring all over the country.
This is NOT the same as your personal distaste for Harry Potter, or the fact that you think Scientology is bogus. (so do I). I happen to feel the same way about Oprah, since I have discovered her to have become a public nuisance, and so she isn’t “allowed” on the TV’s around here, any more than “cartoons” are. But NO, that is not the same as “Islamophophia”.

So, that’s what I mean by this term, and if you want to call it racism instead, you can do that.

More of the same in my absence.

Bf and Wave criticize a religion. Nahida, Cyrena and Barry defend a people.
They can’t seem to separate the religion from the people. Which says it all about the point that they are missing.

It’s like we’re criticizing a psychotic torturing prison warden, and people are yelling at us: “What do you have against those prisoners?”

Comment #85804 by Arhiippa on 7/10 at 8:19 pm

VERY WELL said!!!

And, this interview posted today at Truthout, confirms your analysis. Because, while religion has certainly been a sort of “variable” to the violence, these other socio-economic and political issues are in fact the source of the violence in the Middle East, as it spills over from where george started it, in Iraq.

I’ve posted the link, just because it answers so many questions that readers and posters have been asking. Iraqi’s Oil Should Stay in Public Hands
  By David Bacon
  t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor
  Tuesday 10 July 2007
Interview with Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, and Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein, president of the Electrical Workers Union of Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071007C.shtml