Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ben Affleck vs. Sam Harris & Bill Maher on Real Time

Options
1…89111314…18

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    then you don't understand the argument at all. This is why the issue persists.
    I have not gone on that ONLY the quran is the cause of problems in Islam. I never said that, I said that as long as the quran remains unquestioned it will never allow Islam to be truly peaceful as a religion as it is a violent text that spreads hatred of non-muslims.
    ... as every single Muslim in the world by default considers the Quran the word of God you therefore think every Muslim hates you?


    And just to clarify, you cannot name a single terrorist motivated purely by this "violent text"?


  • Options
    #303
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,724 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs




    This is what you aren't getting. It doesn't matter if it's Muhammed Al Fayed or Muhammed Ali there is not a single authority who can speak for all Muslims.


    That is why the Tafqiri al-Baghdadi is buthchering other Muslims for being "infidels".


    Beyond the Quran being divinely inspired and Muhamed being a Prophet almost everything else is open to interpretation, even the divinely inspired text of the Quran. There are multiple interpretations amongst the multiple sects across the multiple lands and diverse cultures Islam has been prominent in throughout multiple centuries and there is still multiple ongoing debates within these same multiple sects.
    @BB just FYI, that poster is now banned so they won't be responding to your post.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #304
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    marienbad wrote: »
    He was a bit more than a Muslim BB and to say otherwise takes from your credibility.
    Yes, he was the spiritual leader for some Muslims; a Nationalist hero to some Iranians, the arch-enemy and an infidel to others. To most Muslims he was inconsequential.


    How does his actions equate to the "Islamic response" and how does this make Islam uniquely violent - as you've already stated.


  • Options
    #305
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Relevant:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfCUB3LCQc


  • Options
    #306
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,265 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... as every single Muslim in the world by default considers the Quran the word of God you therefore think every Muslim hates you?


    And just to clarify, you cannot name a single terrorist motivated purely by this "violent text"?
    nobody in the history of mankind has done anything more complex than evacuate their bowels 'purely' on a single motivation.

    Human behaviour is complex. A member of the Mujahadeen who is fighting against the Afghanistan national army is fighting to impose an islamic state, but they are also fighting for political control but the reason they are opposed to the afghanistan state is that it is not islamic enough, so the underlying theme of their motivations, founded on islam, but there are also personal motivations and other factors in the reasons why they are on the path that they are currently on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yes, he was the spiritual leader for some Muslims; a Nationalist hero to some Iranians, the arch-enemy and an infidel to others. To most Muslims he was inconsequential.


    How does his actions equate to the "Islamic response" and how does this make Islam uniquely violent - as you've already stated.

    where did I say Islam is uniquely violent ?

    He was spiritual leader to 10 of millions of Muslims . Why do you try to minimise these things ? it just makes your posts less credible


  • Options
    #308
    jaffusmax
    Registered Users Posts: 1,602 ✭✭✭jaffusmax


    If I use this well known phrase in the same context as the following, this is how I view Sam Harris opinion on Islam,

    'some animals are more equal then other' then 'some religion's are more violent then others'

    Depending on what century you live in determines how much blood was spilt in the name of a particular religion.


  • Options
    #309
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... as every single Muslim in the world by default considers the Quran the word of God you therefore think every Muslim hates you?


    And just to clarify, you cannot name a single terrorist motivated purely by this "violent text"?

    When you get tired of strawmen, get back to me.


  • Options
    #310
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Dave! wrote: »
    Relevant:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfCUB3LCQc



    Sam Harris and everyone else here will be fit to talk about "apologists and beheading" when they condemn in equal measure these far more frequent beheadings.


    "Tariq Khan might have been invisible too, had he not attended a tribal assembly on drones in Islamabad last October. The shy, football-mad teenager was photographed in the audience. Four days later he was dead.


    His family say he was hit by two missiles as he was riding his motorbike. Tariq - who was petrified of drones - was decapitated in the strike. His 12-year-old cousin Wahid was killed with him.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19704981 "


    Worse, if his brother/father/uncle pick up a rifle to protect their families they are now "terrorists" who have become more Muslim.


  • Options
    #311
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    jaffusmax wrote: »
    If I use this well known phrase in the same context as the following, this is how I view Sam Harris opinion on Islam,

    'some animals are more equal then other' then 'some religion's are more violent then others'

    Depending on what century you live in determines how much blood was spilt in the name of a particular religion.



    How I'd view it is "4 legs goooooood! 2 legs baaaaaaaaaaaad!".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    marienbad wrote: »
    where did I say Islam is uniquely violent ?
    Really?

    Here, amongst others.

    Ben Affleck vs. Sam Harris & Bill Maher on Real Time
    "But of the main religions Islam is uniquely dangerous ! Surely that is undeniable ? "
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=92637693


  • Options
    #313
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Really?

    Here, amongst others.

    Ben Affleck vs. Sam Harris & Bill Maher on Real Time
    "But of the main religions Islam is uniquely dangerous ! Surely that is undeniable ? "
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=92637693

    Indeed, but you are leaving out the context, I do point out that Christianity was also so , but has moved on. Islam needs to


  • Options
    #314
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    marienbad wrote: »
    Indeed, but you are leaving out the context, I do point out that Christianity was also so , but has moved on. Islam needs to
    OK. Now I am confused. Is or isn't Islam uniquely violent? And how is the Islamist Ayatollah ordering a hit any different to the secularist Obama ordering a hit?


  • Options
    #315
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    OK. Now I am confused. Is or isn't Islam uniquely violent? And how is the Islamist Ayatollah ordering a hit any different to the secularist Obama ordering a hit?

    Ok BB most of the major religions were violent , Catholicism Protestentism, Islam . The others hand an Enlightenment and a Reformation - Islam didn't.

    This is not to say some Christians don't hearken back to the old days, and would like to have as many of their beliefs enshrined in law and as we know well in this country until very recently they still taught they were above the law.

    But just to take a specific comparision - In 1965 John Mcgahern published The Dark , The Church too offence - had it banned and had the author dismissed from his job as a school teacher . If it was tried to day they would be a laughingstock.

    In 1988 Salman Rushdie published the Satanic Verses - The head of a foreign state issued a death warrant on him which is still in effect today. Publishers and book shops was attacked and bombed all over the world

    In that sense and in many other examples - the cartoons, the Dutch filmmakers etc Islamic violence is unique. Even the whole ISIS thing - it is like watching the European wars of religion all over again.

    As regards Secularists ordering hits - yes it is different - it might and usually is far worse but it is different.

    I should add that not all Islam or even most is violent .


  • Options
    #316
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    marienbad wrote: »
    As regards Secularists ordering hits - yes it is different - it might and usually is far worse but it is different.

    Note that criticising Islam for it's violent parts cannot be dismissed by pointing to secular countries like the USA and its violent parts.
    Its not a seesaw. Don't get draw into it by BB, its a red herring.
    Islam must stand on its own merits, as an ideology.

    It would be no different than saying if you want to criticise capitalism, that must mean you support communism or visa versa.


  • Options
    #317
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Note that criticising Islam for it's violent parts cannot be dismissed by pointing to secular countries like the USA and its violent parts.
    Its not a seesaw. Don't get draw into it by BB, its a red herring.
    Islam must stand on its own merits, as an ideology.

    It would be no different than saying if you want to criticise capitalism, that must mean you support communism or visa versa.

    Indeed, but one must also acknowledge the context also.


  • Options
    #318
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Sam Harris and everyone else here will be fit to talk about "apologists and beheading" when they condemn in equal measure these far more frequent beheadings.


    "Tariq Khan might have been invisible too, had he not attended a tribal assembly on drones in Islamabad last October. The shy, football-mad teenager was photographed in the audience. Four days later he was dead.


    His family say he was hit by two missiles as he was riding his motorbike. Tariq - who was petrified of drones - was decapitated in the strike. His 12-year-old cousin Wahid was killed with him.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19704981 "


    Worse, if his brother/father/uncle pick up a rifle to protect their families they are now "terrorists" who have become more Muslim.

    Show Harris an Israeli/whoever intentionally beheading an innocent civilian and I'm sure he'll condemn it just as easily as an Arab doing the same.

    You left out the last line:
    After the strike Pakistani officials said four suspected militants had been killed.

    You or I may disagree with the use of drones, but it's pretty clear that there's a difference between beheading an aid worker and recording it for propaganda purposes, and a civilian being killed by an airstrike targeting militants.


  • Options
    #319
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    In case you needed a bit more Sam Harris in your life, here he is in conversation for 3 hrs with Cenk Uygur :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU


  • Options
    #320
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,265 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Dave! wrote: »
    In case you needed a bit more Sam Harris in your life, here he is in conversation for 3 hrs with Cenk Uygur :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU

    I've only seen 2 hours of this but Sam kicks Cenks ass. Cenk just keeps missing the point

    (and I'm not really a Sam Harris fan)


  • Options
    #321
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I'm 1.5 hrs into it :D It's actually a great conversation. I'd say it's pretty even, I find it a bit hard to disagree with either of them :-/

    BTW they're just starting to speak about profiling now – about 1:35 – for those who are interested in that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Dave! wrote: »
    You left out the last line:
    You or I may disagree with the use of drones, but it's pretty clear that there's a difference between beheading an aid worker and recording it for propaganda purposes, and a civilian being killed by an airstrike targeting militants.
    I don't think it makes any difference to the guy being decapitated.
    Also I would take the phrase "suspected militants" with a pinch of salt. And large sums of US money are paid to Pakistan to keep the govt. there co-operative while CIA operatives on the other side of the world practice remote summary executions on Pakistani citizens.

    According to US military/CIA terminology ...
    in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/u-s-labels-all-young-men-in-battle-zones-as-militants-and-american-soil-is-now-considered-a-battle-zone.html And a strike zone is anywhere the drone is overflying. It is not surprising then that the people in those villages are terrified. They can be executed at any moment by some operative in Washington, no judge or jury, and no reason need be given.
    After the strike Pakistani officials said four suspected militants had been killed.
    In this case, the "football mad teenager" Tariq was likely one of those four "suspected combatants" classified as having been killed.


  • Options
    #323
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I'm not here to defend drone strikes. It's a spurious comparison though with ISIS seeking out innocents and torturing them to death for propaganda purposes.


  • Options
    #324
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I don't see that much difference myself. I.S. picks out westerners, as representatives of "the west" and all that it despises. And executes them.

    Drone operators see a couple of lads talking to each other in an Afghan village. By their clothing, age, sex and general appearance they represent foreign terrorists, so the drone operator executes them. Then goes to the canteen for a coffee.


  • Options
    #325
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    recedite wrote: »
    Drone operators see a couple of lads talking to each other in an Afghan village. By their clothing, age, sex and general appearance they represent foreign terrorists, so the drone operator executes them. Then goes to the canteen for a coffee.

    That is a gross over simplification. Think of the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. The intent is the difference.


  • Options
    #326
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I've only seen 2 hours of this but Sam kicks Cenks ass. Cenk just keeps missing the point

    (and I'm not really a Sam Harris fan)

    Cenk spends his time slicing and dicing videos and comments to further whatever liberal agenda that is flavour of the day. He does this in the safety of a studio surrounded by yes men. When it comes to debating Sam Harris, it's like Shamrock Rovers playing a soccer match against Real Madrid, over after the initial flurry of goals and the recognition in the gulf in class.


  • Options
    #327
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    jank wrote: »
    That is a gross over simplification. Think of the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. The intent is the difference.
    In the examples given, there is no difference in intent. In both cases the perptrators intended to kill the victims. In both cases, if the acts were done in Ireland, the perpetrators would be convicted of murder. In both cases, the perpetrators considered they were justified in killing the victims. In both cases, decent and moral people would unhesitatingly reject the justification and condemn the killing.

    No, I'm not seeing any difference, except this: one of the bogus justifications is religious; the other is secular. But that, plainly, is not a relevant difference.


  • Options
    #328
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    Dave! wrote: »
    In case you needed a bit more Sam Harris in your life, here he is in conversation for 3 hrs with Cenk Uygur :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU

    Good to see you're still in love with Sam Harris. ;)


  • Options
    #329
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    marienbad wrote: »
    how about the fatwa on Salman Rushdie by the Supreme Leader of Iran for starters ?

    All these things are the use of religion as a political tool. This whole Salman Rushdie thing I remember and his book Satanic Verses was a pretty not so well hidden attack on how the world was ruled.

    Clearly, Iran's 1980s Revolutionary Guards Junta did not like Rushdie or his book for many reasons: first off, Rushdie was a supporter of the RGs sworn enemy, the Pahlavi Shahs. Secondly, Rushdie had in his book a caricature of the RGs puppet priests (the likes of Khomeini and Khamenei) and thirdly, the book hinted at the devious true relations between Iran, the US and the whole anti-commie thing. Also, it made Iran, ever considered an inadequate Persian Shia pretender to Islam, look good in the eyes of the masses in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India who truly hated Rushdie much more than the war weary people of Iran and Iraq. Which leads on to the last reason for this blasphemous 'fatwa': it diverted attention away from Iran's utter destruction in an 8 year war and away from the poor state what the country was like by 1989 ten years after the Pahlavis left. Khomeini was ultimately a weak and poor leader and it showed. So was Pahlavis as they left without a fight: my Iranian friend always said the regular army should have taken down the RGs before they got too powerful in early 1979 and set up a military rule for a while until strong leadership was established. Instead, Iran got poor leaders and the junta was brutal and had its way due to capitulation by Khomeini and his successors. Khomeini probably never even wrote the fatwa on Rushdie either! He was dead in a few months. He was given credit, which mean the REAL writer of it remains anonymous and free. But that's how regimes like this work.


  • Options
    #330
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    All these things are the use of religion as a political tool. This whole Salman Rushdie thing I remember and his book Satanic Verses was a pretty not so well hidden attack on how the world was ruled.

    Clearly, Iran's 1980s Revolutionary Guards Junta did not like Rushdie or his book for many reasons: first off, Rushdie was a supporter of the RGs sworn enemy, the Pahlavi Shahs. Secondly, Rushdie had in his book a caricature of the RGs puppet priests (the likes of Khomeini and Khamenei) and thirdly, the book hinted at the devious true relations between Iran, the US and the whole anti-commie thing. Also, it made Iran, ever considered an inadequate Persian Shia pretender to Islam, look good in the eyes of the masses in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India who truly hated Rushdie much more than the war weary people of Iran and Iraq. Which leads on to the last reason for this blasphemous 'fatwa': it diverted attention away from Iran's utter destruction in an 8 year war and away from the poor state what the country was like by 1989 ten years after the Pahlavis left. Khomeini was ultimately a weak and poor leader and it showed. So was Pahlavis as they left without a fight: my Iranian friend always said the regular army should have taken down the RGs before they got too powerful in early 1979 and set up a military rule for a while until strong leadership was established. Instead, Iran got poor leaders and the junta was brutal and had its way due to capitulation by Khomeini and his successors. Khomeini probably never even wrote the fatwa on Rushdie either! He was dead in a few months. He was given credit, which mean the REAL writer of it remains anonymous and free. But that's how regimes like this work.

    even if true ,it is irrelevant to the point,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    jaffusmax
    Registered Users Posts: 1,602 ✭✭✭jaffusmax


    marienbad wrote: »
    even if true ,it is irrelevant to the point,

    I have lost track, what exactly is the point?


Advertisement