Comedy gold, that, coming from you.
Ironic for you to complain about “simplistic stereotypes”. But let me ask you: how far do you take this? Trump is a white nationalist. Do you also have sympathy for even more overt white nationalists, who wear swastikas or burn crosses?
I don’t think thoughtful people consider issues in anything like those terms.
That’s a good point, and I’m happy to see you bringing it up. We’re too quick in American politics to demonize folks who think differently from us, and I’m proud of you for
never mind
Of course, they don’t speak for the Left either.
So?
It is an interpretation which is obviously not embraced by a majority of Muslims, and it is overtly incompatible with continued civilized life on Earth. It doesn’t matter how genuine their belief is; sane, decent people of all (or no) religious backgrounds should reject it. The aforementioned Islamophobic hawks buy into it, strengthen it.
Of course, it’ all so obvious. Drone strikes really are awesome-sauce and all that bullshit about “Western imperialism” is nonsense made up out of thin air!
:dubious:
Hey, fuckface - it’s too bad the next Twin Towers to get knocked over won’t be filled solely with useless cunts like you, but will actually have decent people killed as well. You’re the exact kind of reactionary dickhead that ISIS is gunning for, and it’s unfortunate that I don’t have your personal details to forward on to their command structure. Leave the rest of us who aren’t amoral scumbags out of it.
[Moderating]
Wishing death on other posters is against the board rules. So is calling other posters “cunts.” Please don’t do either of these things in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Ha, ISWYDT. 
Not really valid, but undeniably clever.
I singled out the most idiotic of your pronouncements and they can all be responded to identically. I think that you greatly overestimate yourself if you think you can speak for yourself. Case in point: the “fire and brimstone” remark is unintentionally hilarious, since it’s straight out of the Christian Bible (Genesis 19, Deuteronomy 29, Isaiah 30, Isaiah 34, Ezekiel 38, and Psalms 11 are a few examples that directly or indirectly invoke that famous Biblical euphimism).
Secondly, no one I know of exclusively blames US or western imperialism for the rise of terrorism, radical Islamic or any other kind, as there are obviously many other factors in play and I’ve talked about some of them before. In France, for instance, the Muslim community is marginalized and shunned by much of the mainstream and often forced into an underprivileged ghettofied existence. And many predominantly Muslim countries reflect primitive and even barbaric values that are at least as much a function of a backwards culture as they are of any religion. One finds countries like Ethiopia which is predominantly Christian to be as bad as the Muslim majority ones, and conversely, one tends not to find such values among most Muslims in advanced western nations, although bigots such as the OP and yourself are doing their best to antagonize and alienate them.
Thirdly, there are indisputably many factors driving terrorism, but it’s also not unreasonable to point to western and particularly US hegemony as a contributing factor, even though bigots like yourself will accuse me of being a communist leftie who cites that as the only reason. Bush’s Iraq adventure cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and destroyed a country which, while it was indeed a dictatorship, was nevertheless an advanced and stable modern nation, and it led directly to the empowerment of al Qaeda in Iraq and thence to ISIS.
And fourthly and finally, only a complete idiot would claim that an otherwise sane and normal person could pick up a copy of the Quran, and after a quick read suddenly become converted to terrorism. That’s because only a complete idiot would fail to realize that most of the recent French attacks were carried out by known petty criminals and crazies who were mostly unemployed, marginalized, disaffected, and they were about as devoutly religious as my dog. Religious? They were common criminals, thugs, bums, and crazies using Islam as a form of identity politics. If a Holy Book can turn people violent all by itself, then the Bible should be doing a first-class job of turning out Christian terrorists, because as I point out here and here, the Bible is one of the most violent books of all.
Then why are you echoing some of his ugliest talking points?
Because he’s a raving bigot who agrees with those talking points.
The lefties we are talking about would consider this statement bigoted. It’s a big no-no for a Westerner to describe any non-Western culture as backwards. Tut tut! I agree with you p, though, so there’s hope for you yet. 
My primary quibble is that I consider religion part of culture and not something separate from it. I can see however that if you believe there is metaphysical truth in religion, it is easier to see them as separate.
If your sole distinction between “theists” and “non-theists” is whether or not they believe in the Abrahamic religions then you’ve an extremely provincial view of the World.
Just because people may not believe in a God the way it’s conceived of by the Jews and those they inspired, doesn’t mean the people aren’t religious. People in Asia are quite capable of believing in supernatural beliefs and beings without necessarily subscribing to Abrahamic notions.
I’m reminded of a friend talking about how hard it was for westerners to explain the Western concept of “God” to people in China.
Really? So stoning a woman to death in the public square for adultery, amputating limbs for theft, killing your own daughter because her skirt was too short, or throwing babies off a cliff because they’re female are all considered by modern liberals to be cultural matters about which we should be tolerant in the finest liberal tradition of being non-judgmental? Perhaps these cultural practices have been defended in Salon and the pages of the New Yorker, and you can offer cites. Or perhaps, in addition to being a bigot, you’re also a delusional raving loon.
The culture that I embrace where I live could be characterized as a liberal social democracy. What religion am I?
Why not question Bernie Sanders supporters as to why they agree with Trump on trade? (I don’t.) Even a loathsome demagogue like Trump will occasionally stumble into a position that a reasonable person can find partial merit in.
And you’re overlooking, or failing to engage with, one of the most fundamental points that Sam Harris makes, and which a couple of us here have echoed. Namely, that when Democrats and other left of center parties in the West react to Islamic terrorism in this politically correct way, it creates a huge vacuum which right wing demagogues are only too happy to fill.
I can’t speak for Harris or others, but for me this is the most important part of this whole equation. If I were guaranteed that Democrats (and centre-left parties in the rest of the Western world) would win up and down the ballot for a generation or more, I could live with PC immigration policies, and the reflexive avoidance of any criticism of religion (although I’d certainly continue to roll my eyes at it). After all, as Harris himself has explicitly and repeatedly noted, far more people are killed by quotidien things like medical mistakes and car crashes.
But the distorting effect this political correctness has on our politics, that I cannot live with. There is a significant portion of the electorate which will in general be open to a center-left program when it comes to economics and most social issues, but which will be completely turned off by the poison pill of adhering to Salon style political correctness on matters of terrorism, immigration, and foreign policy. So that is the real danger, as I see it.
“Gosh, when you people act like rational, intelligent and compassionate human beings and not angry assholes, you open the door for demagogues to exploit all the angry assholes you’re not being!”
:dubious:
One would think that if you’re really being all that rational, intelligent and compassionate there wouldn’t be all these angry people for the demagogues to exploit.
Perhaps that wonderful rationality, intelligence and compassion you perceive in yourself exists mostly in your own mind and is highly vexatious to rational, intelligent and compassionate people not of your political ideology.
Contrary to popular and self-congratulatory opinion, liberals don’t have a lock on these qualities, and what it all boils down to is politics. Liberals like to think they’re more smart and more compassionate, etc. than those on the other side but it just ain’t so. Some of the most stupid things I’ve seen and heard in my life have come from liberals.
Oh for fuck’s sake.
“when Democrats and other left of center parties in the West react to Islamic terrorism in this politically correct way”
So it is “politically correct” to assume that most people trying to flee countries at war or experiencing oppression in their own nations are not monsters and that we should let them in and allow them to become citizens if they desire?
Then I plead guilty as charged and you can have the assholes that want to ban everyone “until we figure out what is going on”, which basically means “forever as long as we’re in charge!”.
If you think I’m being stupid, I can’t help you, nor will I apologize for my views.
My apologies, but “…near constant ‘Fear-the-fire-whose-fuel-is-men-and-stones’ condemnations” seemed a little wordy.
It’s a common figure of speech, fuckwit.
I can fix that.
Money quote:
“Again, let’s be as clear as possible: the hellish world we live in today is the result of deliberate policies and actions undertaken by the United States and its allies over the past decades.”
Yeah, but…you’re not worth listening to.
Okay, the bullshit here is so dense it’s going to need bullet-points: [ul]
[li] There is no the Muslim community. They’re not the Borg.[/li][li] To what extent is “The Muslim community” marginalised? Your terms are so vague as to be useless.[/li][li] Not all recent French terrorists were underprivileged. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel came from a wealthy family. He lived in a 3 bedroom house in Le Rey which (according to Wikipedia, anyway) is “popular and middle-class”. Salah Abdeslam co-owned a bar; a bar which he sold prior to the attacks, not to lift himself from the mire of poverty, but to buy provisions. [/li][li] Following on from that, there are plenty of examples of Islamic terrorists from middle-class and even wealthy backgrounds. Glasgow airport was attacked by two doctors. Mohammed Atta had a masters degree in architecture. Jihadi John was a middle-class DJ who wore designer clothes. Also - though I have no way of corroborating this - rumour has it that Osama Bin Laden wasn’t short a few quid either. Question: If ghettoisation is a bigger factor in Islamic terrorism than fundamentalist Islamic doctrine, why do so few Islamic terrorists come from ghettos?[/li][li] Another question: Why is it that the Muslim community (to use your term) seems so sensitive to the pains of poverty? There are plenty of marginalised ethnic groups all across Europe. Why is “The Muslim community” so uniquely combustible (so to speak)? The Romany have been subjected to, not just poverty, but near universal loathing all across Europe since forever. When was the last time a bus was blown up by a radicalised gypsy? The Jews were nearly exterminated within living memory and those who remain in Europe are subject to a constant stream of hate crimes. In fact, not only do Jews suffer more hate crimes in France than Muslims, an ever increasing percentage of these hate crimes are committed against them by Muslim perpetrators (who you’d think would sympathise, being so oppressed and everything). When was the last time a Jewish terrorist blew himself up in a crowd of Muslims? Shit, when was the last time a Jewish terrorist blew himself up? It’s probably happened somewhere, but it’s not exactly an everyday occurrence. Could it be that Romani and Jews don’t believe the things one needs must believe in order to do such things? Things like:[/li]
“Nobody who enters Paradise will (ever like to) return to this world even if he were offered everything on the surface of the earth (as an inducement) except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him.” - (Muslim 20.4365)
[li] One more question: Why are you so fucking stupid? This one’s tertiary, but after ploughing through this gibberish I really feel I deserve an answer.[/ul][/li]
How, exactly, are you separating culture and religion in these theocracies?
Firstly, I’d be interested to know what criteria you’re using to make that comparison. Secondly, when Ethiopian terrorists, spurred by a defensible reading of Christian scripture, start blowing themselves up in public, I’ll place the blame in the exact same place, belief.
Thirdly, do you even realise just how offensive the subtext of your claim is? “Ooh. Better not antagonise the Muslims. They might come after us with kalashnikovs, or plough through crowds of women and kids in a fucking Mac Truck!” I genuinely think I have a higher opinion of Muslims than you do. I have a lower opinion of Islamic scripture, but then again, unlike you, I’m able to separate criticisms of Islam from criticisms of “The Muslims”.
I agree. ISIS, ever helpful, have actually listed these contributing factors in order of importance. Western aggression and Western Imperialism place fifth and last respectively. Finally, just to be charitable, just to give boneheads like one more opportunity to miss the fucking point, they rounded off their list with the following statement:
*"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.
“The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”*
Actually, I don’t give a fuck what you think about anything.
After a quick read? No. After years, or even a lifetime of indoctrination in fundamentalist Islamist theology? Yes. This much is obvious. The real problem here is that fundamentalist Islamist theology is defensible in scriptural terms. It’s not the only defensible interpretation of Islamic scripture, it’s not even the most defensible interpretation of Islamic scripture, but it is a defensible interpretation. How the hell we’re supposed to fight it if we can’t even bring ourselves to admit that much is beyond me.
As opposed to passive, well-adjusted Jihadists?
The Bible is an extremely violent book, and it has inspired a lot of violence. You clearly have no trouble believing that, so why do you have such difficulty accepting the notion that Islamic scriptures can have the same effect?