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

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"?

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.

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.

Dave!

Relevant:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!".

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

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

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?

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

Dave!

I'm 1.5 hrs into it 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

jaffusmax

marienbad wrote: »

even if true ,it is irrelevant to the point,

I have lost track, what exactly is the point?

marienbad

jaffusmax wrote: »

I have lost track, what exactly is the point?

I suppose the point at this stage is that Islam is in dire need of its own enlightenment and reformation .

jaffusmax

marienbad wrote: »

I suppose the point at this stage is that Islam is in dire need of its own enlightenment and reformation .

Can't really argue with that!

jank

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

In the examples given as you mean IS captures a westerner chops their head off with a knife is equally comparable to say, the same terrorist who decapitated an innocent bystander who is then targeted by a drone and is killed by a rocket attack, only for this attack to take the life of a bystander who is also innocent.
As I said, it is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Sure both people end up dead but the intent was clearly different.

A drunk driver does not intend to kill a pedestrian but may end up doing so, that is why he will never be charged for murder. If someone plans a premeditate action that kills someone then that is murder. Hiring a hit man for example can lead to a murder charge. It is recognised as such in most courts in the world, so what you say is clearly wrong.

stevejazzx

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)

On some issues yes Sam is correct but he falters number of times and uncharacteristically he seems unable to be succinct here. Many of his analogies start out as one thing and morph into something completely different.

Cenk however really misses the point in comparing Islamic extremism with what Hitler did tough - I can appreciate Harris' inability to sort through that issue - its such a bizarre counter argument.

Sams central point that the Quran provides a more (in comparison to other religions) direct doctrine on which extremists can base their action is one that is very hard to disagree with. Reza Aslan comes across as idiotic when trying to obfuscate this point and I can see Harris's angst in recent weeks at having to remap this constantly because Ben Affleck overacted.

Brown Bomber

Dave! wrote: »

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.

Not entirely for propaganda purposes though is it? ISIS took hostages and threatened to kill them if their enemies wouldn't agree to a prisoner swap. No prisoner swap came about so they killed their hostages.


They aren't simply killing people for the fun of it or because they are very Muslim. There is a method to their madness, and this is according themselves. Their military strategy is borrowed from Genghis Khan. They travel from town to town killing everything that moves in the most barbaric and public way possible so any potential local resistance will have fled before they arrive onto the next town.

Brown Bomber

Dave! wrote: »

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.

I've just emailed him a link to the recent decapitatation of an innocent in Italy by a radical Zionist Jew. How long do I have to wait until he condemns Judaism for it?

Brown Bomber

jank wrote: »

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

Why is it different? I don't see how being so indifferent to human life that you would have no problem in violently murdering any man woman or child because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time is morally superior to intentional singling out a person and killing them.

Frank Lee Midere

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just emailed him a link to the recent decapitatation of an innocent in Italy by a radical Zionist Jew. How long do I have to wait until he condemns Judaism for it?

Source?

nozzferrahhtoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

advocacy of racially profiling Arabs.

He advocates no such thing.

Actually I have looked closely at his profiling opinions now.... across his books.... his talks on you tube.... and his blogs.

What he advocates would be more correctly called anti-profiling. That is to say he is not advocating profiling anyone specifically. Rather he wants to De-Profile wasted targets and divide the time and resources saved over everyone else.

So if a little old lady clutching her sun cream, a 3 year old clutching her teddy, a white middle class male like Harris or I, and an Arab with a big busy beard and a head towel all walk up to security.... rather than spend 25% of our security resources on each of them....... you recognize that clearly the kiddie and the lady are a waste of check, and you wave them through, and you spend 50% of your security resources on the other two.

Simples. So he advocates nothing like you paint it. At all. It is more the advocacy of doing what we are already doing.... but simply more efficiently with a little element of cop on and common sense.

recedite

jank wrote: »

In the examples given as you mean IS captures a westerner chops their head off with a knife is equally comparable to say, the same terrorist who decapitated an innocent bystander who is then targeted by a drone and is killed by a rocket attack, only for this attack to take the life of a bystander who is also innocent.
As I said, it is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Sure both people end up dead but the intent was clearly different.

That is not actually the example I gave. The guy from London who did the beheading of western hostages is supposed to be known at this stage, but he has not been killed in a drone attack. If he is killed eventually it is very unlikely to be by a drone attack. It will be by a special forces unit sent in to positively ID him, kill him, and take away the body, as they did with Bin Laden.

In the example I gave, some suspicious looking suspected militants were executed. In the eyes of the drone operators, any gathering of men in a combat zone is suspicious. So for those who were unfortunately born males in an area that the US has turned into a a combat zone, they are automatically "suspected militants".

Think about how long it might take to die if your lower legs were blown off by a drone missile. Is it a more humane death than decapitation?

Why is it that are we so repulsed by the beheadings, yet we are much less affected when hearing about the drone murders?

The reason is, we can imagine that killing a person with your bare hands would be a very up close and personal deed. It would require terrible cruelty. Pressing a button remotely to fire a drone missile is very impersonal. You could probably imagine yourself doing it without too much fuss, if that happened to be your job.

But don't get confused between the sanitised nature of "the job", and the effect of the job on the victim. We have seen that before, when the men in spotless white coats dopped Zyclon B canisters into special receptacles attached to the gas chambers. Well insulated from the sounds of the screaming within.

Brown Bomber

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Source?

http://www.thelocal.it/20140826/man-who-beheaded-maid-wanted-to-fight-hamas

Man who beheaded maid 'wanted to fight Hamas'

Homeowner Giovanni Ciallella has now said that his guest Leonelli was obsessed with “the military world” and wanted to fight in Gaza alongside the Israeli army.

“He told me that he had met a rabbi in Rome and was ready to join the Israeli army against Hamas and terrorists armed with missiles,” Ciallella told La Repubblica.

Leonelli had been an atheist when the pair worked together in the IT sector a decade ago, although had recently discovered his Jewish heritage and immersed himself in religious texts.

“He started to study the Torah, the Talmud and once he stopped to speak about the Old Testament with me.

“Then he searched on the internet and saw dozens and dozens of videos. At night he watched films by rabbis at full volume which informed him of what was happening in the Gaza strip,” Ciallella said.

jank

recedite wrote: »

That is not actually the example I gave. The guy from London who did the beheading of western hostages is supposed to be known at this stage, but he has not been killed in a drone attack. If he is killed eventually it is very unlikely to be by a drone attack. It will be by a special forces unit sent in to positively ID him, kill him, and take away the body, as they did with Bin Laden.

In the example I gave, some suspicious looking suspected militants were executed. In the eyes of the drone operators, any gathering of men in a combat zone is suspicious. So for those who were unfortunately born males in an area that the US has turned into a a combat zone, they are automatically "suspected militants".

Think about how long it might take to die if your lower legs were blown off by a drone missile. Is it a more humane death than decapitation?

Why is it that are we so repulsed by the beheadings, yet we are much less affected when hearing about the drone murders?

The reason is, we can imagine that killing a person with your bare hands would be a very up close and personal deed. It would require terrible cruelty. Pressing a button remotely to fire a drone missile is very impersonal. You could probably imagine yourself doing it without too much fuss, if that happened to be your job.

But don't get confused between the sanitised nature of "the job", and the effect of the job on the victim. We have seen that before, when the men in spotless white coats dopped Zyclon B canisters into special receptacles attached to the gas chambers. Well insulated from the sounds of the screaming within.

Firstly, are you familiar with the selection process the US military use for Drone attacks because what you outlay in bold is not how people are selected for the most part. This kinda nullifies the rest of the argument.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-drone-debate-in-one-faq/

The US government does not scour Afghanistan or Pakistan for Male Muslims and kill them as you like to portray. Its a tad more nuanced and complicated than that.

The Murder vs Manslaugheter explanation is apt here and I cannot explain it clearer.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-explains

As for the Godwins law, you smashed it mate!! Zycoln B FFS!:rolleyes:

jank

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why is it different? I don't see how being so indifferent to human life that you would have no problem in violently murdering any man woman or child because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time is morally superior to intentional singling out a person and killing them.

See above, Intent and Malice.

Brown Bomber

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

He advocates no such thing.

Yes he does, along with brown people and South Asians.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually I have looked closely at his profiling opinions now.... across his books.... his talks on you tube.... and his blogs.

Apparently you have missed this explicit statement?

Why do you let Harris' venom poison your mind anyway?

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.

Here is a relevant blog post which rises above Harris muttering under his breath about evil Mooslims and will provide you with a context you will never find with Harris. http://www.juancole.com/2011/05/salaita-dressing-like-a-terrorist.html

One argument in particular keeps arising: the notion that Rahman and Zaghloul deserve what happened to them because they dressed like terrorists. The reasoning goes like this: Muslims commit terrorism; Muslims look a certain way; a certain look thus portends the possibility of terrorism. In short, those who appear to be Muslim are worthy of extra scrutiny because they are more likely to be terrorists than other people.

The belief that Muslims are more likely than others to commit terrorism, however, is a myth. Europol reports that in 2010, out of 249 acts of terrorist violence in Europe, only 3 were attributable to Muslim extremists. Then there is the issue of what constitutes “Muslim” dress. Since the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world live everywhere from Sao Paolo to Djakarta and Johannesburg to Tashkent, they do not exactly have a prescribed uniform. Then, some of what Americans think is “Muslim” fashion isn’t. Bigots bother the poor Sikhs all the time for wearing a turban and tunic. Even Rahman and Zaghloul wore different types of clothing on the day they were profiled.

Here I’d like to focus on this notion of “dressing like a terrorist,” a phrase that has the peculiar intimation of a fashion statement. There is no quantifiable evidence to show that dress is a predictor of any sort of behavior, especially the behavior of terrorism. What we’re dealing with in the Rahman and Zaghloul case is an overwrought imagination that associates political violence what I call the terrorist costume.

The terrorist costume is a simulated reality, circulated in Hollywood and countless news broadcasts, that evokes a causal relation between appearance and action. The terrorist costume is familiar to nearly all Americans: a thick beard, an ashen robe, brown skin, sandals holding dirty feet, and some sort of headgear, usually a turban (Sikh style, of course). The terrorist wearing this costume often sports a Qu’ran, so the audience can be certain that he is a Muslim.

Yet the acts of terrorism that have been committed by radicals of Muslim heritage involved perpetrators, like Mohamed Atta, who didn’t at all resemble the image of the Hollywood terrorist. Rahman and Zaghloul dressed in a way that set off alarms in some of their American co-passengers because the latter entertained Orientalist fantasies. Ironically, Muslim-American clerics are among the more law-abiding people in the country.

To impugn Rahman and Zaghloul for their dress, then, not only robs them of their Constitutional rights but also violates the rules of basic logic. Perhaps because the United States is a country of immigrants and inherently multi-cultural, its people have a tradition of judging a book by its cover. Many Americans think that appearance (skin color, clothes, physiognomy, ethnic typology, gender, sexuality, possessions, and so forth) predicts attitude or behavior. But making judgments by stereotype is recognized by decent Americans as unethical, and there is a reason for which civil rights legislation has made it illegal in some circumstances.

Those who believe that Rahman and Zaghloul brought their unjust treatment on themselves ought to think about what their lives would be like if their own logic were applied to them. In the end, if we are to let fanciful stereotypes dictate access to basic rights of citizenship, then none of us will ever live up to the promise of our own worth, or to that of our nation.

Brown Bomber

jank wrote: »

The US government does not scour Afghanistan or Pakistan for Male Muslims and kill them as you like to portray. Its a tad more nuanced and complicated than that.

Not to mention unreliable.

In the first exposé for their new venture, First Look Media’s digital journal The Intercept, investigative journalists Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald reveal the National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes. The NSA identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cellphone tracking technologies, an unreliable tactic that has resulted in the deaths of innocent and unidentified people. The United States has reportedly carried out drone strikes without knowing whether the individual in possession of a tracked cellphone or SIM card is in fact the intended target of the strike. Scahill and Greenwald join us in this exclusive interview to discuss their report and the launch of their media project.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/10/death_by_metadata_jeremy_scahill_glenn

Still, I suppose it's a step up from rounding up people, torturing them, sometimes to death because they wear a Casio watch (and the Taliban wear Casio).

Brown Bomber

jank wrote: »

See above, Intent and Malice.

I understand your argument but I completely disagree. I think Chomsky compares this willful manslaughter (if undesirable) killing to a man stepping on ants. It completely removes any value on human life, which is arguably worse.

Even then it gets worse - After the "target" has been hit it and a short period of time passes there will be a second strike targetting the medics, family members and anyone else who will have come to the aid of the statistically speaking innocent person who has just been attacked. I believe it is referred to as a "double tap".

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

nozzferrahhtoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes he does, along with brown people and South Asians.Apparently you have missed this explicit statement? Why do you let Harris' venom poison your mind anyway?

No I am still not buying it. I have read exactly his principles on exactly what he means by "DE"profiling and it really has no bearing on what you are trying to present it as.

The blog piece you quoted proves what I am saying. He advocates increased profiling by virtue of negative profiling.

He speaks at length about this during the YT interview which was just linked to on this thread just yesterday.

I get it that you REALLY really want his views to fit into the box that you have entered this thread thinking they fit into. But they dont.

His idea of de profiling is actually very sensible, very workable, and not racist at all given it comes down on ALL races equally, even yours his and mine

recedite

jank wrote: »

Firstly, are you familiar with the selection process the US military use for Drone attacks because what you outlay in bold is not how people are selected for the most part. This kinda nullifies the rest of the argument.

Are you familiar with the accounting method used for counting the corpses?

..Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It 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.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good....

....This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes...

...But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low...
“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

from the New York Times

Snake Plisken

A letter to Ben via Pakistan Today from an oppressed woman http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/10/25/comment/an-open-letter-to-ben-affleck/

Dave!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not entirely for propaganda purposes though is it? ISIS took hostages and threatened to kill them if their enemies wouldn't agree to a prisoner swap. No prisoner swap came about so they killed their hostages.


They aren't simply killing people for the fun of it or because they are very Muslim. There is a method to their madness, and this is according themselves. Their military strategy is borrowed from Genghis Khan. They travel from town to town killing everything that moves in the most barbaric and public way possible so any potential local resistance will have fled before they arrive onto the next town.

That's a nice narrative, almost lends a bit of nobility to cutting the heads off aid workers

The ransom probably isn't even a factor

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/world/middleeast/horror-before-the-beheadings-what-isis-hostages-endured-in-syria.html