News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Why ISIS hates us

Started by Cocoa Beware, August 10, 2016, 04:38:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

pr126

#15
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 11, 2016, 08:23:52 PM
Lost me there, Baruch--what does the Viet Cong have to do with religion???  And do they even exist any more?

This is just one of Baruch's little irreverent quips. He thinks it is amusing. Ignore it.

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 11, 2016, 08:23:52 PM
Lost me there, Baruch--what does the Viet Cong have to do with religion???  And do they even exist any more?

You are the one that wants to Go Rambo all over the Mideast.  I know I guy who has deployed four times ... how many ISIS guys have you killed?  What I was saying was ... the US has lost every war since 1945 ... how are you going to help the US win one for the Gipper (yes, Ronnie is dead too).

The Viet Cong still exist, they occupied Saigon, renamed it Ho Chi Minh city, in case you have forgotten.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: pr126 on August 12, 2016, 05:29:57 AM
This is just one of Baruch's little irreverent quips. He thinks it is amusing. Ignore it.

How many Little Sambo countries has England conquered lately?  Man up or shut up.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2016, 06:32:54 PM
You are the one that wants to Go Rambo all over the Mideast.  I know I guy who has deployed four times ... how many ISIS guys have you killed?  What I was saying was ... the US has lost every war since 1945 ... how are you going to help the US win one for the Gipper (yes, Ronnie is dead too).

The Viet Cong still exist, they occupied Saigon, renamed it Ho Chi Minh city, in case you have forgotten.
Baruch--when have you ever read from a post of mine that I want to 'Go Rambo all over the Mideast'!  Are your glasses failing you or are you drinking too much??????

Not only do I not want to go Rambo, I would prefer to just pull out entirely and let the Mideast sort this shit out themselves.  And yes, I do realize we have lost every war since '45.  I've said so several times.  I would really like to go back in time and remove Bush/Cheney from the face of the earth--they are the direct cause of most of the 'terrorism' that the world is facing today.  We cause this shit--and there is no way we can fix it.  We simply need to get out.

Maybe you should reread some of my posts and show me where I've said different. 

And Yes, I am fully aware that the viet cong exist in Vietnam--but not as the viet cong any more.  And yes, I know that Saigon is now Ho Chi Min City.  You are really out there on this one, my man.  Seriously, are you feeling okay?????
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 11, 2016, 08:16:35 AM
I like your two choices.  I vote for extinction.  And while we are at it, let's add christanity, and all other organized religions.

I misread this ... my bad.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2016, 06:49:11 PM
Plausible because the US and SA founded Al Qaida.  But that doesn't mean that Shrub ordered 9/11.  Germany and Japan were allies, and Japan never did what Germany asked them to do.
Yes, I agree that the US and SA founded Al Qaida by their actions.  It is push-back from the US trying to be an empire builder.  No, Shrub did not order 9/11.  But he botched handling it, tho, and in that is one of the causes of ISIS.  Germany and Japan were not really allies--they had a partnership based on a common enemy.  It was developed so they would not attack each other or claim resources in certain parts of the world.  Germany would have turned on Japan just as it did with Russia, when the time was 'right'.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?


Shiranu

Believe it or not, this is actually a serious question with nothing to do with discrediting or attacking a position...

Hasn't Sam Harris had a huge falling out with the atheist community, where he is no longer a spokesman, or am I mistaken?
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Baruch

DeGrasse Tyson shuns Harris.  I suppose because Harris has ventured beyond science into philosophy and advocacy .... to be the new Carl Sagan, and Tyson doesn't like the competition ;-)  I suspect the atheist community would lean toward Tyson.

Of course the video, is part of the merging of Warhol and the Internet, where everyone gets their 15 minutes of YouTube fame ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

I have heard some remarks from atheists that tend to disassociate from Harris.  I've also heard such remarks about Dawkins and Hitchens, but slightly fewer such remarks.  It's odd, I've never gotten around to reading Harris, but I have read something from most of the others.  To me it's all just an articulation of my own thoughts, although usually much more literary in nature.  From what I've heard Harris say in short videos here and there, I think he makes some good points.  But talk or communicate long enough, and everyone will eventually say something that someone else will disagree with.

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Shiranu on August 21, 2016, 11:15:21 AM
Believe it or not, this is actually a serious question with nothing to do with discrediting or attacking a position...

Hasn't Sam Harris had a huge falling out with the atheist community, where he is no longer a spokesman, or am I mistaken?

I like Sam Harris and find he makes a lot of sense. Some people don't like him because he directly takes on Islam as "the motherload of bad ideas" and some don't like him because he discusses philosophy and spirituality. The Bill Maher interview with Sam Harris and Ben Affleck really split people regarding Harris.

https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60

As far as the article on "Why we hate you" it seems very straightforward and philosophically coherent. This is not what all Muslims believe, much to the disappointment of the Muslim who wrote the article. I also completely understand why the author wrote it.

Cocoa Beware

#26
Quote from: Shiranu on August 21, 2016, 11:15:21 AM
Believe it or not, this is actually a serious question with nothing to do with discrediting or attacking a position...

Hasn't Sam Harris had a huge falling out with the atheist community, where he is no longer a spokesman, or am I mistaken?

He has said plenty of things I don't agree with, but no deal breaker in particular, and he has had a lot of his views misconstrued by his various adversaries.

But I've been listening to his podcast for while, where he has several times made it clear he does not want his audience to be an echo chamber, since it serves no real purpose. He insists that his listeners hold him accountable for what he says, which if nothing else seems fair enough.

FaithIsFilth

#27
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 22, 2016, 10:11:11 PM
I like Sam Harris and find he makes a lot of sense. Some people don't like him because he directly takes on Islam as "the motherload of bad ideas"
This is true. Many think it's wrong to criticize Islam more than Christianity for instance, but there are only a few people like that that post here. I would say that atheists dislike him more for overstating the treat that Muslims and Islam actually pose to the West and for his downplaying US foreign policy, saying dumb stuff like George Bush and Dick Cheney had the best of intentions and just wanted to help the people of Iraq by turning Iraq into Arkansas. I think Sam knows better than that and is well aware that what he's saying is complete nonsense. Maybe Sam is just a secret neo-con and doesn't want to give his real reasons for why he supports US intervention. I mean, he can't exactly just come out and say that he thinks these wars are smart and that they are a good idea because if you don't take the geopolitical gain, the Russians will and they will benefit geopolitically rather than the US. He probably understands that coming out of the closet as a neo-con and admitting that he doesn't give a shit about Middle Eastern people dying is not something that would go over too well with the atheist community, so instead he acts like Muslims are a huge threat who could be about to get a nuke and set it off in a US city, and the US has the best interests of Middle Easterners and Africans in mind when they intervene in these countries.

SGOS

His comments about Bush and Cheney are hard to fathom.  No one knows if they were social justice warriors, or just plumb stupid, evil, or exactly what their intentions were.  I have heard people who despised Bush and Cheney describe neocons as idealists (usually a term of adulation), and if you had kept up with New American Century's website, it was no secret that the neocons certainly aspired to the ideal of bringing the Mideast into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if necessary.  Their doctrine was an idealism, and while New American Century was described as a conservative intellectual think tank, sometimes even by detractors, their ignorance of human nature is mind blowing considering they were afforded the label of intellectual at all.  I suspect "intellectual" was more a label they created for themselves, and the media, just ran with it.  For so called intellectuals, they managed to plumb the depths of stupidity, and made it to national policy.

So when Harris so graciously says, "Bush and Cheney had the best of intentions, I would agree that it is quite possible.  I wouldn't hang the label of evil on either of them right away, because I don't know what their actual thought processes involved.  But evil intentions should not be ignored.  Harris gives them the benefit of that doubt. 

The reason I recoil from Harris' statement is that, while he gives them the benefit of the doubt and describes it as "best intentions," it raises serious questions about his qualifications as a skeptic.  He has no evidence to support the "best intentions" claim at all.  And I remember him making that statement without even the adjective of "probably" included.  He was declaring a statement of fact without anything to back it up.  This makes me suspicious about how much his skepticism is compromised by lack of reason when he is affected at a deeper emotional level.

My description of Harris would be a guy who makes sense, but tends to be a little sloppy in how he arrives at his conclusions.

Baruch

I gave Bush/Cheney the benefit of the doubt 2001- 2003 ... but after that it became clear what they were up to.

Speaking of suitcase nukes ... the DHS has put out a request for small nuclear radiation detectors to be worn by their agents everywhere ... just in case.  False flag coming up.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.