Bill Maher and Rula Jebreal Go at it regarding Islam.

[dissolved]

Wow... thanks for proving my point that you have 0 clue about history. Shocking that you know even less than I thought.
I mentioned the Dark Ages... so I'm referring to the fucking Dark Ages. Please educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages


Please, please stop embarrassing yourself.
The Catholic Church IS mainstream Christianity...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Major_denominations





What has that have to do with anything???

Ability to wiki = hero cookie for you!

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not only funding but the Saudis are backing the very core thought that is driving these organisations. Even if the Saudis isn't directly funding ISIS and may even view them as a threat against their own rule doesn't exonerate them from the fact that Salafist thought is whats behind their existance in the first place. Sunni supremacism and its literalism that is tearing through the ME is a direct responsibility on the Saudis who has been spreading this through mosques all over the world.

A Sherdogger(forgot who) described it as the tentacles of extremism that radiate from the House of Saud and I quite like that description. You can chop the tentacles all you want but they'll just grow back if the head is in tact.

 

[dissolved]

And atheism is the reason? FAIL #1


Ah, the good old "no true Scotsman" fallacy. FAIL #2


Of course atheism doesn't have a message. It's not an ideology or an believe system. It's a lack of believing in fairy tales. Nothing more, nothing less. FAIL #3
It doesn't have anything to do with nihilism. FAIL #4

Oh noble atheism.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Read the entire article (sourced) but the following is a memorable quote:

"The total body count between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of 52 atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, individual crime in entire Twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity's worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisiition."

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Total babe, esp for over 40, granted. She takes care of herself and good for her, but her "look..." verbal tick is grade A hard-on softener. She said it what seemed to me, as I was watching, like 10 or 12 times (probably only 5 or 6 but still way too much).

And "look..." is one of the most condescending verbal ticks I think I've ever heard. Saying it once or twice is one thing...but when you say it 5 or 6 times, it starts to mean "look, stupid...". She also makes same conflation Affleck, Aslan make.

Besides this, she wouldn't shut up. She just would not stop talking. She was sitting in between a senator and a four star general, and she easily, easily talked more than both of them combined. And if Maher hadnt cut her off, she'd still be talking.

You watched it with sound on?

 

[MrCrabs1893]

Oh noble atheism.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Read the entire article (sourced) but the following is a memorable quote:

LOL @ conservapedia. FAIL #1
LOL @ presenting an "argument" that was thoroughly debunked countless times. FAIL #2
http://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpr...in-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/

The atheist atrocities fallacy is a multifaceted and multidimensional monster, comprised of a cocktail of illogically contrived arguments. It is, at its core, a tu quoque fallacy, employed to deflect justified charges of religious violence, by erroneously charging atheism with similar, if not worse, conduct. But it is much more than this, for within its tangled and mangled edifice can be found the false analogy fallacy, the poisoning of the well fallacy, the false cause fallacy, and even an implied slippery slope fallacy.

But I guess since you haven't read any history, you also haven't read any argument against you position, ever.

 

[saanen vaeltaa]

Between 2003-2011 half a million Iraqis died violent deaths due to the US invasion and occupation, according to National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/

You live in a fantasy land if you believe that Muslim extremists, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, Iraq under Saddam were as efficient as the US military at destroying men, women, children non-enemy non-combatants.

Bill Maher probably doesn't even know how hard he's pushing state propaganda, executive decrees for more bombs to be dropped because "We'll really wipe out those Muslim extremists this time!"

No, I actually live in the real world. I don't live in Fantasy Land, but I understand why you'd think that. I know from talking with others who've been and live where you must be now, that from the distant shores of Head-Up-Your-Own-Ass Island the real world must look like Fantasy Land.

Let's say 500,000 is how many Iraqis died during Iraq War. That number seems a little high to me, but let's say it's 500,000. You pin all 500,000 deaths on the U.S.? U.S. and coalition forces invaded in March 2003 and by end up April, Husseins & Baath party forces were overthrown. So in eight years that followed, Iraqi insurgents, terrorists, and sectarian forces - you know, the extremist Muslims (Islamists) - bear none of, if not the vast majority of the responsibility for continued violence that brought deaths about etc? It's all on the U.S.? If the U.S. wanted to efficiently kill Iraqis, it could do so a much better job than it did during Iraq War.

Think about it. When thousands of civilians were killed from bombings, suicide attacks, IEDs, etc - who did that: U.S. forces or extremist, Islamist insurgent and terrorist forces? Who prevented the country from being stabilized in eight years after Baaths overthrown: U.S. forces or extremist, Islamist insurgent, terrorist forces? Who intentionally facilitated a civil war: U.S. forces or extremist, Isamist insurgent and terrorist forces? On the other hand, when thousands died from disease, etc: who was trying to set up hospitals and distribute supplies, rebuild infrastructure: U.S. forces or insurgent, terrorist forces?

One group of people were on a secular mission - leaving their lives behind and going to Iraq to try to stabilize it and help rebuild it. The other group of people were either in Iraq or came to Iraq on an extremist religious mission. You don't get to blame the U.S. for all or even most of the deaths. And don't omit intentions - while the U.S. was obviously acting in its own and allied regional interests, it was also incidentally acting in best interest of Iraqis - b/c stable Iraq is in U.S., region's best interests. Extremists were trying to burn it down, establish caliphate, prolong war.

Say you walk by a bar and its crowded. You see one guy in there being an asshole and you walk in and throw him out of the bar. Fight breaks out. Then the guy's buddies and random people in bar start stabbing other people in the bar. Then people start coming into the bar just to attack you and stab other people and keep fight going. You try to help the good people in the bar and then the assholes, old and new, burn part of the bar down and kill a bunch of people. Obviously we've learned that bar, maybe that part of town might be more trouble than its worth. But you're not responsible for all the people who died. You were only trying to help.

And as far as Maher goes, he's anti U.S. forces in Middle East. He lamented U.S. forces bombing ISIS in Iraq/Syria earlier this season. You obviously dont watch RTWBM. At least I hope you don't. If you do, you clearly don't pay attention. Oh, and BTW I was talking about extremist Islamists - insurgents & terrorists, but since you brought up Saddam Hussein - he, his sons, and Baath Party killed waaay more Iraqis before Iraq War than total number of Iraqis killed during Iraq War. Hussein killed millions of Iraqis - 100,000s at a time in the most extreme cases.

 

[Raiman]

Gen. Clark said it. We need to become energy independent (an off fossil fuels) and leave the middle east to the middle east - check the fuck out and stop being hypocrites with who are "good" and "bad" countries depending on interests and dependencies. Concentrating on energy independence should be one of our top 3 issues in this country not fighting desert wars with people we "help" and "liberate" for our gain.

 

[saanen vaeltaa]

Nothing wrong with trying to identify potential biases. It is done in lots of things like picking a jury. And what is more important "debate" platform (if you will) in this country than a trial by jury.

I wont. Fallacious comparison. While it can be useful to identify potential biases in both pre-trial juror selection and in debates, jurors and debaters are different and operate in vastly different arenas with differing effects. Debaters are claimants - that is, those making claims - in an arena with no direct real world effect (potential extended effect t/ influence admittedly, though) whereas jurors are primary claim assessors - assessing claims of prosecutor and defendant - in arena with direct real world effects (assessing guilt, determining punishment, etc.).

Focus, in a debate, should be first and foremost on the validity of the arguments, not the people making the claim. What people should be doing is listening to Maher's claims about Islam and some Muslims and evaluating said claims based on evidence about Islam and Muslims. Now, once you feel confident in having supported or esp. countered an argument based on evidence, sure, by all means look for why someone might feel the way he or she does, esp. if argument wrong. But don't say: Maher's mom is Jewish so what he's saying about Islam is wrong.

Did he have a strict catholic upbringing like going to catholic school for most of his life, or did he just visit church with his father like once a week for an hour sermon sitting in the back? His mom being jewish would make him a jew in the eyes of the jews traditionally no? Did he completely reject that side altogether now? It is not really about your religious beliefs, but the people you associate with even if you dont share everything in common. That is really what your upbringing is and comes from.

Given what I've heard Maher say about his upbringing, I gather the religious extent of his upbringing was more the latter - his father taking him to church every Sunday sort of thing - until he was 13. What Maher is in the eyes of Jews is immaterial to this discussion. The focus should be on his arguments but even if you want to investigation potential bias. It isn't what Jews think of him that matters. It's what he thinks of Jews and Muslims. And Maher criticizes both Jews and Muslims. He views Islam as a greater concern today and criticizes it more vocally, but he also criticizes fundamentalist JudeoChristianity in doctrine, practice.

The truth is I don't know much about Maher's religious upbringing other than what I've heard him say about it, but anytime someone says "he's a Jew" in a discussion without prompt as if this explains anything about somebody's views, much less about validity or invalidity of the argument, it's ultimately taking the focus off of what discussion should be about - the argument. And whether or not you intend it, you essentially saying, as you are, "hey man, we're just asking questions" is a problem for its irrationality at best and its insidiousness at worst.

You're asking the wrong questions.

 

[Rulio Gracie II]

Maher owned Cruz and Christie hard there.

Christie: Given who I am, Putin would have made a different choice
Maher: Why? Because you're fat?

:icon_lol:

 

[dissolved]

LOL @ conservapedia. FAIL #1
LOL @ presenting an "argument" that was thoroughly debunked countless times. FAIL #2
http://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpr...in-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/

But I guess since you haven't read any history, you also haven't read any argument against you position, ever.

First,"FAIL" is about as current as ten years ago. What are you going to use next, "NOT?"

Second, you LOL at my thoroughly sourced article because of its assumed/presumed bias, and then you refute it with an atheist and freethought wordpress blog - if that isn't laughable I don't know what is! The large part of the blog devoted to somehow painting the Biblical text as anti-Semetic is pathetic at best and at its worst, intentionally misleading and deceptive. Of all the anti-Semites I know and have ever known, the vast majority are people who would Categorize themselves as agnostics or atheists. I've never met one Christian ever who had an ant-Semite thought in his head a quite the opposite, they are almost unanimously referred to as "The Chosen People" (and thus, America is called biased to the ethnicity).

Read this article on Hitler being "christian" with its included links on each point (the Middle Ages is also touched upon):

http://stferdinandiii.com/article/2..._the_absurd_claim_that_Hitler_was_a_Christian

 

[Rulio Gracie II]

If she was such a good muslim she'd know women are supposed to keep quiet.

Another interesting factoid about her is that all of the men she is on record dating/marrying are Jewish. According to Islamic doctrine, Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian or Jewish women, but Muslim women may only marry Muslim men. This is why French footballer Franck Rib

 

[Rulio Gracie II]

Bill Maher and especially his good friend Sam Harris are apologists for Western imperialism. If you listen to them speak over and over the tune is "Islam is this set of practices that is anti-woman, anti-human, violent etc. at its core". Not that I disagree with everything they have to say about violence from the Other, they're just big fat cheerleaders for Western planes to fly over and drop bombs on people because some of them are the bogeymen of western liberal democratic ideals.

I can't speak for Sam Harris, but that is not true about Maher. Maher supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. It's true that he identifies with Jews more than Muslims or Christians, even though his father is Irish Catholic and Maher was raised in that religion, and he favors Israel over the Palestinians, but he's against foreign wars and military interventionism. He's basically the exact opposite of his fellow half-Jew Hitchens, who was pro foreign wars and intervention, but also anti-Zionist.

 

[Gervinho]

Fuck she's annoying... almost as annoying as this topic has become. At least Muslims are only butthurt here, and not threatening to murder Bill Maher like they did to that Danish cartoonist.

Muslims....smdh

I dont think stating the obvious is butthurt. A Jew pretending to be an atheist to spread his pro Israel nonsense is obvious for anyone who is not brain washed. And lool at being called Anti Semit:icon_lol:

 

[RTR ATL]

I dont think stating the obvious is butthurt. A Jew pretending to be an atheist to spread his pro Israel nonsense is obvious for anyone who is not brain washed. And lool at being called Anti Semit:icon_lol:

You're a moron; though, that's not news to anybody familiar with your posts here or in the Sports Bar.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

You're a moron; though, that's not news to anybody familiar with your posts here or in the Sports Bar.

Yeah he's a waste of oxygen.

 

[saanen vaeltaa]

So, the poster claimed the boogeyman radical Islamists were killing more innocent people than the innocent US bombs that carpeted a region for a decade.

Carpeted? As in literal carpet-bombing?

Do us and yourself a favor: look up the meanings to words, even words you think you know, before you use them. Because precision drone, air strikes in Middle East are the exact definitional and operation opposite of carpet bombing.

Carpet bombing is large-scale bombing to blow up, more or less, every literal square grid over a large area. It's what we did to some parts of Germany and Japan during WWII and in Vietnam, Cambodia during Vietnam War.

If you're using the word "carpeted", in some poetic, hyperbolic sense to illustrate many places over large area we've used strategic bombing, sloppy or misleading on your part on your part in doing so.

And yes, I said Islamists have killed more innocent people than U.S. bombs. And I said it because they have...easily, both directly through attacks and definitely through sectarian conflict they've instigated, worsened, and prolonged.

BTW you never answered my other question. Who are the bombs, which don't kill nearly as many people as your warped perception of bombing leads you to believe they have, actually trying to kill: a. innocent Muslim civilians or b. jihadist terrorists, Islamist insurgents?

 

[MrCrabs1893]

First,"FAIL" is about as current as ten years ago. What are you going to use next, "NOT?"

Are you angry because I keep using FAIL to point out your embarrassing lack of knowledge and intelligence? How cute :icon_lol: FAIL #1

Second, you LOL at my thoroughly sourced article

LOL @ thoroughly sourced. All the sources are circular links to conservapedia. FAIL #2

if that isn't laughable I don't know what is!

How is it laughable? My "biased source" thoroughly debunks your biased source. Either both are valid, or both aren't. Either way, you lose. FAIL #3

I've never met one Christian ever who had an ant-Semite thought in his head a quite the opposite, they are almost unanimously referred to as "The Chosen People" (and thus, America is called biased to the ethnicity).

Please look up Luthers views on jews. Another well-known part of history you know absolutely nothing about. FAIL #4

Read this article on Hitler being "christian" with its included links on each point (the Middle Ages is also touched upon):

http://stferdinandiii.com/article/2..._the_absurd_claim_that_Hitler_was_a_Christian

FAIL #5:

-Hitler never was a Catholic and never went to Church. [see here]

Funny how their own source contradicts them:

Hitler was confirmed on 22 May 1904.

So much for yet another of your ridiculous "sources". I guess that's what happens when you have absolutely no knowledge and have to rely on the first google-hit that seemingly supports your opinion.

 

[jeffk]

Bill Maher and especially his good friend Sam Harris are apologists for Western imperialism. If you listen to them speak over and over the tune is "Islam is this set of practices that is anti-woman, anti-human, violent etc. at its core". Not that I disagree with everything they have to say about violence from the Other, they're just big fat cheerleaders for Western planes to fly over and drop bombs on people because some of them are the bogeymen of western liberal democratic ideals.

Sam Harris was against the war in Iraq.

He advocates a Manhattan type project for alternative energy in his book so that the US will not have to send the military to protect our interests.

He supports Muslims that want to reform Islam. He is not against Muslims as a people. He is against the dogmatic beliefs that many Muslims (he didn't even say it is a majority of Muslims on the Maher show) hold that are inconsistent with liberal democratic principles.

 

[jeffk]

The lady on the show is very pretty and I bet a lot of people love what she had to say, but it is pretty much nonsense as the other guests and Maher point out.

The way to combat views from an invited speaker to a college campus is to invite a speaker to the college that shares your perspective. It isn't to prevent an invited speaker from speaking on a college campus.

It isn't to call him a bigot and say he shouldn't be given a platform. If his views have no weight and are based upon bigotry, they will be exposed pretty easily on a college campus.

If someone values free speech as she says she does, she should instruct students to stand outside the auditorium with prepared materials on their criticisms of Maher's views to hand out.

The students who disagree with what Maher says can post a rebuttal to the Maher's points after the event and send it to the local and school papers. But it doesn't sound like Maher is even going to say anything controversial at this ceremony.

If this lady really values free speech she would take actions that would enhanced the academic experience of our public universities, instead of undermining it by simply implying that Maher is a bigot and shouldn't be heard on a college campus graduation ceremony.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Go at it again on Overtime. Starts at 5:47 (Also Lol at Rula's eye roll and face combo at 5:13)






Was just on Last night.

I think the really important question we have to answer here is;

Would you rather Rula or Eva? I'm picking Rula. She's a str8 qt3.14 and everything she said still doesn't irk me as much as Eva's "Why do we have a Department of Defense but not a Department of Peace?"