- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 78,173
- Reaction score
- 15,721
He's always said positive things about Jesus' teachings. It's not some "new liberal thing".
But let's continue to make this discussion about Bill Maher's mother.....
Bill Maher and Rula Jebreal Go at it regarding Islam.
- Thread starter Hades86
- Start date
He's always said positive things about Jesus' teachings. It's not some "new liberal thing".
But let's continue to make this discussion about Bill Maher's mother.....
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2007
- Messages
- 37,512
- Reaction score
- 26,775
Would burgle.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 12,472
- Reaction score
- 2,273
Maher versus Diarrhea Mouth Cuts Everyone Off All The Time Lady
saanen vaeltaa
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 0
No, that's not fair to say of her. I don't agree with Jebreal and think she's mistakingly making the same conflation of doctrinal criticism, extremism with prejudice toward all Muslims that Affleck, Aslan, Greenwald, Uygur, and all the rest make.
I think she believes what she's saying. She's just wrong is all.
And she did admit that, in Palestine, apostasy isn't socially acceptable. I don't think she's trying to deceive. She's just wrong and moreover, often off-puttingly arrogant in how she comes off as talking down to people when she is discussing this.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 20,330
- Reaction score
- 12,226
She gets so hot and bothered that sometimes it was hard to take her seriously. Just jumping all over the place, and not putting a coherent thought into words. It must be incredibly frustrating to deal with as a host.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 12,472
- Reaction score
- 2,273
If a person can't make a single concise point, it's very possible that they're talking out of their ass.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2006
- Messages
- 8,404
- Reaction score
- 4
This. She came off of quite stupid on the subject. One's faith will make them blind to such things.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 6,673
- Reaction score
- 1
All liberals do that when debating religious stuff with conservatives. "How can you hate the poor? You love Jesus, and he loved the poor."
Rula being muslim is obvious and not worth discussing. The point is to pretend Bill is an atheist and has no ties with Jews which affect is his views on Israel is nonsense
So, in order to have an unbiased discussion regarding israel, you can't be an atheist with a jewish mother or muslim?
I don't think you've thought it through
I don't think you've thought it through
- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,449
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't know if he was against the war in Iraq, Maher may have been against it; it was an insane undertaking that only a Hitchens and every other intellectual could get behind(besides for Chomsky and a few of his pals anyway.) Harris is still supportive of the idea of US waging war on 'terrorists' whomever they may be wherever they may reside.
I think we have a good idea now that it wasn't a 'blood for oil' type situation, since the oil is just sitting there and the US is pumping out shale oil and undermining the whole region without having a stranglehold on Mid-east oil reserves.
War in Iraq was completely ideological undertaking that Obama gladly took up the torch. Which is baffling Maher and Harris are backing the imperialist ideological machinery that says, "Muslim is enemy, Muslim is other. We must change them or they'll get us." Sam Harris isn't for Muslims reforming Islam as far as I've seen, it's fool's errand asking religious people to correct their religion to better fit the Western Liberal Capitalist scheme.
Last edited:
Didnt say that.....but I am saying its more likely to have biased view when you are connected to one side. And why are people saying his Jewish mum had no influence in his growing up with certain views? People in here talk with such certainty like they were in his house when he grew up. My point is Maher has strong dislike for muslims and is very pro Israel......maybe his background plays a part
- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,449
- Reaction score
- 0
See, I gave you information to link up what I said with reality. Where is your source for 'Islamists have killed more innocent people than US Bombs.'? I can assure you, American weaponry is far superior and more effective at ending human life compared to the handful of RPGs and AKs the rapers and pillagers in the Pick-up trucks are carrying.
Who are the bombs trying to kill? haha. Complete idiocy. The bombs kill every kind of person and it's completely acceptable to those who drop the bombs.
So, Mahers criticism of muslims is unfounded and he's wrong?
All the suicide bombings, beheadings, stoning, anti gay etc are all made up by Maher?
If he was spreading lies, I think you'd have a case
All the suicide bombings, beheadings, stoning, anti gay etc are all made up by Maher?
If he was spreading lies, I think you'd have a case
Didnt say that.....but I am saying its more likely to have biased view when you are connected to one side. And why are people saying his Jewish mum had no influence in his growing up with certain views? People in here talk with such certainty like they were in his house when he grew up. My point is Maher has strong dislike for muslims and is very pro Israel......maybe his background plays a part
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 78,173
- Reaction score
- 15,721
You're just veering further and further off topic.
saanen vaeltaa
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 0
No, you (if I'm talking to the user I think I am. Edit: I am. That was you. Post 60 on Page 06 of this thread) provided a link to a National Geographic article discussing a study that estimated the total number of deaths from all war-related causes from 2003 to 2011.
And unless I'm confusing you with someone else, the way in which you provided the link suggested that you hold the U.S. responsible for all or most of the 500,000 or so deaths your link says occurred during Iraq War.
If this is what you believe, it's a very unnuanced view of the Iraq War and has little to do with reality. This article and the study it discusses focuses on the total number of people killed. If you read the study the article discusses, you reach different conclusion than article author. See below.
You know how to find summaries of sources. Good for you. But can you find sources themselves? And can you understand what they're saying when you do? The sources will do you little good if you aren't capable of understanding what they mean.
Let's stick with your source. Again, the link you provided was to a National Geographic Article, written by Dan Vergano, discussing a study published in PLOS Medicine, an open access freely available online, peer-reviewed weekly medical journal, in October 2013. Go find the study online. I did. Easy enough.
When you've done that, Go to Table 2 - Counts of reported violent deaths by responsible party and by cause, by year and source of report, as collected in the University Collaborative Iraq Mortality Study. That table has two sections. Top shows violent death responsible parties. Bottom shows violent death causes.
Top section first - violent death responsible parties. Both household (h) and sibling (s) reports blame combined militia and criminal categories (h:32%+11%=43%, s:44%+08%=52%)for deaths more than coalition forces (h:35%, s:27%). So according to data gathered from Iraqis, militias/criminals kill more people than U.S.
Bottom section now - violent death causes. According to household (h) and sibling (s) reports, airstrikes account for really low death percentages (h: 07%, s:13%). Actually if we look at car bombs and other explosions (non car suicide bombers?), they combine for higher percentages (h:12%+09%=21%, s:09%+11%=20%).
Now gunshots add up to highest cause of violent deaths (63%), but which group is prolonging the war leading to both more violent deaths and more deaths from conditions of war due to disease and stress, lack of sanitation and food, etc. Is it the U.S. and coalition forces? No. Is it the sectarian militias & terrorists? Yes.
Remember: That source is, in effect, your source - the source talked about in the article you provided a link to. You act like you think most of the people, esp civilians, who died in Iraq War died directly from U.S. bombing. That's not true at all. Is that what you actually believe and if so, where did you get that idea from?
No, you're framing the argument in a different, completely illogical way. The argument we're having is not, as you try to make it above, which side (U.S. or Islamists/Jihadists) have better, more effective arsenal. Rather, the argument is which side is trying to and actually is killing more people.
You say innocent civilian casualties are acceptable to U.S. - that's interesting because it was the U.S. and coalition it led that tried to rebuild the country, while the other group prolonged the conflict and furthered a religious, sectarian civil war.
We can dispute about merits of invasion but you can't dispute that U.S. tried to rebuild, stabilize Iraq as religious sectarianism, extremism prolonged war repeatedly, and then after war - how extremism largely led to destabilization, mass killing of civilians and refugee crisis.
That's indisputable (to the rational-minded). But that won't stop you. Just like not knowing what "carpet-bombing" means didn't stop you from using the term. And just like how you still refuse to admit U.S. isn't trying to kill civilians and is actually trying not to kill them.
Last edited:
I really don't know what you are basing your views on Harris.
Harris is in the process of writing an ebook with reformer Maajid Nawaz. He praises people like Malala Yousafzai. He isn't against Muslims as a people. He speaks out against the dogmatic ideology that some Muslims adhere.
From his blog:
"Although I clearly stated that I wasn
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,876
- Reaction score
- 20,681
I no longer respect Bill Maher because he is an obvious shill for Israel. Some of his comments defending Israel's recent slate of bombings were straight out of the Fox News handbook.
"They were using human shields."
"Is Hamas was in charge, they would do a lot worse." etc
Basically the arguments of a 12 year old.
"They were using human shields."
"Is Hamas was in charge, they would do a lot worse." etc
Basically the arguments of a 12 year old.
saanen vaeltaa
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 0
I'll be sure to pass your complaint on to Bill, but for the record, Hog, do you mean basically a 12 year old as in the sort of 12 year old in such a rush to comment or maybe even troll that he doesn't proofread before posting and so consequently, he spells even the most basic of words like "if" wrong? Or rather do you mean more like the sort of basic 12 year old that can't remember a word in its entirety in context and so uses the wrong words, maybe ones that rhyme, like say, just for example, he says "slate" when what he really means is "spate"?
This is all hypothetical of course, but imagine if someone did that and did it in a post where he was talking about other people's maturity and respect all the while trying to come off as some shrewd judge of character and motives. I mean if he was stupid enough to not even looked over what he typed or know what words to use, I wouldn't take him that seriously in judging, well, anything. All I have to say is if I posted something like that thinking I was hot shit and came back and realized how utterly stupid I must have looked, I'd be soooo embarrassed. What do you think, Hog?
Last edited:
