Originally posted by Zampanó
It's hardly BS. In the 70s, Saudi Arabia was as progressive in its treatment of women as anywhere. It was still an Islamic majority country.Instead of blaming Islam (which hasn't really changed much in a single generation) we need to blame the actual determinants of violence: Poverty, scarcity, etc.
👆
You're the most objective and honest guy on these boards.
Originally posted by Zampanó
It's hardly BS. In the 70s, Saudi Arabia was as progressive in its treatment of women as anywhere. It was still an Islamic majority country.Instead of blaming Islam (which hasn't really changed much in a single generation) we need to blame the actual determinants of violence: Poverty, scarcity, etc.
Really? This is a discussion about terrorism. I was unaware that those are the determinants for terrorism as well. Hell, it's arguable if they're actual determinants of violence, let alone mass genocide. Nevermind that these groups are funded by billionaires, or old groups like Black September had affluent individuals. I don't get what you're trying to say here. Please elaborate.
The blame goes less on Islam, and more on stupid people who purposely misinterpret their "bible" for their own end. Yet another problem of human stupidity, not "outside forces".
Originally posted by psmith81992The blame goes less on Islam, and more on stupid people who purposely misinterpret their "bible" for their own end. Yet another problem of human stupidity, not "outside forces".
Exactly. And that's exactly what Affleck was saying. So why are you agreeing with Maher who was clearly just putting the blame on "Islam" and "Muslims" completely generically?
With his "facts" like "90% of Egyptians agree with killing people who leave the Islamic religion." Egypt's a frigging Secular dictatorship. The Muslim brotherhood were voted into government attempting to provide a lot more freedom to Egyptians but after a short period they were all overthrown and executed. The current "secular" dictatorship has imprisoned Journalists for speaking up for the muslim brotherhood. Yet according to Maher it's "People following Islam" who are the problem in that country.
Affleck even asked Maher what exactly he wants to do about it (apart from spreading the hate) but he conveniently ignored that question.
Exactly. And that's exactly what Affleck was saying. So why are you agreeing with Maher who was clearly just putting the blame on "Islam" and "Muslims" completely generically?
Ben Affleck doesn't make a good argument. His only response is an emotional one claiming "we killed more of them than vice versa". What in the hell does that have to do with anything and what does that prove?
I will never blame religion or "outside forces" over human stupidity, that's why I said there is some truth to Maher's claims. Of course I said "some", because I know his stance on religion and I know how much research he does (minimal).
Originally posted by psmith81992
Because I DO think that Islam is a more violent religion than any other religions in existence, and the fact that terrorism seems to be prevalent in the Islam world speaks to that.
Well then I can't help you. To think that you're clearly a victim of the same prejudice that Maher is.
Terrorism is a reaction to politics not a reaction to people reading their Holy book.
9/11 didn't happen because some Muslims read their holy book and decided they should go kill some Christians. It happened due to a hatred of American politics and nothing else.
And that hatred has only increased in the last 10 years following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Which has directly resulted in more terrorists with even more extreme views. There was no ISIS 10 years ago.
Originally posted by psmith81992Ben Affleck doesn't make a good argument. His only response is an emotional one claiming "we killed more of them than vice versa". What in the hell does that have to do with anything and what does that prove?
He was getting emotional because Maher was being a complete jerk spreading hatred.
And watch it again they don't let Affleck talk for more than 10 seconds without talking over him.
And invading their countries has a direct correlation to the number of terrorists. It just does. There's no point in denying that. The more invasions of Muslim countries take place, the easier it will be for these groups to recruit more terrorists.
Terrorism is a reaction to politics not a reaction to people reading their Holy book.
9/11 didn't happen because some Muslims read their holy book and decided they should go kill some Christians. It happened due to a hatred of American politics and nothing else.
And that hatred has only increased in the last 10 years following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Which has directly resulted in more terrorists with even more extreme views. There was no ISIS 10 years ago.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/isis-a-short-history/376030/
And invading their countries has a direct correlation to the number of terrorists. It just does. There's no point in denying that.
Originally posted by psmith81992Sure. And that negates all of the suicide bombings and beheadings in the Middle East how?
Who talked about negating anything. The question is what do you want to do about it? Invade them more?
Originally posted by psmith81992
The majority of the time, terrorism comes from politics and religion is used as the rationalization.
Yes.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Hmm. I wonder how many African countries we invaded to give way to the rising terrorism there..
???
I'm talking about terrorist attacks on Westerners for the sake of terrorizing them.
I'm talking about terrorist attacks on Westerners for the sake of terrorizing them.
Who talked about negating anything. The question is what do you want to do about it? Invade them more?
Originally posted by psmith81992
When did this debate get o the topic of attacks on Westerners? I thought we were debating Islam and the terrorism that stems from it?
Yeah, except it doesn't stem from Islam.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Invading them less doesn't appear to do anything other than increase the mass genocide in that region.
How would you know when we haven't stopped invading them? If we want to help the people of those countries get out of the terrible regimes they are living under then we should have supported their Intifadas.
Originally posted by psmith81992
At least if we invade them, we can continue killing as many as possible. I believe that if we have the ability to defend those being systematically slaughtered, that we should.
No, we're just making it worse and worse. They're an ideology we're feeding through our Invasions of those countries. Just look at how much worse Iraq is now than it was under Saddam Hussain.
If we actually wanted to "help" we'd have supported the Intifadas when they were happening by supplying the Rebels with weapons, and doing everything we could politically and financially to aid them in toppling their own dictators and establishing their own stable and chosen democratically elected governments.
Instead when the democratically elected government of Eygpt- a result of their Intifada there- gets overthrown and executed, we can't even be bothered to report it never mind outright condemning it.
Yeah, except it doesn't stem from Islam.
How would you know when we haven't stopped invading them? If we want to help the people of those countries get out of the terrible regimes they are living under then we should have supported their Intifadas.
No, we're just making it worse and worse. They're an ideology we're feeding through our Invasions of those countries. Just look at how much worse Iraq is now than it was under Saddam Hussain.
Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million, including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.
Instead when the democratically elected government of Eygpt after the Intifada there gets overthrown and executed, we can't even be bothered to report it.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Except most of it stems from literal translations/mistranslations of the Koran.
Yeah from people who want to fight.
I mean are you going to Credit Islam for all the hundreds of millions of peaceful Musilms who consider themselves Religous, or are you just going to condemn it for the people who do terrorism under it's name?
Originally posted by psmith81992
Their "intifadas" haven't shown to be able to wipe the spit off their shirt without some kind of help so it's hard to believe they wouldn't be overrun.. Which is what we're seeing. I'm all for supporting them if they have the chance to stand on their own two feet.
And I'd be all for supporting "Invasions" if they actually did any good.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Uh, lol..Nobody is even going try to debate the idea that Iraq is somehow worse now than it was under Saddam.
It's relevant to my point that Invasion is just making things worse.
Originally posted by psmith81992
This is precisely what is going to happen if we don't continue intervening. It may not be the optimal solution, but the alternative is far worse.
And as long as we keep intervening the way we are terrorism and radicalism is just going to increase and increase. Which you're going to continue blaming on Islam.
Plus that's where Affleck's point comes in that we're killing a hell of a lot more Muslims than Muslims are killing us.
Yeah from people who want to fight.I mean are you going to Credit Islam for all the hundreds of millions of peaceful Musilms who consider themselves Religous, or are you just going to condemn it for the people who do terrorism under it's name?
And I'd be all for supporting "Invasions" if they actually did any good.
It's relevant to my point that Invasion is just making things worse.
And as long as we keep intervening the way we are terrorism and radicalism is just going to increase and increase. Which you're going to continue blaming on Islam.
Plus that's where Affleck's point comes in that we're a hell of a lot more Muslims than Muslims are killing us.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I believe in personal responsibility.
Good.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Not only is the invasion not making things worse compared to being ruled under Saddam, but your comparison to Saddam's reign is incredible.
So you actually think Iraq is a better place to live now than it was under Saddam?
Wow!
Originally posted by psmith81992
Terrorism was around before we intervened, and it's prevalent in parts of the world where we have a minor presence, if any. So your attempt to make a global correlation doesn't work.
Terrorism was around and hatred specifically towards the US is even worse, and terrorist groups against the US are recruiting a lot more easily.
So yeah the correlation completely works.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Affleck had no point, is the point. Nobody was comparing deaths, and nobody was comparing Americans vs. Muslims. We kill them because the cause suffering on others. We kill them because they kill us. Affleck's response was an emotional outburst lacking any logical reasoning.
Urm... You do realize that's also their reason for killing us right?
Affleck's point was a valid one, and he wasn't even given a proper opportunity to expand on his point. He couldn't even talk for 10 seconds without being talked over.
And why was Affleck getting emotional? Because he cares for Muslims as human beings. Maher clearly just wants us all to hate on Muslims.
So you actually think Iraq is a better place to live now than it was under Saddam?Wow!
Terrorism was around and hatred specifically towards the US is even worse, and terrorist groups against the US are recruiting a lot more easily.So yeah the correlation completely works.
Urm... You do realize that's also their reason for killing us right?
And why was Affleck getting emotional? Because he cares for Muslims as human beings. Maher clearly just wants us all to hate on Muslims.