Ben Affleck defends Muslims on U.S. TV talk show

I'll agree with Maher on this one.

He called Islam “the only religion that acts like the Mafia, that will f_cking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.”

Am I the only one that thinks it is ironic that AFP is freely using a word that I would not be allowed to use in my post?

I just watched this and as far as I could see Harris and Maher absolutely demolished Affleck. Harris and Maher didn't just quote 'a bunch of polls', they gave concrete examples such as 78% of British Muslims believing those who draw cartoons of Muhammad should be prosecuted. Affleck seemed to be falling for the idea that criticism of Islam is akin to a racial slur rather than criticism of ideas.

"1979-81 Iran hostage crisis"

Amazing how that came to an end immediately after Reagan took office.

“Islam at the moment is the mother lode of bad ideas,”

Just at the moment? Islamists have been able to marry 10-year-old girls for quite some time.

.....And stone to death some of those same girls who's family would refuse to allow the marriage.

I saw this exchange and it was surprisingly persuasive on the part of Harris and Maher. I guess the counter argument to Harris and Maher is, "So Islam has a lot of problems. How is the west supposed to fix it? Sometimes the best action is to let the nutters kill each other and return in a couple centuries to see if anyone is left."

I think both sides are wrong. Maher and Harris by lumping all Muslims in one pile(not all are extremists) and Affleck for minimizing the violent undertones of not only Islam, but all Abrahamic religions. Every religion has its history of varying degrees of violence.

@MarkG

.....And stone to death some of those same girls who's family would refuse to allow the marriage.

Can you kindly enlighten us with some examples?

"1979-81 Iran hostage crisis"

Amazing how that came to an end immediately after Reagan took office.

Yeah...and then the beginning of the Iran-Contra affair. Good one.

I thought Affleck spoke well on this. For example, they talked about Muslims in the Philippines killing someone - he said you criticize the person doing the killing, not the entire Philippines.

The problem with racism is that people start judging individuals based on actions (either real or imagined) perpetuated by others in the group. The person is being made to pay for wrongs others have done (or are thought to have done). People should not be made to pay for the actions of others, simply because they share a skin color/religious affiliation/sexual orientation. Islamophobia is the same thing. It's judging the entire group based on the actions of a small number.

There are most definitely problems within Islam. There are some outdated ways of thinking, and some despicable actions perpetuated by some of the group. But there are also progressives within that group. Turkey has had more female leaders than most (all?) western nations. Indonesia as well. Not all muslims are the same, and condemning all because of a few crazies would be frowned upon if we were speaking of black people, yet seems to be accepted if we are speaking of Muslims. It's bigotry no matter the group.

I think both sides are wrong. Maher and Harris by lumping all Muslims in one pile(not all are extremists)

Except that that is a straw man; neither man said such a thing. Criticizing Islam isn't racist. Ideas do not deserve respect; all should be examined and toxic ones should be loudly criticized.

I can't substantiate, but was a credible source from a serving soldier. -SenceNotSoCommon.

What is western media fact is stoned adulterers, females of course, even if only an accusation. Even if flirtatious.

Planned marriages, not by the girls.

Child sex toys , boys for the elder men.

And what I love about the martyrs of 9-11. While frequenting strip clubs maintaining their devout 40 virgin recipient Muslim belief.

The religion is socially male dominant, socially intolerant and often, within the region fatally intolerant of even slight disagreements.

@john

I think both sides are wrong. Maher and Harris by lumping all Muslims in one pile(not all are extremists) and Affleck for minimizing the violent undertones of not only Islam, but all Abrahamic religions. Every religion has its history of varying degrees of violence.

True and I would agree with you on most points as well, But Affleck doesn't realize that the majority of Muslims were killed and butchered more by other Muslims then by any other nation or religion. Also, I think he doesn't understand that the anger towards Islam when we talk about the religion is about the radical, fanatical faction side of it. This is one reason why I get so worked up when celebs start screaming about a topic they know so little about and just selectively take small dissections of an argument and claim they know what they are talking about.

Highlights

http://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60

This kind of debate is important and reflects what a lot of people are thinking. There has to be an Affleck out there otherwise the media would be filled with just hatred towards all Muslims, and that's just not right. There needs to be a pushback against the Mahers.

And there are stats to support any side of an argument, but Ive never seen a stat saying 100% Muslims support ISIS/ISIL or 100% Muslims support persecutions for such and such an act, it may be 78% or a high percentage, but it's not 100% meaning all Muslims can't be lumped in together.

Maybe even some Muslims themselves are scared of dissenting which is why they give the answers they give, who knows. Or, maybe this is reaching, but Ive never been overly proud of my home country, but when people bash it, even I stick up for it sometimes making it appear I support all my country's actions.

But Affleck doesn't realize that the majority of Muslims were killed and butchered more by other Muslims then by any other nation or religion. Also, I think he doesn't understand that the anger towards Islam when we talk about the religion is about the radical, fanatical faction side of it.

I'm not sure why you think either of the above points. He was clear in his criticism of the negative points of Islam, what he was speaking against was criticizing the entire group based on the actions of a few.

This is one reason why I get so worked up when celebs start screaming about a topic they know so little about and just selectively take small dissections of an argument and claim they know what they are talking about

I've never been a fan of Affleck the actor, but I am a fan of Affleck the person. He is a well spoken person who, when watching him speak, obviously isn't just talking crap, and is knowledgeable on that of which he is speaking.

Unless you feel the same about actors as you do about comedians, where you have some as-of-yet unexplained logic that precludes someone from either of these professions from being able to be knowledgeable on any other subject. That logic baffles me though, and until/unless you can explain it, I'm going to have to disagree with it.

Islam “the only religion that acts like the Mafia, that will ****ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.”

This just about sums up the whole issue with Islam. Everyone tries to sweep this fact under the rug, but saying it is just a few extremists. Well those extremists are being allowed to exist and flourish by the silence of the rest of the Muslims, who do not publicly denounce the barbarism. Where are these "good" Muslims? The problem is the extremists are performing murders and mayhem in the name of Islam and the "good" Muslims never say a word. It is not about racism, it is about a religious group that by their silence, condone the actions of the radicals. How does this get a "free pass" in public discussion and debate? If any other religion or ideology were performing beheadings, public stonings and honor killings, the world would be in a total uproar of condemnation and demands for the whole of the offending group to denounce and take action. All we hear from the Muslim world is condoning silence.

Maher who normally is down the middle on most political matters is way nutty on this issue. Must be the hollywood influence. For example on a previous show he stated that the difference between Israel and the Muslim states is that the latter are wrapped up in religion, true, while Israel is not, not true. Not true by a long shot. Israel is a religious state.

And obviously there are racist overtones to all of this. And religious hatred as well.

Lets not forget that bush junior told the media that he went to war in Iraq because God told him to do so. Millions of Arabs have died due to the immoral delusion of one Christian. But of course many US Christians supported the invasion as the second crusade against the dark people of the Middle East.

www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa‎

People like Affleck would be one of the first in line to have his head chopped off should his islamic mates come to power. His line about those who criticise muslims being "racist" is pure nonsense: anyone, of any race, can be a muslim.

It's astonishing that so many "liberals", such as Affleck, who constantly defend minority rights, women's rights etc. are so quick to defend a religion which espouses misogyny, intolerance of homosexuals, restrictions on freedom of expression, death to apostates and many other things diametrically opposed to their own beliefs.

I can't substantiate, but was a credible source from a serving soldier

Thoughtful, in-depth and objective analysis, then.

Affleck has now gone right down the respect standings in my opinion now, he is so out of touch with this. He is basically condoning a religious group who sits on its hands and does nothing while its members murder rape steal and do what ever else it feels at will.

If this religion and its people truly had a heart they would stop the members doing these barbaric acts in the name of some god, anyone who supports this group while the group itself does not take a stand against its murderous intent gets no respect from me or people I know.

Note the above statement is written with extreme restrain as I cannot freely say what I think or feel on here on this topic for it would be deleted.

But true as told to me. Look into it, it's no secret such acts take place in Afghanistan. Do the research in non liberal media. Liberal media likes to hide truth they think the public should not hear.

I'm not sure why you think either of the above points. He was clear in his criticism of the negative points of Islam, what he was speaking against was criticizing the entire group based on the actions of a few.

Actually, he wasn't clear enough and didn't elaborate about the atrocities affecting the Islamic community that is perpetrated 99% by other Muslims. I didn't hear him call the Islamic out on that. But he was sure to call out the west.

I've never been a fan of Affleck the actor, but I am a fan of Affleck the person. He is a well spoken person who, when watching him speak, obviously isn't just talking crap, and is knowledgeable on that of which he is speaking.

He is passionate about the issue, I don't have a problem with that and he is entitled to his opinion and it makes for a great debate for sure.

Unless you feel the same about actors as you do about comedians, where you have some as-of-yet unexplained logic that precludes someone from either of these professions from being able to be knowledgeable on any other subject.

I told you twice, you want me to tell you again??

Once more, here is what I said:

Actually, anyone that takes the word of a comedian, actor, entertainment industry about geopolitical politics is pretty much unqualified to make accurate factual statements and that's the problem with society, when you have people getting their information from Stewart, Colbert and the likes instead of listening to people that do this kind of work for a living shows us how deep down in the gutter we've sunk.

That logic baffles me though, and until/unless you can explain it, I'm going to have to disagree with it.

This is the 3rd and final time.

It’s gross, it’s racist,”

No Affleck, they were not being racist. Since it's okay for Progressives to be anti-religion the only thing he can come up with to support his politically correct views is to throw down the old reliable race card. I'm just amazed that a far Lefty like Maher could see through the PC flak and call it like it is. Of course not all Muslims support Islamic fascism, but there is a lot of latent support for it and a lot of wealthy Muslims that fund it.

Imagine how Affleck would paint Christians with a broad brush if a whacked out guy attacked an abortion doctor. But when IS (the Islamic State) goes around beheading people he cannot keep himself from putting up the racism defense.

As bad a judge he is of human behavior, I thought the movie Gone Girl was pretty good. Stick to reading the lines given to you Ben. Save the thinking to people who can tell the difference between religious zealotry and racism.

John GaltOct. 07, 2014 - 08:27AM JST I think both sides are wrong. Maher and Harris by lumping all Muslims in one pile(not all are extremists) and Affleck for minimizing the violent undertones of not only Islam, but all Abrahamic religions. Every religion has its history of varying degrees of violence.

Amen brother! (with "irony set to maximum")

“the only religion that acts like the Mafia, that will f-ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.”

In 1981 the "Christian Army" was attacking and killing doctors in the United States to oppose abortion. In 1999 "Concerned Christians" were found trying to blow up holy sites (and the people in them) in Jerusalem. As recently as 2010 nine members of a Christian militia were arrested in the USA. In 2011 a Christian killed 77 people in Norway. In North-East India there are Christian terrorist groups today.

Numerous authors have received death threats from so-called Christians, including JK Rowling.

And yet I don't see the US army rolling out to combat the Christian threat... probably because the US army is fundamentally a Christian crusade against Islam, repeating a pattern established centuries ago, and for precisely the same reasons as the first crusades.

The problem here is religion in general.

@zurc

Lets not forget that bush junior told the media that he went to war in Iraq because God told him to do so. Millions of Arabs have died due to the immoral delusion of one Christian. But of course many US Christians supported the invasion as the second crusade against the dark people of the Middle East.

I love how the liberals like to spin that statement. Like with Palin, Gibson was trying to bait him into saying something he never said.

http://youtu.be/XzjCHlRA_Yc

Zurc, give it up, Bush is long, long gone. I hated Carter, but I don't go on about the long gas lines, it's history now. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Christians or Christianity, where do you get that?? The Radical Islamists are trying to and have succeeded in establishing a caliphate. This is all happening under the president that is in the oval office and that is Barack Obama, now what's unfolding is NOT entirely all his fault, there are other contributing factors, but Obama failed and is still failing to see the trappings and how dangerous radical Islam is. The world sees Islam as a dangerous and violent religion and now it's getting to the point that we are almost having weekly or bi-weekly beheadings and with the media and the internet at their disposal. This is something that Affleck didn't talk about, I would've loved to have seen that, but he didn't. This is exactly what I call cherry picking.

Before people start saying that Maher is a racist because he only slams Islam, please check this documentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2zhlDbMfDg&app=desktop

“Islam at the moment is the mother lode of bad ideas,” said fellow guest Sam Harris, a philosopher who claimed that 20 percent of the world’s Muslims are either jihadists or Islamists, according to “a bunch of poll results.”

When Affleck heard this vague and imprecise statement he well realized he was being shoehorned into a faux "for" or "against" argument, the type of which could be used to validate unlimited kinds of "bad ideas". Good for Ben.

In 1981 the "Christian Army" was attacking and killing doctors in the United States to oppose abortion. In 1999 "Concerned Christians" were found trying to blow up holy sites (and the people in them) in Jerusalem. As recently as 2010 nine members of a Christian militia were arrested in the USA. In 2011 a Christian killed 77 people in Norway. In North-East India there are Christian terrorist groups today.

You would have a point if these attacks were accepted by the societies in which they happened, but they were not. Neither were they accepted by mainstream Christians. The attackers caught in the types of cases you mentioned are arrested and tried for their crimes. Basically you are doing the same thing people do when they lump all Muslims together.

It is correct to call out extremism in any and all religions and that includes Islam.

I didn´t see the show, but from the article, Ben Afflec rattled down all the misleading and false talking point usually brought up by Islamist apologists.

I watched the show - overtime too - and I don't think Affleck was wrong. However what he was doing was putting up a straw man: the other guests, and Maher, repeatedly pointed out they were talking about an extremist minority, and Affleck kept going on about how that doesn't relate to all Muslims. He had a point, but it was not really the point of the conversation. It was like they were having two different debates.

@Droll Quarry (and the rest of you, I suppose)

Where are these "good" Muslims? The problem is the extremists are performing murders and mayhem in the name of Islam and the "good" Muslims never say a word. It is not about racism, it is about a religious group that by their silence, condone the actions of the radicals.

The 'good' muslims, like myself, are trying to earn a living, mainly. How do you know we 'never say a word'? I just spoke to some (muslim and non-muslim) friends a few days ago; (to cut it short) I said I do not condone the actions of the radicals, that these radicals (to my mind) deserve 7th hell. You weren't there to hear, I suppose. Or wait. You expect to see such on TV? In the papers? Maybe a whole list of names of all 1 billion good muslims (oops, 'good' muslims) who condemn the actions of these few? Should the list be published everytime this sort of sh*t happens? Or maybe these non radical muslims should hold rallies every other week to condemn the radicals? As if we haven't anything else to do...

Or maybe you just need a muslim friend or two. That might help, not just you but most of the rest of you here at Japan Today. Really, now. How many of you have any muslim friends (or should I say 'friends')? As in, muslim friends who you can actually talk to?

Another possibility would be that you have to learn another language, or read more. Not all condemnations of radical muslims are written in english, you know. Or japanese.

For the record. I , as a 'good' muslim, hereby condemn the actions of radical muslims/islamists/whatever you wish to call them and pray they receive their just rewards (which, I feel, is nothing less than hell). OK? More than a few words. Sure hope this has some value to those who always say 'good' muslims say nothing.

On the claim that Muslims "stone to death some of those same girls who's (sic) family would refuse to allow the marriage"

I can't substantiate

Yet:

Look into it, it's no secret such acts take place in Afghanistan.

The ball's in your court. We look forward to reading this great "truth."

Affleck totally went in the wrong direction as soon as he tried to play the "racist" card. Bad ideologies are bad ideologies. And Affleck still believes that those of us who are against Islam (the politico-religion) are against all muslims. Yeah right. When I see someone of Islamic faith I first observe them by their actions and way of thinking before can have at least some determination as to whether they are a good person or a bad person. None of us are capable of mind-reading (or maybe some are but this isn't X-men) and can't judge a person by their appearance or religious affiliation, although I still hold to the fact that Islam was founded by a man with a wicked mindset, and nothing truly good has come of it for it to be in such a state after hundreds of years past. And the actions of the extremists are shown to be supported and encouraged by the Qur'an and hadiths which only lends credibility to how destructive a religious ideal it truly is. When one truly looks at what is going on in Islamic governed countries and how their laws are run, the women and religious minorities are treated and the state supported persecution one would have to be blind to not comprehend that the source is the belief system that promotes such injustice.

I know plenty of crazy fanatical Christian (evangelists mostly) that I believe are quite insane and try to promote dangerous ideologies (but that aren't supported at all by Jesus teachings).

well said, kikai. Droll Quarry has conveniently ignored the chorus of disapproval from the Muslim world which has been widely publicized - not just governments, but religious leaders, Imams and the like have all said that ISIS are un-Islamic criminals. Not only that, but Muslim countries are fighting ISIS because they have the most to lose.

The fact that ISIS's main declared allies are.....the Pakistani Taliban...... really says it all.

Kikai:

" The 'good' muslims, like myself, are trying to earn a living, mainly. How do you know we 'never say a word'? I just spoke to some (muslim and non-muslim) friends a few days ago; (to cut it short) I said I do not condone the actions of the radicals, that these radicals (to my mind) deserve 7th hell. You weren't there to hear, I suppose. Or wait. You expect to see such on TV? In the papers? "

You mean like the massive muslim demonstrtions and loud condemnations from musli political leaders we see every time Israel acts against Hamas, or some cartoonist publishes a Mohammed picture? If ISIS was as offensive to islamic teaching as you say, wouldnt we see something like that? But we don´t. There are no loud demonstrations in Turkey that we saw during the latest Gazah incident -- it s all very calm, while ISIS established radical Shariah in Kurdistan. Fact is , ISIS acts on koranic commands to the letter and has a strong base in the Sunni community in the areas they control.

About your friends, you don´t say if they are Shia, Alevite, or perhaps Ahmediyya, i which case of course they would hate ISIS. Anectotal evidence is really pointless here.

Must have been fun to watch. Will search on YouTube.

Shalom

So lets make this simple for the right wingers who wrap their religious enmity behinds confused and contradictory statements. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian who bombed a government building killing 168 people and wounding 600. This is the worse case of domestic terrorism. He was a member of the Christian Identity Movement at the time. And of course the NRA and republican. Now if you right wingers were to use the same sloppy logic that you apply to muslims who are criminals to christians who are criminals, you would all condemn the christian faith as well. But you do not because behind your statements is racism and religious bigotry. All religions are delusions, by definition. But just because one member of a faith is a terrorist does not mean all the rest of the sheep who worship that faith are also terrorists. The USA has millions of muslims, none of them have done what McVeigh did. Last, for you bass, you are not only not fully aware of what happened in the run up and occupation of Iraq you are quite naive. bush even used the word crusade himself to describe the Iraq invasion to find WMD which did not exist. I hope you remember that.

President Bush's war plans are risky, but Mr. Bush is no gambler. In fact he denies the very existence of chance. ''Events aren't moved by blind change and chance'' he has said, but by ''the hand of a just and faithful God.'' From the outset he has been convinced that his presidency is part of a divine plan, even telling a friend while he was governor of Texas, ''I believe God wants me to run for president.''

This conviction that he is doing God's will has surfaced more openly since 9/11. In his State of the Union addresses and other public forums, he has presented himself as the leader of a global war against evil. As for a war in Iraq, ''we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them.'' God is at work in world affairs, he says, calling for the United States to lead a liberating crusade in the Middle East, and ''this call of history has come to the right country.''

@Frunky cherry-pick much?

You have to hand it to Bill Maher, he tells you what other celebrities are too scared to, namely that Abrahamic religions are anti-science and in many of their positions unethical and Islam most of all.

You won't see the Muslim condemnations on Fox News, as they don't serve that outlet's agenda.

This from Vatican Radio in July:

The most explicit condemnation came from Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the group representing 57 countries, and 1.4 billion Muslims.

...Meanwhile, Turkey's top cleric, the spiritual successor to the caliphate under the Ottoman Empire, also touched on the topic during a peace conference of Islamic scholars.

In a not-so-veiled swipe at ISIS, Mehmet Gormez declared that "an entity that lacks legal justification has no authority to declare war against a political gathering, any country or community.” He went on to say that Muslims should not be hostile towards "people with different views, values and beliefs, and regard them as enemies.”

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/07/25/worlds_muslim_leaders_condemn_attacks_on_iraqi_christians/1103410

I should have added at the end of my statement "right now". Christianity had its beheadings and burnings... back in the 14th century.

Affleck, well known for his progressive views,

Oh really? And here I thought he was known for being an insipid Hollywood liberal. I guess the editorializing of his views as "progressive" is in no way an attempt to sway the tone of the article.

@ wolfpack

No Affleck, they were not being racist. Since it's okay for Progressives to be anti-religion the only thing he can come up with to support his politically correct views is to throw down the old reliable race card.

Exactly. For all of Ben's supposed "expertise" on the subject he has somehow failed to realize that muslim isn't a race.

'm just amazed that a far Lefty like Maher could see through the PC flak and call it like it is.

Maher didn't used to be as far left as he is now. Losing his show and getting attacked the way he did for his post 9-11 comments I think caused him to dramatically shift to the left. He used to be one of the few true Libertarians with a public voice. Still and all, he's worth listening to because unlike most liberals and socialists he remembers what he said yesterday and attempts to hold positions that are consistent with one another. I may not agree with many things he says but at least the man doesn't pander his principles. I respect that.

Of course not all Muslims support Islamic fascism, but there is a lot of latent support for it and a lot of wealthy Muslims that fund it.

Yes, but the very accurate point Maher and Harris were trying to make (over Ben's outraged wailings) was that even if you use conservative estimates a quarter of the religion falls into the category of fundamentalist. Lets not forget that in North America you are a fundamentalist Christian (by the definition of the left) if you are against abortion, believe the husband is the head of the household and hold that homosexuality is a sin. By those three criteria alone I would venture to say that the number of fundamentalist muslims is far greater than the conservative figures thrown out by Maher and Harris. Hell even a lot of "westernized" muslims support little enclaves of sharia law within the democracies that were kind enough to accept their immigration from whatever hell hole they fled.

If you doubt the fact that Bill Maher was calling it like it is, look to this very thread to find liberals trying to justify the sickening outrages perpetrated by islam using the very examples Harris cited on the program ... thirty year old bombings of an abortion facility and the occasional use of the word "god" by Bush or other US presidents.

Affleck made an ass of himself ... not that anyone was surprised I'm sure. Props to Bill Maher for taking on the stinking leftist rhetoric that pollutes so much of the debate in North America.

SenseNotSoCommon : You won't see the Muslim condemnations on Fox News, as they don't serve that outlet's agenda.

Google gets 53 hits on foxnews.com for "muslims condemn".

On the first page of hits there are 10 hits: 'Muslims condemn Mumbai attacks (2008), American Muslims condemn anti-American protests (2012), British Muslims Condemn Terror Attacks (2005), Filipino Muslims condemn bin Laden killing (2011), Muslim Scholars Condemn Terrorists (2005), New Poll Shows Worry Over Islamic Terror Threat ... And why don't more moderate Muslims condemn the radicals who preach hate in the name of Islam? (2007), American Muslims condemn massacre at Fort Hood (2011), Muslims Condemn Strikes on Gaza (2008), Muslims condemn massacre at Fort Hood (2011, banner repeat), Muslims condemn massacre at Fort Hood (2011, banner repeat)'.

https://www.google.com/#q=site:foxnews.com+%22muslims+condemn%22

I'm not sure why you think either of the above points. He was clear in his criticism of the negative points of Islam, what he was speaking against was criticizing the entire group based on the actions of a few.

SLand,

What you and some other I think are mistaken, is when most people CORRECTLY point their a nut jobs that are XXXX religion, or from such & such a country, or some other group is that FEW means a fraction of or perhaps a few percent, like 1-2% ................

What Maher & Harris CORRECTLY pointed out is that this FEW muslims amount to about 20% but hinted they think its like SIGNIFICANTLY higher & I would agree with that assessment.

its not racist, just is, so the supposedly FEW bad/nasty muslims is actually a VERY LARGE number of people!

Something we should all be concerned about.

And while there are some muslims who thankfully did & continue to speak out their numbers are low at this point. To be fair though its like being mainland Chinese & speaking ill of their govt, speaking out against Chinese commies or militant muslims can get one in very serious trouble, even killed...........

What to do........... good question as push is coming to shove more these days we will eventually find out.

It would be nice to see muslims police themselves for good though but not sure if they will be able to do so, unfortuantely

@WillB ... If ISIS was as offensive to islamic teaching as you say, wouldnt we see something like that? But we don´t.

Yes we do, for example:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/french-muslims-protest-against-islamic-state-1411755890

http://muslimsagainstterror.com/

http://www.kamranpasha.com/blog/?p=68

http://www.iloveamericasowhydontyou.com/?author=1

and so on, and a recent article in this paper about Muslims in Europe protesting against ISIL which I am sure you have commented on.

@frungy

In 1981 the "Christian Army" was attacking and killing doctors in the United States to oppose abortion. In 1999 "Concerned Christians" were found trying to blow up holy sites (and the people in them) in Jerusalem. As recently as 2010 nine members of a Christian militia were arrested in the USA. In 2011 a Christian killed 77 people in Norway. In North-East India there are Christian terrorist groups today.

Ok, so you named about a little over a dozen compared to how many years of slaughter, brutality in the name of Islam. Where murder and killing is as normal as eating a slice of apple pie. Yes, you are right, in every religion there have been atrocities committed in the name of religion, but none as much as Islam. It's gotten to a point where you can't even keep track of all the killings and tortures.

Numerous authors have received death threats from so-called Christians, including JK Rowling.

Which is bad, but not in the name of religion to convert and NO beheading on the TV in the name of Christianity.

And yet I don't see the US army rolling out to combat the Christian threat... probably because the US army is fundamentally a Christian crusade against Islam, repeating a pattern established centuries ago, and for precisely the same reasons as the first crusades.

Because there is NO Christian threat, unless you say, Merry Christmas to an Atheist, then you might run into a problem. Once you hear of Christians killing and beheading people in the name of Christianity, you might have a point, but that will be a huge headline news story if that were the case.

The problem here is religion in general.

No, the problem is fundamental radical Islamic terrorism.

@zurc

So lets make this simple for the right wingers who wrap their religious enmity behinds confused and contradictory statements. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian who bombed a government building killing 168 people and wounding 600. This is the worse case of domestic terrorism. He was a member of the Christian Identity Movement at the time. And of course the NRA and republican.

You are correct so far, ONE guy. Now since the Oklahoma federal building bombing, did he ever mention that he and the militia would kill, behead people, crucify them, cut out their tongues and they have to live in the strictest form of Christian interpretation? That never happened? How many stories within the last 13 years did you hear about radical Christianty on a daily or virtually daily basis? Islam, yes.

Now if you right wingers were to use the same sloppy logic that you apply to muslims who are criminals to christians who are criminals, you would all condemn the christian faith as well.

How so? When was the last time, you saw a Christian being beheaded on national Television? When?

But you do not because behind your statements is racism and religious bigotry. All religions are delusions, by definition. But just because one member of a faith is a terrorist does not mean all the rest of the sheep who worship that faith are also terrorists.

So people like me that hate radical Islam are bigots and racists??? Zurc, try again.

The USA has millions of muslims, none of them have done what McVeigh did.

The majority of course not, no one is talking about them, you are making an apples and oranges argument now. But on the other hand, we are seeing more honor killings in the Muslim community across the states.

Last, for you bass, you are not only not fully aware of what happened in the run up and occupation of Iraq you are quite naive.

Zurc, I was in Iraq for 4 months, yes, I do know what happened.

bush even used the word crusade himself to describe the Iraq invasion to find WMD which did not exist. I hope you remember that.

bush never said, Christian crusade, so now we will conveniently change the meaning of crusade and attach a religious definition to it? I remember, but then you have to spread the blame not only to the US, the other coalitions of intel community that got the same faulty information.

This conviction that he is doing God's will has surfaced more openly since 9/11. In his State of the Union addresses and other public forums, he has presented himself as the leader of a global war against evil.

Obama is the leader, he's doing...well, he's trying, oh, well you know what I mean....

The US is the leader of the free world that's a fact, like it or not and when ever time crap happens,they always, always call the US to bail them out and when you take the US out of the mix the way Obama has done, look what you have in the world globally, a complete breakdown. Ever leader knows it, whether they like it or not, without the US, intervention, the west can kiss their heads goodbye. It's all just a matter of time.

As for a war in Iraq, ''we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them.'' God is at work in world affairs, he says, calling for the United States to lead a liberating crusade in the Middle East, and ''this call of history has come to the right country.''

A call for freedom is not the same as beheadings someone, that means, women are free to make their own choices, have an education, marry who they want to marry and having people choose their own destiny. Has nothing to do with religion, but the God most people worship is a God that values individual freedom and happiness, how is that radical? If Bush or Obama would say. We need to push these people to adopt our religion, you might have a point, but not even close to what he was interpreting.

I've listened to Maher for years and this is something he's been talking about for a while. It's a point that's often misconstrued by liberal members on his show.

He makes a simple point: if you print a cartoon with Mohammad you can expect violence and even death threats. Does that mean every Muslim is a murderer? Nope. But it doesn't excuse the fact that everyone trying to murder you will be Muslim. And they will do it in the name of their faith.

His other point is how liberals stand up for injustice in their own countries but write off wrongs in other countries as "differences in culture." We'd never accept female genital mutilation here but liberals will often get in the way of legitimate criticism with false equivalency or simply playing the culture card. He's saying that they are the ones who should be leading the charge to bring about equality, not excusing/forgiving/tolerating it.

Also, I think he doesn't understand that the anger towards Islam when we talk about the religion is about the radical, fanatical faction side of it.

The problem is that it's a small fanatical minority only if you dumb down the definition of radical. 28% of Muslims around the world think it's legitimate to execute those who leave Islam (Pew survey cited below). You either have to convince yourself that 28% of 1.5 billion (=420 million) is a small number, or that killing someone for leaving their religion is not fanatical.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/08/GSI-II-infographic_forweb.png

"It’s gross, it’s racist,”

Islam is not a "race." It's a set of beliefs, an ideology that encompasses people regardless of their biology or location. This is tantamount to calling anti-communists "racist."

And why a liberal would defend Islam - the most illiberal ideology out there - is well beyond me.

Ben should stick to acting, rather than thinking.

Craig Hick:

" Yes we do, for example: "

Actually, no we dont. The blogs you mention and the quotes from the WSJ article are not even close to the enthusisam in the entire islamic world to condemn Israel for every real or perceived wrong, or to condemn cartoonists or writers like Rushdie. Not even in the same universe.

And by the way, if you look at the quotes in the WSJ, the condemnation is quite cloaked in double talk. For example the French imam simply says that joining ISIS means joining the wrong fight. The young muslims should instead fight for Shariah back home in France. He does not say that ISIS is wrong per se.

Not exactly a clear condemnatin in my book, more like double talk (Taqiyya).

@Turbotsat

Thanks for validating Fox's agenda (in bold). I never knew you cared:

On the first page of hits there are 10 hits: 'Muslims condemn Mumbai attacks (2008), American Muslims condemn anti-American protests (2012), British Muslims Condemn Terror Attacks (2005), Filipino Muslims condemn bin Laden killing (2011), Muslim Scholars Condemn Terrorists (2005), New Poll Shows Worry Over Islamic Terror Threat ... And why don't more moderate Muslims condemn the radicals who preach hate in the name of Islam? (2007), American Muslims condemn massacre at Fort Hood (2011), Muslims Condemn Strikes on Gaza (2008), Muslims condemn massacre at Fort Hood (2011, banner repeat), Muslims condemn massacre at Fort Hood (2011, banner repeat)'.

Of these "10 hits" 2 are repetition, three preach to the Fox choir, of which the one in italics arguably reveals Fox's true political motives. Little wonder:

nearly six in 10 Republicans who say they trust Fox also say that they believe that American Muslims are trying to establish Islamic law in America. In contrast, the attitudes of Republicans who view other news networks fall in line with the general population.

A typical viewer of Fox's Sean Hannity, to take the most stark example, Christian conservative (78 percent), Tea Party-backer (75 percent) with no college degree (66 percent), who is over age 50 (65 percent), (and) supports the NRA (73 percent).

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/fox_news_war_on_muslims/

Sensenotsocommon:

Err... the Fox network that you so enthusiastically bash would be the one that is owned by Prince Alaweed of Saudi Arabia?

'Because there is NO Christian threat, unless you say, Merry Christmas to an Atheist, then you might run into a problem. Once you hear of Christians killing and beheading people in the name of Christianity, you might have a point, but that will be a huge headline news story if that were the case.'

It wasn't long ago that a disgusting genocide in Rwanda took place which was encouraged by vile fanatics standing in Christian pulpits. The body count there would warm the hearts of many a murderous Muslim fanatic. Interesting that many newspapers and other media outlets, particularly in the US, played down the role of the church in this bloodbath.

@sense

When I did my internship at FOX 12 years ago, the funny thing that got me was that how many liberals and libertarians work there. But I have to give Roger Ailes credit, he sure knows how to hire staff and he gets some of the best talent and the brightest in the business. There is a reason why they're number one and watch them.

They didn't say anything or report on anything about ISIS and radical Islam that wasn't true, so far.

We are coming to a point soon where there is going to be major unrest around the world because of religion, rather than just the pockets where it seems to have been a problem for almost as long as we have history.

There seems to be only one answer that makes any sense to me..

We as a species value universal human rights, for all, above all.

Keep your personal beliefs personal and the pubic sphere free of its influence.

@bass4funk,

Once you hear of Christians killing and beheading people in the name of Christianity, you might have a point, but that will be a huge headline news story if that were the case.

The slaughter of 8,000 European Muslims at Srebrenica escaped your memory?

@WilliB,

Err... the Fox network that you so enthusiastically bash would be the one that is owned by Prince Alaweed (sic) of Saudi Arabia?

That'll be news to Rupert Murdoch. Any more amusing factoids?

@bass4encore

They didn't say anything or report on anything about ISIS and radical Islam that wasn't true

...and they don't hesitate to infer that most Muslims condone them.

bass,

No beheadings, just hundreds of thousands of Muslims blown up by planes in a war that God told bush to fight. And many people just like you supported shock and awe on religious grounds because according to the republican party line they were all terrorists. As bush said, they hate us for our freedom. By they he meant muslims. All of them.

Your reasoning is so shallow it does not even hold a thimble of water. Working at Fox news might have caused that to be. Maher has real conservatives on his show all the time, Limbaugh never and Fox rarely. Why, because the republican conservative christian worldview is empty and easy to roll up into a ball and toss into a trash bin. Truth is feared by conservatives and embraced by liberals.

Here in the States there are millions of Muslims, many of whom moved here to get away from radicals. There are over a million Muslims living in Southern California alone, and I have never heard of any problems.

I would also point out that there are bad seeds among any group of people, including atheists, Christians, and Jews. It does not mean that they are all bad people, or even that a large percentage are bad people. Good and bad people are everywhere, regardless of religion, ethnicity, nationality, or any other external qualifier.

@sense

The slaughter of 8,000 European Muslims at Srebrenica escaped your memory?

No.

...and they don't hesitate to infer that most Muslims condone them.

They do.

@zurc

No beheadings, just hundreds of thousands of Muslims blown up by planes in a war that God told bush to fight.

Show me proof where the words are actually coming from Bush's mouth where he said verbatim that God told him to fight the war. If not, you have NO proof, just another MoveOn. Org, Think progress hit piece.

And many people just like you supported shock and awe on religious grounds because according to the republican party line they were all terrorists. As bush said, they hate us for our freedom. By they he meant muslims. All of them.

For you to imply that I supported the war on religious grounds is a complete and over exaggeration. It's amazing how you can judge a person as to how and what they think by watching TV.

Your reasoning is so shallow it does not even hold a thimble of water.

Because in your opinion, you think it as such.

Working at Fox news might have caused that to be. Maher has real conservatives on his show all the time, Limbaugh never and Fox rarely. Why, because the republican conservative christian worldview is empty and easy to roll up into a ball and toss into a trash bin. Truth is feared by conservatives and embraced by liberals.

Zurc, throwing insults, is that all you want to do? If so, then there is no need for a discussion. Both FOX and Maher have conservative and liberals on, the big difference is on Maher's show, he doesn't have to worry about an 8 second FCC delay rule or the "dump button" as we like to call it. That's the main difference and also on Maher, many libs and some conservatives don't have to worry about being vetted or grilled, the format is completely different, you are comparing entertainment television with political news analysts, it just depends. Maher is smart, I like him, but I have seen him get shredded to bits before when he was grilled about a particular subject and he admitted he was a bit out of his realm and like Stewart and Colbert, he's a comedian first and a funny one at that.

As far as that last statement, I would say more that liberals see the world the way THEY want to see it and conservatives see the world as it REALLY IS. That's really the fundamental difference. Had Obama been able to deal with the truth and reality, we would have had a SOFA agreement and we wouldn't be dealing most likely with ISIS like this. But Obama and the liberals didn't want to EMBRACE this truth and now welcome to the aftermath.

Affleck is an idiot. And so is Maher liberals are morons

bass4funkOct. 07, 2014 - 03:02PM JST Ok, so you named about a little over a dozen compared to how many years of slaughter, brutality in the name of Islam. Where murder and killing is as normal as eating a slice of apple pie. Yes, you are right, in every religion there have been atrocities committed in the name of religion, but none as much as Islam. It's gotten to a point where you can't even keep track of all the killings and tortures.

Prove it. "Christian" countries like the US (which always PROUDLY calls itself Christian and who's president is Christian) have managed a body count of over half a million in the last decade. The Muslims just don't even come close.

Numerous authors have received death threats from so-called Christians, including JK Rowling.

Which is bad, but not in the name of religion to convert and NO beheading on the TV in the name of Christianity.

So it has to happen on TV and it has to be a beheading? Well, I suppose if you narrow the terms until they exclude you then naturally you'll get the result you want.

Because there is NO Christian threat, unless you say, Merry Christmas to an Atheist, then you might run into a problem. Once you hear of Christians killing and beheading people in the name of Christianity, you might have a point, but that will be a huge headline news story if that were the case.

Bull. There are Christian terrorists in North Eastern India, and we hear next to nothing about them, because drumroll they're Christians and they're pro-USA and they're Baptists, backed with US money killing Hindus.

They're killing and beheading and trying to convert people by the sword (or AK-47 in this case).

bass,

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

I would say more that liberals see the world the way THEY want to see it and conservatives see the world as it REALLY IS

The truth is that we all see the world not as it is, but how we are. But everybody, from Donald Rumsfeld to 'Jihadi John', has some truth in them. No-one is intelligent enough to be 100% wrong.

Hate to say it, Affleck is an idiot, good thing for him he doesn't live in Iran or any other place that has sharia law, he would been killed over some of the movies he's done,

'President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State'

Bush has refuted this although he was quoted by those present. He found it more difficult to refute the claim that he made regarding the biblical demons Gog and Magog running riot in the Middle East.

Not a single one of these guys touting the tolerance of Islamic doctrine have listened to a single word of the millions of ex-muslim apostates and those who are still (in the closet) about leaving Islam. These guys are the most outspoken against Islam because of what they've seen and experienced worldwide in their native countries ruled by Islamic government, being "born" muslim to an Islamic family and so on. Many of them have been persecuted by family, "friends", government, community and more.

I do agree with bass on the point that some people here want to believe the world is like in their own little mental bubble ideals, and the reality that not every human being in the world goes along and fits into that little ideal of theirs but is off doing what they believe in which is a completely different ideal than what others want it to be. They don't get it until its on their doorstep affecting their fantasy ideals with cold hard facts.

Unfortunately, this kind of result is commonplace when dealing with liberals. They try to refute facts with emotional outbursts, ignore inconvenient truths, and generally refuse to listen. As for Affleck, he is paid to read other people's work. He isn't used to being challenged on his ideas. His type generally live in a comfortable cocoon of support from like minded people.

The truth about the state of the Muslim world is uncomfortable for many, it is true. Recent polling done by Pew Research (hardly a right wing organization) shows many disturbing trends in the way Muslims perceive the world and react to it. In countries like Egypt for example, a large majority of the population voices approval for stoning adulterers and the death sentence for apostasy. I am not saying that the majority of Muslims are actually violent- they aren't. However, there is widespread tacit support FOR violence when it comes to what are seen as attacks on their faith.

Can you imagine the outcry if a survey found that, for example, 80% of Italian catholics were in favour of the death penalty for anyone who voluntarily left the Holy Mother Church?

Coming out of a childhood in the charismatic Christian movement I can say that fundamentalist Muslims do not have a monopoly on 'crazy.' Does that mean we throw Anglicans or other staid Christian denominations under the bus?

Maher called the entirety of Islam a 'gangster' religion, and Harris implied that the problem with Islam, with it's 'concentric circles' is just one of degree. Affleck was right to call them out on this.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan do have serious problems with fundamentalist Islamic teaching and practice. We would be hypocrites to support or ignore it... but we do. A Westerner might inquire into the role of Western powers in propping up repressive regimes that rob the citizenry of those countries of hope and dignity.

However, the majority of Muslims DON'T live in those countries. Why would we group Indonesians, Indian Muslims, Bangladeshis and others with them?

Sam Harris may do a good job of pointing out the absurdities of fundamentalist belief, but what does he really offer in place of morally-concerned moderate religious practitioners? The belief that humanity may be perfected through 'meme' re-education and scientific progress?

I'd sooner sit in the back pew of a 'liberal' church than listen to that dangerous tripe.

Bass,

I have already given you the quote, on how god told bush to invade Iraq and how he used the word crusade, as did many of his staff as well. If you were well informed you would know this is a fact. But typically as reactionary types do, they discount the fact to keep their fantasy story true, like WMD in Iraq, or cutting taxes makes surpluses, and on and on. This is why is so easy to dispute republicans, they are fantasy based. I know from many interactions with you and your crowd that you still believe that Obama is a Kenyan and that Saddam Hussein flew one of the planes on 9-11. You know that because you want to believe it and fox news fills your wish. So much research on fox news has proven that their viewers, average age well into the sixties (fact) and very white (fact) know less about the world than viewers or any other news source. Including comedy shows like Colbert. I will not bother with any more of your post but ask yourself this. Have you been right about any major political or economic event in the last ten years? The answer is no. Iraq, wrong. Bush economics, wrong. Obamacare, wrong. Government bailing out Wall Street and GM, wrong. It is all in your posts. Wrong all the time. Then ask yourself why that is? Here is hint, fox news. And Rush Limbaugh. And the rest of the right wing echo factory that has dumbed down its followers so much that they live in make believe world of lies and endless spin. And you seem to be proud of that. Well good for you. You just continue to vote for people who make our life more miserable, like Bush did by starting a fake war that God told him to start. I will stick with the truth and facts, wherever that may lead.

A 2012 conducted by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino found that 63 percent of Republican respondents still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in 2003, even though this assertion has been thoroughly debunked.. Additionally, 64 percent of Republican respondents believe that President Obama was born in another country.

Affleck is slicing his own throat when it comes to his career. His staunch backing of radical muslims will cause him to lose contracts as his producers are Jewish.

Kikai:

" The 'good' muslims, like myself, are trying to earn a living, mainly. How do you know we 'never say a word'? I just spoke to some (muslim and non-muslim) friends a few days ago; (to cut it short) I said I do not condone the actions of the radicals, that these radicals (to my mind) deserve 7th hell. You weren't there to hear, I suppose. Or wait. You expect to see such on TV? In the papers? "

You mean like the massive muslim demonstrtions and loud condemnations from musli political leaders we see every time Israel acts against Hamas, or some cartoonist publishes a Mohammed picture?

Err... what? I was responding to the statement "Where are these "good" Muslims? The problem is the extremists are performing murders and mayhem in the name of Islam and the "good" Muslims never say a word. ". I don't see how this relates to Israel. Please explain.

If ISIS was as offensive to islamic teaching as you say, wouldnt we see something like that? But we don´t. There are no loud demonstrations in Turkey that we saw during the latest Gazah incident -- it s all very calm, while ISIS established radical Shariah in Kurdistan.

As I wrote above. Note that I didn't say anything about ISIS being offensive to Islamic teaching. Please read more carefully. You made that up.

Fact is , ISIS acts on koranic commands to the letter ...

It's clear to me that you're anti-Islam, so I won't bother debating with you here on this. Believe what you want with regard to the religion itself, what it teaches, etc.

About your friends, you don´t say if they are Shia, Alevite, or perhaps Ahmediyya, i which case of course they would hate ISIS. Anectotal evidence is really pointless here.

Seems you consider followers of Shia, Alevite, and Ahemediyya as legitimate branches of Islam. That's good. So what are you trying to say? Again, I was replying to (see above). If you consider them Muslims, as I do, then their condemnation of ISIS is no less than that of a Sunni. So what's the big deal?

Yushi:

" Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan do have serious problems with fundamentalist Islamic teaching and practice. We would be hypocrites to support or ignore it... but we do. A Westerner might inquire into the role of Western powers in propping up repressive regimes that rob the citizenry of those countries of hope and dignity. " The problem with these countries is not the "regime", but the Shariah law that they implement. Interesting that you mention Egypt... Obama supported the "popular" Arab spring and what did we get after Mubaraks removal? Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood who promptly began to dismantle secular society and impose radical Shariah. Luckily in Egypt there was a backlash, and the Muslim Brotherhood is now banned. Authocratic but secular regimes are sometimes the only way to keep radical islam at bay (witness also the mess in Syria.)

" However, the majority of Muslims DON'T live in those countries. Why would we group Indonesians, Indian Muslims, Bangladeshis and others with them? "

Interesing selection. Why don´t notice that all these three countries are not muslim? Indonesia has its Pancasila, and both India and Bangladesh have secular constitutions. All you are doing is underlining that the the problem really is Shariah law, aka the implementation of political islam.

Which is pretty much the point that Sam Harris also makes. (And I assume Maher, although I do´nt know much about him.)

SenseNotSoCommon wrote in response to MarkG above, on OCT. 07, 2014 - 12:45PM JST

*On the claim that Muslims "stone to death some of those same girls who's (sic) family would refuse to allow the marriage"

I can't substantiate

Yet:

Look into it, it's no secret such acts take place in Afghanistan.

The ball's in your court. We look forward to reading this great "truth."*

I cannot for the life of me understand how this could get so many thumbs down. Even if you think Islam is worse than the devil. It's a simple case of an idiot (MarkG) making up 'facts' but not being able to provide proof when asked. I guess it just goes to show just how much you guys really hate Islam, even when you know next to nothing about it. Ah well.

It makes him real idiot.

Yushi:

" Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan do have serious problems with fundamentalist Islamic teaching and practice. We would be hypocrites to support or ignore it... but we do. A Westerner might inquire into the role of Western powers in propping up repressive regimes that rob the citizenry of those countries of hope and dignity. "

The problem with these countries is not the "regime", but the Shariah law that they implement. As we found out in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunesia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and many other places before that, the religionis regimes replacing the dictatorship are worse.

" However, the majority of Muslims DON'T live in those countries. Why would we group Indonesians, Indian Muslims, Bangladeshis and others with them? "

Interesing selection. Why don´t notice that all these three countries are not muslim? Indonesia has its Pancasila, and both India and Bangladesh have secular constitutions. All you are doing is underlining that the the problem really is Shariah law, aka the implementation of political islam.

Which is pretty much the point that Sam Harris also makes. (And I assume Maher, although I do´nt know much about him.)

Prove it. "Christian" countries like the US (which always PROUDLY calls itself Christian and who's president is Christian) have managed a body count of over half a million in the last decade. The Muslims just don't even come close.

Again, that is not the issue, if the US calls itself a proud Christian nation, that doesn't speak for all Americans and remember, the US has still helped and given more freedom and humanitarian aid to people worldwide than ANY Muslim country or you can name a Muslim country that can top the US record in saving more lives generally speaking.

Also, you are wrong about the Muslim body count and the people that do the killing, I'll give you a hint, it's not the Americans killing Muslims overwhelmingly, NOT even close.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf

Just came out a month ago. Seems like you are wrong (again).

So it has to happen on TV and it has to be a beheading? Well, I suppose if you narrow the terms until they exclude you then naturally you'll get the result you want.

No, you don't! You were trying to make an argumentative comparison that radical Christianity is equal to radical Islam, NOT even in the same Ballpark! Again, when you see Christians behead, castrate women, do public beatings, crucify people in the name of God, either convert or be hung, drawn and quartered. Christianity doesn't even compare to the brutality and barbarism of radical Islam. They win, hands down! That's NOT the result I want, that's just an ice cold fact.

Bull. There are Christian terrorists in North Eastern India, and we hear next to nothing about them, because drumroll they're Christians and they're pro-USA and they're Baptists, backed with US money killing Hindus.

So please show proof that these radical Christians are in the millions of killing people and provide the proof that the US is financially supporting these people and their radical ideology in killing Hindus.

They're killing and beheading and trying to convert people by the sword (or AK-47 in this case).

show me the mass executions of Christians doing these beheadings on a mass scale in the name Christianity and that it is becoming a growing epidemic. Somehow I think you can't provide any info.

@jim

Bush has refuted this although he was quoted by those present.

You mean by the media that excoriated Bush on every corner, the exact same media that sheltered and protected Obama at every turn, but the media is fair when it comes to the president(s). I work in the media and I know for a fact that the Obama love lust lasted up until recently with this ISIS debacle, up until then, the media would have jumped over a cliff for this president, why is that, because in the US, the media is 90% liberal and if you couldn't see with Bush what the agenda was then I have a bridge to sell you.

He found it more difficult to refute the claim that he made regarding the biblical demons Gog and Magog running riot in the Middle East.

Yeah, right...ROFL

Affleck is slicing his own throat when it comes to his career. His staunch backing of radical muslims will cause him to lose contracts as his producers are Jewish.

What a ridiculous comment. He wasn't backing radical muslims - he literally condemned them. His comments were against people who were preaching blanket discrimination against all muslims for being muslim, rather that preaching condemnation of those who do evil, for doing evil.

I agree that you can't tar a group with the same brush, but being anti-religion is not racism, Mr. Afleck. I really with celebrities would refrain from dabbling in politics...

I really with celebrities would refrain from dabbling in politics...

Because it's so much better when we normal people do it.

Oh boy. This is an issue easily muddled by partial ideas and heated passions.

Given that, here's my two cents:

Cent One: Islam today has a serious problem: jihadism. It comes in more than a few varieties, it is very dangerous.

And it is wrong. That last part, many on the left will hesitate to fully embrace. They will try to downplay, or explain it away. And they are wrong to do so.

Cent two; the right used the boogey of Jihadism to fear mong their crappy policies on their various peoples. That all the little right wingers lined up and chimed in on ISIS in Japan as a real possibility shows how far the worms have spread there.

I think that is what Affleck argues against.

There have been many comments about the left downplaying jihadism, or even embracing it, but this is a strawman for the most part. I think you'd have a hard time finding many (any?) liberals who wouldn't condemn the radical islamists. It's condemning all the rest of Muslims because of these radicals that most of us have a problem with.

Strangerland:

" ...It's condemning all the rest of Muslims because of these radicals that most of us have a problem with. "

And this is the strawman that many of us are getting really tired of. Everytime somebody criticizes the content of fundamentalist islamic teaching, some apologist like Ben Affleck twists this into "all muslims" (or "the rest of the muslims", as you call it).

Can we finally bury that strawman? Nobody ever claimed that every singly muslim in the world is a radical jihadist. That is an impossible standard. Most followers of anything are harmless, anyway. Beside, in the case of islam, the huge figure of followers is misleading, because they have option of leaving the religion. Please read up on islamic apostesy laws.

Isn't there something wrong with the news media when the opinions of a second-rate actor are headline news?

WilliB

You on the right do not 'criticize the content of fundamentalist islamic teaching." You screech, "Jihad Can Happen in Japan!!!!"

WilliB, the amusing factoids continue apace:

As we found out in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunesia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and many other places before that, the religionis regimes replacing the dictatorship are worse

Iran was a stable democracy before the 1953 CIA/MI6 coup d'état orchestrated to secure oil supplies, and involving a certain Major General Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. How history has a habit of repeating itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#United_States_role

Iraq, Afghanistan: similar narrative to the above you break it, you own it (admittedly the latter was cracked).

Tunisia, the darling of the Arab Spring, where females hold over 20% of both chambers of the democratic parliament?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia

More confusion:

Why don´t notice that all these three (Indonesia, India, Bangladesh) countries are not muslim?

Yushi was asking about the huge populations there, truly representative of an economically and democratically progressive Muslim world. There was no claim that they were Muslim countries, although two of them arguably fit the description:

Indonesia: 220 million Muslims (87%) Bangladesh: 148 million Muslims (89%) India: 165 million Muslims (13% of the population)

bass4reprise,

(In response to) Bush has refuted this although he was quoted by those present.

"You mean by the media that excoriated Bush on every corner, the exact same media that sheltered and protected Obama at every turn, but the media is fair when it comes to the president(s)."

The media just reported on the facts. Are you calling them liars?

@kikai, your argument is pretty much that of the average "devout muslim" consistently protecting the faith from criticism completely regardless of much of the factual evidence (including the Qur'an, the Hadiths, the general history of Mohammed himself the biggest sore point of Islam, and the continuing perpetual history of Islamic governed societies) going on worldwide that completely contradicts everything you're saying. A lot of us have seen the exact same denial, and mis-representation, attempts of re-direction from the main issue... by many others that have come before you. I don't have anything against you for being muslim. You're a human being first and foremost. But there are many times when we've seen muslims put themselves first by their religion, then by their political stance, and lastly by their humanity/nationality/ethnicity.

My uncle and his immediate family is muslim. I've had many fellow muslims that I've had as classmates, room-mates, co-workers and so on. Some of them were good people, and unfortunately there were also a lot of bad thinking and quite aggressive with their "beliefs" and how they thought things should be to the point where they only believed that the basic human rights that are awarded to everyone in this country meant that everyone except them had those rights. This has been over a period of 20 years... that's quite a long time to tell a zebra by its stripes.

My uncle attempted to convert me and my mother when I visited him in 1996, and since it is the US he obviously couldn't go as far as the Qur'an said he could. And to this day I can remember the literal crap that came out of his mouth and back then I didn't pay attention to it as Islam wasn't considered anything more than just another "religion". Sept, 2001 came around and everything my wonderful uncle spewed from his mouth came right back out as I studied more about Islam, and observed the situations happening around the world even before that date it came together. He was nice enough to give me my first copy of the Qur'an. Before the post 2001 white-washed versions started being published. The eloquence of the original Arabic translation with all of its flowery, over exhalted wording doesn't change the fact that the main substance is still bad.

2nd of all I don't listen to those who have never been "true" muslim. I'm listening to those that have lived it experienced it were born in Iran, Pakistan, SA, UAE, India, Indonesia, Africa and so on in muslim families and still had enough brains to realize the evil ideals propagated in the guise of "religion" by Islam, determined it was inhumane and left as best they could.

The worst enemy to Islam are the apostates, which is why so many of them keep getting death threats (because they left Islam... which is punishable by death regardless of the two-faced lip service many Imams are known to deny.), and keep a wary eye of their surroundings because they are extremely capable of exposing every attempt at taqiyaa and promote the truth of Islamic ideology by going to the root of the problem. By focusing on the founder's own behavior during his lifetime and pointing out the religious texts that are inspiration for the negative situations Islamists are propagating in this day and age. And some of them actually are Arabic and can read even the old original texts just fine.

Those that want to try and sway the issue by stating, "what about the crusades" (which if anyone had the brains to look up the cause would know that the old Ottoman caliphate was what created the crusades in the first place... hmmm). And the laughable, "The Christians, Jews, and other religions are just as extreme!" Still can't grip in their heads that the problem isn't just located to a single little enclave but completely global. Even the IRA didn't have IRA affiliates that they could recruit all the way from Africa, or Russia, or Germany. IS can, do the math on that. The Swedish man that killed 77 people (with guns mind you) claimed to be Christian but was not affiliated with a well supplied, secretly supported Christian terrorist group that gets secret finances from quietly supportive donors (as well as Islamic government backing....). IS and other Islamists groups do.

I don't have to worry about being commanded to attend the local Christian church, or Buddhist temple, or Jewish synagogue to pray and being thrown in prison or persecuted for not doing so. Nor do I have to worry about blasphemy laws, which many muslims actually advocate for world-wide. Another blatant human rights violation of free speech and thought. IS advocates by strict sharia (Islamic) law.

How many Islamic fundamentalist terror groups are there? Lets count them by their locations and long term goals. I've come across 85 officially recognized, internationally identified, Islamic fundamentalist groups situated in various continents.

And get this. Only about 10-15 (all IRA branches located only in Ireland and that is mostly political/independence) can be considered "Christian" terrorist groups. The rest of the groups listed were only for communist and independent nationalism. Not religious. Islamic fundamentalism counts for more than 70% of those commiting terrorist acts around the world. The math speaks volumes.

Bad founder + bad teachings + aggressive ideals = bad ideology.

I believe that people can follow any religion (or non-religion) as they so choose as closely as they want until the point where it begins to violate basic human rights. Islam unfortunately has a lot of text geared towards stripping away those rights and people that are actually following those texts to the letter.

Islamic texts condone slavery, concubines, depreciation of women, war against non-muslims and those that are not "muslim" enough and refuse to subjugate themselves to Islam. Taxes levied against non-muslims that are allowed to live until either they can't pay the inflated, persectution, loss of land and so much more. Stoning, mutilation, execution for "sinful" deeds.

Sin should only be considered crime against a divine entity to be judged and sentenced by said divine entity, not man. But there are many religious believers that make that very big mistake, it's just that the Islamic fundamentalists want to take it as far as they can.

Religion is about "self-governance" not the governance of others as Islamic doctrine (and admittedly the old Judaic texts) promote. The only way for Islam to survive this is complete reformation, rejection of a vast majority of Mohammed's "teachings", or to completely dismantle itself.

It's condemning all the rest of Muslims because of these radicals that most of us have a problem with.

No one is doing that. Doesn't matter, liberal, conservative, democrat or republican, we ALL hate the radical Jihadists and that's what we are talking about ONLY.

@jtdan

You on the right do not 'criticize the content of fundamentalist islamic teaching." You screech, "Jihad Can Happen in Japan!!!!"

And you on the left are complete pacifists that are willing to compromise with the enemy than to confront him and kill them and other innocent people, you don't need to teach anything about radical Islam, you need to get rid of it.

@zurc

I have already given you the quote, on how god told bush to invade Iraq and how he used the word crusade, as did many of his staff as well. If you were well informed you would know this is a fact.

Actually, it is not a fact, because NO ONE came forward and under oath testified or has a recording that Bush said exactly those words, until there is substantial proof, its all straight conjecture.

Islam does has no need to fear western ideas, they just need to fear each other, the way things are going Muslims will exterminated more Muslims than any other faith combined. keep your radical ideas in your own backyard. and if you decide like ISIS to assimilate/exterminate the non believers, then all prepared to have an exponential amount of force in retaliation

@bass4funk ... because NO ONE came forward and under oath testified or has a recording that Bush said exactly those words

"Crusade" was definitely used: "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while".

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html

To be fair, "crusade" has a wider meaning, we can't know exactly what his speech writer was thinking, only assign a fuzzy probability.

Bush was only reported to have said "I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president.”, by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention.

http://www.economist.com/node/3502861

Bush was only reported to have said "god told me to ... invade" by then Palestinian President and his Foreign Minister. But he was also reported by the same men to have said "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'". (I wonder if he prophesized Hezbollah fighting ISIL while Turkey holds back?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

None of it is important. Actions speak louder than words, and the proof is in the pudding.

SenseNotSoCommon

Oh please. Muslims have been fighting among themselves for centuries, long, long before there was a USA.

@craig

Thanks for the clarification on that.

Bush was only reported to have said "I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president.”, by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention.

It was also said, that many presidents believed that being put in that position was given to them by the grace of God and again, even Obama was heard saying that and also felt that he himself being African American would be a great thing but as to how deep each president felt and what their relationship with God is unknown and unimportant.

Bush was only reported to have said "god told me to ... invade" by then Palestinian President and his Foreign Minister. But he was also reported by the same men to have said "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'". (I wonder if he prophesized Hezbollah fighting ISIL while Turkey holds back?)

I heard that as well, but there was again so much he said, she said kind of situation, on that particular subject, it depends on what you believe. The Palestinians have said a lot of contradictory statements again and again. You have to take that with a grain of salt.

But as you said, none of it is important now.

@realist

Oh please. Muslims have been fighting among themselves for centuries, long, long before there was a USA.

Exactly. For some strange reason, after the thousands of years that Muslims have been killing each other, the last 13 years, the US has killed more Muslims than any other person or religious group? Either someone is benign to history or they are just simply bad at math.

@Honestdictator

your argument is pretty much that of the average "devout muslim" consistently protecting the faith from criticism...

Err, no. I wasn't protecting the faith from criticism. I was trying to protect some of its adherents from criticism. You can call the faith whatever you want. You can call its founder whatever you want. A pedophile, whatever. Really. draw comics insulting the prophet - by all means go ahead. I don't care.

For all I know the religion may be as, err, evil as many claim it to be. No matter, again - I am not here to defend the religion. My comment was simply to address what was written by someone who claimed that 'good' muslims remain silent despite the acts of 'their brethren', the radical muslims/islamists/terrorists.. This isn't true. Many 'good' muslims have spoken out against the acts and deeds of the minority nutcases. Whether these 'good' muslims (like myself) are nutcases themselves for continuing to believe in the religion is a different case completely, and out of topic.

And then there are those who make up 'facts' just because they hate Islam (the hate may be justified, the making up of facts not) e.g. MarkG above, as shown by Sensenotsocommon.

Going to what Affleck said "How about the more than a billion people, who aren't fanatical, who don't punish women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day, and don't do any of the things that you're saying all Muslims do." Why can't people just focus on this? Because most of you just hate the religion way too much. Nice.

SenseNotSoCommon: @Turbotsat Thanks for validating Fox's agenda (in bold). I never knew you cared: ... Of these "10 hits" 2 are repetition, three preach to the Fox choir, of which the one in italics arguably reveals Fox's true political motives. Little wonder: "nearly six in 10 Republicans who say they trust Fox also say that they believe that American Muslims are trying to establish Islamic law in America. "

If you can break it down, why not mention that 5 of the 10 hits are instances of Fox News articles on Muslims condemning terrorists? (Not including the two repeats which are just links to the one of the other articles.)

That doesn't square with "You won't see the Muslim condemnations on Fox News, as they don't serve that outlet's agenda."

If that were true the hits would be 0%, not 50%.

As far as "nearly six in 10 Republicans who say they trust Fox also say that they believe that American Muslims are trying to establish Islamic law in America", maybe they were aware of the Holy Land Foundation trial in which "An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America" was entered into evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development#An_Explanatory_Memorandum_On_the_General_Strategic_Goal_for_the_Group_In_North_America

http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judges/hlf2/09-25-08/Elbarasse%20Search%203 (in Arabic and English)

(p. 18 of PDF) Also, we must summon and take along “elements” of the general strategic goal of the Group in North America and I will intentionally repeat them in numbers. They are: [l - Establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood. 2 - Adopting Muslims' causes domestically and globally. 3 - Expanding the observant Muslim base. 4- Unifying and directing Muslims' efforts. 5 - Presenting Islam as a civilization alternative 6 - Supporting the establishment of the global Islamic State wherever it is].

(p. 21 of PDF) 4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

Kikai:

" Going to what Affleck said "How about the more than a billion people, who aren't fanatical, who don't punish women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day, and don't do any of the things that you're saying all Muslims do." Why can't people just focus on this? "

Well, because "this" is as it should be. We take it for granted for granted that the vast majority of Hindus, Buddhists, Jain, Catholics, you name it, "aren't fanatical, who don't punish women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day, and don't do any of the things that you're saying".... that is the basic minimum standard. Why should that be even mentioned?

But you can be sure as hell that if a large faction of Hindus, Buddhists, Jain, Catholics declared a holy war on the rest of the world, created a state where they force-converted others beheaded the refusers, we would be talking about that, and not about the passive majority., Do you seriously doubt that?

@willisB

Again I'm not quite sure what you're going on about.

But you can be sure as hell that if a large faction of Hindus, Buddhists, Jain, Catholics declared a holy war on the rest of the world, created a state where they force-converted others beheaded the refusers, we would be talking about that, and not about the passive majority., Do you seriously doubt that?

Nope, can't be sure as hell about that, not with people like you and a lot of the commentators here. Do I seriously doubt that, you ask? Most certainly. Among other things, the fact that you (you as in, all of you and not just willisB) demand that the majority of muslims visibly condemn the nutcases everytime the nutcases make trouble is, to me, simple proof of this.

Anyway I have no intention of arguing with you any further. You contradicted yourself, if you look closely at your comments on this article. Among other things. You disagree? Good.

@Turbotsat

If you can break it down, why not mention that 5 of the 10 hits are instances of Fox News articles on Muslims condemning terrorists?

The topic was the Muslim condemnations of ISIS, where there's a deafening silence from Fox, despite the very clear and unambiguous condemnations from senior representatives of Islam, as reported by Vatican Radio.

Your five hits cover events from the 2005 7/7 attacks in London (x 2); Mumbai in 2008; Fort Hood in 2011, and for some reason known better to you than me, 2012 anti-American demonstrations.

Do please concentrate.

This is the Fox that said to the leader of the violent English Defence League, "we've got your back." (Incidentally that same leader was later quoted thus: "I cannot speak highly enough of the Muslim inmates I'm now living with.")

@A "Realist"

Oh please. Muslims have been fighting among themselves for centuries

And Europeans and Americans have been peace-loving for centuries? Pull the other one!

This thread has been a textbook study of othering, conjecture, pure invention and denial of any and all facts that don't suit a supremacist narrative.

Examples include girls stoned to death by Muslims because her parents rejected a marriage offer - which the poster admitted he couldn't substantiate; one person's repeated attempts to portray Fox as objectively covering muslim condemnations of ISIS validated this writer's hypothesis; another claimed that Fox News is owned by the Saudis; someone else called Tunisia a failed, theocratic state; and finally, this howler introduced strict new standards for news that doesn't serve the Rightist agenda:

Actually, it is not a fact, because NO ONE came forward and under oath testified

(and this from a purported journalist).

Yes, ISIS are vile murdering scum doing the work of the devil, and deserve mercy from no quarter.

But why are young men and women radicalized?

Because Muslims have been fighting among themselves for centuries? Is it because a blind eye is turned to the Talibling Saudis, with their billion dollar budgets to proselytize the intolerant, absolutist Wahhabism beloved of ISIS?

Or is it the crude oil-coloured alphabet soup of Western interference, intervention and invasion, with its horrors sufficiently familiar to all our dear readers of every hue, and frequently regurgitating the same, albeit reframed, re-spun and rebranded, time-worn letters:

R E S O U R C E - G R A B.

SenseNotSoCommon: The topic was the Muslim condemnations of ISIS, where there's a deafening silence from Fox, despite the very clear and unambiguous condemnations from senior representatives of Islam, as reported by Vatican Radio. ... Do please concentrate.

Now you're trying to make your claim more specific than just 'Fox has an agenda against covering Muslim condemnation of terrorism'? Now it's got to be 'Fox has an agenda against covering Muslim condemnation of ISIS'? Why would they have one agenda and not the other?

Should Fox reserve a desk just to monitor what comes out of Vatican Radio?

Anyway, googling again shows the headlines below on first two pages of hits. All are Fox reporting on Muslims condemning ISIS. No need to break down the hits here, if your "agenda" claim was correct there would be NO headlines like these.

http://tinyurl.com/nnraco3 ("https://www.google.com/#q=site:foxnews.com+muslims+isis")

American Muslims say ISIS 'hijacked' Islam | Fox News Video - Sep 26, 2014

Arab press blasts Islamic State militants for tarnishing Muslims - Aug 15, 2014

Don't blame religion for rise of ISIS | Fox News - Sep 4, 2014

and

Are Muslims doing enough to combat ISIS? - September 03, 2014

... ZAFAR: Well, you're absolutely right that there's been work done by Muslims around the world and Muslim nations, but there's not been enough that's been done. And the largest responsibility falls on the Muslim world for reigning in the terror group like ISIS. Now, what we can't dismiss however is significant Muslim voices around the world that are calling out ISIS. So when you look at for example a significant voice at the Khalifa, Islam, is holding (inaudible) who commands a following of Muslims in over 206 countries around the world where he has been repeatedly calling out ISIS. Now, him being not only a man of God but being God's man on Earth means following him leads to divine protection. And he has repeatedly called on ISIS not only for betraying teaches of Islam, but for also killing innocent people and for leading others especially youth down the path of evil and cruelty ...

Thanks, @turbotsat,

There has been a persistent heme among certain posters here on JT that the Muslim world is silent on ISIS. This was repeated yesterday by Drollquarry, hence my original (not totally free from hyperbole) post on the issue:

You won't see the Muslim condemnations on Fox News, as they don't serve that outlet's agenda.

...the underlying message being to not rely solely on conservative (or solely on liberal) media for information.

(I hope you can distinguish between this and "won't see Muslim condemnations on Fox")

This from Vatican Radio in July:

...was followed by specific examples - the "the" of the previous sentence - of top Muslims condemning ISIS).

Now here's a clip of the sort of thing that's getting a lot higher profile and would seem to resonate more with the Fox audience's worldview:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/aaja-fox-news-islam-muslim-isis-james-foley_n_5729742.html

It's almost the old "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" narrative from the westerns of yesteryear.

You're welcome ... in the same vein, the Fox host's "got your back comment" was at the end of an interview in which the EDL guy said the following, which doesn't seem so different from what a lot of liberals and conservatives might believe, maybe even the majority.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fox-news-edl-tommy-robinson-interview-brian-477805

... "We're not asking for all Muslims to leave this country, we're just saying the ideology needs to reform. We want peace but we haven't got peace and it needs to be tackled.

"We're not going to tackle it by appeasing it or brushing it under the carpet."

He added: "I'm talking to listeners in America. What's happening here is going to happen there. It's the same Islam."

turbotsat,

Credit where it's due, Tommy Robinson was already on his own road to Damascus vis his relationship with EDL, who are essentially a cross between a skinhead gang and soccer hooligans.

He has recently had home meals with Muslims, and dedicates himself, we're told, to tackling extremism of all hues, including the EDL, where he's now persona non grata.

Oh please. Muslims have been fighting among themselves for centuries, long, long before there was a USA.

Note that America's first overseas war was a defensive war against the Muslim Barbary States of the Ottoman Empire. You don't hear much about this from Muslims.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/01/jeffersons_quran.html

Note that America's first overseas war was a defensive war against the Muslim Barbary States of the Ottoman Empire. You don't hear much about this from Muslims.

...at which time America enjoyed the fruits of a long established West African slave trade.

Is there some moral hierarchy-by-pigment here?

Sensenotso common:

" ..at which time America enjoyed the fruits of a long established West African slave trade. "

What is that comment even supposed to mean? The slavery practised by the Ottoman empire and the Barbary states preceded American slavery by centuries and in numbers. And while the Americans ended it by themselves, the Barbary states had to be convinced by force to do so. Your point?

@WilliB,

The Barbary States' fatal error, it seems, was seizing slaves of European descent, whose people - unlike the West Africans - had the resources to win back their liberty:

After an Anglo-Dutch raid in 1816 on Algiers immobilized most of the Pirate fleet, the Dey of Algiers was forced to agree to terms which included a cessation of the practice of enslaving Christians, although slave trading in non-Europeans could still continue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

SenseNotCommon:

So you have no problem with the slave-taking practised by the Barbary states, as long as they take European along along with Africans?

Anyway, I think Nessies point was that islamic terorism has a very long history indeed.

Remember the explanation that Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, gave to to Thomas Jefferson when he asked why the Tripolis Sultanate continued to attack American and European ship, steal the cargo, and enslave the sailors (as reported by Thomas Jefferson):

"The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet (mohammed) - that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledge their authority were sinners, that it was their right and durty to make war upon them whereefer they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every mussleman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise."

WilliB,

So you have no problem with the slave-taking practised by the Barbary states, as long as they take European along along with Africans?

What a daft conclusion! My point is that people in glass houses cannot throw stones. Ever. No exceptions.

So if some famous guy defends Muslims, it will make big news in the US.. That is the most surprising part of this news to me.

Maher and guest made some points toward Islam that ring true, but the problem is they only ring true for a very, very small percent of them, same as radicals for other religions or beliefs, and so Ben was correct in calling them out on the broad generalizations.

Ben Affleck defends Muslims on U.S. TV talk show

Shocked, I'm shocked! A Far Left Liberal defending radicals!? Who would ever of thought it?LOL

Come on what did anyone expect from Ben Affleck? His political beliefs are so far to the Left that he makes Maher look like a far right winger.

"Islam at the moment is the mother lode of bad ideas,"

Sam Harris was spot on!

"It's gross, it's racist," a visibly frustrated Affleck said, likening it to calling someone "a shifty Jew."

Wow, ole Ben's PC bleeding heart almost burst there!

He might be offended by the comments, but they are true!

Islam has been a major problem for the free world for a while now. The so called radicals are killing innocent people all over the world and people like Affleck and the rest of his PC allies are defending them.

The numbers will never lie

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/06/22/the-great-divide-how-westerners-and-muslims-view-each-other/

15% to 25% of Muslims support ISIS and other radical groups. 15-25% out of a 1.2 Billion is a clear sign that there is a big problem with Islam. But, for the PC far Left what's a few beheadings between friends?

This just about sums up the whole issue with Islam. Everyone tries to sweep this fact under the rug, but saying it is just a few extremists. Well those extremists are being allowed to exist and flourish by the silence of the rest of the Muslims, who do not publicly denounce the barbarism. Where are these "good" Muslims?

When these extremists get rounded up back home, who do you think tipped the authorities off?

Also Google "muslims against isis"

I hate the extremists, but if they don't bother me or others, the rest can do as they like.

Not that Maher was swayed: He called Islam “the only religion that acts like the Mafia, that will kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.”

Christians weren't much better not so long ago, and I'm stereotyping here in a generous way.

The world won't get better if we don't learn to live with each other.

It's that simple.

smithjapan:

" but the problem is they only ring true for a very, very small percent of them, same as radicals for other religions or beliefs, "

We keep hearing this excuse over and over again, but that does not make it true. No, not "all beliefs" are the same. The concepts of Jihad, Shariah, and Dhimmitude are specific to Islam. Just as the concept of "world revolution" is specific to communism.

There no followers of e.g. the Jain religion who go on a Jihad, attack non-believers, and try to replace the constitution with their religious law. None. Zero. Zilch.

Can we finally bury this strawman?

Shocked, I'm shocked! A Far Left Liberal defending radicals!? Who would ever of thought it?LOL

You obviously didn't watch it, because not only did Be not defend the radicals, he explicitly condemned them.

I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your post, because the above quote proves your post is based on what you think was probably said, rather than in reality.

Reformed Basher:

" The world won't get better if we don't learn to live with each other. "

Tell that to ISIS, and see what they say.

StrangerlandOCT. 10, 2014 - 11:36AM JST Shocked, I'm shocked! A Far Left Liberal defending radicals!? Who would ever of thought it?LOL You obviously didn't watch it, because not only did Be not defend the radicals, he explicitly condemned them.

And I see that sarcasm is something you just don't get.

StrangerlandOCT. 10, 2014 - 11:36AM JST I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your post, because the above quote proves your post is based on what you think was probably said, rather than in reality.

I am devastated ( again sarcasm)... Always here to help.

There no followers of e.g. the Jain religion who go on a Jihad, attack non-believers, and try to replace the constitution with their religious law. None. Zero. Zilch.

Not Jains, no. However, not too distant geographically from the ISIS bloodlust is another faith, whose extreme adherents steal land, livelihoods and lives from a certain population of non-believers, with total impunity, thumbing their noses at the global community.

As long as the West allows this to happen, only a complete cretin should be surprised that some youth become radicalized.

SenseNotSoCommon:

" Not Jains, no. "

Exactly. there NO Jains who who go on a Jihad, attack non-believers, and try to replace the constitution with their religious law. Neither are there any Bahais who do this. Or, for that matter Ahmediiyyas, a moderate branch of islam that is persecuted by both Sunnis and Shias as heretics.

So where does that leave the claim that all religions have radicals who do this? Can we finally agree to bury this tired old strawman?

Beliefs DO matter, and NOT all beliefs are the same.

Exactly. there NO Jains who who go on a Jihad, attack non-believers, and try to replace the constitution with their religious law. ... So where does that leave the claim that all religions have radicals who do this? ...

Counterexamples: Protestants vs. Catholics in Northern Ireland. Jews vs. Muslims in Israel.

"Counter example Jews vs. Muslims in Israel."

Wrong. Arab citizens of Israel are protected under the constitution with full civil rights, including to practice their religion. They participate in Israel's legislature, civil service and businesses. There's even a degree of pro-Arab affirmative action.

BTW, "progressive" Islamic country Malaysia has affirmative action....for its Muslim majority!!! How pathetic is that?

"Protestants vs. Catholics in Northern Ireland."

Wrong again. The northern Ireland struggle was about sovereignty and politics, not spirituality. The 9/11 pilot's final words was "Allah Akbar" (god is great). The IRA or Proddies were never known to shout spiritual incantations (LOL) during their attacks.

Maher was wrong so was Harris. Hats off to Ben Affleck. More atrocities, genocides, and evil have been done in the name of Christianity than history can count but we do not call Christianity a mafia religion, why not? If we were to attribute every wack job's claim that they are working in the name of their religion then we would have to consider staunchly "Christian organizations" such as the KKK, who in their day executed a great number of people in the name of Jesus. Did you know that right now, today, there is also Christian terrorism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Bottom line....It is wrong to condemn a whole group of people on the action of a few. Period. Islam is not evil. The evil f...kers who use it to kill are evil.

marcellus:

Here we go again.

" Maher was wrong so was Harris. Hats off to Ben Affleck. More atrocities, genocides, and evil have been done in the name of Christianity than history can count but we do not call Christianity a mafia religion, why not? "

Because it isn`t. There is no branch of Christianity today that tries to impose Old Testamentarial rule on the world and gives non-believers the choice to convert or die.

I didnt see the show, but I assume Mahers mafia remark was a reference to Shariah "apostesy" laws. Shariah allows you to convert into the religion at any time, but leaving it is punished by death. Isnt that how the Mafia works too?

And that is not in some distant past, that is today, everywhere where islamic law is practised.

@JeffLee

Wrong. Arab citizens of Israel are protected

Here's the reality within Israel, not the Occupied Territories, according to a Jewish group:

Legislation ranging from the Absentees Property Law (1950) to the Negev Individual Settlements Law (2011), along with the policies of the Jewish National Fund, Israel Land Authority and the government itself, operate with the explicit goal of securing maximum and privileged control of land for Israel’s Jewish citizens – a process known as “Judaization.” This runs jointly with the state’s goal of minimizing and concentrating non-Jewish communities in Israel, resulting in the mass confiscation of Palestinian land and the containment of Palestinian towns through discriminatory planning, home demolitions and unequal resource allocation.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=64812

Wrong again. The northern Ireland struggle was about sovereignty and politics, not spirituality.

The late Ian Paisley, who famously disrupted Pope John Paul the Second's address to the European Parliament with cries of "Antichrist!," missed that memo, Jeff. So did the pro-British loyalist paramilitaries - with their once ubiquitous "For God and Ulster" mantra on murals, emblems and graffiti; and the notorious Shankill Butchers. There was an element of anti-Protestant violence by fringe Irish Republican groups, too, in the 1980s. Today, KAT - an acronym for Kill All Taigs (Catholics) is still, though thankfully rarely these days, scrawled on church walls.

Mennonite Maiden:

" LEARN TO RESPECT! "

Care to tell that to ISIS? Or to Arab muslim nations surrounding it? (Except Assads Syria, which actually did protect minorities).

" LEARN TO RESPECT! "

Care to tell that to ISIS? Or to Arab muslim nations surrounding it? (Except Assads Syria, which actually did protect minorities).

It's a public site, they can read it here as well.

But it's something that should be said to them. They likely won't listen, but do you really want to go down to their level?

"RESPECT and TOLERATE other religions"

As an atheist, I'm willing to give Islam as much respect as it gives me. And that ain't much.

smithinjapan : Maher and guest made some points toward Islam that ring true, but the problem is they only ring true for a very, very small percent of them, same as radicals for other religions or beliefs, and so Ben was correct in calling them out on the broad generalizations.

smithinjapan said 'OTHER religions', not 'ALL religions'. So why bring up peacenik religions as counterexamples?

And why bring up war zones as examples of the badness of Muslims?

Look at ISIS' theater of operations. A power vacuum which they took advantage of. Similar to Somalia, except that ISIS gets (or got) bags of cash from Middle East oil states.

The difference between ISIS' area, Northern Ireland, and Israel is not due to any variations in godliness of the participants or their religions. The rule of law was relatively intact in Northern Ireland during the Troubles and in Israel in recent times as compared to Somalia, ISIS' current extent, Israel during the post-WWII takeover of Zion, China's Boxer Rebellion and Cultural Revolution, Mexican Revolution, etc. etc.

Common factors: Power vacuum. And religion, as a factor (if you count Maoism as a religion). But NOT Muslims-as-aggressors.

Twin Towers' fall was an extension of the Taliban's revolution. Probably most people who live through a violent revolution don't have a choice about it. It only takes a small well-armed percentage of population to effect such, when the establishment is weak. Who would choose violent revolution and all the chances it contains, as opposed to a comfortable life, unless they had something to gain?

Yes, Muslims in USA and elsewhere have contributed funds to organizations probably funding ISIS.

turbotsat: Counterexamples ...

https://storify.com/davidsheen/israeli-army-the-next-generation

A simple search of Twitter for the string ARAVIM, which means "Arabs" in Hebrew, produces a long list of messages by young Jewish Israelis calling to ethnically cleanse the country.

http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0827/082761.html

From Boston to Belfast: America's focus for the Irish 'troubles'; How much help does the IRA get from here? - August 27, 1981

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religion-based_wars (expand the various categories)

Jeff Lee:

" s an atheist, I'm willing to give Islam as much respect as it gives me. And that ain't much. "

Understatement of the day. If you said publicly about muslims what the Koran says about non-muslims, you´d persecuted for hate speech.

Sad to see the "I'll only respect you if you respect me" stance of the immature.

SenseNotsoCommon:

" Sad to see the "I'll only respect you if you respect me" stance of the immature. "

That is an interesting concept. You respect those who don´t respect you? Really?

@frungy

Prove it. "Christian" countries like the US (which always PROUDLY calls itself Christian and who's president is Christian) have managed a body count of over half a million in the last decade. The Muslims just don't even come close.

Iran-Iraq war had more than 1 million casualties. The Muslims more than come close.

And in your over half a million figure, the majority of casualties are Muslim-on-Muslim.

Mennonite Maiden:

" The United States have ZERO RIGHT to be messing around in other people's countries. You went there, started war with them and look at everything that has happened. Escalating for the worse by the minute. The world will NEVER submit to your Christianism by going into war, you know? "

I agree that the US has been continually making a mess with every intervention, but you seem a bit confused about the fact. The US did not "start war with them" --- who is "they", anyway? The first Iraq intervention was when Bush Sr. intervened to liberate Kuweit from Saddam Hussein. Obviously, Saudi Arabia would have been next. Personally, I think we should have let Saddam take over the oil sheik kingdoms, but that is just me. But their claim about "starting war" is plainly false. If meant "hired gun fur Sunni Muslim potentates", I´d go along with that.

And Christianity is certainly not part of the plan. The US has consistently sided with islamic radicals against secular forces -- try to figure out why; I can´t.

As for "they", there is no "they". Sunnis and Shias are battling each other now, and have done so for 1500 years.

You might want to read up on history.

The US did not "start war with them" --- who is "they", anyway? The first Iraq intervention was when Bush Sr. intervened to liberate Kuweit from Saddam Hussein.

In that case, Iraq started a war with Kuwait, but the U.S. started a war with Iraq. It's not like Iraq invaded or even attacked the U.S.

Mennoite M:

" Furthermore, why do you expect me to understand war by looking up history? "

I just thought that might be a good idea before making political comments. But that is just me...

Strangerland:

" In that case, Iraq started a war with Kuwait, but the U.S. started a war with Iraq. It's not like Iraq invaded or even attacked the U.S. "

Well, you could make the same argument about Nazi Germany. Do you? The problem with these talking points is that they sometimes come back to bite you.

"Sad to see the "I'll only respect you if you respect me" stance of the immature."

Indeed "mutual respect" is such an "immature" concept, isn't it. Sorry if you're offended by it.

Seen the latest youtube videos of those poor people getting beheaded? The beheaded little girl wearing full white socks?... As a Conservative Mennonite who is NEVER allowed to join any coward military force I shall tell you this, You reap what you sow, period.

Did the decapitated little girl wearing white socks reap what she sowed? She must've been a bad little girl.

Really? You're gonna go to the lowest of the low just to show your support for the military? The little girl was clearly a VICTIM of WAR...so get off your horse and own to it. Your military is nothing but scum.

I don't have a military, and no, that post was not to show support for the military. It was to show that the situation is not as simple as you would to believe. It's easy to be a pacifist when you don't have to confront violence directly.

The little girl was clearly a VICTIM of WAR...so get off your horse and own to it.

Own to what? I'm not the one saying you reap what you sow. That was you, and it's very clear that one often doesn't reap what one sows.