Ben Affleck gets worked up defending Islam on Bill Maher's show

[halupridol]

Ben will get a front row ticket in heaven.

yup,straight to heaven

 

[Developereo]

You brought up the Jewishness in Maher's criticism.

And you still lack the intelligence to see why his ethnicity is relevant, given his demonstrated bias in treatment of religious extremism.

I think Stormfront will be a better forum for you.

There's that shrill rant again in lieu of facts.

Maher supports Israel's right to exist but not to occupy. If you had read any of his books, or watched his documentary or his TV show, you should know.

Perhaps you should get yourself an English dictionary and read my earlier post about why Jewish religious extremism is at the core of the debate on Israel.

As long as Maher, unlike Hitchens, fails to address that 800lb gorilla at the center of the debate justifying Israel, the rest of his charade is irrelevant.

He criticized Jews in his movie. He is making a religious movie and not a political one.

If there are 999 Jews who support Israel because God said so, and 1 Jew who opposes Israel because God said so, and Maher focuses on that one guy to highlight religious extremism, while ignoring the other 999 Jewish extremists, he demonstrates his biased agenda.

You didn't know the difference between liberal and libertarian.

On the contrary, what you have done is exposed your idiocy once again.

The term "libertarian" is a term of political ideology.
The term "liberal" has many connotations, some political, some social, some financial, etc, etc.

When comparing liberal v/s libertarian, one must use the political usage of the term "liberal", to compare it with "libertarian".

That is what I have been doing.
You, in your perennial cluelessness, have been mixing up non-political, social definitions of the word "liberal" and comparing it to the political term "libertarian". No wonder, then, that you remain mired in a sea of confusion, to the amusement of all.

Maher claims to be a Liberal and not a Liberatarian.

Is Bill Maher a libertarian? - Salon.com

Maher has been calling himself a libertarian for decades. You would know that if you actually understood his shows, rather than just watching them vacuously.

I already explained above why you will never understand the issue of liberal v/s libertarian in political discourse.

Rand Paul carries the Liberatarian banner and thats why I mentioned Rand Paul and not Ron Paul.

Contrary to your delusions, Rand Paul is not the standard bearer of the Libertarian Party in any way, shape or form. He is a non-entity on the libertarian scene, which is why I challenged your use of his name in that context.

I had my fun

If you think being exposed as an imbecile is fun, then you surely had a blast.

Now run along to nurse your wounds...

 

[gambit]

We can conclude the short lesson here is that: If a Muslim want you to be a Jew, he will find some ways to make you a Jew.

 

[VCheng]

Can you show me serious criticism of Jews and Judaism by a non-Jewish person in the mainstream media?

As for your other point, I have no problem with legitimate criticism of Muslims. Homophobia, mistreatment of minorities, etc. are legitimate criticisms. However, to say, as Sam Harris implied, that a significant (or most) Muslims are closet jihadis who support a global takeover by Islam is blatant hate mongering.

We need to separate legitimate criticisms from agenda-driven falsehoods.

We also need to challenge the claims that certain conduct is mandated by Islam. There are many interpretations of Islam and, just because one group claims something, does not mean that their interpretation is "mandated" by Islam.

Just look at the intense criticism heaped on the Jewish state during the recent hostilities with Hamas as an example. The media does cover events quite fairly, overall, although a tilt one way or another is a matter of perception mainly on part of the audience. If both sides to an issue feel that coverage was biased, then the coverage was probably correct.

As far a global takeover is concerned, one has to admit that a significant proportion of Muslims would indeed like to see it as the dominant international force, if one is indeed being honest, but that is probably true of almost all major religions, not just Islam.

You are correct in saying that challenging erroneous claims about Islam is important. That is why I always say it is important for all of us to participate in the media game, not just sit outside the ring and berate its unfairness.

Lastly, Islam is what its followers do, not what they claim. We all must realize that.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Your comical "discussion" with Don Quixote about Jewishness is hilarious. Like him, you remain perennially clueless about the difference between ethnicity and religion. Two ignorant fools who know zilch about Jewish customs are debating the topic. Quite the spectacle.

Since when was Jewish customs the topic of this thread?

Whenever you write a rebuttal on a topic you don't go straight to "He was born to Jewish parents, so i'm going to disregard his thesis."

A real intellectual rebuttal would have gone like this:
1. His "factual statistics" are wrong here are the correct ones
2. He fails to understand the culture differences between Egypt/ Pakistan and Turkey/ Indonesia.
3. He fails to understand how culture has shaped religion
4. Ignorance of the term 'Mafia' & 'Cult'
5. Here comes the deflection off his case; Mr. Maher has shown a bias view.
Profit

The only one living in a delusional bubble is YOU.
Show me where I said that "All Jews are Zionists who want to kill Palestinians".
Until you can show me that statement, you will join the ranks of intellectually dishonest fools who can't argue with facts and make things up out of thin air.
FACT: Bill Maher is NOT, repeat NOT, equally critical of all religions and extremists.
FACT: Bill Maher is a hardcore Zionist and is mostly forgiving of religious fanaticism by Zionists.
FACT: If anyone else showed this bias, we would examine the reasons.

It's no question that Mr. Maher is bias, does that mean you don't listen to him?

So being Zionist means you don't debate his thesis?

Are Zionists second-class people who don't deserve intellectual debate?

We can conclude the short lesson here is that: If a Muslim want you to be a Jew, he will find some ways to make you a Jew.

Come on, now you descended to Mr. D's level.

Just look at the intense criticism heaped on the Jewish state during the recent hostilities with Hamas as an example. The media does cover events quite fairly, overall, although a tilt one way or another is a matter of perception mainly on part of the audience. If both sides to an issue feel that coverage was biased, then the coverage was probably correct.

CNN did a pretty good job in covering the latest Israel- Hamas war. But people think it wasn't fair and balanced. And I fail to see their point. Its just that the Israeli government officials were better spoken, they were able to relate to the American people. While Hamas' spokesman was seen as confrontational, a barbarian.

 

[jamahir]

you should watch other youtube videos of sam harris arguing against christian clergymen and jewish rabbi.

he's not noam chomsky or tariq ali or putin or others... so he holds no interest for me.

what do you think about punishment for apostasy under islamic law.

"apostasy" is a non-islami concept more in line with "inquisition"... as to a person wishing to leave-behind islam, i would ask the person if they want to look foward to a post-religion socialist humanity... if they agree to that then i welcome them... if they want to change their religion, then i will ask them what mistake do they find in the islami concept of "interest upon loans is haraam" and "divorce and remarriage rights for ladies is a right".

edit : please read my reply to nihonjin here ( Ben Affleck gets worked up defending Islam on Bill Maher's show | Page 9 )... it should help in the "islam and christianity" debate.

nice ignornace ...Sorry I dont speak that lingo!

ignorance of what??

 

[Mercenary]

I added Developereo to my Ignore List but I am just wondering if he is still trolling?

 

[Penguin]

actors and talking head should stick to their trade.

 

[Mugwop]

Self proclaiming liberal at it again.I can see why ben got worked up.

 

[Developereo]

Since when was Jewish customs the topic of this thread?

The subject of this thread is to put the comments on Islam in context. Part of the context is the credibility of the accusers.

A real intellectual rebuttal would have gone like this:

I have already laid out the logical chain of reasoning in earlier posts::

- Maher has a demonstrated bias in favor of Jewish extremists.

- That bias demolishes his claim as an impartial critic of religious extremism.

- As part of his pro-Israel bias, he will attack anyone who opposes Israel. This is easily confirmed by watching the movie Religulous, where he attacks the 0.01% of Jewish extremists who oppose Israel, while ignoring the 99.99% of Jewish extremists who support Israel.

- Zionists (not Muslims) have framed the Israel/Palestine conflict in religious terms, meaning that Muslims are considered enemies of Israel.

- So, when an avowed Zionist attacks Islam, his bias is a legitimate topic for discussion in the same way as, if an avowed Islamist attacked Judaism, the context would be a legitimate point of debate.

It's no question that Mr. Maher is bias, does that mean you don't listen to him?

So being Zionist means you don't debate his thesis?

Are Zionists second-class people who don't deserve intellectual debate?

If an Islamist were to say _ANYTHING_ about Jews, their bias would be highlighted. Similarly, when a Zionist says _ANYTHING_ about Islam, their background needs to be highlighted.

Zionists are the same breed as Islamists, but on the other side. Zionism is akin to Nazism, white supremacy and other ideologies of racial superiority. If you knew anything about Zionism (modern Zionism hijacked by Jewish supremacists, as opposed to Herzl's original Zionism, which was fine), you would have known this. ZIonism demands allegiance from all ethnic and religious Jews, and many Jews have been brainwashed to answer that call. Maher is one of them.

The debate was brought into the gutter by YOUR side, by shrill rants of anti-Semitism at anyone who dared point out Maher's background. Just because this intellectual fascism to shut down the other side by shrill rants of anti-Semitism may work in many places does not mean it should be tolerated.

 

[Developereo]

Just look at the intense criticism heaped on the Jewish state during the recent hostilities with Hamas as an example. The media does cover events quite fairly, overall, although a tilt one way or another is a matter of perception mainly on part of the audience. If both sides to an issue feel that coverage was biased, then the coverage was probably correct.

First rule of any fight -- never give an inch.

Even if you have 99.99% control, keep the pressure as if you were losing until you utterly demolish your opponent.

Pro-Israel coverage dominates the Western media but Israel will continue to play the victim card.

Answer this simple question: if a group of Muslim fanatics moved to a country and declared that all non-Muslims should be thrown out to create an 'Islamic State", how would they be perceived? Is there any conceivable way in which they would be perceived as victims deserving of sympathy? Yet, the Jewish racial supremacists who colonized Palestine continue to be perceived as victims. That is the triumph of Israeli propaganda.

As far a global takeover is concerned, one has to admit that a significant proportion of Muslims would indeed like to see it as the dominant international force, if one is indeed being honest, but that is probably true of almost all major religions, not just Islam.

Any group -- whether it's Muslims, Christians, Hindus, atheists, gays, blacks, short-people -- would wants to be in a position where they aren't exploited, marginalized and discriminated against because of their characteristic. That does not mean that most Muslims want to convert the rest of the world (violently or otherwise) to Islam, as was claimed in the video.

You are correct in saying that challenging erroneous claims about Islam is important. That is why I always say it is important for all of us to participate in the media game, not just sit outside the ring and berate its unfairness.

To highlight the domination of Western media is not a matter of complaining; it is simply stating a fact and explaining why the Muslim point of view does not get heard. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Russians, Chinese, Indians and others have failed to dent the Western media domination. One can hardly accuse these groups of lacking hard work or ambition. Even Spain, which had a massive colonial presence, is nowhere on the global media scene dominated by the US/UK.

Certainly, the Western media domination is the ongoing after-effect of colonialism, combined with hard word and shrewd management by the Anglophone countries. No one is debating its fairness (there is no such thing in international relations), but merely pointing its existence.

Lastly, Islam is what its followers do, not what they claim. We all must realize that.

But that's NOT what Maher and Harris are saying.
If we were discussing behavior, then one would point out that behavior is a function of interpretation, and Islam has variosu interpretations.

What Maher and Harris are saying is that the version represented by violent jihadists is the one and only true interpreetation of Islam.

 

[halupridol]

76% of South asian M-uslims says behead those who leave islam

 

[VCheng]

Answer this simple question: if a group of Muslim fanatics moved to a country and declared that all non-Muslims should be thrown out to create an 'Islamic State", how would they be perceived? Is there any conceivable way in which they would be perceived as victims deserving of sympathy? Yet, the Jewish racial supremacists who colonized Palestine continue to be perceived as victims. That is the triumph of Israeli propaganda.

Israel was formed by an administrative act of partition by the British Empire in its dying days, just as they partitioned India to create Pakistan. The only difference is that the Muslims accepted the plan, despite it being unfair is many ways. The Palestinians rejected the plan at the behest of their Arab backers and then proceeded to lose the war. That is the basis of their predicament today, not any colonization.

And none of that is propaganda, but simple, legal facts.

Having said that, Israels use of overwhelming force was condemned quite soundly by the international media in the recent hostilities, and this was a distinctly widespread phenomenon.

Any group -- whether it's Muslims, Christians, Hindus, atheists, gays, blacks, short-people -- would wants to be in a position where they aren't exploited, marginalized and discriminated against because of their characteristic. That does not mean that most Muslims want to convert the rest of the world (violently or otherwise) to Islam, as was claimed in the video.

But it is quite clear that most of the exploitation, marginalization and discrimination against Muslims is being carried out by other Muslims, not Western nations. And it is quite hard to deny the fact that many Muslims openly want to impose Sharia in Western countries too.

Certainly, the Western media domination is the ongoing after-effect of colonialism, combined with hard word and shrewd management by the Anglophone countries. No one is debating its fairness (there is no such thing in international relations), but merely pointing its existence.

Yes, I can agree with that, with the proviso that pointing out unfairness is not enough. Learning to play the game better is the key.

If we were discussing behavior, then one would point out that behavior is a function of interpretation, and Islam has variosu interpretations.
What Maher and Harris are saying is that the version represented by violent jihadists is the one and only true interpreetation of Islam.

Again, I would say that Islam is what its followers actually do, not what they claim. The narrative of the violent jihadists is dominating the discourse, not because the Western media are highlighting it unfairly, but because a lack of a more moderate validation of Islam because the majority of moderate Muslims are quiet, many by intimidation and many by a quiet acquiescence to the violence being perpetrated in the name of their religion.

 

[Developereo]

Israel was formed by an administrative act of partition by the British Empire in its dying days, just as they partitioned India to create Pakistan. The only difference is that the Muslims accepted the plan, despite it being unfair is many ways. The Palestinians rejected the plan at the behest of their Arab backers and then proceeded to lose the war. That is the basis of their predicament today, any colonization.

And none of that is propaganda, but simple, legal facts.

No one is denying that Israel's existence is cemented by legal documents. The point is that those legal documents are imposed by force of (colonialist) firepower.

Israel is a construct of colonial Britain upon the residents of Palestine without their consent. It is as if colonial Britain had imported millions of Eskimos to India and allowed them to call Bengal as an Eskimo State, expelling all non-Eskimos.

If, tomorrow, Arabs gained overwhelming military power, they could erase Israel off the map, populte it with Palestinians, disband the UN (as the League of Nations was disbanded), and form a new international body to rubber stamp their wishes.

Whether this scenario is realistic or not is not the point; the point is that any law on Earth, from parking zones to international boundaries, is only as good as the guns behind it. The colonial, pro-Israel, camp was dominant and they legitimzed their colonial outpost called Israel.

Having said that, Israels use of overwhelming force was condemned quite soundly by the international media in the recent hostilities, and this was a distinctly widespread phenomenon.

Those are meaningless footnotes, bypassing the core question of Israel as a colonial outpost based on a doctrine of racial superiority.

But it is quite clear that most of the exploitation, marginalization and discrimination against Muslims is being carried out by other Muslims, not Western nations. And it is quite hard to deny the fact that many Muslims openly want to impose Sharia in Western countries too.

This is also a well-known tactic of domination: divide and rule.

The naive man fights his enemies, but the smart man empowers rival factions amongst his enemies, so they can kill each other.

This does not diminish the culpability of the Muslim thugs, but the fact remains that external opportunists will be there to subvert and thwart any attempts at reconciliation and compromise within the Muslim world. It does not mean the Muslim world shouldn't attempt self-correction and self-healing, but being aware of the wider scenario is also necessary.

Again, I would say that Islam is what its followers actually do, not what they claim. The narrative of the violent jihadists is dominating the discourse, not because the Western media are highlighting it unfairly, but because a lack of a more moderate validation of Islam because the majority of moderate Muslims are quiet, many by intimidation and many by a quiet acquiescence to the violence being perpetrated in the name of their religion.

We're going in circles. It all comes back to media presence.

Moderate, mainstream Muslim personalities condemn the extremists all day long, but such condemnation is only as good as the media coverage afforded them. However, giving air time to these moderate groups does not fit with the Western media's pro-Israeli agenda to demonize all Muslims as evil.

 

[VCheng]

No one is denying that Israel's existence is cemented by legal documents. The point is that those legal documents are imposed by force of (colonialist) firepower.
Israel is a construct of colonial Britain upon the residents of Palestine without their consent. It is as if colonial Britain had imported millions of Eskimos to India and allowed them to call Bengal as an Eskimo State, expelling all non-Eskimos.
If, tomorrow, Arabs gained overwhelming military power, they could erase Israel off the map, populte it with Palestinians, disband the UN (as the League of Nations was disbanded), and form a new international body to rubber stamp their wishes.
Whether this scenario is realistic or not is not the point; the point is that any law on Earth, from parking zones to international boundaries, is only as good as the guns behind it. The colonial, pro-Israel, camp was dominant and they legitimzed their colonial outpost called Israel.

Israel is one of many constructs that sprang forth from the dying British Empire. If you want to say that it was done without the consent of the Palestinians, please also note that the partition of India was done without the consent of a majority of the Hindus and many Muslims too.

Those are meaningless footnotes, bypassing the core question of Israel as a colonial outpost based on a doctrine of racial superiority.

The same mechanisms that were used to create Israel were also used to create Pakistan, and are just as valid and equal.

This is also a well-known tactic of domination: divide and rule.
The naive man fights his enemies, but the smart man empowers rival factions amongst his enemies, so they can kill each other.
This does not diminish the culpability of the Muslim thugs, but the fact remains that external opportunists will be there to subvert and thwart any attempts at reconciliation and compromise within the Muslim world. It does not mean the Muslim world shouldn't attempt self-correction and self-healing, but being aware of the wider scenario is also necessary.

Being aware of the wider scenario is good, but the core issues and the corrective actions remain rooted within Muslim countries, not imposed from without.

We're going in circles. It all comes back to media presence.
Moderate, mainstream Muslim personalities condemn the extremists all day long, but such condemnation is only as good as the media coverage afforded them. However, giving air time to these moderate groups does not fit with the Western media's pro-Israeli agenda to demonize all Muslims as evil.

The coverage is pretty balanced, given that the acts of the extremists are designed by them very cleverly to attract attention and media coverage. If the moderates want more coverage, they must step up their game.