SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

i doubt it. so hard to be a cop in canada...i got friends who have done programs in schools, work as security guards and do other related work to qualify....training must be extensive

Dashcam video released today. Its really fucked up, you can even hear Everlasts "what its like" playing in the background. How ironic it turned out like that.

watching daredevil now. new netflix series.

Bet you it sucks just like marco polo.
---
Oh cool RT booked Elizabeth warren again

Well said fareed.

Yes... Well said Fareed, let's keep going down the path we have been going for the last couple of decades and hope something decides to change with this clearly successful approach apologists love to champion.

If we can’t even be honest about what Muslims believe, nothing will change. Zakaria wasn’t Afflecking here. He wasn’t being a Muslim apologist and suggesting Islam didn’t have any problems. Hell, he freely admitted there was a “cancer” within Islam. And his point about tactics is a fair one. But even he couldn’t bring himself to admit what large numbers of Muslims have already said they believe regarding the penalties for things like blasphemy, apostasy, and mockery… and that’s a huge problem. It’s not just the “extremists” who think people should be severely punished for insulting the faith. It’s not just people living in theocracies, either.

Zakaria mentioned Indonesia an example of a country filled with moderate Muslims, even though that country has plenty of problems of its own with extremism.

daredevil is unreal!!!

lol

This was only a decade ago....Its amazing how little our discourse has evolved since then. What hacks.

If Maher, Harris, Dawkins's discourse was the norm, the way we had been dealing with this.... Apologists wouldn't have the need to brand them "New Atheists"....

The romantic bullshit, it's not getting us anywhere...

Eri wrote:daredevil is unreal!!!

Latin netflix still doesn't have it

Jec wrote:If Maher, Harris, Dawkins's discourse was the norm, the way we had been dealing with this.... Apologists wouldn't have the need to brand them "New Atheists"....

The romantic bullshit, it's not getting us anywhere...

its all the same bullshit arguments that lead to the same place. "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" "islam is the worst incarnation of that" Thats simplistic nonsense that gives people an enemy so they remain pacified while they lose lives, rights and treasure in their own governments fruitless war on terror.

No, they don't lead to that, I mean, how would you know? It hasn't been done.

An Arab saying goes, "if one person calls me a camel, then that person is insane, if another person calls me a camel, its time to look in the mirror"

The only way to truly modify Islam is to be told the truth. If we act like apologists, there will never be incentive to change any aspect of the religion, saying all its problems are exogenous.

If Muslims disown the violence in the Koran, extremists groups will loose their fuel...

By "lead to the same place" I am referring to the end point of their arguments. However eloquently they speak and whatever rhetorical tools they employ their ultimate argument always is something along the lines of "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" That is on its face facile.

More like, "religion causes a lot of harm to the world and we should actively seek to reduce this damage by not keeping the fucking quiet".

Just because you see it simplistic or easy doesn't make it any less truthful or relevant. Occam's Razor, we have been seeing it the complicated way for too long, maybe it's time to look at things for what they are. We can't let out idealistic sentimentality of always searching for moral grey areas where none exist keep us from changing the course of history.

It's like Israel and Palestine conflict. Politologists and Lawyers have beven trying to solve this for decades seeing it from multiple angles like economical gain, political implications, etc... But always rule out the elephant in the room (religion) because it's too simplistic... Well have fun spending another century going in circles

Jec wrote:More like, "religion causes a lot of harm to the world and we should actively seek to reduce this damage by not keeping the fucking quiet".

No, not more like. The repudiation of religion is the response to the central idea, "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" Your reply is an example of what follows this claim.

jec wrote:
Just because you see it simplistic or easy doesn't make it any less truthful or relevant. Occam's Razor, we have been seeing it the complicated way for too long, maybe it's time to look at things for what they are.

Right, the billions of muslims in the world act like savages because of their religion. They all hold the same values within their religion with no deviation, sects, and historical persecutions. Our excellent media coverage has provided too much nuance. As Hitchens said our violence in the region is just and necessary. Likewise as Hirsi Ali says we must crush Islam under our heel.

jec wrote:We can't let out idealistic sentimentality of always searching for moral grey areas where none exist keep us from changing the course of history.

We are good and they are bad.

Jet wrote:
No, not more like. The repudiation of religion is the response to the central idea, "religion is the ultimate evil in the world" Your reply is an example of what follows this claim.

Wut? No. anyways... what it could lead to is more than just an idea, it's an action and it's called ANTI-THEISM, which, unlike what apologists might want to tell you, it's not violent or extreme, is just the opposition of religious harm. Like I said before, you don't see antitheists riling up against Buddhists. You will see us bothering the government to stop legislating based on religion.

jec wrote:
Right, the billions of muslims in the world act like savages because of their religion. They all hold the same values within their religion with no deviation, sects, and historical persecutions.

Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?

I wouldn't go as far as saying the billions of muslims around the world act like savages, but I will say hundreds of millions agree or consent to the worst ideas of the religion.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/mentally-ill-woman-stoned-to-death-in-kabul-for-burning-quran/ <- I believe the headline should read "Woman stoned by mentally ill crowd"

Jet wrote:
We are good and they are bad.

Try again, more like, "Islam is bad, and full of bad ideas, PERIOD"

Jec wrote:
Wut? No. anyways... what it could lead to is more than just an idea, it's an action

Yes it is. The central idea always spouted by 'New Atheists' is "religion is the ultimate evil". All arguments/further repudiations of religion go to support this central idea. It just so happens to be Islam now specifically, who we are told is our latest enemy. This is why I say its simplistic, all the ills of the world wouldnt end without religion. Yet that is whats repeated by the same people who push the 'Clash of Civilizations' narrative. I didnt mention whether the response was violent or not, though it is definitely a possibility and it does happen.

jec wrote:

Historical persecutions mostly caused within themselves based on religious shism... Or are you also going to blame the west for the Iraq-Iran War, Kurdish Conflict, the Invasion of Kuwait, the Simko Shikak revolt, The Saudi-Yemeni war, the terrible legacy of the Ottomans or the entire history of Shia-Sunni schism?

Only for what accounts to modern history. One can certainly attribute the rise of extremism with the wests role in creating the conditions necessary for it to come to power. Sometimes propaganda, a little funding here and there, other times full blown coups. Definitely instances when we supported the very same people we now condemn in order to fight the last generations boogeyman, communism.

jec wrote:
I wouldn't go as far as saying the billions of muslims around the world act like savages, but I will say hundreds of millions agree or consent to the worst ideas of the religion.

Perhaps. But people with money and power in the west believe in equally heinous things as well. Sheldon Addelson suggested genocide not too long go after all. The difference is hes bankrolling a number of Republican candidates who are audtioning for the highest office of the land. There are others like him who exert their influence on a smaller scale targeting congressional districts and such. Utimately that has an effect on our government officials view of foreign policy and thus consequences worldwide.

Lots of people believe bad shit. Sometimes they act on them, other times they do not. This reality is not exclusive to the east.

jec wrote:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/mentally-ill-woman-stoned-to-death-in-kabul-for-burning-quran/ <- I believe the headline should read "Woman stoned by mentally ill crowd"

Autocracy is no better than Theocracy.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/03/us-supported-egypt-188-protesters-sentenced-die-days-mubarak-freed/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/09/why-is-bahrains-government-afraid-of-a-tweet-nabeel-rajab-arrest/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-court-sentences-us-egypt-citizen-life-prison-30244233

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/world/middleeast/egyptian-court-sentences-us-citizen-to-life-in-prison.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1

Jec wrote:
Try again, more like, "Islam is bad, and full of bad ideas, PERIOD"

Again not everyone interprets their religion in the same way. Bad ideas are not unique to Islam. Or to religion for that matter.

Jet wrote:Yes it is. The central idea always spouted by 'New Atheists' is "religion is the ultimate evil". All arguments/further repudiations of religion go to support this central idea. It just so happens to be Islam now specifically, who we are told is our latest enemy. This is why I say its simplistic, all the ills of the world wouldnt end without religion. Yet that is whats repeated by the same people who push the 'Clash of Civilizations' narrative. I didnt mention whether the response was violent or not, though it is definitely a possibility and it does happen.

If you have a deep conversation with an atheists or an antitheist you'll realize that our problem with religion is that it stems from greed and willful ignorance. Considering something as the worst of evils =/= implying all the evils of the world stem from it.

Jet wrote:
Only for what accounts to modern history. One can certainly attribute the rise of extremism with the wests role in creating the conditions necessary for it to come to power. Sometimes propaganda, a little funding here and there, other times full blown coups. Definitely instances when we supported the very same people we now condemn in order to fight the last generations boogeyman, communism.

Lets not forget the concept of control group and experiment. Latin America suffered the same intervention, coups and funding as the middle east yet you don't see catholic extremists from Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. blowing themselves up. When you have have the same or similar conditions but different outcomes, you can establish causal relations, and seeing as the extremists say themselves its for Islam, well I say we better believe them...

Jet wrote:
Perhaps. But people with money and power in the west believe in equally heinous things as well. Sheldon Addelson suggested genocide not too long go after all. The difference is hes bankrolling a number of Republican candidates who are audtioning for the highest office of the land. There are others like him who exert their influence on a smaller scale targeting congressional districts and such. Utimately that has an effect on our government officials view of foreign policy and thus consequences worldwide.

Lots of people believe bad shit. Sometimes they act on them, other times they do not. This reality is not exclusive to the east.

Except no one's gonna listen to Sheldon Addelson even if he is backing congress Republicans, not even they are that stupid and lacking of morals.

Jet wrote:
Autocracy is no better than Theocracy.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/03/us-supported-egypt-188-protesters-sentenced-die-days-mubarak-freed/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/09/why-is-bahrains-government-afraid-of-a-tweet-nabeel-rajab-arrest/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-court-sentences-us-egypt-citizen-life-prison-30244233

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/world/middleeast/egyptian-court-sentences-us-citizen-to-life-in-prison.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1

Right.... "autocracies"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/mona-eltahawy-egypts-war-on-atheism.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/sherif-gaber-sentenced_n_6714770.html

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/rights-groups-condemn-detention-atheist-blasphemy-charges

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/10/the-seven-countries-where-the-state-can-execute-you-for-being-atheist/





http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death/

To me, an theocracy is just another form of autocracy...

Jet wrote:
Again not everyone interprets their religion in the same way. Bad ideas are not unique to Islam. Or to religion for that matter.

But most religions have discarded those bad ideas or don't believe them. You ask Christians if they believe homosexuals and atheists should be put to death and they will overwhelmly say no... We can't ignore this, this is what I mean by not equaling everything...

Good opening episode of GoT season 5... will watch episode 2 later...

Jec wrote:

If you have a deep conversation with an atheists or an antitheist you'll realize that our problem with religion is that it stems from greed and willful ignorance. Considering something as the worst of evils =/= implying all the evils of the world stem from it.

You're lying to yourself if you think the narrative is not against religion, primarily Islam.

Jec wrote:
Lets not forget the concept of control group and experiment. Latin America suffered the same intervention, coups and funding as the middle east yet you don't see catholic extremists from Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. blowing themselves up. When you have have the same or similar conditions but different outcomes, you can establish causal relations, and seeing as the extremists say themselves its for Islam, well I say we better believe them...

Are you forgetting that Ive said multiple times now that religion plays a role in these ME conflicts? I'll say again: I think it disingenuous to say it's unrelated to the issue. For it is used to unify peoples - whether for good or ill depending on the situation. But the overwhelming consensus among New Atheists is to single out Islam as a particularly violent religion, and to de emphasize external factors, to whatever extent they may credit them. That is exactly the simplistic narrative that helps fuel hate and justify actions in the region. Perhaps that is harder to see from the trenches of tribalism.

If you still doubt this then I suggest you take yourself up on your own advice and listen to what these extremists are actually saying after the usual 'death to america' chants. Vice News(Docs): Season 2 Episode 9 Titled: Children of the Drones. Suroosh Alvi goes to Pakistan and talks to american drone operator Brandon Bryant, Pakistani General Javed Mahmoud Bukhari, Maulana Sami Ul-Haq leader of Darul-Uloom Haqqania one of the largest and notorious madrassas in Pakistan, Feriha Peracha head psychologist of a deradicalization center in the Swat valley and footage of a recruitment meeting in North Waziristan. All point to the counter productive nature of the war on terror and the resentment bred from drone attacks. The people hold signs expressly saying "no more drones" "an attack on our sovereignity" and specifically point to that as their reason for joining these extremist groups. The last shot is a question posed by an active militant member "If somebody attacked your home wouldnt you respond? If somebody killed your brother wont you ask for revenge?"

Its a lot easier to view the world in black and white terms. Funny how the tv media doesn't issue this type of news content. Where we get to listen to an actual conversation with those organizing their own form of violence. Portraying the enemy as simple terrorists to the invading population.....I wonder what the reason behind that could be....

Jec wrote:
Except no one's gonna listen to Sheldon Addelson even if he is backing congress Republicans, not even they are that stupid and lacking of morals.

You say this now even while we are either bombing or supporting those that bomb the type of people hes talking about. This is something that is present and happening right now. So yes Republicans(and Democrats) are serving the wishes of people like him. One does not spend 92 million dollars in one presidential cycle and not expect something in return

Http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/billionaire-mogul-sheldon-adelson-looks-for-mainstream-republican-who-can-win-in-2016/2014/03/25/e2f47bb0-b3c2-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html]

Jec wrote:
To me, an theocracy is just another form of autocracy...

Glad you agree with me. Theocracy is JUST AS BAD as autocracy. That was the point of my response. What was the reason for yours? Did you think I believed otherwise? I'm under no illusions of liberal societies existing under repressive regimes. I just dont single out one type of repression over another because the only thing that changes is the justification. Jailing dissenters only hardens their ideology in prison and emboldens their resolve so its not a practical solution to extremism either. Its the other half of it

Jec wrote:
But most religions have discarded those bad ideas or don't believe them. You ask Christians if they believe homosexuals and atheists should be put to death and they will overwhelmly say no... We can't ignore this, this is what I mean by not equaling everything...

How do you explain Private Military Companies like Blackwater then? You say Christianity discarded its bad ideas yet this went on

? wrote:
The Bush administration’s favorite contractor, Blackwater, is the most powerful private army in the world. It commands thousands of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, has over a billion dollars in government contracts, and enjoys complete immunity from prosecution for its theater of operations’ conduct.

Blackwater’s founder, Erik Prince, a staunchly conservative Catholic, has also served on the board of directors of Christian Freedom International, a crusading missionary organization operating in the overwhelmingly Islamic countries of Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Prince envisions an evangelical “end time” role for his warriors, “Everybody carries guns, just like Jeremiah rebuilding the temple in Israel—a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other.”

http://www.countercurrents.org/weitzel100608.htm

Not only that but he follows through on his vision with his army of "crusaders". This is State sanctioned violence from a liberal democratic society. Or as the media would most likely tell us, "promoting freedoms".

Jeremy Scahill wrote: And when he moved to the United Arab Emirates, he said he did so because it was a free society and a country that respected the free market. Well, it didn’t take long for him to get down to business with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, and essentially hatched a plot to build up a mercenary army within the borders of the UAE, relying on labor from Colombia. Blackwater has a long history of working with Colombians. In fact, Blackwater paid Colombians $34 a day to operate in Iraq. And when the Colombians protested their payment, saying that they were getting less than the Bulgarians or the others that were working for Blackwater, the white soldiers, Blackwater threatened them, according to the Colombians, and wouldn’t give them their passports back and said, you know, "We’re just going to release you onto the streets of Baghdad." And eventually the Colombians left, and they went and they assassinated the recruiter that had hired them for Blackwater. So it’s ironic that Prince is using the Colombians. Now their pay has been increased to something like $150 a day.

More background

Jet wrote:

You're lying to yourself if you think the narrative is not against religion, primarily Islam.

huh? When did I state it wasn't against religion... there's a reason it's called antitheism...
The reason why we focus on Islam is because they're the ones causing the most trouble... they're the ones trying to install sharia in the west, the ones that commit terrorists attacks, the ones that kill atheists and gays, etc. Antitheism is opposing religious harm... if your religion isn't harming anyone (something that never happens) we won't oppose you...

Jec wrote:

Are you forgetting that Ive said multiple times now that religion plays a role in these ME conflicts? I'll say again: I think it disingenuous to say it's unrelated to the issue. For it is used to unify peoples - whether for good or ill depending on the situation. But the overwhelming consensus among New Atheists is to single out Islam as a particularly violent religion, and to de emphasize external factors, to whatever extent they may credit them. That is exactly the simplistic narrative that helps fuel hate and justify actions in the region. Perhaps that is harder to see from the trenches of tribalism.

How many times do I have to say, I'm not talking about you, I know that you don't discard the religious factor, I simply believe other liberals in denial don't give it the importance it requires due to the diluted notion that "everyone and all religions are good at heart", "just a few rotten apples", etc.. The reason why you might feel New Atheists don't give the "other factors" enough importance is because they understand the concept of experiment and control group... Proved by the very example you give below...

Jet wrote: Vice News(Docs): Season 2 Episode 9 Titled: Children of the Drones. Suroosh Alvi goes to Pakistan and talks to american drone operator Brandon Bryant, Pakistani General Javed Mahmoud Bukhari, Maulana Sami Ul-Haq leader of Darul-Uloom Haqqania one of the largest and notorious madrassas in Pakistan, Feriha Peracha head psychologist of a deradicalization center in the Swat valley and footage of a recruitment meeting in North Waziristan. All point to the counter productive nature of the war on terror and the resentment bred from drone attacks. The people hold signs expressly saying "no more drones" "an attack on our sovereignity" and specifically point to that as their reason for joining these extremist groups. The last shot is a question posed by an active militant member "If somebody attacked your home wouldnt you respond? If somebody killed your brother wont you ask for revenge?"

^ So, by the diluted "It's all the west's fault" version, islamic terrorism is caused by drone attacks and the war on terror... This is easily refuted by noting that there were terrorists attacks before the war on terror or before Obama began using Drones.

Now I know what you will respond, "they were caused by US intervention, yadah yadah yadah" <- while that did play a role in it, here is were the concept of experiment and control group comes into play. The same shit the US and other western powers pulled in the ME were also done in other regions of the world, like Latin America and Southern Africa. None of those regions responded with religious based terrorism.

So, you have two nearly identical situations (say, LA and SA are the control groups) and make the ME the subject of the experiment. Seeing the completely different outcomes from two near identical situations, we can establish causal relationships in their differences. The elephant in the room, the one impossible to miss, is the religious cause seeing as they use their religion to justify their actions. If you don't like this reasoning then get off the computer and discard all technology because this is how all science works...

Why are there islamic terrorist attacks in India, or China? Why do all Islamic communities react with senseless suicidal killings every time something bad happens to them? What's gonna be the excuse once the US stops using drones? When's it gonna be Islam's fault.

Jec wrote:

You say this now even while we are either bombing or supporting those that bomb the type of people hes talking about. This is something that is present and happening right now. So yes Republicans(and Democrats) are serving the wishes of people like him. One does not spend 92 million dollars in one presidential cycle and not expect something in return

Is he really spending 92 Million dollars just to kill brown people? Or just because he wants to keep getting richer like the Koch Brothers?

Jec wrote:
Theocracy is JUST AS BAD as autocracy.  That was the point of my response. What was the reason for yours? Did you think I believed otherwise? I just dont single out one type of repression over another because the only thing that changes is the justification. Jailing dissenters only hardens their ideology in prison and emboldens their resolve so its not a practical solution to extremism either. Its the other half of it

Huh? My point is that the "autocracies" you sourced are just theocracies in disguise, since they are at least partially under Sharia...

Jet wrote:

How do you explain Private Military Companies like Blackwater then? You say Christianity discarded its bad ideas yet this went on

Ah yes... the one PMC that follows fanatical views on the world....

Blackwater or Sheldon Whatshisface ideologies are not shared by the majority of Christians. They are not representative, unlike the ideals of IS and other groups which are representative of hundreds of millions of muslims...

Jec wrote:
huh? When did I state it wasn't against religion... there's a reason it's called antitheism...
The reason why we focus on Islam is because they're the ones causing the most trouble... they're the ones trying to install sharia in the west, the ones that commit terrorists attacks, the ones that kill atheists and gays, etc.

Muslims are not the only ones who are complicit in the spreading of extreme ideology either nor are they the only ones who commit atrocities and then try to justify them. Violence is definitely a problem worldwide. But what makes you think they, specifically are causing the "most" trouble? Since that seems to be the perception among NAs. Whats the criteria you are measuring for?

jec wrote:
How many times do I have to say, I'm not talking about you, I know that you don't discard the religious factor, I simply believe other liberals in denial don't give it the importance it requires due to the diluted notion that "everyone and all religions are good at heart", "just a few rotten apples", etc..

Even if that were true Islamic reform has little chance of beginning(and sustaining) as long as we are entagled in the middle east. Not that those who use terms like the "crushing" of Islam and so on, have any legitamate credibility in the cause of bringing positive change anyway. Our governments on the hand have no problems with engaging militarily, even under a liberal president.

jec wrote:^ So, by the diluted "It's all the west's fault" version, islamic terrorism is caused by drone attacks and the war on terror...

Not solely. They acknowledge the role religion plays in radicalization. Maybe if you'd watch it you would understand that.

jec wrote:So, you have two nearly identical situations (say, LA and SA are the control groups) and make the ME the subject of the experiment. Seeing the completely different outcomes from two near identical situations, we can establish causal relationships in their differences. The elephant in the room, the one impossible to miss, is the religious cause seeing as they use their religion to justify their actions.

Religion has definitely been A source of conflict. Exploited by both both muslims with secretarian divides and encouraged by western powers in the middle east.

jec wrote:Why do all Islamic communities react with senseless suicidal killings every time something bad happens to them?

Because they are so hopelessly outmatched. Its the most amount of damage one person can do. It also probably has to do with losing someone you care about and the feelings that accompany that.

jec wrote:What's gonna be the excuse once the US stops using drones? When's it gonna be Islam's fault.

Good luck rolling back a military program like drones once its been implemented. Drones are being used even in the Mexican border. As for the second part, the idea that the majority of violence amounts to religion will probably begin to gain legitimacy when the US begins to pull out of the region and stops interfering. Rebuilding after the ruining that many lives though will take years. But the idea that we will leave?


Not likely.

Jec wrote:
Is he really spending 92 Million dollars just to kill brown people? Or just because he wants to keep getting richer like the Koch Brothers?

Given his funding of Israel, the notion which he takes to its ideological extreme as to advocate genocide, its the former. The money goes to support endeavors like what happened in Gaza last summer. Which obviously involves the taking and destruction of life.

jec wrote:
Huh? My point is that the "autocracies" you sourced are just theocracies in disguise, since they are at least partially under Sharia...

Do you really believe they wouldn't be repressing their populations if they simply got rid of the influence of sharia? You realize the US & other countries are still funding them despite that?

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/moscow-cairo-relations-sisi-putin-egypt-visit.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/10/were-us-arms-to-egypt-ever-really-fr

jec wrote:
Ah yes... the one PMC that follows fanatical views on the world....
Blackwater or Sheldon Whatshisface ideologies are not shared by the majority of Christians. They are not representative, unlike the ideals of IS and other groups which are representative of hundreds of millions of muslims...

The only one exposed so far.....the allegations on Erik Prince were so surprising because as Jeremy Scahill said the employees fear reprisal. They usually speak off the record for this reason. The American Sniper Chris Kyle was on the news for his racist rhetoric not too long ago. Just because the people involved in this conflict dont all go around writing books that speak as honestly as he did doesnt mean they dont hold these beliefs.

The impact of bad beliefs is what matters more. Not the mere fact that people hold them, since that can change over generations. As weve seen in the last few decades with Islamic influence growing as a consequence of western intervention. That bad beliefs that have been acted upon before and continue to be is the greater problem.

Jet wrote:
Muslims are not the only ones who are complicit in the spreading of extreme ideology either nor are they the only ones who commit atrocities and then try to justify them. Violence is definitely a problem worldwide. But what makes you think they, specifically are causing the "most" trouble? Since that seems to be the perception among NAs. Whats the criteria you are measuring for?

Scoreboard... As far as religions go, they are causing the most trouble... not just East vs West but East vs East as well as evidenced in China and India and among themselves.

jec wrote:
Even if that were true Islamic reform has little chance of beginning(and sustaining) as long as we are entagled in the middle east. Not that those who use terms like the "crushing" of Islam and so on, have any legitamate credibility in the cause of bringing positive change anyway. Our governments on the hand have no problems with engaging militarily, even under a liberal president.

Do you truly believe that if the US pulls out is honestly gonna stop breeding islamic terrorist? Look at what happened in Iraq and Syria, the lack of US foot presence led to the development of strong extremists organizations hell bent on revenge. Pulling out and stop intervening is not enough... radical reform must happen within the ideology... sadly, it will take generations to achieve it and since no one wants to bring this discussion to mainstream media due to possible cases of "hurt feelings", it's happening at an even slower pace.

Jet wrote:
Because they are so hopelessly outmatched. Its the most amount of damage one person can do. It also probably has to do with losing someone you care about and the feelings that accompany that.

Nonsense... Pakistan and India are evenly matched... Both are nuclear armed too... If they think that stimulating the military industrial complex is the best way to harm another nation, maybe they are simply far too irrational.

Jet wrote:
Good luck rolling back a military program like drones once its been implemented. Drones are being used even in the Mexican border. As for the second part, the idea that the majority of violence amounts to religion will probably begin to gain legitimacy when the US begins to pull out of the region and stops interfering.

Like they did in Syria or Iraq... The latter decided to choose a Kurdish president that ignored the sunni in and shia in the country leading to the rise of IS

Jet wrote:
Given his funding of Israel, the notion which he takes to its ideological extreme as to advocate genocide, its the former. The money goes to support endeavors like what happened in Gaza last summer. Which obviously involves the taking and destruction of life.

The point still stands, his extreme ideologies are not representative of hundreds of millions of westerners... Ask any L American if they agree with US foreign policy...

Jet wrote:


Do you really believe they wouldn't be repressing their populations if they simply got rid of the influence of sharia?

Of course not... but they would have even less excuses to repress their people... for example, they wouldn't jail or kill apostates... Killing opposition and apostates is worse than just killing opposition... But I don't even know what we're getting at here...

Jet wrote:
The only one exposed so far.....the allegations on Erik Prince were so surprising because as Jeremy Scahill said the employees fear reprisal. They usually speak off the record for this reason. The American Sniper Chris Kyle was on the news for his racist rhetoric not too long ago. Just because the people involved in this conflict dont all go around writing books that speak as honestly as he did doesnt mean they dont hold these beliefs.

I don't know, that's just speculation...