I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

Are you kidding? They're all over the place.

I am not religious at all. In fact, I do not believe in god. However, I understand that these people's actions do not reflect a whole population. I think many Christians would find this appalling, and I would agree with them on that matter. Crazy people are everywhere and blaming an entire population on one person's actions is just absurd - regardless of the cause.

This part was good.

You have selectively decided to berate Muslims but I see no difference between you an your fellow Muslims. Many of your co-believers just want piece and prosperity, but you fail to see that.

Except the muslim earns his reputation. Be sure to wiki 'honor killings'. The quran makes it clear the muslim has 3 choices when meeting infidels: convert them, enslave them or kill them. Any other course of action and you are not a real muslim and can be killed along with the other infidels. Yet far-too-many muslims are clearly faithful as they cause problems wherever they're found en masse.

BTW if this piece was real journalism and not anti-Christian propaganda, the "news" source would've found the nearest Christian pastor/deacon/reverend/priest and asked about the Bible and this couple's alleged barbarism.




>> ^MonkeySpank:

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

>> ^quantumushroom:


A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.
Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.
Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?

I am not religious at all. In fact, I do not believe in god. However, I understand that these people's actions do not reflect a whole population. I think many Christians would find this appalling, and I would agree with them on that matter. Crazy people are everywhere and blaming an entire population on one person's actions is just absurd - regardless of the cause. You have selectively decided to berate Muslims but I see no difference between you an your fellow Muslims. Many of your co-believers just want piece and prosperity, but you fail to see that.

I'll give you an example. Take evolution vs creationism. As you might guess, I am all about evolution; however, I disagree with with many evolutionists because they are not scientific in their process. You get a bad seed in every batch (including scientists, Christians, and Muslims). I would not criticize religion for these people's actions, just like I would not criticize science for some evolutionists' ideas, or the English language for some bad author's book.

Good day to you!

>> ^lantern53:

This is highly unusual among Christians.
Not so unusual among Muslims, however.

Your video, Bill Burr on how crazy people take over, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yes, I have this week's and last week's downloaded through iTunes. I think it's characteristic of him to be clued out and still pissed off, lol.

>> ^Deano:

You sure? His last tweet bitched about itunes yesterday.

You sure? His last tweet bitched about itunes yesterday.

>> ^budzos:

He got back on iTunes last week.
>> ^Deano:
>> ^budzos:
>> ^Deano:
I saw Bill Burr at his London gig last Sunday. Absolutely brilliant performance. There aren't many better than him working today imo.

He's got a decent podcast on iTunes, too.

He's got problems with itunes at the moment as he loaded an uncompressed file a few weeks ago exceeding the filesize limit and since then he's been kicked off it. I'm not on itunes thankfully and RSS feeds work just fine from google reader.

He got back on iTunes last week.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^budzos:
>> ^Deano:
I saw Bill Burr at his London gig last Sunday. Absolutely brilliant performance. There aren't many better than him working today imo.

He's got a decent podcast on iTunes, too.

He's got problems with itunes at the moment as he loaded an uncompressed file a few weeks ago exceeding the filesize limit and since then he's been kicked off it. I'm not on itunes thankfully and RSS feeds work just fine from google reader.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^Deano:
I saw Bill Burr at his London gig last Sunday. Absolutely brilliant performance. There aren't many better than him working today imo.

He's got a decent podcast on iTunes, too.


He's got problems with itunes at the moment as he loaded an uncompressed file a few weeks ago exceeding the filesize limit and since then he's been kicked off it. I'm not on itunes thankfully and RSS feeds work just fine from google reader.

>> ^Deano:

I saw Bill Burr at his London gig last Sunday. Absolutely brilliant performance. There aren't many better than him working today imo.


He's got a decent podcast on iTunes, too.

Didn't he just answer his own question how "crazy" people can get to power? The majority of people try to pretend the "crazy" person is not there and do not stand up against them so it only takes few supporters to get them to power.

Without a doubt, we need protests like this to affect political change.

The problem is the people this bit is criticizing are silencing their own voices by alienating people like me who agree in principle, and would like to identify with these people, but also know they're acting like crazy people.

The problem of course is ironically, the vast majority of people who would camp out indefinitely like this to protest something that is very important, and worthy of protesting would by definition be... crazy people.

>> ^Peroxide:

Isn't the essence of democracy, that it includes every person's voice, whether they have face paint and funny hand gestures or not?
Not just the voice of the "normal people" who own 8 fast food franchises and pay their employees minimum wage, while selling a product that makes people sick and destroys the rainforest and the climate?
I want the face painted freaks to have as much of a say in their country as the millionaires and billionaires,
Because, frankly, one of those groups is morally and ethically bankrupt, and the other group just happens to be visually and socially awkward.

If it is a set-up, it was set-up by the slick Hollywood executives from her show, not by her.

If it's not a set-up, the guy's an incredible idiot. There are a lot of crazy people out there who think anything they do is justified.

This is why we have crazy people DNA circulating in this world. It's all for the name of Science! SCIENCE I TELL YOU!!!

Hah! That looks like a fucking riot!

>> ^Ma
rineGunrock:

It's ok! We still have this!>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Holy crap, russia is out rednecking us! This can not stand!

Then I must admit a stupid error and apologize to you.

I rejected submission of this earlier this day as I noted the Private status as reflected in my *deading of it. I did not and would not dupe sans access.

Later, I blearily must have mistyped and accessed erroneously as I watched what I mistook as a embed fixed vid. Hence....

I am sorry for it. I will refrain from such activities when I am asleep or close to it.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Also, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MarineGunrock" title="member since July 13th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000ff">MarineGunrock

FYI, it wasn't a dupe. It was filmed on the same day by a different person and had different footage. But then they made it private. Was gonna kill it anyway because I couldn't find a replacement, so thanks I guess.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
*isdupe>> ^MarineGunrock:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Russian-backhoe-swimming-pool