"I didn't think I would ever be in position that I would ever have to take somebody else's life"

That's the opening quote, from somebody in the military flying armed drone strikes. I am gonna call that unrealistic expectations, the army and military are not about negotiating with the enemy, their purpose is the threat of violence and death should negotiations fail. If you don't expect taking a life to be part of military operations, you didn't understand the entire concept of a military.

Then it's compounded, with this gem of a quote:
"I thought we were trying to rebuild their democracy"
Where did there exist a democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else he might have been flying a drone? Violent, repressive military dictatorships and stateless anarchy were the precursors.

Somewhere in between the cries to kill all Muslims and the Chomsky like claims that everything is the fault of the West is a middle ground I wish people would pay attention to and discuss.

There are parts of the world that are completely lawless, and for all intents and purposes have NO government despite the land itself falling within declared national borders. Tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African states like Yemen and Somalia are relevant examples. There are powerful non-state organizations waging war from this regions. Al Qaeda and the TTP being only the most popular examples, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are others. These non-state entities are pushing ideologies that are not simply counter to western values, but that violate all UN agreed notions for basic human rights.

The question isn't drones good or drones bad. It isn't America good or America bad. It's not even killing good or killing bad. That's all just propaganda.

The real question is when powerful non state actors wage war with the declared goal of revoking many globally upheld human rights, how do we respond? The idea that drones should never be part of that answer seems equally facile to the idea that they always should be.

Most of the stuff he mentioned (human rights, taxes, writing a check, how stock market works, etc) were taught in my high school civics class. My high school (and middle school) had other practical classes too - wood shop, metal shop, home-ec, etc.

Of course all this was pre no-child-left-behind, so who knows how shite it is now compared to then...

@Lawdeedaw

There's so much factually wrong here, I don't know where to begin. Let's start with this:

"That rape and mutilation has been going on for centuries but was significant in the Second Sino-Japanese War, a distinct war in and of itself."

Japan was in a state of almost complete isolation from the rest of the world between the years of 1633 and 1853. Even after the period of isolation ended, Japan was too busy for decades industrializing to be rampaging through China, as you suggest.

Japan DID eventually get involved in Chinese politics and in fact went to war with them in the First Sino-Japanese War... in 1894. There are no reports of atrocities committed by the Japanese military during this conflict. In fact, quite the opposite, Japan would release Chinese prisoners of war once they promised not to take up arms against Japan again.

The subjugation of Taiwan (which was ceded to Japan at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War but resisted Japanese rule) is a different story. However, accounts of what exactly happened are sketchy and most of the information we have is anecdotal. What can be gleaned from these anecdotes is that the Formasians put up a fierce guerrilla resistance campaign and that the Japanese tortured and killed anyone suspected of aiding the resistance. Still, it doesn't appear to have been on the same scale as the massacres which occurred during the Rape of Nanking.

As you mentioned, some of the most awful abuses were done during the Second Sino-Japanese War between 1937 and 1945 (the Rape of nanking occurred during this war). The abuse ended Japan's defeat in WWII.

What you can see here by doing the math, is that Japan's military abuses in China lasted a grand total of 50 years--from the subjugation of Formosa (Taiwan) to the end of World War 2--not "centuries."

Next, let's talk about misrepresentation. You seem to be implying that Japanese textbooks don't say that Japan is the aggressor in WW2 (or previous conflicts). As I pointed out in my last post, that is flat-out wrong. There is ONE textbook that was approved for use that whitewashes the history but that book has been ignored an not used by the vast majority of schools in Japan.

If you want to criticize Japanese textbooks, you could criticize them on the grounds that though they mention the terrible things that Japanese forces did, they don't go into a whole lot of detail. See this article for more information.

As far as Abe goes, what exactly has he said that is so terrible? Yes, he hangs out with revisionists. Yes, he has expressed his opinion that Japan should stop apologizing for WWII and start looking to the future instead of the past. Yes, he has said that the issue of "comfort women" should be re-examined in light of claims that some of evidence of their existence was fabricated. But these are not really radical statements by any means. And many people and newspapers do strongly and openly disagree with his statements, so this idea that Japanese people don't challenge him is completely wrong as well.

Yasukuni is a total clusterfuck of a situation. It is a shrine to ALL of Japan's war dead. This includes war criminals, but it also includes regular soldiers just doing their duty. In terms of Shinto beliefs, all of their souls now reside there. Basically, if you want to pay your respects to someone who died in military service in Japan, you have to go there to "see them."

Abe is a total dumbass (and the press let him know it) for going there because he knows already how China and Korea will perceive it, but on the other hand his going there does not mean in any way that he reveres the war criminals who are interred there. I have no idea what his personal views are but publically he has stated that he and his wife go there to remind themselves about the terrible toll war had on Japan the last time Japan engaged in it.

Finally, as for the link you provided, it was to a year-old opinion piece that lacks context. Abe made that statement at a time when it was revealed that some of the evidence of the existence of comfort women in Japan had been faked. It was later decided that the apology would not be changed. In fact, The Japan Times is reporting that it is likely that Abe will mention that "comfort women" had their human rights violated by Japan in his upcoming address on the end of WWII, so the comparison of him to Ahmadinejad is a bit far-fetched.

Um, Yes, it is a right.
It certainly is my right, and to all that claim that right, it's their right not to be under surveillance of any kind.

"Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights issues of the modern age. "
-- http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html

Is it just me or does the guy at 4:33 look like Willem Dafoe? Kind of acts like him too lol.

I vaccinated my daughter, but let's not kid ourselves, *general practitioners* are not the end-all-be-all of medical knowledge and, collectively, they make wrong diagnoses and mistakes all the time. For instance, my family doctor prescribed Flovent to my daughter when she was less than a year old, yet the manufacturer's literature clearly states not to give it to children under a year of age. My father was prescribed a drug for a medical condition which should not be given to patients that have atrial fibrillation - he questioned his cardiologist about this and was told not to take the medication. Good thing he didn't just rely on his other doctor's infallible judgement (and yes the other doctor was aware of his heart condition.)

Most general practitioners are likely not at the forefront of medical research; I'd much rather trust the advice of a medical researcher or specialist in the field. I trust our well-tested vaccines, but that doesn't mean future vaccines might not carry unknown or unexpected risks (see Pandemrix).

I'm not sure how serious they were about not treating patients that refuse to vaccinate their children, but up here in Canada, I'm not sure that would fly. I'm not sure a GP can refuse to treat a parent because they refuse to vaccinate their child; it would be an interesting case to see argued in court. It has something to do with the way the Human Rights Code is defined: physicians must provide services without discrimination, which may be in conflict with their moral beliefs.

Intelligence sharing between GCHQ and the NSA breached human rights laws, says IPT.

Consequences?

:crickets:

“Amal is a human rights lawyer who worked on the Enron case, was an adviser to Kofi Annan regarding Syria, and was selected to a three-person U.N. commission investigating rules of war violations in the Gaza Strip.... So tonight, her husband is getting a lifetime achievement award.” Total win.

@lucky760 The issue I take with what Harris is doing is that whenever he wants to use an example of something that is 'bad', he tends to use an example of something done in the 'muslim world'. There's no argument that there are plenty of bad ideas coming from Islam (which Cenk states several times), but Harris is biased in how he uses his examples (he always seems to dip from the same well), so it seems very clear that he has an agenda. Whether that agenda is to sell books, or for some other reason I don't know.

To understand him better, I would recommend watching more of his video's, you will see what I mean.

The other thing going on here is that Maher has already made up his mind about Islam/Muslims being extrememists before anything is said. You can easily tell this by watching who he interrupts. Ben gets constantly interrupted whenever he tries to say anything - Harris does not - it's just like watching Fox. He's not interesting in listening to reason, he has decided what he believes and if any guest tries to disagree with him then good luck trying to get a full sentence out.

@JiggaJonson are you sure about your definitions? Try reading article 4 of the United Nations Human Rights "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". I'll put the important part of their definition of racial descrimination here for you.

it includes "all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin"

The important part there is that it includes ethnicity, and there is no distinction between the two. So in essence, those trying to call out @billpayer for using the term incorrectly... have not educated themselves on what the term means.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx

I think you missed the whole point of the video. When you say "Muslims" are you referring to people who live in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Canada? Because you're going to find wildly different rates of violence (towards women or otherwise) based on where those people are practicing their religion. In fact I'd wager you'd find more Christians and atheists beating their wives in a country like Canada than you would Muslims--probably for reasons that have nothing to do with religion (alcohol or substance abuse, history of being abused themselves, etc.).

Why do "Muslim countries" seem more violent or more violent towards women? Maybe because of the fact that the ones that are most talked about in the news have majority populations that live literally like it was 500 years ago? Or maybe because the ones that pop up in the news frequently (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) are controlled by autocratic regimes that rule with an iron fist and are far more concerned with keeping power than promoting democracy and human rights? Or maybe because of local tribal practices that pre-date Islam and have continued until today (i.e. female genital mutilation)?

If you're going to compare countries, then compare apples to apples. Compare Saudi Arabia to 1500s England in terms of the rights of women and religious freedom, because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy much as 1500s England was a Christian monarchy. Compare human rights in a developing country like Indonesia to early 1900s U.S., where other religions were ostensibly tolerated but Christian norms were de facto.

But comparing human rights in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to the modern U.S. and then generalizing the results to all "Muslim" countries is, as Reza mentioned, just stupid.

Another video popped up with Kristen Stewart in it about camp x-ray after watching this one. The context might have been wrong, but i can understand why @billpayer said that - it's a terrible, terrible thing of which he speaks and it can feel frustrating when you care about those things but it seems to you like most forms of mainstream media only tell a certain side.

It is frustrating, and i doubt many people disagree with you that it's a monumental injustice, but the other side of the story does get told.. and i think the noticeable weighting is indicative of what the majority of people "want" to hear/believe rather than a calculated move to revise history (i.e. more cinema tickets will be sold by a movie in which a westerner overcomes perceived terrorism than one in which a light is shone on the possible human rights violations and illegal internment of innocent victims of the west's war on terror).

I was surprised by the 'kstew' trailer, looked ....intelligent and thoughtful?

Genius video. As for topic, it's all for the best I believe. Less use for humans means less humans right? Overpopulation is number one problem in the world, so that helps. Worst case though is never adjusting our economy and ways of thinking, which leads to massive poverty and all the useless people slowly dying out and rioting all the way - which is going to happen most likely.

I'm not a fan of Hamas at all.

If you were being extremely generous, you could argue that they have some extremist elements with some very unsavory views.

A more reasonable appraisal is that they are a pretty fucking awful organisation with a horrific humans rights record* who genuinely do want the jews annihilated.

But hey, do you know what will help the situation? Israel bombing schools! That will absolutely make the people of Gaza realise that israelis aren't bad guys at all. In no time at all, that will help foster a culture of understanding and harmony.

* And let's be honest here, the same is true for almost all Islamic states.

This may seem dry, but what's happening here is very important.
Saudi Arabia is trying to defend it's assumed, self-given right to force it's religion on everyone and punish all that don't convert, even atheists by punishment of corporal punishment -- which is in direct opposition to the Human Right's Council's mandate.
The USA, France and Canada stands up for the speaker to defend their right to speak on this subject.

The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

USA is the only country that voted against investigating war crimes in Gaza at the UN Human Rights Council.
http://4bitnews.com/uk/un-human-rights-votes-investigate-war-crimes-gaza-uk-backs-israel/