not dupe. It just has a small excerpt of that.
>> ^Farhad2000:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Wafa-Sultan-clashes-over-Is
lamic-teachings-terrorists

iran would be well on it's way to become a democracy by now were there no interventions by the US and Israel, which won't give up it's strategic control of mid-East. like 1980-88 iran-iraq war, sponsored and instigated by the US. thus the clerics are still in power. there's a lot of well educated young people in Iran that want to establish normal relations with the west. my ex-girlfriend was in Iran in 1989, had trouble with the "ethics police" in Teheran, a bunch of armed youth and old war veterans that patroled the streets. apparently her feet were to "exposed" (she wore sandals and huge sunglasses) also her long blond hair peeked a bit from under all that disguise, so she was an easy target. she was with another guy and they had to pretend they're married to get a hotel room. they were pushing it a bit when they went skinny dipping in the Caspian sea (they entered from north, through Turkey) but they both came home with good impressions. they met a dozen educated mid-class iranians who were very eager to welcome them in their homes and talk to them about politics, life in Europe and the stuff that was bothering them like strict religious laws and the double lives they lived - out on the street or at work they always have to be careful about what they say, how they behave or what they wear. when at home they're much more relaxed and openly talk about life in Iran.
we shouldn't bomb them, we should help them make a better country for themselves or at least just leave them the fuck alone so they can get their shit together on their own. the US policy for the last few decades certainly didn't do any good to the evolutionary process in that part of the world.

Interesting if not sometimes rambling lecture. I'm also not entirely sure of what his solution was, granted I was doing a lot of multitasking while listening, so I could have easily missed it.

He talks a lot about one of my peeves in the way psychological research/study operates. That being a strict adherence to behavioral observation as the only means of scientific observation into the realm of psychology. I often feel psychologist get so wrapped up in trying to prove they're a legitimate science they forget how deeply rooted it is in philosophy. That doesn't mean the scientific method has no place in psychology, it's an extremely important part of it, without which there would be no psychology, just a bunch of clerics. But at the same time, as Dr. Wallace mentioned, they ignore the very tool they use to create their theories and setup and run their experiments, thought.

I'll pick on the behaviorists because I think they are the most flagrant abusers. In "strict" behaviorism thought is merely an illusion, all behavior boils down to genetics and experience/learning (some will only say experience). Everything you say and do is because somewhere you learned that's the best way to react in that situation. For predicting human behavior this means if you can know a person's experiences, you can take any situation/stimulus and predict their reaction perfectly. Great sound theory, but the problem comes in that you can't know. Any time behaviorists fail to predict a reaction its not because their theory is wrong, it's because they've not found the proper stimulus to elicit the desired response. In essence its impossible to process behaviorism wrong, and I feel this is a major violation of the same scientific process they wear like a suit of armor. Dr. Wallace used the word dogmatic, a few times and I'm inclined to agree whole heartedly. The only way I can think of that could be used to disprove strict behaviorism would require (ironically) omnipotence. Now don't get me wrong, I think behaviorism is a very valuable area of psychology, and has produced some extremely important enlightening information towards the essence of being human, but I do dislike the almost religious fanaticism a large portion of psychologists seem to devote to it.

EDIT: Also, great sift, hopefully enough people over look the hour plus play time to sift it. Though I've only been a member for a short time, stuff like this seems to be what the sift is for. Pulling diamonds from among the dregs of other video sites.

I wonder if Kirk is a Muslim cleric?

http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-beat-your-wife

http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-Beat-Your-Wife-According-to-Allah

From the Youtube posting:

Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi advises men on how to beat their wives.

"Admonish them -- once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."

And if that doesn't work? He asks.

"Beat them," one of the 3 responded.

"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.

Well, okay then. You hadn't mentioned that you had already admonished her 10 times

'Lyrical terrorist' sentenced over extremist poetry

A 23-year-old former Heathrow shop assistant who called herself the "lyrical terrorist" and scrawled her extremist thoughts on till receipts has been handed a nine-month suspended jail sentence.
Samina Malik became the first woman convicted under new terrorism legislation after writing poems entitled How To Behead and The Living Martyrs.

Malik, described as an "unlikely but committed" Islamic extremist, was last month convicted by an jury at the Old Bailey of a charge under the 2000 Terrorism Act.

She worked at WH Smith at Heathrow, where she scribbled her extremist lyrics on till receipts. On one she wrote: "The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom."

But Malik told the jury she only adopted her "lyrical terrorist" nickname because she thought it was "cool" and insisted: "I am not a terrorist."

Malik had tears in her eyes as she left the dock, while her mother wept during the court hearing. The judge said Malik's crime was on the "margins" of the offence of which she was found guilty. He said Malik was of "good character" and from a "supportive and law-abiding family who are appalled by the trouble that you are in".

"The Terrorism Act and the restrictions it imposes on the personal freedom exist to protect this country, its interests here and abroad, its citizens, and those who visit here. Its protection embraces us all. Its restrictions apply to us all, whatever our personal religious or political beliefs."

He told Malik that if she had been convicted of the more serious charge of possessing an article for terrorist purposes - of which the jury cleared her - she would have faced a jail term. But he said, while a custodial sentence was merited, she had already faced "extremely rigorous" bail conditions which were "tantamount to house arrest".

The court heard that she also spent five months in custody after being arrested in October last year. Malik's sentence was suspended for 18 months, with the condition that she be supervised for the whole period and undertake unpaid work.

Outside court Malik's solicitor Iqbal Ahmed read out a statement on her behalf. He said: "The trial process has been a terrible ordeal for her and she is now relieved that it is all over. The jury found that she did not have the material for terrorist purposes which was an important part of her case. She now wants to get on with her life."

Last month, Malik was found guilty of possessing records likely to be useful in terrorism by a majority of 10 to one. She cried as the verdict was read. Two female jurors were also in tears. The court heard that Malik stocked a "library" of material useful to terrorists at her family home in Southall, west London.

The court was told Malik was 20 years old when she "first started to consider Islam" and was "like most teenagers, somewhat rebellious". Malik had been interested in poetry, and had written love poems, followed by rap poems and later by "what can only be described as the distasteful poetry which has been mentioned in this trial".

John Burton, defending, said: "She became hooked on Abu Hamza-type addresses and that affected her mindset." The jury was told that she joined an extremist organisation called Jihad Way, set up explicitly to spread terrorist propaganda and support for al Qaida.

Jonathan Sharp, prosecuting, told the court she visited a website linked to the jailed cleric Abu Hamza and stored material about weapons. The court also heard Malik belonged to a social networking website called hi5, describing her interests as "helping the mujaheddin in any way which I can".

Under favourite TV shows, she listed: "Watching videos by my Muslim brothers in Iraq, yep the beheading ones, watching video messages by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri and other videos which show massacres of the kaffirs." removed

After her conviction, Judge Peter Beaumont, the recorder of London, told her: "You have been, in many respects, a complete enigma to me."

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the decision by the judge to suspend the sentence. Inayat Bunglawala said: "It always seemed a rather bizarre decision to prosecute Samina when she is clearly not an actual terror plotter.

"Samina Malik was being prosecuted in effect for a thought crime because she had downloaded some material from the internet which anyone could download."
Mr Bunglawala said the case demonstrated how ill-conceived and "incredibly broad-ranging" the law is under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act. "Teenagers download some quite nihilistic material every day and they are not prosecuted," he said.

"The fact that this case went to court sends a very worrying signal that if you are Muslim and you are downloading from the Internet you may be judged to a quite different standard from others. Fortunately the judge has been sensible about this. The wider Muslim community must be relieved that she hasn't got a custodial sentence."

In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said: "Samina Malik was not prosecuted for writing poetry. Ms Malik was convicted of collecting information, without reasonable excuse, of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

The "good it would do" is to give pause to our enemies around the world.

You can only negotiate peace with enemies who fear consequences.

Right now, Iran doesn't properly fear the United States. There is a lack of respect.

To put it in proper perspctive, Red China, with nukes and population over a billion, fears the US. Beijing knows if it were to launch an assault on the US, they would perish along with us. The Communist Chinese are oppressive scum, but they are sane enough to know the stakes. Although they are a far more dangerous enemy than any gang in the Middle East, they're stable, more concerned with getting Beijing ready for the Olympics.

Jihadists are NOT sane. They're convinced that glorious megadeaths will only delight Allah. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a prosperous, well-read middle class. If they have a choice between their whole country being wiped out or offering up I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket and his merry band of clerics, guess who's going to be assassinated?

It's important for naive peaceniks to know they're advocating appeasement, basing peace on a crazed jihadist keeping his word.

Well, I've made MY case.

The speech mojo jojo makes in the end is undoubtedly heavily influenced the "holy grenade" scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail:

Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once at the number three, being the third number be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."

Regardless of (un)originality, upvote.

Reading the comments left on LiveLeak, its not entirely clear what happened. There's even a small chance of fraud on the part of the soldier. All I'm saying is that we should probably not jump on the emotional bandwagon here before more facts are known. Chances are it was a clerical error that does need to be cleared up, but I'm not about to don my tinfoil hat just quite yet.

BrknPhoenix

I didn't say you didn't have a right to your opinion because you're not in Iraq. Look closely and you'll see I said it was idiotic to say someone's opinion is invalidated because they are not a participant of the thing they support, which is what this video is trying to do.

This video is in no way invalidating the opinions of the college Republicans. The video *is* pointing out the inconsistency of supporting the war yet not actively seeking out their local enlistment agency. I'm sure the filmmaker was well aware of the opinions these individuals hold, but his intent was not to INVALIDATE them. It was to point out that the most direct way in which they could follow through on their views would be to actively enlist and serve, and yet none choose to do so.

I support having professional baseball, yet I am not a professional baseball player. Why? I am not that good at baseball and there are others that are much better suited for it than I. I'd just get in the way. War isn't quite as fun as baseball but there's an unlimited number of comparisons that could be made that indicate that not being in the war is not a valid reason to say someone is wrong for supporting it.

That is a fallacious comparison. Only a tiny percentage of people are qualified enough to become a major league baseball player, while the military has no problem training anyone who is of age and of sufficient health. Even if you have medical problems (as some of these individuals cite), the military is always in need of individuals in a supporting role. Even simple clerical jobs are available at home. That would still be an act of "doing one's part" in the war effort, thus lending credibility to their words.

And as far as your opinion "saving lives"... Not so fast. They're still over there as far as I can see. You can armchair quarterback all you like but claiming someone's opinion of the war doesn't matter because they aren't there, while you yourself aren't there, isn't going to be getting the soldiers home any time soon.

1. I am of the opinion that the Iraq war should never have been fought.
2. Had the Iraq war never been fought, a MINIMUM 67,265 Iraqi civilians (NOT combatants) would not have died. An additional 3,623 (and rising) American service men and women would not have died.
3. Therefore, had the American public, press, and administration held the same "dove" opinion that myself and many others across the nation had, it is unlikely that the war would have occurred.

Point being: Yes, the armed forces are over in Iraq. Except I didn't put them there. I didn't support putting them there. I did my duty as a citizen - I wrote my congressmen and senators. I attended protests and demonstrations. I discussed/argued with my friends that this is an unjustifiable war... and I was not listened to.

Now look where we are.

qruel:

http://www.afa.net/Petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=257

WallBuilders president David Barton is questioning why the U.S. government is seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god. Barton points out that since Hindus worship multiple gods, the prayer will be completely outside the American paradigm, flying in the face of the American motto "One Nation Under God."

Speaking as someone who was raised Catholic - they believe in one God; the Trinity you spoke of are parts of the whole.

I wonder if there've been invocations by rabbis or Muslim clerics, which theoretically would not upset Mr. Barton (as they also have monotheistic deities), but I'm sure would make his blood boil just the same.

None of any of it makes a goddamned bit of sense to me.
And I fail to see why "extremists" does not apply to these people.
If any of them looked even the slightest bit Middle-Eastern, they never would've been able to get into the Senate to pull their little stunt.

Yeeee - I have greater problem with the collective classification. I don't doubt this is unattainable skill.

Still, despite the "clerical errors", upvote b/c it sounded nice.

ok, that "clerical error" part is way funnier than it should be.

Yet another lesson on why vigilante "justice" is not a good idea...

Lambert has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics, C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestants Constitutional Convention delegates, 28 were Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, and 2 were Methodists. Many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were vocal about their opposition to organized religion or anti-clerical, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson's Bible"), Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. However, a few of the more notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of traditional Deists, including Jefferson, Paine and Ethan Allen.

Notwithstanding the spectrum of beliefs held by the Founding Fathers, most viewed religion in a favorable light. This is noted through their statements in speeches and correspondences in which they describe its role in molding "national morality" and securing the rule of law (George Washington), its check on human "wickedness" (Benjamin Franklin), and its preservation of a free government such as America (John Adams). Regardless, the division of church and state was always emphasized by the founding fathers. "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion

Lion of the Desert is the dramatic action epic of the struggle of Omar Mukhtar (played by Anthony Quinn), leader of the Muslim resistance in North Africa in the 1920's and 30's, against the imperialism of Mussolini and the Italian army. The film follows Mukhtar’s brilliant, relentless effort to rid Libya of the Italian invaders from 1911 until 1931 when he was eventually captured and executed by Mussolini's forces.

The movie is now widely critically acclaimed, after initially receiving negative publicity in the West for being partially funded by Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, who invested $35 million in the movie. It is considered by many to be one of the best films about Arabs ever made. Not only did it offer a sympathetic view of Islam as a humane faith, it also illustrates what viewers almost never see — brave young Bedouins. In one notable scene the film's star, Anthony Quinn, is teaching young village boys the meaning of the Qur’an. "Why," Quinn asks them, "do you think we begin every chapter of the Qur’an with 'God the merciful'?"

Italian authorities banned the movie in 1982 because, in the words of Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, it was considered "damaging to the Army's honour". Later, the movie was illegally projected at a number of film festivals from 1988, without interference from the government. Minister for Culture Giuliano Urbani, on April 15, 2003, stated that any movie needs to be reviewed by government authorities before it can be publicly shown, in order to evaluate suitability for minors: according to Mr. Urbani, this evaluation has never been requested for the movie.

The movie was directed by Moustapha Akkad. He was best known in the West as the producer of the first eight Halloween movies. But in the Islamic world, Akkad was best known as the director and producer of Mohammad, Messenger of God (released as The Message in 1977 in the United States), starring Anthony Quinn and Irene Papas. Akkad came to LA from Allepo in the 1950s to study film—attempting to use the movie capital's power to reshape negative stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims. Akkad faced resistance from Hollywood to making a film about the origins of Islam and had to go outside the United States to raise the production money for the film. While creating Muhammad, Messenger of God, he consulted Islamic clerics and tried to be respectful toward Islam and its views on portraying Prophet Muhammad. He saw the film as a way to bridge the gap between the Western and Islamic world, stating in a 1976 interview: “I did the film because it is a personal thing for me. Besides its production values as a film, it has its story, its intrigue, its drama. Beside all this I think there was something personal, being Muslim myself who lived in the west I felt that it was my obligation my duty to tell the truth about Islam. It is a religion that has a 700 million following, yet it's so little known about it which surprised me. I thought I should tell the story that will bring this bridge, this gap to the west.”

Akkad, and his 34-year-old daughter Rima Akkad Monla, died as a result of the 2005 Al-Qaeda Amman bombings. They were both in the lobby at the Grand Hyatt. His daughter died instantly, and Akkad died of his injuries two days later in a hospital. As Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed wrote in the newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat, "The irony is that Akkad, the very man who delivered a wonderful image of Islam, was killed by Al-Qaeda, the very organization that has defamed Islam and Muslims."