At 0:31 he says, "Although many* Muslims struggle, I mean really struggle with this new-fangled technology of making fire." It doesn't sound like he's differentiating between flag-burning Muslims and the rest of them. He's casting a blanket assertion that most Muslims are so retarded that they can't even make fire.

But it's more than just that. He's constantly sarcastically labeling Islam as the "religion of peace." And you know what? It ain't a religion of peace. (GASP!) But neither is Christianity. Nor Judaism. Nor Hinduism. Nor even freaking Buddhism, if you can believe that. They all have lovey-dovey peacey-huggy teachings, but they also aren't afraid to pick up the sword whenever they deem it necessary for whatever god-awful reason. So why is he singling out Islam? Because he's a bigot? Yes, most definitely.

And that's why I'm sick of this guy. Fuck him. He's the West's counterpart to Ahmadinejad or bin Laden. Put them in Thunderdome. Except let no one come out.

*Bold face my emphasis

>> ^MilkmanDan:

I tend to think his "so stupid they can't even light a fire" was directed more specifically at the flag-burners themselves, and less at Muslims in general. He referred to the group as an "angry Islamic mob"; presumably he would take less issue with a "peaceful Islamic mob", or a "collection of average Muslims". "Maybe the Koran would burn better" could be offensive to Muslims in general, but I would assume particularly so to the flag-burning extremists.

Stop being so racist!
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
How is it racist to call a racist government racist? It's racist to ignore a racist government. It's racist to defend a racist government. Fox news, you've done it again! Hypocrite of the year!
The Israeli government is deeply racist, I may not like Ahmadinejad's politics but he's right on this one.
It's Fox News that's racist for defending a deeply racist regime, it really doesn't take much research to find out how Palestinians are persecuted daily in Israel for their race, even Christian Palestinians (yes there are some) deal with constant racism.
But as usual they'd rather focus on the bizarre than any actual issues.

It's not racist to call anyone or anything racist. It might be true or false, responsible or irresponsible, or derogatory, but not racist.

It's also not racist to ignore a racist (person, government or otherwise). Again, it might be irresponsible, but it's not racist.

And it's not necessarily racist to defend a racist. Attacking Ahmadinejad for his comments isn't defending Israel. I would condemn his comments, too, not based on whether they're accurate or not, but because this probably isn't the proper forum to be making them in.

How is it racist to call a racist government racist? It's racist to ignore a racist government. It's racist to defend a racist government. Fox news, you've done it again! Hypocrite of the year!

The Israeli government is deeply racist, I may not like Ahmadinejad's politics but he's right on this one.

It's Fox News that's racist for defending a deeply racist regime, it really doesn't take much research to find out how Palestinians are persecuted daily in Israel for their race, even Christian Palestinians (yes there are some) deal with constant racism.

But as usual they'd rather focus on the bizarre than any actual issues.

Funny, she says "we didn't try to ban them from speaking" (so it's not freedom of speech issue), as if preventing him from speaking by storming the stage is somehow better.

This reminds me of university student mobs described on Pinker's "Blank Slate." One biology researcher (Herrnstein) was misquoted in pro-racist literature and then found that he could no longer speak about his research specialty, learning in pigeons, because wherever he went the lecture halls were filled with chanting mobs.

Even Ahmadinejad was able to give his speech uninterrupted at Columbia university, is this guy so much worse?

The anti-muslim version of Ahmadinejad. This is hate speech with a sheer cloak of pseudo-intellectualism.

If he thinks Islam is the biggest threat to the constitution, he should watch and listen to the 700 Club, or Focus on the Family sometime.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Yogi:
I never understood how Holocaust Denial hurts anyone.

Whether he believes the holocaust actually happened or not, many in the middle east see it as an excuse to create a arbitrary nation with "stolen" land. They do not see it as a good enough reason to partition the land for the surviving victims of genocide. The actual creation of Israel is a bit more complex, but attitudes do not always share the subtleties of the issues involved.
People care what Ahmadinejad thinks because he controls very real military and political power, so his view of the legitimacy of Israel is a big issue. He sees the Jews as foreign occupiers operating under the guise of victimization, so he and many others would love to remove them by force. If he publicly claims that the holocaust never happened, without anyone contradicting him, then more people in that region may believe it and feel even more animosity towards Israel.
The goal, at least for the western powers, is to defuse the tensions between Israel and Arabs so they can coexist without war. Having a leader from one of the Arab countries going around claiming the Jews were never victimized only inflames the situation and makes conflict more likely.


So the short version of that answer is No Holocaust Denial hurts nobody.

Also the goal of Western Powers (US, Britain) has never been to defuse tensions or create an enduring peace between Israel and Arabs. It's been to block any sort of peace for the past 35 years. That's why it's called a Peace Process, because it's what we're engaged in, and it's never ending.

>> ^Yogi:
I never understood how Holocaust Denial hurts anyone.


Whether he believes the holocaust actually happened or not, many in the middle east see it as an excuse to create a arbitrary nation with "stolen" land. They do not see it as a good enough reason to partition the land for the surviving victims of genocide. The actual creation of Israel is a bit more complex, but attitudes do not always share the subtleties of the issues involved.

People care what Ahmadinejad thinks because he controls very real military and political power, so his view of the legitimacy of Israel is a big issue. He sees the Jews as foreign occupiers operating under the guise of victimization, so he and many others would love to remove them by force. If he publicly claims that the holocaust never happened, without anyone contradicting him, then more people in that region may believe it and feel even more animosity towards Israel.

The goal, at least for the western powers, is to defuse the tensions between Israel and Arabs so they can coexist without war. Having a leader from one of the Arab countries going around claiming the Jews were never victimized only inflames the situation and makes conflict more likely.

>> ^chilaxe:
Haha. Intellectualism Fail.
Chavez' argument has 2 parts:
1. Fox News is intellectually illegitimate because they criticize X (Ahmadinejad) but refuse to criticize Y (Bush), which is of the same type as X. (A fair argument, depending on your perspective.)
2. I, Chavez, am noble because I criticize Y, but refuse to criticize X, which is of the same type as Y. (Not a fair argument from any perspective.)


Umm... huh? Good work on pointing out that criticising X should be equivalent to criticising Y, but why is one approach only fair "depending on your perspective" and the other "Not a fair argument from any perspective?" Your logic is a little faulty here. Sure, accuse Chavez of being a hypocrite (i.e. "intellectually illegitimate"), if you want, but this must also apply to Fox News and others, surely?

The arguments are:

1) If you criticise X you should criticise Y, else you are a hypocrite.
2) Fox News criticises X but does not criticise Y.
therefore, 3) Fox News is a hypocrite.

and

1) If you criticise Y you should criticise X, else you are a hypocrite.
2) Chavez criticises Y but does not criticise X.
therefore, 3) Chavez is a hypocrite.

Haha. Intellectualism Fail.

Chavez' argument has 2 parts:

1. Fox News is intellectually illegitimate because they criticize X (Ahmadinejad) but refuse to criticize Y (Bush), which is of the same type as X. (A fair argument, depending on your perspective.)

2. I, Chavez, am noble because I criticize Y, but refuse to criticize X, which is of the same type as Y. (Not a fair argument from any perspective.)

I'm fed up with once again hearing people in my country crying about how misunderstood Ahmadinejad is so I'm gonna beg this one again.

*beg

do some islamic cultures use islam to oppress women?...yes.
is this truly indicative of the original teachings of islam?...no.

You know, it would be interesting to find out more about these elusive "original teachings" of different religions, they always seems to be perfectly aligned with modern, secular, liberal values of the most gentle kind. I guess the "original" islamists knew exactly how to ignore the right verses of the Quran, like the ones describing how a womans word is worth half that of a mans word, or how they are generally impure and have to stay away from funerals, prayer etc

Because, you know, when I read the Quran, I see none of this liberal stuff shining through, on every page it seems to demand one hundred percent submission to the one true god, and descibe how unbelievers who have heard of this god (and rejected it) will burn in hell forever, unless they later embrace Islam. I seem to remember Jews being compared to "Apes and pigs", Christians and unbelievers being treated as some for of disease you'd better avoid, women as birthmachines that we (the readers, who are always men) must pretend to own and raise like we do with cattle.

If I didnt know better, I think I'd describe the Quran as a book that , if you actually followed it teachings, you'd look like Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and nothing like a liberal leftie at all.

The demand for an apology by Ahmadinejad mentioned at the end is here.

>> ^imstellar28:
If the Iranian people ask for our help

How, exactly, would you expect this to happen?
How would "the Iranian people" ask for "our help"?

I'm not suggesting it's time to send Fiddy over to fix their shit, but there's no "Iranian people" with a single unified voice to "ask for help".
There's a totalitarian regime that controls the political machine, a large population of angry dissenters, a bunch who believe Ahmadinejad's got the right idea in standing up to the West, a significant number who just want everything to settle down so they can get on with their lives, and everything in between.

There will never be a mandate from their populace requesting our intervention.

It is up to us to decide if and when we think it's in our best interest to intervene (in terms of benefit to the global community, the populace of Iran, and U.S. interests; the effect of international relations and perception; regional stability, etc) and if we do decide we think it's in our best interest to intervene, then how, and to what extent, and to what end? Sanctions, diplomatic measures, military force? Is the goal policy reversal? Deposition of the current regime? Institution of monitored democratic process? Installation of pro-west government?

This isn't as simple as "DO IRANIANS WANT TO BE BOMBED? Y/N?"

Obama hits on the real point, the legitimacy has to be through the people of Iran. In the past we have put our interests in Iran above Iranian's interests in Iran with such catastrophic results even the "liberals" over there don't trust us. So it doesn't matter how well intentioned we are, or if we actually are working for their interests, we've so tainted our reputation over there nobody would really trust us, we'd just become a rallying cry for the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad, and it'd pull the thunder from the protesters.

What I don' hear much of is Russia's view of all this. It would seem they have an economical interest in keeping the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad in power. If the protests ever form into an actual revolution/civil war, I wonder what Russia would do.