Hm, something different for a change. *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, October 18th, 2010 1:50am PDT - promote requested by radx.

semi-sure ive seen this on here already..

*religion
*islam

Adding video to channels (Islam, Religion) - requested by RedSky.

Really interesting. No one knows how to handle him or his argument.

So many long words. Cognitive dissonance?! Slow down, Jack. This is cable news. Two syllables maximum.

"Let's get some news in here"
Precisely airhead ....

That was awesome.

Dylan Ratigan, eh? I'd never heard of him.

Also funny that until toferyu pointed it out I didn't notice or appreciate how hilarious it is that she leads into headlines with "Let's get some news in here" and this after following what will quite possibly be the best few minutes of news on MSNBC today.

Min 5:02.

Damn. Nail on the head

Thank You, mintbbb. That truly was well worth watching.

A "decent, honest exchange of real information"? Not on MS-DNC.

If someone wants to decipher this babble, do so before 5:20 when he starts hawking colbert's book.

Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?
*quality

>> ^kymbos:

Really interesting. No one knows how to handle him or his argument.

>> ^quantumushroom:

A "decent, honest exchange of real information"? Not on MS-DNC.
If someone wants to decipher this babble, do so before 5:20 when he starts hawking colbert's book.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by SlipperyPete.

You've been Ratified!

*puts on sunglasses*

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH

I'm surprised the U.S. hasn't invaded Kevin Bacon by now.

>> ^Phreezdryd:

I'm surprised the U.S. hasn't invaded Kevin Bacon by now.


Mmmm, bacon.

I like guys who can articulate reality!

>> ^kymbos:

Really interesting. No one knows how to handle him or his argument.


Which demonstrates the failure of the networks even more.

Christopher Hitchens would not only handle his argument, he'd do it easily, and while drunk. It's a tragedy that guys of this caliber aren't televised more often.

The description of the problem being simply a 'small' group of Wahhabi Saudis, is false. Throughout Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Saudi Arabia there were spontaneous celebrations in the streets after the 9/11 attacks, with people cheering and handing out candies to the children. It's not war with Islam, but there IS a war within Islam and the Western world has been singled out by one side in that war as the enemy. That's why Muslims make up not only the enemies of the west in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also their allies.

He addressed that point. He's not saying people don't like America, he's saying the vast majority do it from their couch, or as you describe it, celebrating in the streets. They're not the ones conducting terrorism, and the fact that they wave flags doesn't put the US in danger.

>> ^kymbos:

He addressed that point. He's not saying people don't like America, he's saying the vast majority do it from their couch, or as you describe it, celebrating in the streets. They're not the ones conducting terrorism, and the fact that they wave flags doesn't put the US in danger.


Oh, so as long as it's not a problem for America, who cares.

All those 'arm-chair' jihadists are providing enormous sums of money to recruit, train and arm real jihadists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and on. Sure 99.9% of all their attacks are on other muslims within those countries. I still call that a problem. I find it intellectually insulting to reject it as a concern because it's not Americans that are dying, and in the same breath decry opposing those murderers as a racist endeavor.

Gotta agree with bcglorf on this one. Being more nuanced than usual morning TV doesn't make what he's saying completely true. Most Muslims are not crazy terrorists, but most crazy terrorists are devout Muslims. I agree that they aren't terrorists solely because they're Muslims, but if they weren't Muslims... who could say they would still be terrorists and keep a straight face?

>> ^CircleMaker:

Gotta agree with bcglorf on this one. Being more nuanced than usual morning TV doesn't make what he's saying completely true. Most Muslims are not crazy terrorists, but most crazy terrorists are devout Muslims. I agree that they aren't terrorists solely because they're Muslims, but if they weren't Muslims... who could say they would still be terrorists and keep a straight face?


I'm afraid we don't really agree on that at all. Crazy terrorists come in all shapes and colors, and wouldn't ever characterize them as being 'mostly' anything.

My point is much more in line with this speaker. The crazy muslim terrorists are primarily a problem to other muslims, as they are overwhelmingly more often the victims of that terror. I disagree with the speaker on the severity of the problem within the Muslim world. Daily suicide and terrorist bombings against predominantly Muslim civilians in virtually all the countries I've previously mentioned would seem to back me up.

Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).

islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.

Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!

These fools will be the death of the West.


>> ^SlipperyPete:

Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?

>> ^kymbos:

Really interesting. No one knows how to handle him or his argument.


No one knows how to handle his "argument" because his "argument" is rambling, incoherent, ill-informed bullshit. I watched the video three times and failed to detect any of the truth so touted in this post title.

But I agree; the USA is not at war. Instead the US has conducted an unprovoked invasion and ongoing occupation of two sovereign, albeit oil-rich and strategically valuable countries. These countries have no military organization, and no military means to resist the US occupation. The USA occupation is NOT welcome (just as an Iraqi occupation of US soil would not be welcome), and any "terrorist" activity against occupying troops is most certainly merely resistance and protest against this occupation.

Nope, that guy does not make a convincing argument: it's just leaning to the other extreme, ignoring the complex relation between the history of Islam and its founding texts and the notions of spiritual and political conquest.

I guess for a public who might think all muslims are terrorists, this might be necessary, but it's definitely incomplete.

Also, the guy is yelling without taking a breath, no wonder "no one knows how to handle him". Like someone else said above, Hitchens easily could while stone drunk and high on chemo.

>> ^DuoJet:

No one knows how to handle his "argument" because his "argument" is rambling, incoherent, ill-informed bullshit. I watched the video three times and failed to detect any of the truth so touted in this post title.
But I agree; the USA is not at war. Instead the US has conducted an unprovoked invasion and ongoing occupation of two sovereign, albeit oil-rich and strategically valuable countries. These countries have no military organization, and no military means to resist the US occupation. The USA occupation is NOT welcome (just as an Iraqi occupation of US soil would not be welcome), and any "terrorist" activity against occupying troops is most certainly merely resistance and protest against this occupation.

What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
the US has conducted an unprovoked invasion and ongoing occupation of two sovereign, albeit oil-rich and strategically valuable countries
When did Afghanistan become 'oil rich'? When did the destruction of 2 American embassies in Africa, a US Warship and 3000 civilians in New York NOT get to be considered a 'provocation'? Stop repeating such ridiculously ignorant stupidity.

any "terrorist" activity against occupying troops is most certainly merely resistance and protest against this occupation.

Right, all the violence in Iraq is 'resistance'. That's why 99.9% of the attacks where against fellow Iraqi citizens based on their religious affiliations alone. Iraq sits on the border between the Sunni and Shia strongholds of Islam. The brutal violence there following the removal of Saddam was overwhelmingly terrorist attacks conducted against Iraqi muslims, Sunni on Shia violence. Ali Allawi, an Iraqi minister under the occupation and a vocal opponent of the occupation wrote a book that utterly destroys the disgusting misrepresentation you gave of the violence in Iraq. Don't spout this ignorant stupidity, it is damaging.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).
islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.
Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!
These fools will be the death of the West.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?



What's your point? The Bible says the following:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

No wars against the church tho eh'?

>> ^DuoJet:

>> ^kymbos:
Really interesting. No one knows how to handle him or his argument.

No one knows how to handle his "argument" because his "argument" is rambling, incoherent, ill-informed bullshit. I watched the video three times and failed to detect any of the truth so touted in this post title.
But I agree; the USA is not at war. Instead the US has conducted an unprovoked invasion and ongoing occupation of two sovereign, albeit oil-rich and strategically valuable countries. These countries have no military organization, and no military means to resist the US occupation. The USA occupation is NOT welcome (just as an Iraqi occupation of US soil would not be welcome), and any "terrorist" activity against occupying troops is most certainly merely resistance and protest against this occupation.


What part of what he said was incoherent to you?

>> ^Matthu:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).
islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.
Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!
These fools will be the death of the West.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?


What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?


QM is just a troll, not sure if it's deliberate or not but best to not engage his posts.

bcglorf: Please. If you're going to refer to my views as "ignorant" and "stupid", at least be armed with something more substantial than shit you're learning from Fox News.

None of the attacks you cited have been attributed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The USS Cole bombings? Al-Qaeda and Sudan. The attacks on US embassies? The Egyptian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Lebanon.

And nowhere in my post did I cite the Muslim-on-Muslim violence that you, for some reason, chose to cite in counter to my statement. Regardless, the US is not in Iraq or Afghanistan to address Muslim-on-Muslim violence. What is your point?

Granted I inadvertently misspoke about Afghanistan. Instead, Afghanistan was seen as geographically important in the construction and securing of oil and gas pipelines.

Unique Eco-sphere = Circle Jerk

shit you're learning from Fox News.
I think that's the most offensive thing anyone's ever said to me. For the record, I NEVER watch Fox, it makes me want to smash the television into pieces to stop the evil from spewing out of it. Oh, and I cited a book by Ali Allawi instead. You don't get much further from Fox News than a book written by an Islamic expert and former Iraqi minister who strongly condemns the occupation.

None of the attacks you cited have been attributed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The USS Cole bombings? Al-Qaeda and Sudan. The attacks on US embassies? The Egyptian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Lebanon.

Really?

You agree that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda where behind all of the attacks. You are aware that Bin Laden is no more a citizen of Saudi Arabia than he is a Muslim, correct? You are aware that as of the 9/11 attacks that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were operating out of non of the countries you mention, but instead out of... Afghanistan. And it wasn't the first time that America had confronted Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regarding Bin Laden. America had previously pressed for charges against Bin Laden, and submitted evidence to the Taliban. The Taliban even 'tried' Bin Laden under their version of Sharia law, and refused admittance to 100% of the evidence America put forward. They rejected not because it was considered unreliable, but because "it was nothing new and that they did not already know". The result of the case was a complete vindication of Bin Laden and his actions. I dare say going after Bin Laden and his Taliban allies in Afghanistan was irrefutably the result of multiple very serious provocations.

And nowhere in my post did I cite the Muslim-on-Muslim violence that you, for some reason, chose to cite in counter to my statement.

I was countering your claim:
any "terrorist" activity against occupying troops is most certainly merely resistance and protest against this occupation.

Calling the violence in Iraq resistance to the occupation and not terrorism is rather strongly countered by the body counts. The majority of dead are Iraqi muslims, killed by terrorist attacks by other Iraqi muslims. The violence in Iraq against coalition troops ended up being dominantly because they were trying to stem the muslim on muslim violence by standing in the middle and offering protection. Sure there was a much, much smaller faction really bent on 'resistance', but it consisted primarily of former Baathists, and was hardly a faction anyone in Iraq sympathized with.

No, glorf, a troll cuts and runs. I don't. And another commenter isn't a troll just because you disagree with them.

I do see how my second response could be confusing.

Seriously, what is this guy's point? refers to Ratigan, not you.

(BTW bcglorf nailed it) refers to your IMO correct reponses re: islam (minus unnecessary insults to other sifters).

My point? I despise intellectual dishonesty, including Ratigan flummery ending in unfounded, TYPICAL charges of racism.



There just aren't many 21st-century Christians slaying homosexuals in the streets or committing "honor killings", while islam causes conflict wherever it spreads.

thereligionofpeace.com

muslims obey their "holy" book with its demands of endless war and conversion by the sword, just as they did in the 7th century. Since they won't change, they should be sent to live at Allah's house.


>> ^Matthu:



What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?

I think that's the most offensive thing anyone's ever said to me.

Right, but your espousing one Fox News talking point after another. You may not be a conscious fan of the organization, but you agree with them.

Really?

Yes, really. You certainly won't take my word for it, but perhaps you can be convinced to do a little research on the topic.

You agree that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda where behind all of the attacks.

No.

You are aware that Bin Laden is no more a citizen of Saudi Arabia than he is a Muslim, correct?

I have no knowledge of bin Laden's citizenship nor his religious views. Neither do you for that matter. But neither enter into this debate.

You are aware that... bin Laden this..., the Taliban that..., blah blah blah... Sharia Law..., Shiite v Sunni... terror... Muslims baaaad..., etc

Again, none of this is relevant to the points I made, you refuse to address my points as stated, and I'm not going to debate you on these terms.

>> ^quantumushroom:

My point? I despise intellectual dishonesty, including Ratigan flummery ending in unfounded, TYPICAL charges of racism.

There just aren't many 21st-century Christians slaying homosexuals in the streets or committing "honor killings", while islam causes conflict wherever it spreads.
thereligionofpeace.com
muslims obey their "holy" book with its demands of endless war and conversion by the sword, just as they did in the 7th century. Since they won't change, they should be sent to live at Allah's house.

>> ^Matthu:

What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?



1 Peter 3:15: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

QM, you little coward... You don't think Christianity called for killing? You ever read any history? Or are you limiting your awesome view of western superiority to the last 400 years?

Explain the Oklahoma City bombing you little baby.

I can't believe you can watch this video and not realize the only people who have attacked America was funded by US dollars and trained by US intelligence (ie. CIA). That would be the Saudi people like the bin Ladens who are funded through their US corporations, who also happen to be family friends of the Bush dynasty.. Did I mention the same bin Laden family bailed out little George W and gave him a company to run into the ground? Did I mention that Papa Bush happened to have been in charge of ... I dunno the CIA? Also the president for awhile back when Saudis were funneled million of dollars.

Funny story, even Saddam was ... guess what? funded and given arms by the US.. and omg, trained by.. guess who? the CIA. The same group that Papa Bush was head of.

So, if you can't comprehend some small faction of extremists that were funded by CIA, Papa Bush and US-based Saudi corporations and US federal dollars and weapons dumped on the Saudis, you really are the biggest ostrich that ever wrapped themselves in the stars and stripes.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^kymbos:
He addressed that point. He's not saying people don't like America, he's saying the vast majority do it from their couch, or as you describe it, celebrating in the streets. They're not the ones conducting terrorism, and the fact that they wave flags doesn't put the US in danger.

Oh, so as long as it's not a problem for America, who cares.
All those 'arm-chair' jihadists are providing enormous sums of money to recruit, train and arm real jihadists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and on. Sure 99.9% of all their attacks are on other muslims within those countries. I still call that a problem. I find it intellectually insulting to reject it as a concern because it's not Americans that are dying, and in the same breath decry opposing those murderers as a racist endeavor.


Eh whatever...fuck it.

>> ^bcglorf:

shit you're learning from Fox News.
I think that's the most offensive thing anyone's ever said to me.


Really...well lets see if I can take a crack at this. YOU Sub-Antidium of BumFluff!

They are terrorists because they are terrorists? He went quite wrong there. He simply doesn't understand or have the balls to call out Islam on this.

JoeDirt wrote:

You don't think Christianity called for killing? You ever read any history? Or are you limiting your awesome view of western superiority to the last 400 years?

Christianity didn't call for killing, flawed human beings did. Compared to the forever-climbing death toll of islam, Christianity shines. And I write this not as a Christian, merely as an observer.

Oh, and your mulleted freedom of speech minus a scimitar on your neck indicates Western Civilization is indeed superior to sharia (f)law.

Explain the Oklahoma City bombing.

An angry loner killed federal employees to avenge a bungling ATF attack on innocent civilians. He did not kill in the name of Christ.

So, if you can't comprehend some small faction of extremists that were funded by CIA, Papa Bush and US-based Saudi corporations and US federal dollars and weapons dumped on the Saudis, you really are the biggest ostrich that ever wrapped themselves in the stars and stripes.

The global situation has always been screwed up and likely always will be. Once upon a time we funded taliban-types in Afghanistan to thwart the greater evil of communism (which liberals deny to this day was a threat despite 100 million murdered by communism worldwide). We helped saddam in the 80s to keep the new Carter-created ayatollah from seizing more power.

The left can't see the forest for the trees.

>> ^quantumushroom:

My point? I despise intellectual dishonesty, including Ratigan flummery ending in unfounded, TYPICAL charges of racism.

There just aren't many 21st-century Christians slaying homosexuals in the streets or committing "honor killings", while islam causes conflict wherever it spreads.
thereligionofpeace.com
muslims obey their "holy" book with its demands of endless war and conversion by the sword, just as they did in the 7th century. Since they won't change, they should be sent to live at Allah's house.

>> ^Matthu:

What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?



Just curious. Are you saying all muslims should be "sent to allah"?