best Al Queda recruitment video, ever.

The official story is unlikely to be 100% correct, ever. They might even be intentionally hiding information.

That's a little different than people claiming it was carried out by the government so they could frame Al Queda (or whatever the reasoning was).

So, if blind adherence to religious dogma absolves your personal bigotry, then logically, there is nothing wrong with the KKK, The Westburo Baptist Church or Al Queda - they are merely doing God's work. Kudos to the gutsy student for standing up to this belligerent bigot.

Know your enemy, huh? I wonder what her policy is on Iran, North Korea, the Taliban, Al Queda, Gaddafi, ..... etc etc etc

@hpqp

I'm sorry you feel enraged. That wasn't the purpose of my post at all. As I tried to state clearly in the original post, I wanted to tell you my opinion on the issue. That's all. I wasn't trying to convince you I was right because honestly I don't think I could every provide you with enough evidence to change your mind. All I can do is tell you why I listen to the same things Harris says and see a different picture being painted than you do.

The underlined part is, I think, where our disagreement comes from. You seem to believe that everyone must see things in one way. For example, you keep citing the Koran as evidence of Islam's evil. My response to that is the same as Antonio Scalia's recent response in the Supreme Court ruling that allows video games to be covered under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution: "All literature is essentially interactive." In other words, all literature is interpreted by its readers. Whatever intent writers may have had when penning a work, once it is out of their hands and is distributed, that message is no longer the only valid interpretation. This is especially true for a work of literature whose author has been dead for over 1000 years.

There is not--there cannot be--one interpretation of Islam. Islam is a religion practiced by 1.5 billion people around the world in over 232 countries and territories. These people come from wildly different socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicity, nationalities, education levels, and so forth. Even a cursory glance at the statistics hints at what an investigation of how Islam is practiced around the world makes clear--Islam as a religion is realized in the world very differently by people depending on a huge variety of factors including (but not limited to) local tradition, history, the socio-economic status of the practitioners, etc. They may agree with other practitioners around the world on some basic facts (Allah is the one true God, Mohommand was God's prophet) but they disagree on a great many other things. Ironically Sam Harris himself glaringly points out this disagreement in his own talks--for example when he states that 1/3 of British Muslims want to live under Sharia law... which necessarily implies that 2/3 of British Muslims don't.

So we have the “teachings” of Islam (as codified in the Koran, Hadith, and Sufi texts), we also have the widely differing interpretation and actualization of those teachings, and we also have the people (who may—as in the case of Al-Queda terrorists—have ambitions far beyond simply being a Muslim who follows the teachings as best as possible) who are doing the interpreting and actualization. Adding to the complexity is the transformation of Islamic ideas into a political ideology.

So when Sam Harris wants to criticize Islam, one of the first questions I have for him is... which one? Yet he (and you) seem to be insisting that there is only one proper way to read the Koran--only one possible way to interpret it that represents all of Islam. I find that fascinating because that is exactly the same view that fundamentalists have. The fact that millions of Muslims and non-Muslims alike--from all backgrounds including laypeople, theologians, and scholars--have widely different views about how to interpret and actualize what is written in the Koran and Hadiths demonstrates to me that this view--this fundamentalist view that Harris (and you) seem to embrace--is completely incorrect.

No, the Koran is not "pretty clear" at all. There are multiple differing translations of the Koran. There are multiple differing interpretations of those translations. And there are multiple ways in which Islam is realized in the world (radical fundamentalism, Sufism, etc.). Unlike Christianity, which gives us no end of labels for the differing interpretations of the Bible and how Christianity should be practiced (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Unitarian, Mormon, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, and so on...) Islam does not have nearly as many labels for its differing interpretations. But those differing interpretations quite clearly exist. Even if such labels existed for Islam, we know from Christianity that within a similar group of Christians (Unitarians for instance) there is even further differentiation and interpretation between different regions, churches, and even individuals in beliefs and practices.

So, in short, to answer your question about why I don't read Harris and agree with what he say: I think the fundamental premise of his argument is wrong. His argument against "Islam" breaks down completely if he acknowledges that there can be multiple interpretations of the Koran. The fact that he is an extremely well-educated man who refuses to admit that these differing interpretations even exist hurts his credibility in my eyes even further. I hope that makes my position clear.

Thanks for reading my long-winded posts. And just to reiterate, I'm seriously not trying to convince you of anything at this point. I'm stating my opinion on the topic. That's all.

P.S. I apologize for assuming you were a guy. Because we kept bumping into each other in the same vids, I figured we had similar video preferences. I guess I figured it was more likely a guy would be interested in those vids than a girl. My mistake.

P.S. 2 Could you please, please, please, please, PLEASE, answer the question that I've been asking you across two threads and several comments now? What's Harris's/your desired goal? What's the endgame? What are you both hoping to achieve with all of this?

Right. I'm pretty sure Al-Queda has defined "mischief" or "corruption" as, "having a presence on Muslim land while displaying faith in the wrong religion"; and in the case of offending governments, defined the offender as, "all citizens of that country."

I think it's best to leave decisions about whom to kill to those who don't follow any religion, and who decide based on what's best for society (Who decides what's good for society is a conversation you and I are having in another thread, but I'd trust that outcome more than a religious one).>> ^chilaxe:

...verse 33 doesn't actually seem to me to be bad at all if you interpret it the right way.

The photo I saw was here:

http://videosift.com/video/President-Obama-s-Statement-on-Osama-bin-Laden-s-Death?loadcomm=1#comment-1194967

It's gone now.



>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Riiiiight...
Between the picture, the wife identifying the body and Al Queda acknowledging his death, there seems to be plenty of evidence. I guess in the youtube age, some people requite evidence in full HD after Dancing With The Stars.
If this were a conspiracy, the picture would be the key to the case, because it would show evidence of either photoshopping, fake make up blood/wounds or the use of another corpse/dummy in place of bin Laden's.
Also, Alex Jones is an idiot.

Um what photo...? I don't care about coerced testimony or the confirmation by a government contracted intelligence group (one that's run by the daughter of an Israeli spy no less).
Are you talking about this photo here:
http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-death-photo-fake-fraud
-hoax/

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Riiiiight...
Between the picture, the wife identifying the body and Al Queda acknowledging his death, there seems to be plenty of evidence. I guess in the youtube age, some people requite evidence in full HD after Dancing With The Stars.
If this were a conspiracy, the picture would be the key to the case, because it would show evidence of either photoshopping, fake make up blood/wounds or the use of another corpse/dummy in place of bin Laden's.
Also, Alex Jones is an idiot.


Um what photo...? I don't care about coerced testimony or the confirmation by a government contracted intelligence group (one that's run by the daughter of an Israeli spy no less).

Are you talking about this photo here:
http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-death-photo-fake-fraud-hoax/

Riiiiight...

Between the picture, the wife identifying the body and Al Queda acknowledging his death, there seems to be plenty of evidence. I guess in the youtube age, some people requite evidence in full HD after Dancing With The Stars.

If this were a conspiracy, the picture would be the key to the case, because it would show evidence of either photoshopping, fake make up blood/wounds or the use of another corpse/dummy in place of bin Laden's.

Also, Alex Jones is an idiot.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^criticalthud:
yeah, just don't disagree with the "official" version. you'll be ostracized. I'm still amazed at how it is generally accepted that our government lied to get us into Iraq but told a sparkling truth to get us in and keep us in afghanistan.
whatever fits the narrative

The difference is evidence. None of us should have an implicit trust that our government always tells the truth, but we do have reasoning skills. Many of the claims leading up to the Iraq war turned out to be demonstratively false.
But looking at the killing of Bin Laden, there is substantial evidence that it is true. There's the testimony from Bin Laden's widow and daughter, who were there at the time. There's the videos that the US has released which were taken from the compound. They show Bin Laden there and match photos journalists have since taken of the interior. There's the fact that al-Qaeda has accepted his death officially. And finally there's how easily it could all be disproved if it weren't true.


he never acknowledged it himself, as far as my research goes. i can't really think of a reason why he wouldn't had he actually masterminded the greatest attack on american soil.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
and then, i believe shortly before we invaded Afghanistan, the government proffered this "confession" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhctMpvszqQ&feature=related
I have a difficult time believing that is a video of bin laden. And if isn't, then there are many questions to ask. But it is fairly easy to conclude based on the past and present actions of our government that bin laden was simply an violent extremist that fit the terrorist narrative very well. Part that narrative would have required the aggrandizing of both he and his rather loosely based network ("al queda", a U.S. term) in order to support the mass buildup in both the military industry as well as the security industry (and providing a distraction from the stripping of the civil rights and wealth of the citizenry). Bin Laden has been an exceedingly profitable figure for many interests.
Lately however, with popular rebellion marginalizing small scale terror and an un-winnable effort by the U.S. to create a profitable infrastructure in Afghanistan, bin laden's value likely decreased to that of an election chip.

I'm more worried about potential retribution.

The man was no more then just a figure, an idol to them, at this point. The man who avoided America.

Now he's dead, and there's going to be a whole hell of a lot of pissed off Al Queda.

>> ^Shepppard:

Alright, now we need to develop a giant camel-like metal walking machine to mount this weapon on.
Until Al Queda invents A-wings, you're prettymuch set.


Yeah but if we hit their generators, they're toast.

>> ^Shepppard:

Alright, now we need to develop a giant camel-like metal walking machine to mount this weapon on.
Until Al Queda invents A-wings, you're prettymuch set.



We can park it at the pizza place by the pyramids next to the sphinx.

Alright, now we need to develop a giant camel-like metal walking machine to mount this weapon on.

Until Al Queda invents A-wings, you're prettymuch set.

IMS, your logic makes everyone guilty. It's the same reasoning al queda sympathizers use to justify their acts against americans.

So anyone, in any capacity that works for the IRS, a credit card company, an oil company, etc is guilty? Even a janitor or secretary? The cafeteria workers have blood on their hands?

What about the families of the employees of those evil institutions? They're living off blood money, so they must die also.

Also, I think the burden of proof is on you to show that the IRS uses violence. Where is the evidence of that.