Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6978)

Bloggingheads 08-17-2011 09:28 PM

The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 

apple 08-17-2011 09:53 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Islamic fascism is widely accepted among leftists, especially among leftists who love to criticize the religious right. Let's take Jon Stewart as an example. He's a reasonable guy, right, because he criticizes the crazy Glenn Beck? He even sponsors a "Rally for Sanity", so he must be really sane.

Wrong. In fact, he invited Yusuf Islam to sing the song "Peace Train" (no irony here). Of course, he had called for Salman Rushdie to be murdered, because the man wrote a novel Muslims didn't like. Jon Stewart has a problem with Beck's loony rhetoric, but not with Islam calling for the murder of a novelist.

Muslims are a tiny minority in the United States, yet Yale was terrified to publish the Danish cartoons in a book about the Danish cartoons. The road to dhimmitude is paved with tolerance and cowardice.

sugarkang 08-17-2011 11:02 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Is it me or did Bob get a tan and start to resemble Jon Huntsman?

miceelf 08-17-2011 11:24 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 222241)
Is it me or did Bob get a tan and start to resemble Jon Huntsman?

No. It only looks that way. Jon Huntsman has been limiting his time in the sun, so as to look more like Bob Wright.

sugarkang 08-17-2011 11:31 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222248)
No. It only looks that way. Jon Huntsman has been limiting his time in the sun, so as to look more like Bob Wright.

Well, who wouldn't want to look a little more like the blogfather?

miceelf 08-17-2011 11:41 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 222250)
Well, who wouldn't want to look a little more like the blogfather?

it's the absolute best shot at the Republican nomination. You should encourage your boy Christie to reach out to Bob to become jogging buddies forthwith.

sugarkang 08-17-2011 11:56 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222254)
You should encourage your boy Christie to reach out to Bob to become jogging buddies forthwith.

LOL. Damn that Christie is fat.

JonIrenicus 08-18-2011 01:22 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Oh god, Bob started channeling Flynt Leverett style realism in this one, I started to puke a little. It goes beyond the standard intellectual lines of realism and instead ventures into the callous realm of complete disinterest in the sufferings and concerns of anyone other than me and mine (such a progressive impulse there Bob, if he were talking about whether or not to help or intervene on the bahalf of the poor this way he'd be checked by a sea of liberal bh commenters).

It is a cheap and useless statement to say "I would rather X be another way," just don't expect a drop of treasure or effort or blood on MY part to get there.

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."


Bob Wright, the John Galt of the foreign policy space.

Parallax 08-18-2011 02:50 AM

With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic
 
OK lets assume Iran gets nukes. Bob tells us that is not a big deal. I think Eli could have countered much more effectively with the following points:

1. Are Iranian political elite willing to die, hence making negotiations moot? Not all of Iranian elite are that way but there is a sizable faction who are and ever since the stolen 2009 presidential elections they have gotten more powerful, for example pragmatic centrists like Rafsanjani are completely sidelined.

2. Suppose you are a US policy maker, you wake up one morning and are briefed that Iran has literally wiped off Israel with a handful of nukes. What are you going to do? It is not exactly clear to me that US would automatically nuke Tehran in return.

3. Maybe Iranians don't want to die but what if they gave the nukes to a third party to detonate? Imagine a nuke has gone off in Tel Aviv and Iran denies it had anything to do with it. What should one do? What if you can't really prove it?

4. If Iran gets a nuke it will start a rapidly accelerating arms race. Saudi Arabia, Turkey want to get one for sure, maybe Egypt as well. It would do the most damage to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

5. Lets brush all the points above aside. Unlike the case of Pakistan US does not have people on the ground in Iran to guard the nukes. What if Iran did not want to deploy the nukes but an organization got hold of them anyway? Iran is not France or UK, the levels of corruption are much higher there, it is entirely conceivable that Iran might 'lose' some of its nukes and even fail to notify the international community.

Whoever argues that Iranian nukes are OK should have answers ready for these questions, otherwise they are not to be taken seriously.

Parallax 08-18-2011 03:18 AM

Who kills Iranian nuclear scientists and Eli's justified contempt for Levretts
 
Another point I would like to make is that it is entirely plausible that the scientists in question were killed by Iranian intel. They suspected or knew that these people were planning to defect (which has happened) and by killing them they would kill two birds with one stone: getting rid of liability and a PR stunt.

I, too, share Eli's contempt for Flynt Leverett. The Leveretts went to Iran shortly after the 2009 election/coup. This is part of their article that they wrote after their trip:

Quote:

Conversations and observations in Tehran confirm our assessment that the Green Movement’s social base is shrinking, not growing. We met a number of young people who claimed they had supported Mousavi’s presidential candidacy (and, in some cases, said they had participated in demonstrations against the results in the first few days after the election) but who now say they are deeply disappointed in Mousavi—in particular, for having continued protesting against the outcome after failing to produce evidence of electoral fraud.
I am sorry but these were obviously planted. I know nobody in Iran (and I know quite a few people) who fits that description, maybe there was disappointment in Mousavi from those who wanted him to be more radical in his stance against the regime but nobody was disappointed in him because 'he failed to produce evidence'. This was more or less regime's official line, its absurdity rivals some of the confessions in the show trials that ensued.

The fact that the Levertts failed to realize that is either a sign of stupidity or complicity. Still I am all for a thorough debunking of Leverett on camera so that we can put this to rest, Eli does not want to do it. So why should Leverett face someone from the green movement itself on this issue?? I have mentioned him before but Mojtaba Vahedi, the spokesperson for Karoubi (the other opposition presidential candidate alongside Mousavi who now like Mousavi is under house arrest) right now lives in US. He uploads videos in YouTube (albeit all in Farsi) so he is no stranger to doing this kind of thing.

Parallax 08-18-2011 03:22 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 222232)
Islamic fascism is widely accepted among leftists, especially among leftists who love to criticize the religious right. Let's take Jon Stewart as an example. He's a reasonable guy, right, because he criticizes the crazy Glenn Beck? He even sponsors a "Rally for Sanity", so he must be really sane.

Wrong. In fact, he invited Yusuf Islam to sing the song "Peace Train" (no irony here). Of course, he had called for Salman Rushdie to be murdered, because the man wrote a novel Muslims didn't like. Jon Stewart has a problem with Beck's loony rhetoric, but not with Islam calling for the murder of a novelist.

Muslims are a tiny minority in the United States, yet Yale was terrified to publish the Danish cartoons in a book about the Danish cartoons. The road to dhimmitude is paved with tolerance and cowardice.


The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

William Butler Yeats

Sulla the Dictator 08-18-2011 03:45 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
There are many examples of leaders in history who believe in the Götterdämmerung, Bob. That last nihilistic act of violence which sees the end of their world. It is the nature of purists to see the appeal of total war, which is a "war to the knife". In such a war, the only alternative to victory is death. And with nuclear war, as long as you're willing to see the twilight of the Gods, you can achieve victory as you do it.

The German example of this is obvious. But an even better one is the Japanese. Before any atomic bombs were dropped, Japan was slowly being starved into submission. The response of the Army was that though tragic, like the smashing of a precious jewel (A wartime Japanese euphemism for suicide), the extinction of the Japanese people would be a moment of glory which would echo through time. Then, after the detonation of the first atomic bomb at Hiroshima, the Emperor's War Council was deadlocked in debate about the idea of surrendering. After Nagasaki, even when the Emperor weighed in an insisted on surrender, Major Hatanaka was able to mount a substantial coup d'tat against the Palace. The act of the officers had so much sympathy that many of the actors involved in stopping the coup could go onto commit suicide.

This was the act of the ruling class of a nation being hit with atomic weapons, and had no answer to them. Does anyone believe that if the Japanese Army had a nuclear weapon on a medium range missile after, say, the loss of the Philippines (And before any such weapon had been dropped on them), does anyone doubt they would have used it? And skip the chain of command. The Japanese state was like the Roman Empire in its loose command structure. Japanese lieutenants began military actions on their own initiative that would lock the entire Kwantung army into an engagement to either rescue them or exploit whatever they managed to do. This is a state where the Army and Navy keep secrets from each other in the middle of a war and are constant rivals. Does anyone doubt that even if the leadership of the Empire had chosen not to deploy the weapon, a fanatic colonel or major guarding the base where such a weapon was housed wouldn't make that choice?

In 1944? In July or even August of 1945?

I would suggest that the Empire of Japan, with all of this, remains slightly more rational than the Islamic Republic of Iran.

We make a mistake when we assume that everyone is deep down a Western bourgeois, who just wants to live a quiet life of peace and comfort.

sugarkang 08-18-2011 03:52 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 222274)
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

William Butler Yeats

You can't trust a big butt and a smile.
Nah, that's the old style.


Ice Cube

Rathertired 08-18-2011 04:41 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 222276)
You can't trust a big butt and a smile.
Nah, that's the old style.


Ice Cube


"A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement"

-- William Butler Yeats
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/crazy...th-the-bishop/

You can't top Yeats with Ice Cube. Butts, facial expressions, trust issues? Been there, done that.

sugarkang 08-18-2011 05:02 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rathertired (Post 222278)
"A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement"

-- William Butler Yeats

Spit in my face you Jewes, and pierce my side,
Buffet, and scoffe, scourge, and crucifie mee,
For I have sinn'd, and sinn'd, and onely hee,
Who could do no iniquitie, hath dyed:

John Donne

whburgess 08-18-2011 05:26 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 222276)
You can't trust a big butt and a smile.
Nah, that's the old style.


Ice Cube

In Winter in my Room
I came upon a Worm --
Pink, lank and warm --

Emily Dickenson

whburgess 08-18-2011 05:31 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 222232)
Islamic fascism is widely accepted among leftists, especially among leftists who love to criticize the religious right. Let's take Jon Stewart as an example. He's a reasonable guy, right, because he criticizes the crazy Glenn Beck? He even sponsors a "Rally for Sanity", so he must be really sane.

Wrong. In fact, he invited Yusuf Islam to sing the song "Peace Train" (no irony here). Of course, he had called for Salman Rushdie to be murdered, because the man wrote a novel Muslims didn't like. Jon Stewart has a problem with Beck's loony rhetoric, but not with Islam calling for the murder of a novelist.
.

Hypocrisy.

miceelf 08-18-2011 07:21 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222284)
Hypocrisy.

I am no fan of Yusuf Islam, but there are two relevant facts here.

First, inviting someone who has done a bad thing to sing (a song they wrote- fact two), isn't necessarily an endorsement of the bad thing the songwriter had done.

People who watch (or even praise) a Polanski film aren't necessarily endorsing pedophilia by doing so. People who listen to Chris Brown's music aren't necessarily endorsing domestic abuse.

whburgess 08-18-2011 07:30 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Iran having a nuke is the same as Hezbollah or Hamas having a nuke.

Having a nuke gives an enemy a lot of leverage in ways that are unpredictable.

For example, here is a scenario that I thought up immediately with no effort at all.
A few Palistinian agents of Iran secure a location in the west bank, and under close control of Iran pose as members of Hamas They have nuke at their location. They kidnap an Isreali nuclear scientist, bring him to the location to inspect the weapon. They tell him they have a number of these in various undisclosed areas with easy deployment into Israel itself. They tell the agent that a small conventional bomb will explode 2 days from now at noon, in israel as proof that they can do this and let him go to deliver the message to Isreali authorities along with a document outlining their demands. . 2 days later a small bomb goes off in a neighborhood in Tel Aviv at noon just as promised. What does Isreal do now?

whburgess 08-18-2011 07:48 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222288)
I am no fan of Yusuf Islam, but there are two relevant facts here.

First, inviting someone who has done a bad thing to sing (a song they wrote- fact two), isn't necessarily an endorsement of the bad thing the songwriter had done.

People who watch (or even praise) a Polanski film aren't necessarily endorsing pedophilia by doing so. People who listen to Chris Brown's music aren't necessarily endorsing domestic abuse.

I didn't say Stewart endorsed murdering blasphemers.

He associated with, sponsored, and promoted, a man who did. And he did it as part of an effort to mock Glenn Beck and the people who attended his rally and portray them as nutty, threatening, and bigoted. That's hypocrisy on a gargantuan scale. Or maybe it was more of Stewarts comic irony? Who knows? When you make your living with irony, you never have to be held accountable for anything you say or do.

sugarkang 08-18-2011 07:50 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222290)
I didn't say Stewart endorsed murdering blasphemers.

He associated with, sponsored, and promoted, a man who did. And he did it as part of an effort to mock Glenn Beck and the people who attended his rally and portray them as nutty, threatening, and bigoted. That's hypocrisy on a gargantuan scale.

That's true. On the other hand, he'll always be Cat Stevens to me.

miceelf 08-18-2011 08:58 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222290)
I didn't say Stewart endorsed murdering blasphemers.

He associated with, sponsored, and promoted, a man who did. And he did it as part of an effort to mock Glenn Beck and the people who attended his rally and portray them as nutty, threatening, and bigoted. That's hypocrisy on a gargantuan scale. Or maybe it was more of Stewarts comic irony? Who knows? When you make your living with irony, you never have to be held accountable for anything you say or do.

He associated with someone who had done so on one occasion more than ten years earlier. Glenn Beck said what he said every day, current to the rally.

dieter 08-18-2011 09:38 AM

What about Polanski at the rally against sexism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222288)
I am no fan of Yusuf Islam, but there are two relevant facts here.

First, inviting someone who has done a bad thing to sing (a song they wrote- fact two), isn't necessarily an endorsement of the bad thing the songwriter had done.

People who watch (or even praise) a Polanski film aren't necessarily endorsing pedophilia by doing so. People who listen to Chris Brown's music aren't necessarily endorsing domestic abuse.

Yes, but I seriously doubt that feminists would invite him to the rally against sexism.

Yusuf Islam never apologized, but at least he denied to have said what he clearly did say.

Yusuf Islam got a prize for peace and understanding at a huge event hosted by Germany's most popular TV show host Thomas Gottschalk. It was later revealed that Islam demanded to be shielded from women as much as possible and he refused to shake any woman's hand. What an exemplar of "peace and understanding".

miceelf 08-18-2011 10:53 AM

Re: What about Polanski at the rally against sexism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 222298)
Yusuf Islam got a prize for peace and understanding at a huge event hosted by Germany's most popular TV show host Thomas Gottschalk. It was later revealed that Islam demanded to be shielded from women as much as possible and he refused to shake any woman's hand. What an exemplar of "peace and understanding".

Interesting...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...080718?sp=true

British folk singer Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, accepted libel damages and an apology on Friday from a news agency that reported he had refused to talk to women at an awards ceremony who were not wearing a veil.

...

World Entertainment News Network issued an apology, saying:

"We now accept that these allegations ... are entirely without foundation, and that Mr. Islam has never had any difficulties working with women, whether for religious or for any other reason."

badhatharry 08-18-2011 11:28 AM

Re: What about Polanski at the rally against sexism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 222298)
Yusuf Islam got a prize for peace and understanding at a huge event hosted by Germany's most popular TV show host Thomas Gottschalk. It was later revealed that Islam demanded to be shielded from women as much as possible and he refused to shake any woman's hand. What an exemplar of "peace and understanding".

He was also given the seal of approval by our own, lovable, Jon Stewart. Salman Rushdie was not amused.

Quote:

I spoke to Jon Stewart about Yusuf Islam’s appearance. He said he was sorry it upset me, but really, it was plain that he was fine with it. Depressing.
PS sorry, I didn't realize this had already been mentioned...in the first post! It's early.

apple 08-18-2011 11:43 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222295)
He associated with someone who had done so on one occasion more than ten years earlier.

Basically, everything in this statement is either outright false, or misleading.

I love how you mention that it was "more than ten years earlier", as if there is a statute of limitations of ten years on stating your support for murder. Shame on me for ignoring the statue of limitations and bringing it up anyway, eh? Also, he never apologized for calling for the murder of a novelist. If Glenn Beck had called for the murder of Paul Begala 10 years and one day ago, and never retracted it, never apologized for it, we would never hear the end of it from the likes of yourself and Jon Stewart (and you would be right).

Also, he did not "[do] so" on one occasion, it happened on multiple occasions. Not that it makes any difference, but just like with the 10 years statute of limitations, apparently you think it does.

Moreover, he did not "associate" himself with such a person, he invited him to sing a song, a song with a title completely inconsistent with the record of murderous Islam, and at a rally dedicated to sanity, also completely inconsistent with Islam's record (talking about your non-sexual double entendres).

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222295)
Glenn Beck said what he said every day, current to the rally.

And what is he saying? Is he calling for the murder of his opponents? No, he's saying generic crazy stuff. The man's a moron, what do you expect? On the other hand, Jon Stewart is very intelligent, and yet he thinks that "Sanity" includes calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie. Typical leftist.

apple 08-18-2011 11:46 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 222291)
That's true. On the other hand, he'll always be Cat Stevens to me.

And that dirty hippie turned Muslim fundamentalist will always be dead to me.

apple 08-18-2011 11:47 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 222274)
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

William Butler Yeats

I'm not sure how to interpret this, but are you saying that I'm part of the 'worst'? If so, why? Also, I'd like to point you to something I've stated that was inaccurate or unreasonable.

apple 08-18-2011 11:54 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 222256)
LOL. Damn that Christie is fat.

Speaking of which, and considering that the topic is 'sharia'. Remember the case that opponents of sharia always bring up when talking about the threat of sharia? The New Jersey judge who ruled that Muslims have a right to rape their wives? Well, thank anti-Christie for him (Joseph Charles) .

miceelf 08-18-2011 11:59 AM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 222303)
I love how you mention that it was "more than ten years earlier", as if there is a statute of limitations of ten years on stating your support for murder. Shame on me for ignoring the statue of limitations and bringing it up anyway, eh? Also, he never apologized for calling for the murder of a novelist. If Glenn Beck had called for the murder of Paul Begala 10 years and one day ago, and never retracted it, never apologized for it, we would never hear the end of it from the likes of yourself and Jon Stewart (and you would be right).

First, he didn't apologize as you note, because he claimed, repeatedly, that he wasn't calling for Rushdie's murder, he was simply discussing what would happen to Rushdie under Islamic law, and specifically stated that he did not want vigilante violence against Rushdie. We agree that that's horseshit, but it's at least a distancing of himself from what he had said.

My point about ten years earlier wasn't regarding a statute of limitations but in line with the Chris Brown example. He had an entertainer provide entertainment, despite the fact that the entertainer had also in the past done something awful. I wouldn't have booked Yusuf Islam, but that doesn't meant that it's exactly the same thing as inviting a talking head who regularly says crazy stuff in their capacity as a talking head to, you know, talk.

As I said, I wouldn't book Islam (or Chris Brown for that matter), but booking an entertainer who has also done bad stuff isn't the same thing as endorsing the bad stuff they did, any more than every single person cheering for Michael Vick is specifically endorsing or even excusing animal cruelty.

And the reason he invited YIslam to sing the song wasn't some metaphysical commentary on whether and how the song applied to Islam. It was because YIslam had written and recorded the frickin song.

apple 08-18-2011 11:59 AM

Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic
 
How about retaliating against Mecca and Medina? Muslims get worked up over an obscure pastor burning a copy of the Koran, imagine how they feel about their holy cities being nuked. Israel should use this to its advantage. Suppose that Israel would say: if any nuke goes off in Israel, we will strike at the M&M. I don't think any Muslim could, in good conscience, let a nuke go off in Israel, when he knows that it would result in the destruction of the M&M. Ultimately, making such a threat would mean that no one gets nuked, which is the preferred outcome.

miceelf 08-18-2011 12:08 PM

Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 222308)
How about retaliating against Mecca and Medina? Muslims get worked up over an obscure pastor burning a copy of the Koran, imagine how they feel about their holy cities being nuked. Israel should use this to its advantage. Suppose that Israel would say: if any nuke goes off in Israel, we will strike at the M&M. I don't think any Muslim could, in good conscience, let a nuke go off in Israel, when he knows that it would result in the destruction of the M&M. Ultimately, making such a threat would mean that no one gets nuked, which is the preferred outcome.

That would have the exact effect of deterring the reasonable people who already weren't contemplating anything remotely approaching such an activity.

It would probably make such an attack by the violent islamists who would now have a "threat to our holy site" as an additional arrow in their quiver of BS justifications for what they do. It would just make them more convinced that such an attack would have to completely wipe out Israel. These are also people who believe in divine intervention and miracles so, they'd also probably claim that Allah wills them to defend Mecca's honor and that Allah would protect Mecca by any magical means.

"in good conscience" doesn't apply in any capacity to these people.

Such a threat does, however, have the advantage of punishing all muslims for the behavior of some muslims, which I know is your preferred method.

apple 08-18-2011 12:50 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222307)
First, he didn't apologize as you note, because he claimed, repeatedly, that he wasn't calling for Rushdie's murder, he was simply discussing what would happen to Rushdie under Islamic law, and specifically stated that he did not want vigilante violence against Rushdie. We agree that that's horseshit, but it's at least a distancing of himself from what he had said.

Admitting that you did something wrong is the first step toward contrition and repentance. I don't think he's distancing himself from what he said because he thinks that his statements were wrong, but because this whole matter has been damaging his reputation. Especially now that he no longer thinks music is anti-Islamic, he wants to make lots and lots of green stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222307)
My point about ten years earlier wasn't regarding a statute of limitations but in line with the Chris Brown example. He had an entertainer provide entertainment, despite the fact that the entertainer had also in the past done something awful. I wouldn't have booked Yusuf Islam, but that doesn't meant that it's exactly the same thing as inviting a talking head who regularly says crazy stuff in their capacity as a talking head to, you know, talk.

By having Islam sing "Peace Train", Stewart is endorsing the idea that Islam is a man of peace (which he is, to the same extent that Islam is a religion of peace), and that he has a place in a Rally for Sanity. The fact that Glenn Beck continues to spout his nonsense isn't particularly relevant, as his nonsense generally did not involve advocacy for the murder of his opponents. It's like having the Ayatollah Khomeini at a rally against theocracy, directed against Sarah Palin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222307)
As I said, I wouldn't book Islam (or Chris Brown for that matter), but booking an entertainer who has also done bad stuff isn't the same thing as endorsing the bad stuff they did, any more than every single person cheering for Michael Vick is specifically endorsing or even excusing animal cruelty.

The cases are completely different. Michael Vick repented and is now an advocate against what he did. I still don't think the he deserves to be rehabilitated, but others do. If Yusuf Islam were to leave Islam, and dedicate his life to warning people against the dangers of Islam and the Koran, then I think he deserves to be rehabilitated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222307)
And the reason he invited YIslam to sing the song wasn't some metaphysical commentary on whether and how the song applied to Islam. It was because YIslam had written and recorded the frickin song.

Then the solution is not having that song on at all, when you'd have to invite the lunatic who wrote it. It's perfectly simple and rational, but apparently too difficult to grasp for the likes of Jon Stewart.

In any case, I think it should be renamed the Rest in Peace Train, in honor of the plans Islam the man and Islam the religion have for infidels.

stephanie 08-18-2011 12:52 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Entertaining diavlog. You two should do it again soon.

apple 08-18-2011 12:57 PM

Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222309)
That would have the exact effect of deterring the reasonable people who already weren't contemplating anything remotely approaching such an activity.

It would probably make such an attack by the violent islamists who would now have a "threat to our holy site" as an additional arrow in their quiver of BS justifications for what they do. It would just make them more convinced that such an attack would have to completely wipe out Israel. These are also people who believe in divine intervention and miracles so, they'd also probably claim that Allah wills them to defend Mecca's honor and that Allah would protect Mecca by any magical means.

Even if they believed that there was a chance that Allah would intervene to save M&M, I do not think that they would not risk their holy sites. It is one thing to hope for divine intervention, it is quite another thing (and rather presumptuous) to demand it from God. Also, if the United States would back Israel up on its threat, completely wiping out Israel wouldn't help the cause of the Islamists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222309)
"in good conscience" doesn't apply in any capacity to these people.

Once the going gets tough, they will give in. Unfortunately, Western leaders have no spine, and are unwilling to do anything that isn't fully in accordance with the dictates of political correctness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222309)
Such a threat does, however, have the advantage of punishing all muslims for the behavior of some muslims, which I know is your preferred method.

How does a threat punish people? Will it hurt the poor, tender feelings of the Muslims? It's sad that cartoons offend Muslims, but murder in the name of Islam, terrorism in the name of Islam, oppression in the name of Islam don't.

I for one am more offended that a filthy miscreant like Breivik would abuse the beautiful ideals of anti-Islamists like myself to mass murder children, than I am at people criticizing my beliefs, or even slandering me as a racist, fascist, Nazi, or what have you. Sadly, Muslims take a different approach.

miceelf 08-18-2011 12:58 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 222310)
By having Islam sing "Peace Train", Stewart is endorsing the idea that Islam is a man of peace (which he is, to the same extent that Islam is a religion of peace), and that he has a place in a Rally for Sanity.

This only makes sense if booking Chris Brown to sing one of his many love songs is endorsing the idea that domestic violence is a legitimate expression of love.

it's silly in the extreme, and the kind of thinking that usually gets some feminists a bad name. (there is a legitimate argument for not booking Islam or Brown, but this is so far into silly land, it's kind of embarrassing).

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 222310)
If Yusuf Islam were to leave Islam, and dedicate his life to warning people against the dangers of Islam and the Koran, then I think he deserves to be rehabilitated.

LOL. Yeah, that makes complete sense.

stephanie 08-18-2011 01:01 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222288)
First, inviting someone who has done a bad thing to sing (a song they wrote- fact two), isn't necessarily an endorsement of the bad thing the songwriter had done.

It might even be an endorsement of the sentiment of the song, vs. the writer's own subsequent behavior. Or maybe Stewart buys Yusuf Islam's claim that he didn't mean it or is letting him back away even if he is skeptical.

There are plenty of things Stewart could have said to explain the choice, although it does seem weird if he didn't explain it. On the other hand, I don't know if he did or didn't, so am not assuming.

But I certainly wouldn't conclude from this weak evidence that Stewart is soft on violence in the name of Islam or thinks it is okay, so he's hardly a counter-example to Bob's position in the diavlog.

miceelf 08-18-2011 01:01 PM

Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 222312)
Even if they believed that there was a chance that Allah would intervene to save M&M, I do not think that they would not risk their holy sites. It is one thing to hope for divine intervention, it is quite another thing (and rather presumptuous) to demand it from God.

Perhaps we know different kinds of religious nuts, but i think the issue isn't "demanding" it from God, but "expecting" it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 222312)
How does a threat punish people? Will it hurt the poor, tender feelings of the Muslims? It's sad that cartoons offend Muslims, but murder in the name of Islam, terrorism in the name of Islam, oppression in the name of Islam don't.

I hope we can agree that the threat would at least have some negative influence on the Muslims who actually live in those places. I would also hope (but this may be too much) we agree that carrying out the threat would have people. Or were you advocating making the threat but not carrying it out?

apple 08-18-2011 01:05 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222313)
This only makes sense if booking Chris Brown to sing one of his many love songs is endorsing the idea that domestic violence is a legitimate expression of love.

First of all, as whburgess pointed out to you, we are not actually claiming that Jon Stewart is personally endorsing Islam's call to murder Salman Rushdie. However, we are saying that it is disgusting to allow such a man to enter polite society, and hypocritical to boot to do it when ostensibly advocating peace and sanity.

Also, do you think that Chris Brown would be invited to sing at a rally against domestic violence, without admitting what he did, without being contrite, without apologizing for it, and without accompanying it with a speech about how you should never lift a finger against women?

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222313)
LOL. Yeah, that makes complete sense.

Well, you brought up Michael Vick. He is doing what he can to make up for the disgusting thing that he did, by advocating against dog-fighting and supporting legislation to tighten penalties. As a result, some believe that he should be rehabilitated. I proposed a way Yusuf Islam could make up for what he did, and that supposedly doesn't make sense?

apple 08-18-2011 01:08 PM

Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 222314)
It might even be an endorsement of the sentiment of the song, vs. the writer's own subsequent behavior. Or maybe Stewart buys Yusuf Islam's claim that he didn't mean it or is letting him back away even if he is skeptical.

There are plenty of things Stewart could have said to explain the choice, although it does seem weird if he didn't explain it. On the other hand, I don't know if he did or didn't, so am not assuming.

He didn't. Not to us. He explained it to Salman Rushdie, who was extremely disappointed, as you can see in badhatharry's post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 222314)
But I certainly wouldn't conclude from this weak evidence that Stewart is soft on violence in the name of Islam or thinks it is okay

Weak evidence? The evidence is pretty strong. Stewart himself introduced that thug, and the people who rallied there for sanity cheered like there was no tomorrow. Let us also not forget that this rally was directed against the admittedly stupid words of Glenn Beck, but apparently, murder threats don't cause as much as a blip on Stewart's radar.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.