Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-18-2011, 01:09 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
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.
Well, as I said, I don't agree with his choice to book Yusuf Islam, but I think it's pretty crazy to assume that his booking him means the variety of things that are claimed.

I tried looking for a statement directly from Stewart about it, but the pages and pages that show up when you google jon stewart and yusuf islam are taken up by conservative media discussing how this was ignored by the media.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-18-2011, 01:19 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
He didn't. Not to us. He explained it to Salman Rushdie, who was extremely disappointed, as you can see in badhatharry's post.
harry's post (which was kind of bizarre, given that the Stewart thing was what people were talking about) doesn't establish whether or not Stewart has ever said anything about it. But I'm certainly not aware that he has; I just haven't followed it closely enough to have any reason to know.

Quote:
Weak evidence?
Yep. If the claim is that Stewart supports violence against those who are claimed to commit blasphemy (according to some Muslims) or thinks such violence is okay, not objectionable, it's terribly weak. He clearly doesn't. If the claim is that he used bad judgment or shouldn't have invited Yusuf Islam or was dumb to buy the "it was a joke" thing or to think he could make a point about peace despite the prior comments of the singer, well, I would be inclined to agree. But I see nothing to make me question how Stewart would react to any threatened violence along the lines of that threatened against Rushdie. If it turned out I was wrong, I would be surprised and disappointed.

I also think the rally was poorly thought out in a broader sense. However, the idea that supports the position that Bob was arguing against (that sharia is a threat in the US through becoming law) or the position that some here seem to like -- that liberals are supportive of Islamic violence -- is clearly not accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-18-2011, 01:24 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
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.
no, you started by saying that Jon Stewart "has no problem with Islam calling for the murder of a novelist" and then later added that Stewart "thinks that "Sanity" includes calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie."


Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
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?
Probably not, but if he were, it would be zany to conclude that the organizers of the event were specifically endorsing his treatment of Rihanna.

Brown MIGHT more plausibly be invited to a concert about community violence or kids staying in school or somesuch- which would also be a bad idea- but would also not mean what you are claiming about Stewart.

How many frigging charity events was Michael Jackson a part of? That didn't necessarily mean that every single event organizer thought that "[insert noble cause] includes pedophilia"
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-18-2011, 01:47 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Perhaps we know different kinds of religious nuts, but i think the issue isn't "demanding" it from God, but "expecting" it.
I don't know any religious nut, but here's my understanding of Islam: Muslims do not believe that one can understand Allah or his will. So a Muslim will not be so presumptuous to believe that Allah will actually grab a nuclear missile before it hits Mecca or Medina. I guess this lack or presumption is something that is somewhat praiseworthy in Islam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
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?
Well, earlier, you actually said that the threat would have negative effect on all Muslims, which I don't think is true. As for the threat, it has to be credible, and it has to be real. If terrorists kill millions of people in Israel, retaliation is called for, and I think that ridding the world of these two extremely dangerous beacons of hatred (perhaps after warning the people who live there to leave) is the best course.

Sure, this will hurt the tender feelings of Muslims, in a way that the 17,500+ deadly terrorist attacks in the name of Islam since 9/11 don't hurt their tender feelings. But the question is: should the tender feelings of Muslims take precedence over sound public policy? Or should we do whatever is necessary to protect and defend our citizens against insane religious fanatics armed with nuclear weapons?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-18-2011, 01:52 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
harry's post (which was kind of bizarre, given that the Stewart thing was what people were talking about) doesn't establish whether or not Stewart has ever said anything about it. But I'm certainly not aware that he has; I just haven't followed it closely enough to have any reason to know.
It does not, but I have looked for it, and there is no such statement. The closest thing we have to a statement by Jon Stewart, is a report of comments made to Salman Rushdie. Needless to say, Rushdie was not impressed that Stewart would pal around with someone who wanted him dead. Unreasonable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Yep. If the claim is that Stewart supports violence
And that was never the claim. I said that he was a coward and a dhimmi, not someone who personally supports violence. He's someone who objects when Glenn Beck makes crazy statements, but does not care when Islam calls for murdering Salman Rushdie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I also think the rally was poorly thought out in a broader sense. However, the idea that supports the position that Bob was arguing against (that sharia is a threat in the US through becoming law) or the position that some here seem to like -- that liberals are supportive of Islamic violence -- is clearly not accurate.
No one has claimed that sharia law is about to be imposed on the United States, that is a gross misrepresentation of Sharia opponents. What they say, is that there is a creeping Sharia, through official and unofficial means, and that we haven't seen the end of it yet.

As for liberals being supportive of Islamic violence, no one has made that claim. Note that I didn't say that Stewart supports killing Salman Rushdie, but he obviously isn't troubled by the fact that his good buddy Yusuf Islam called for Rushdie to be murdered. And that is something that troubles me.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-18-2011, 01:55 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
no, you started by saying that Jon Stewart "has no problem with Islam calling for the murder of a novelist" and then later added that Stewart "thinks that "Sanity" includes calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie."
And those statements are true. If he had a problem with Islam making such statements, Islam would not have been invited - can you imagine Ted Nugent being invited? If sanity didn't include such calls, he wouldn't invite people making such calls. And he definitely would not call them "special persons", like he did at the rally. Nor would he say that they inspired millions.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-18-2011, 02:02 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
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) .
I don't follow this sharia business, really. That's an interesting bit of info you bring up. I'll have to look at the case later, but somehow I have doubts as to whether anything unseemly took place.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-18-2011, 02:08 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I don't follow this sharia business, really. That's an interesting bit of info you bring up. I'll have to look at the case later, but somehow I have doubts as to whether anything unseemly took place.
Of course, because it sounds ridiculous on its face. Who could believe that something like this could happen in the United States?

Don't worry though, an appeals court overturned this judge's decision, saying that rape laws apply to Muslims regardless of their religion and culture.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-18-2011, 02:15 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Of course, because it sounds ridiculous on its face. Who could believe that something like this could happen in the United States?
Oh, I'm not surprised that something like this could happen. I just attribute it to an odd interpretation rather than some nefarious intent. Besides, trial judges do all sorts of weird stuff.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-18-2011, 02:25 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I don't follow this sharia business, really. That's an interesting bit of info you bring up. I'll have to look at the case later, but somehow I have doubts as to whether anything unseemly took place.


Here's the appeal decision revoking the judge's decision;

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts...07-08.opn.html

The judge in the original case was using the defendants' religious beliefs to establish/understand intent.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-18-2011, 02:28 PM
dieter dieter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 237
Default Re: What about Polanski at the rally against sexism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
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."
Thanks. Interesting. But I didn't claim that he refused to talk women or that he ignored their presence entirely.

Whether or not he came across as unusually distant towards non-muslim women, is a highly subjective question. The "not shaking hands" thing is standard in Islam (and ultra-orthodox Judaism), but most Western Muslims don't follow this obnoxious practise.

The kebap dealer at my corner should be given a price for "peace and understanding" for running a truly multi-ethnic (mixed staff, customers, dishes, ... ) joint.

Instead, our elites desperately seek out the mythical orthodox liberal Muslim.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-18-2011, 02:35 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: What about Polanski at the rally against sexism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieter View Post
Thanks. Interesting. But I didn't claim that he refused to talk women or that he ignored their presence entirely.

Whether or not he came across as unusually distant towards non-muslim women, is a highly subjective question.
I guess I am curious as to your source. I went looking and came up with that. i would certainly be interested in a source that speaks directly to your claim, rather than a claim that is merely similar to yours.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:02 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

So you would drop a nuclear bomb on an entirely separate and innocent country. At least terrorists target a state which they deem culpable.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:06 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
So you would drop a nuclear bomb on an entirely separate and innocent country. At least terrorists target a state which they deem culpable.
But of course Mecca and Medina are culplable. They are muslim, and so they should be punished for the actions of other muslims.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:07 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
So you would drop a nuclear bomb on an entirely separate and innocent country. At least terrorists target a state which they deem culpable.
Obviously apple imagines precisely the same sort of "culpability" you're positing as a "terrorist" belief.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:09 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Except it's not the same at all. It makes about as much sense as saying Pakistan having a nuke is the same as the Taliban having a nuke. Also missing from your evaluation is the fact that the Iranian state hasn't launched a war in modern times, now contrast that with the behaviour of it's neighbours and their backers.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:12 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Lake all out at sea.

Say that Muslims will take over the US legal system, raised eye brow.
Say that the Green Movement might not take over Iran, melt down.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:19 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

On the topic of the diavlog itself. More of both of these, please. Bob is great, Eli is great, whether together or apart.

And Eli's TNR article was great.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:45 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
So you would drop a nuclear bomb on an entirely separate and innocent country. At least terrorists target a state which they deem culpable.
Terrorists operate under no flag, and are thus always "separate". As for Saudi-Arabia, the country is hardly innocent. After all, that's where the whole mess called 'Islam' started, and the non-Islamic world has 1400 years of aggression to show for it.

And as if non-Wahhabi Islam isn't bad enough, it has been exporting Wahhabism for about a century. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi-Arabia. No, Saudi-Arabia is not innocent at all, it is one of the worst state sponsors of extremism and terrorism.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:53 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
But of course Mecca and Medina are culplable. They are muslim, and so they should be punished for the actions of other muslims.
That's actually not what I believe, and if you had paid attention to the beliefs. If Islam were a decent religion of peace, then it would not matter that most terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims. Indeed, my problem with Islam is not that most terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims. My problem is that Islam is a violent and hateful ideology intent on subjugating the infidel world, which Islamic theology colorfully calls the House of War.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-18-2011, 04:02 PM
dieter dieter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 237
Default Re: What about Polanski at the rally against sexism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I guess I am curious as to your source. I went looking and came up with that. i would certainly be interested in a source that speaks directly to your claim, rather than a claim that is merely similar to yours.
I can't remember my source. This happened in 2007 and it doesn't look like anybody followed up on the story after Yusuf Islam's counterstatement.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-18-2011, 04:16 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

OBL used the same logic to justify killing 3000 or so Americans ten years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-18-2011, 04:20 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

In your post to me, you said Saudi Arabia was guilty.

Quote:
As for Saudi-Arabia, the country is hardly innocent. After all, that's where the whole mess called 'Islam' started, and the non-Islamic world has 1400 years of aggression to show for it.

...

No, Saudi-Arabia is not innocent at all, it is one of the worst state sponsors of extremism and terrorism.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-18-2011, 04:22 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
harry's post (which was kind of bizarre, given that the Stewart thing was what people were talking about) doesn't establish whether or not Stewart has ever said anything about it.
so you didn't see my PS apparently. But bizarre? Short, clear and to the point...unlike some people around here. You know who you are.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-18-2011, 04:46 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
It does not, but I have looked for it, and there is no such statement.
I looked too and found nothing, although I am less confident that this means that there is nothing. I did find a discussion on The Daily Show forum where I would have expected Stewart's explanation to be brought up if he had given one, so from the absence there I'm inclined to believe that he didn't, but if someone who paid more attention to the rally than I did or who watches the show more regularly has something more, I'd be interested. (Or who simply has a more definitive link.)

Quote:
The closest thing we have to a statement by Jon Stewart, is a report of comments made to Salman Rushdie.
This didn't contain anything to explain Stewart's reasoning. I found some commentary on the internet, including the Daily Show forum which suggested that many people seem to want to believe Yusuf's statements that he of course never meant the comments or to interpret his subsequent comments as a rejection of the idea, a clarification. I do not, personally. I read Rushdie's comments indicating that Yusuf Islam was involved with more radical types, and further note that the "I didn't mean it" comments sound pretty much like a complaint about gotcha journalism, which is nonsense in context, and further acknowledge without apology that he at least tried to convince the publisher to refuse to publish Rushdie's book, which I find troubling also.

So given all this, I think that Stewart should have given an explanation or done an interview with Yusuf Islam in which he confronted him with the contradictions or some such. And if Yusuf Islam really didn't mean what he said before (although he said it, I can see it being more a new convert's desire to show devoutness without thinking it through) or, more likely, if he's reconsidered and realized it was clearly wrong, I'd be open to him explaining and apologizing, in a way Rushdie has been for others.

But obviously I don't think Rushdie's position here is unreasonable, no.

Quote:
And that was never the claim. I said that he was a coward and a dhimmi, not someone who personally supports violence.
You said that "Islamic fascism is widely accepted among lefties" and used Stewart as an example. I do not believe that Stewart accepts "Islamic fascism." I think he may have convinced himself that Yusuf Islam's statements have been misunderstood or some such. Or like I said, maybe he has some more ironic purpose in choosing a song where he likes the lyrics and general past use of, even though the person singing it seems to contradict it. If the latter I think you'd need more of an explanation, though, so it's more likely the former.

I'd agree with your criticism if it wasn't framed in the more extreme way -- liberals are cool with Islamic terrorism. And while that wasn't precisely what you said and perhaps not what you meant, it gets framed that way a lot. Sulla was just equating liberalism and rooting on jihad the other day. This is why there's something of a kneejerk reaction to this kind of thing rather than the agreement that there could be.

Quote:
He's someone who objects when Glenn Beck makes crazy statements, but does not care when Islam calls for murdering Salman Rushdie.
I don't believe that Stewart does not care about the latter. I do think he's wrong here, either factually or in not considering the implications of using Yusuf Islam given the circumstances.

Quote:
No one has claimed that sharia law is about to be imposed on the United States, that is a gross misrepresentation of Sharia opponents.
I don't think it is at all. I think the tenor of the anti-sharia stuff, as well as the lack of any legitimate legal benefit from the laws being proposed and the political context demonstrates that the intent of most of those behind these laws is to scare people about the possibilities (which has nothing to do with whether someone in NYC might propose Islamic arbitration that could be selected by Muslim couples to govern their divorce or whether it might make sense to have certain investment vehicles created that comply with Islamic law so as to attract Islamic investors -- the latter being one way that Islamic law is taken into account in the US already). And the reason for this isn't genuine concern about sharia and the US law, but politics. If the concern was about the things that are real concerns -- opposing Muslims being forced into arbitration that would deprive them of the rights provided by US court proceedings, the way a community can insulate residents from their rights as Americans -- I'd support that concern, as would most liberals. But I don't see how anything involved in the recent hysteria does. And obviously, that one judge was crazy and wrong, and was properly reversed.

Now, I do agree with you that we have to stand firm against threats of violence, but again I see nothing in the recent anti-sharia stuff that has a thing to do with that. The focus isn't on what people might try to do in violation of US law, but on what we supposedly have to worry about regarding our own law. It's the traditional secret infiltration paranoia that's being pushed. Easier to scare people and easier to convince them that liberals are secretly in league with radical Islam, silly as that idea is.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-18-2011, 04:54 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
OBL used the same logic to justify killing 3000 or so Americans ten years ago.
Wait, I thought that was George Bush...

And actually, no, he didn't.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-18-2011, 04:55 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
In your post to me, you said Saudi Arabia was guilty.
That was a specific response to your idea that Saudi-Arabia is a pure and innocent country that I would want to maliciously attack. My response to miceelf stated that anti-Islamists don't oppose Islam just because some people commit terrorist acts in its name, but because the religion is inherently violent.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:03 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

It was in response to this question actually:

So you would drop a nuclear bomb on an entirely separate and innocent country. At least terrorists target a state which they deem culpable.


Apparently they are guilty anyway, so why not nuke them now?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:04 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
It was in response to this question actually:

So you would drop a nuclear bomb on an entirely separate and innocent country. At least terrorists target a state which they deem culpable.


Apparently they are guilty anyway, so why not nuke them now?
He is kind and merciful in giving them a chance to convert before he punishes them for being infidels.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:17 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
Apparently they are guilty anyway, so why not nuke them now?
Because I specifically stated that there should be a threat to use nukes against M&M in the event of a nuclear attack by Muslims, as nukes are a rather drastic measure. This is not controversial at all, it's what MAD is based on. After all, why would you nuke Leningrad, just because decisionmakers in Moscow decided to nuke you? MAD. Islamists may be irrational, but if you threaten the destruction of their religious holy sites, they might be more amenable to reason.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:21 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
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.
From what I've read, this is already the default Israeli posture. The "Samson option".
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:23 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
Except it's not the same at all. It makes about as much sense as saying Pakistan having a nuke is the same as the Taliban having a nuke. Also missing from your evaluation is the fact that the Iranian state hasn't launched a war in modern times, now contrast that with the behaviour of it's neighbours and their backers.

Iran has been in a constant state of aggression against Israel for decades. The Iranian regime proudly supports and funds Hezbollah and Hamas.

Your analogy breaks down on every level.

The Taliban are not in conflict with any other country in the region. They are one side of a civil war in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. In Pakistan, they are the enemies of those in control of the nukes.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:39 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post

The Taliban are not in conflict with any other country in the region. They are one side of a civil war in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. In Pakistan, they are the enemies of those in control of the nukes.
That's true now. But originally, the Pakistani ISI created the Taliban as a crucible to forge irregulars for service in Kashmir.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:52 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
That's true now. But originally, the Pakistani ISI created the Taliban as a crucible to forge irregulars for service in Kashmir.
Right. Which is why our Indian friends think we are being played coming and going by the Pakistanis.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-18-2011, 06:43 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post

Your analogy breaks down on every level.

The Taliban are not in conflict with any other country in the region. They are one side of a civil war in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. In Pakistan, they are the enemies of those in control of the nukes.

But Pakistan has attacked other States. Putting the Iraq/Iran war aside, Iran as a state has not attacked anyone, but has backed terror groups the same way Pakistan has. I think you have misread the analogy.

Last edited by opposable_crumbs; 08-18-2011 at 06:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-18-2011, 06:49 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

I think you misunderstand the word mutually in Mutually Assured Destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-18-2011, 08:00 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
I think you misunderstand the word mutually in Mutually Assured Destruction.
Assuming that your worry is not an Israeli first strike: Israel is a small country, and even one nuclear bomb would devastate it. So don't worry about Israel not being destroyed. And Muslims know this. In fact, former Iranian president Rafsanjani (a supposed moderate and pragmatist) once said that it would be worth it for Iran to destroy Israel, as Israel would be completely destroyed, whereas only a part of the Islamic world (Iran) would be. My M&M-strategy would prevent such shenanigans.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-18-2011, 08:23 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

And then Pakistan nukes the US and the vatican.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-18-2011, 08:40 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The More Things Change (Robert Wright & Eli Lake)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I looked too and found nothing, although I am less confident that this means that there is nothing. I did find a discussion on The Daily Show forum where I would have expected Stewart's explanation to be brought up if he had given one, so from the absence there I'm inclined to believe that he didn't, but if someone who paid more attention to the rally than I did or who watches the show more regularly has something more, I'd be interested. (Or who simply has a more definitive link.)
The mainstream media did not cover this controversy, for whatever reason, so you're not going to find. I've looked far and wide, both at the time and more recently, for a response by Jon Stewart to this whole mess, and found nothing. By the way, if his actions in inviting Yusuf Islam and calling him a "special person" weren't enough to damn him, his response to Salman Rushdie, and his total lack of a public response is.

Not to say that I now think that Stewart is the devil. I just lost about 70% of the respect for him. You know, this is a guy who pretended to be very fair and even-handed, who has a lot of very legitimate things to say, who attempts to criticize his own side when it goes off the rails, and then he goes and does something like this. Like I said, very disappointing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
This didn't contain anything to explain Stewart's reasoning. I found some commentary on the internet, including the Daily Show forum which suggested that many people seem to want to believe Yusuf's statements that he of course never meant the comments or to interpret his subsequent comments as a rejection of the idea, a clarification.
I actually e-mailed a liberal writer about this. The response I got was truly bizarre. Yes, people's ability for self-deception is infinite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
But obviously I don't think Rushdie's position here is unreasonable, no.
I'd be much less forgiving than Rushdie if someone had tried to get me murdered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
You said that "Islamic fascism is widely accepted among lefties" and used Stewart as an example. I do not believe that Stewart accepts "Islamic fascism." I think he may have convinced himself that Yusuf Islam's statements have been misunderstood or some such. Or like I said, maybe he has some more ironic purpose in choosing a song where he likes the lyrics and general past use of, even though the person singing it seems to contradict it. If the latter I think you'd need more of an explanation, though, so it's more likely the former.

I'd agree with your criticism if it wasn't framed in the more extreme way -- liberals are cool with Islamic terrorism. And while that wasn't precisely what you said and perhaps not what you meant, it gets framed that way a lot. Sulla was just equating liberalism and rooting on jihad the other day. This is why there's something of a kneejerk reaction to this kind of thing rather than the agreement that there could be.
Well, look. Obviously, liberals do not agree with Islamic terrorism. In fact, liberals like Obama force people to be groped before they can fly, in order to prevent Islamic terrorism. So what's my problem? Do you really think that it was Ted Nugent saying in 1989 that Al Franken should be murdered, Jon Stewart would be so forgiving, or so willing to believe the obviously false? Now, Ted Nugent is a right-winger. And in fact, Yusuf Islam is a right-winger, and worse than Ted Nugent. Ted Nugent is a religious fanatic, but he does not favor stoning people to death, or murdering people who disagree with his religion. At one point, he made a fairly disgusting double entendre remark about Barbara Boxer sucking on his machine gun, and in fact, I think this obliges us to exclude him from civilized society. Now, suppose that Ted Nugent had written a song about peace, and would be willing to perform at a Jon Stewart rally. Even if he had merely limited himself to the disgusting remark he made, as opposed to the much worse comment Yusuf Islam made, there is no universe in which Jon Stewart would have invited him, much less to a Rally to restore sanity, much less to sing a song about peace.

This is my problem with liberals. Right-wingers are fair game (rightly so), but liberals spare Muslims who do much worse things from criticism. Why do we see CNN (not necessarily liberal, but elite/Islamophilic) avoiding showing the Muhammad cartoons, while they had no such problem showing Piss Christ or Dung Mary? Why does Comedy Central allow for attacks on Christianity, but not for a neutral portrayal of Muhammad? Why does Yale refuse to print the Muhammad cartoons in a book about the Muhammad cartoons? Why do liberals defend to the death the right of a nut to burn the American flag, but not the right of a pastor to burn the Koran? Sure, they did not attack his right, but they blamed him for violence, and called him insensitive and bigoted. If there were right-wingers murdering random people if someone burned the American flag, whom would liberals blame? The right-wing thugs, or the person burning the American flag?

This is just scratching the surface. The reason why I'm not giving Stewart the benefit of the doubt, like you apparently do, is because I've seen all of this before. A few years ago, the far-leftist mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, invited Yusuf Al-Qaradawi (surprise, another Yusuf) to London, and praised him for being a voice of reason. Now, Qaradawi supports the murder of gay people, he supports the suicide murder of Israeli citizens (even explicitly including children and pregnant women), he supports genital mutilation, and this is just scratching the surface. There's no way a leftist like Livingstone would be OK with a Christian fascist advocating these things, but being an Islamic fascist apparently makes this OK.

Also, I need to stress that you are not necessarily included in this attack on liberals. After all, you have stated that free speech right should be asserted, not abandoned, in the face of religious terror.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I don't think it is at all. I think the tenor of the anti-sharia stuff, as well as the lack of any legitimate legal benefit from the laws being proposed and the political context demonstrates that the intent of most of those behind these laws is to scare people about the possibilities (which has nothing to do with whether someone in NYC might propose Islamic arbitration that could be selected by Muslim couples to govern their divorce or whether it might make sense to have certain investment vehicles created that comply with Islamic law so as to attract Islamic investors -- the latter being one way that Islamic law is taken into account in the US already).
Such Islamic courts put women at a disadvantage. Even if it is technically voluntary, there will be strong pressure emanating from the Islamic community, pressuring women to 'voluntarily' choose these Islamic courts, on pain of ostracism, or honor killing, for example. I prefer individual rights over the 'rights' of groups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
And the reason for this isn't genuine concern about sharia and the US law, but politics.
There have been very many legislators who tried to pander to the right-wing by introducing Sharia bans. Obviously, when you ask them about what Sharia is, they'll be completely clueless. And leftists had a field day when several of these legislators were shown to be completely ignorant. However, this does not mean that the people who are actually informed about Sharia, who want this despicable legal system banned, are ignorant, or that they are playing politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
But I don't see how anything involved in the recent hysteria does. And obviously, that one judge was crazy and wrong, and was properly reversed.
This is just the beginning. Yes, the judge was reversed, but people's rights should not be up to the whims of appeals courts, who may or may not choose to intervene. People's rights should be set in stone, and it should be made absolutely clear that Sharia has no place in any legal system whatsoever.

What happened in New Jersey is by no means an isolated incident. For example, in Germany, a female judge ruled that women who marry Muslims have no right to expect not to be beaten. She was swiftly overruled, but this sort of thing is a troubling trend. And we might be looking at a future when a crooked judge rules in a similar manner, and is not overruled. In the absence of clear guidance on the matter of Sharia law, one cannot exclude this from the realm of possibilities. All it takes is an appeals court that has a few people like the original district judge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
It's the traditional secret infiltration paranoia that's being pushed. Easier to scare people and easier to convince them that liberals are secretly in league with radical Islam, silly as that idea is.
I have to say, liberals make it remarkably easy for these people to claim this. For the record, I do not believe that liberals are in league with Islamists, I just think that they are extremely misguided on all matters relating to Islam. Jon Stewart being exhibit A.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 08-18-2011, 08:41 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: With respect to Iran's nukes Bob's realism is not realistic

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
And then Pakistan nukes the US and the vatican.
Pakistan wouldn't do that. Pakistan is an Islamic country. And Islam is peace.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM.


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