Happy Face

We all know that, but if Isis are gone, then someone else needs to take those areas, and I assume that without any troops our hope is that Assad and his forces will be the ones to take it back. Attacking in an un-coordinated fashion on this assumption saves face for politicians and makes it more palatable not to be working with a monster. But long term it only creates further radicalisation as the west once again very publicly goes into the middle east with guns blazing.

Political engagement with Assad (and Russia) to support internal policing and degradation of Isis. Obviously this would be embarrassing and distasteful for the west in light of earlier events in 2013 and that, so better to bomb the shit out of it and keep our fingers crossed.

"Even" Like I've shown some tolerance for isis at any point. Hypothetically I'd like to see paedophiles wiped out too. Please don't take this as an endorsement for bombing Middlesbrough

Learned from the best.

Yeah, hypothetically. I agree with Welby who... It seems strange of him therefore to support a bombing campaign when nothing more comprehensive has been proposed.

Joint President of the Council of Christians and Jews showing support for the bombing campaign in a muslim country. Whatever happened to turn the other cheek.

Better than having one of England's sharpest managerial heads out of the dug-out and butting into opposition players I suppose.

His sharp head would probably cut it's way through if he tried too hard.

"Mr Stockdale, who runs a dashcam company" He's been crawling along in front of lorries for months trying to engineer a bit of roadrage.

Got loads done, been doing an article for True Faith this morning Baby due in less than a fornight and I'll be off for 5 weeks once it arrives so I'm keeping my head down and avoiding getting involved with any new work right now.

Toontastic = cocaine

Us Brits still more worried about traffic than starting another war EDIT: Yes I realise only one of those links has been followed by me as well

I don't hold that they're racist bigots, I hold that some views they express are bigotted. Said it in the Saudi thread, I'm not calling anyone here racist either. That discussion to me is tedious. I thought the discussion with Renton and NJS yesterday was interesting, honest and open, found common ground and differences without any of the "you're a racist so your views are worthless" or "You called me racist, I'm not listening any more" nonsense. For some reason whenever you partake it departs from the interesting subject towards the name calling and arguing about the method of argument. I've tried to ignore any of that stuff. Sorry you feel so offended.

I did mention it was for people interested in what Harris' views actually are from the person most qualified to comment. Sam Harris. All due respect, but I don't think you're interested in hearing what Sam Harris' views actually are: I'm interested enough to listen to the podcast you posted. Like I say, there was very little substantive of his view in the first 20 minutes before I got to work. Will listen to the rest later, but I've listened to him use his own words on the Dan Carlin podcast and read his side of the Greenwald argument on his site. Harris is on record as saying he was against the war in Iraq. If you were interested in Harris' views you would know that. If you knew what Harris' views were you would realise just how stupid you sound with the comment about Harris supposedly attempting to 'convince the liberal class to keep applauding the global war as a noble act'. You maniac. Harris' comments on the wars in the Middle East are simply based in the current reality of the situation, not some political popularity contest. Anyway, you're suggestion based on this apparent 'nuanced' approach to manipulating 'liberal atheists' into 'supporting the global war' is spectacularly stupid. Your 'argument', if we could even call it that, is tantamount to suggesting that Harris, Dawkins, and any other atheist criticising Islamic ideas is part of a conspiracy to build popular support for the war in the Middle East. A conspiracy focusing on the most politically irrelevant group in the US, liberal atheists. Unbelievable. Tell me you don't believe this. I know you have to come up with some crackpot explanation for why Harris, Dawkins, Hitch (from beyond the grave no less), and whoever else, is secretly a racist against brown people. I just didn't expect a bonafide conspiracy theory to be your explanation. Mind blowing. You're spot on here. Maher too was dead against Iraq and it was an idiotic stretch I never thought out. I shouldn't attribute nefarious motives to anyone expressing genuine opinion. I also later cringed at my suggestion that it's a position that sells books and TV shows. I should do better than that. As for my tendency for not liking having my views misconstrued. It's not that I'm adopting Harris' position. It's that I'm arguing with somebody who's basis for argument is the misrepresentation of other people's views. Followed by furiously providing salon.com links railing against those invented views. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? That I, like Harris, don't like people calling me a bigot, as though they have identified in me an underlying motivation, borne out of a subconscious hatred for brown people, that leads me to criticise the ideas of a barbaric religion? Yeah. I think its you who is adopting someone else's position here. Not me. I'm simply trying to avoid having my position being deliberately misinterpreted as bigotry. We have no disagreement that the barbaric ideas of a religion should be criticised. Think the disagreement is that one religion is entirely more barbaric than all the others and should be singled out as such. That the miniscule fraction of extremists should define our response to one religion but not any other. It is relevant in that it provides an example of the broad cacophony of shrill nonsense emanating from regressive leftists. For an actual example of something not worth commenting on: your suggestion that Douglas Murray was actually arguing for the 'curtailing of free speech' to be brought upon people he disagrees with. That's something not worth commenting on. I didn't say Douglas argued for curtailing free speech at all. He was just telling them to shut up, which strikes me as odd. I'd defend the right of a racist prick to be as racist a prick as they like. Harris should address the 'evidence' Greenwald has for Harris' position even if Greenwald has misconstrued Harris' position? You believe a person should have to defend a position they themselves don't adhere to because someone else says so? What? Are you serious? Wow. Harris rejects Greenwalds interpretation of his position. That's all the 'defence' that is required. No, they shouldn't have to defend any position they don't adhere to. It's quite simple to say "No, let me clarify for you, I said 12 o'clock" Statements such as early in this podcast where Harris correctly states that 0% of christians want to be jihadists or live under Sharia law. What does that prove? This relates to the lack of 'jihadist' concept in Christianity. The basis of this argument is that Islam gives rise to more dangerous forms of extremism, generally, than other religions. A sound, and honest, explanation that accounts, in large part, for the current reality in the Middle East. For me, he's hiding behind semantics because there are christians that want to change the laws of their country and are willing to kill for it. But that would be against the Christian scripture. That is the point. Harris is very clear on what he means when he addresses 'terrorism' and 'Islamic extremism'. It's nothing to do with semantics, or hiding behind interpretation. The only one relying on interpretation here is you. Against the re-branded scripture, not the original Deuteronomy shit about stoning non-believers or those that prey to other gods. Or the exodus bollocks about giving your life for hurting a woman with child that many fuck heads still follow.

So is Killer Mike doesn't make them bad people.

The thing that frustrates me about these people whining about misrepresentation as a form of argument is that surely one would want to highlight the differences between the truth and where critics of these ideas have got it wrong. Complaining about quote mining and misrepresentation only goes as far as suggesting that your views are actually more closely alligned to the person doing the criticising - "No I don't think what you say I think at all, so we have no disagreement on that matter". It's strange to bill yourself as in opposition to other liberals who are too soft on Islam and helping Islamism grow as a result, but then when those liberals you oppose write about those disagreements to be outraged and claim much more common ground actually exists.

20 minutes in and it's a poor listen so far. Nothing of substance, lots of complaining about having their views misrepresented. I can see where you get your technique from The stuff from the Daily Mail writer about charges of racism against his "black friends", and the rage he feels about transgender politics or the politically correct Yale students is barely worth commenting on, having no relevance whatsoever, but it is illuminating in terms of his perception of having his free speech curtailed even while he insists these other people saying what they want just "shut up". The defence against charges from Greenwald amounts to saying "I could call him a paedophile, but I don't" well no, because you have no evidence for that, you're just making a grotesque link rather than engaging points Greenwald actually raises. The evidence for criticism of Harris comes from his own statements, whether misconstrued or not. Statements such as early in this podcast where Harris correctly states that 0% of christians want to be jihadists or live under Sharia law. What does that prove? It's a carefully worded sentence because obviously terrorism comes in many forms and christian terrorism is widespread. For me, he's hiding behind semantics because there are christians that want to change the laws of their country and are willing to kill for it.

Chomsky interview on these matters http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/noam_chomsky_americas_isis_strategy_plainly_is_not_working_partner/

No, he doesn't limit himself to any religion at all, and he might be closer to me than to you or Renton on the subject of ISIS... As you say though, I think we're all "fans" and agree with most of his positions, while disagreeing with others...like for me, those in the Maher interview and some of his tweets.

That one I linked to was a back-slapping mutual wank over how much better they both are than all the other unnamed liberals who're supposed to stifle their free speech.

I've not read any of his books...or Hitchens or Harris base all my opinions of them on their interviews and articles.

I wasn't offended. I just thought it was a stupid thing to do and catered to anti muslim bigotry.

I think he retrospectively justified it with comparisons to the Bulger case, but if it was just the first of many comparisons he could have made, I think it was most unfortunate his first thought happened to compare the muslim clock boy to the muslim executioner boy. To be fair, Dawkins is not as bad as Harris from what I've read. His overt criticism doesn't go as far as suggesting we should profile muslims. The thing that annoys me about him is the straw man he concocts to suggest that liberals shut down ANY criticism of Islam. It most exasperated me recently on Real Time, because I despise almost everything about the religion... http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/02/bill-maher-richard-dawkins-denounce-regressive-leftists-for-granting-free-pass-to-islam/ Criticism of all the bad ideas within all religions are encouraged and have made him his fortune, It's what I appreciate about him. In fact, muslims being off the table for criticism is the opposite of the truth. US journalists are routinely fired or forced to resign for criticism of Israel or support for boycotts, complete support for Israel is a requirement and those offering actual balance are instantly labelled anti-semites and out on their ear. There is complete impunity for any criticism of Islam though, you'll struggle to find any examples of anyone punished for anti islamic sentiment. When Dawkins pushes for more criticism of one faith to further shift the imbalance he caters to the right wing bigots. I understand there are nutjobs who will kill for cartoons, their aim is to shut down conversations, but these aren't the people Dawkins and Maher are referring to here, they're complaining about other liberals, because to criticise the actual monstrous fucks who do that shit wouldn't be edgy enough to sell their books or their TV show, it would just be common sense.

Where I'm coming from is that it's irresponsible to say that a mischevious kid who takes the inside out of a clock and tells his teachers it makes him a scientist should be compared to a radicalised butcher.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/25/richard-dawkins-links-isis-child-who-beheaded-man-and-clock-boy-ahmed-mohamed