What's new

Ben Affleck gets worked up defending Islam on Bill Maher's show

Thank you, but please note the @Developereo is an exalted blue label PDF Think Tank Consultant, not a troll.

I see a lot of whining, shrill rants of "anti-Semite", "troll", and miscellaneous diversionary tactics.

What I don't see is any semblance of debating skills, factual rebuttals or cogent arguments.

But, then again, we all know what to expect from the apologists.
 

Now that is a horrible thing to say.

I see a lot of whining, shrill rants of "anti-Semite", "troll", and miscellaneous diversionary tactics.

What I don't see is any semblance of debating skills, factual rebuttals or cogent arguments.

But, then again, we all know what to expect from the apologists.

Nowhere have I called you any of those names, Sir, and I do not intend to respond to you in kind, either.
 
Nowhere have I called you any of those names, Sir, and I do not intend to respond to you in kind, either.

YOU may fancy yourself a shrewd wordsmith, but rest assured that you are not.

Thank you, but please note the @Developereo is an exalted blue label PDF Think Tank Consultant, not a troll.

In any case, my wider point remains that, when asked to provide facts to back up your claims, your side has come up wanting. Various members on your side of the argument have come up with nothing more substantial than shrill rants of anti-Semite, personal hallucinations and vacuous platitudes.
 
Last edited:
YOU may fancy yourself a shrewd wordsmith, but rest assured that you are not.



In any case, my wider point remains that, when asked to provide facts to back up your claims, your side has come up wanting. Various members on your side of the argument have come up with nothing more substantial than shrill rants of anti-Semite, personal hallucinations and vacuous platitudes.

I have never claimed to be a wordsmith Sir. I have used pretty simple logic and known and demonstrable facts to debunk your case for grievance against Western media already. What others say or do has nothing to do with me. There is no need to go on, is there?
 
Timestamp 14:20 is -- and I dare say it -- predictive of what is happening and what is happening will continue to make progress.

The operative word here is 'collision' when Harris pointed out that in order for Christianity to reform and rose out of the theological/political Dark Age, Christianity and extreme fundamentalist Christians had to collide with the forces of secularism and science. The problem here is that those forces were largely internal to Christianity. It was in effect a civil war of sort. Harris did not point that out and perhaps it was unnecessary to point that out. The collision between the Islamic world and the secular one is already underway and will continue for many years, perhaps even decades.

First, the extreme fundamentalist Islamists must conquer their own internal civil war before they can turn their complete attention to the secularists outside. If historical political civil wars are instructive, effective control of any territory must breach the %50 threshold in physical then the psychological effects will begin to take place. The other side is expected to be demoralized because they now control less than %50 of the territory and usually -- the population. This is why major population centers such as cities are more important than pockets such as villages and small townships. This understanding is more instinctual than from any book of tactics and strategies. Then once the Islamists have effective control of governmental institutions, the most important ones being the armed forces of the many Muslim dominated countries, they can turn their attention to the outside.

The problem for the Islamists is that they cannot predict the behaviors of the external secularists -- the Western countries. Internally, the Islamists can and will intimidate into silence any theological/political opposition. There will be bloodbaths, there should be no doubts about it. But the external secularists have enjoyed their freedoms from religions for so long enough that they are no less fanatical in defense of their beliefs than the Islamists for their beliefs. Essentially, the world will see two camps of fanatics in conflict, just like the Cold War between the democrats and the Marxists.

This conflict will not be about religions because as far as the ordinary peoples in the Western countries are concerned, the bloodbaths in the ME right now pretty much convinced them that Islam is not a religion of peace. The Muslims living among the Western peoples can protest high and low all they want about 'racism' and 'bigotry', and they can gather all the naive university students they can find to their side, it will be for naught. In the ideological and psychological territories, the secularists have control of %100 of their peoples.

Tactically speaking, the 'lone wolf' attacks by Islamists against the Western peoples inside their own borders are counterproductive and WILL accelerate the executions of those unknown responses by the Western leaders. But this is a problem with religious fanatics. Enough of them are motivated by a sense of selfishness of what they are entitled to in whatever afterlife that they completely ignore the tactical and strategic consequences of their actions in this life. This is why we did not see Marxist suicide bombers. These 'lone wolf' attacks in the Western countries will happen and will increase over time.
 
Hindus, atheists, gays, blacks, short-people --

same thing.

YOU may fancy yourself a shrewd wordsmith, but rest assured that you are not.

In any case, my wider point remains that, when asked to provide facts to back up your claims, your side has come up wanting. Various members on your side of the argument have come up with nothing more substantial than shrill rants of anti-Semite, personal hallucinations and vacuous platitudes.

avoid bashing head against wall arguing with that poster, a perennial pessimist. i get the sneaking suspicion that he is actually husain haqqani under an alias. eerily identical viewpoints and debating style.
 
Here is a great example of fair coverage from all sides that is being aired on Al-Jazeera America for all to view and think about:

Gaza: Media, myths and the mainstream - Listening Post - Al Jazeera English

When the latest Gaza war broke out in July, there was a parallel conflict taking place in the global media. Myths and propaganda made their way into mainstream coverage and distorted the already conflicting, and highly contentious narratives.

Critics of Israeli government PR did not just take issue with the spin from the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, they lamented the fact that mainstream Western media bought into that story too readily. And there were pro-Palestinian voices questioning Israel’s emphasis on so-called “human shields”, calling for more contextualised reporting.

The pro-Israel camp then came back with a media counter-offensive, accusing the international media of directing too much attention to Palestinian suffering and underreporting the missiles fired by Hamas.

Our lead report addresses these arguments with help from Yousef Munayyer, the director of the Palestine Center in Washington, DC and journalist and author Rula Jebreal - two commentators who themselves took media bias to task on the air of mainstream US networks. We also spoke with Philip Weiss, co-editor of Mondoweiss; and Lahav Harkov, Knesset reporter for The Jerusalem Post.

Much of the battle of ideas continues to take place on social media, where Israel and its supporters face-off with voices who stand apart from the established media on the Israel-Palestine story. In our ALT.MEDIAsegment, we showcase some of the key online outlets who are challenging the mainstream: Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, +972 Magazine and Visualizing Palestine.

And none of this is to forget the reporters on the ground bringing the reality of the war to audiences around the world.

The Listening Post’s Will Yong asks what it meant for Gazan journalists who were covering a war that was fought outside their own front doors, focusing on the only Gazan reporting for an Israeli paper, and interviewing the editor of an Israeli newspaper who sees his outlet’s job as telling Israel’s side of the story.
 
same thing.



avoid bashing head against wall arguing with that poster, a perennial pessimist. i get the sneaking suspicion that he is actually husain haqqani under an alias. eerily identical viewpoints and debating style.

Lmao your comment made me spit out the water I was drinking in laughter. :rofl:
 
His 72 virgins are reserved alongside his front row seat in paradise :lol:
 
I have never claimed to be a wordsmith Sir. I have used pretty simple logic and known and demonstrable facts to debunk your case for grievance against Western media already. What others say or do has nothing to do with me. There is no need to go on, is there?

You have done jack all.
YOU may dellde yourself that you have done anything even remotely approaching debunking with anything remotely approaching facts.

Once again -- remember readers can read plain English -- and can see through your evasive tactics.

I claim that Western media has a strong bias which allows bigoted Jews to criticize Christianity and Islam, as a legitimate debate, and censors out anything against Judaism by bigoted Christians and Muslims.

I asked you to show me an example debunking my claim. I asked you to show me an instance where a bigoted Iranians, Arab or Kazakh promotes negative stereotypes of Jews -- as the Jewish bigot Sacha Baraon Cohen is allowed to do to these groups -- and that racial stereotyping of Jews is promoted by the Western media as legitimate entertainment..

Provide factual evidence on these two points, or keep entertaining us with your evasive tactics.

avoid bashing head against wall arguing with that poster, a perennial pessimist. i get the sneaking suspicion that he is actually husain haqqani under an alias. eerily identical viewpoints and debating style.

I think Hussain Haqqani is probably far more accomplished a debater than that.

I enjoy playing with these people because readers can see that they rarely back up their claims with facts. All they come up with are vacuous platitudes, or desperate attempts at diversion.

It's important to let the readers see the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of these apologists.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom