Reza Aslan, Ben Affleck, Bill Maher and Sam Harris walk into a bar... (Atheism, Islam and liberalism: This is what we are really fighting about)

[J842P]

I said the MODERN history of Western encroachment.

Well, then you're still wrong because the Modern Era began in the 16th century.

Although the Modern Era refers to the time frame you indicadated, the word "modern" is merely a synonym for "contemporary."

 

[untermensche]

I said the MODERN history of Western encroachment.

Well, then you're still wrong because the Modern Era began in the 16th century.

There is no definitive way to divide history. Every division is arbitrary.

But history can be divided between the pre-Industrial age and the post-Industrial age with the post-Industrial age representing modern history.

Although some people think the invention of the nuclear bomb begins modern history.

But in terms of the ME there is the history that took place before the discovery of large amounts of oil in Saudi Arabia and the history after the discovery.

The discovery was a major turning point in the region. A massive increase in encroachment by the West and rise in Islamic fundamentalist power in the region.

 

[dystopian]

Although the Modern Era refers to the time frame you indicadated, the word "modern" is merely a synonym for "contemporary."

That's problematic. In the context of a history discussion, the word refers to the Modern Era. Using it to describe contemporary times instead is not only confusing historical terminology, but also just generally confusing since the 1930's certainly aren't contemporary.

There is no definitive way to divide history. Every division is arbitrary.

But history can be divided between the pre-Industrial age and the post-Industrial age with the post-Industrial age representing modern history.

Although some people think the invention of the nuclear bomb begins modern history.

Those people obviously aren't historians. There is a very clear consensus among historians that the Modern Age began toward the end of the 16th century (not coincidentally, this is also when the word 'modern' was invented). The modern age is further subdivided in the early modern age, and the late modern age, the latter which started with either the French Revolution or the Industrial Revolution (which also conflicts with your claim that modern encroachment started in the 30's). No historian that I'm aware of thinks the modern era started with the development of the nuclear bomb.

But in terms of the ME there is the history that took place before the discovery of large amounts of oil in Saudi Arabia and the history after the discovery.

The discovery was a major turning point in the region. A massive increase in encroachment by the West and rise in Islamic fundamentalist power in the region.

You said that modern western encroachment *began* with the discovery of oil; which is false regardless of how you define the modern era. And the increase in encroachment *also* coincides with a power vacuum due to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, so you can't really claim oil as the prime reason, since if the Ottoman Empire hadn't fallen, western encroachment would probably NOT have increased when it did... while if oil hadn't been found instead, the west would probably still have increased its efforts in the region following the fall of the ottomans, even just for geo-strategic reasons.

 

[untermensche]

Those people obviously aren't historians. There is a very clear consensus among historians that the Modern Age began toward the end of the 16th century (not coincidentally, this is also when the word 'modern' was invented). The modern age is further subdivided in the early modern age, and the late modern age, the latter which started with either the French Revolution or the Industrial Revolution (which also conflicts with your claim that modern encroachment started in the 30's). No historian that I'm aware of thinks the modern era started with the development of the nuclear bomb.

Any division of history is arbitrary. If historians say differently they are lying.

But in terms of the ME there is the history that took place before the discovery of large amounts of oil in Saudi Arabia and the history after the discovery.

The discovery was a major turning point in the region. A massive increase in encroachment by the West and rise in Islamic fundamentalist power in the region.

You said that modern western encroachment *began* with the discovery of oil; which is false regardless of how you define the modern era. And the increase in encroachment *also* coincides with a power vacuum due to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, so you can't really claim oil as the prime reason, since if the Ottoman Empire hadn't fallen, western encroachment would probably NOT have increased when it did... while if oil hadn't been found instead, the west would probably still have increased its efforts in the region following the fall of the ottomans, even just for geo-strategic reasons.

The discovery took place in 1938. And the modern encroachment involved with the desire to control oil began then.

Obviously something occurred a few years later that hindered the encroachment for a few years.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your list suggests that you need to do a lot more reading before trying to explain the goings-on of the Muslim world. For one, comparing al-Qaida to the Ottoman Empire is ludicrous on its face for reasons that really shouldn't need explaining; "intolerant" can mean many things to many people, but no, the Muslim empires and dynasties did not force all infidels to "convert or die." They realized very quickly that it made far more sense to tax nonbelievers than it did to slaughter them.

Exactly. Perspicuo clearly needs to do a lot more reading about the Ottoman Empire's Armenian Tax Hike.

 

[untermensche]

The problem with the Ottoman Empire was that it treated Christians the way Christians treated Africans and the aboriginal populations of North America and Australia.

 

[Warpoet]

The problem with the Ottoman Empire was that it treated Christians the way Christians treated Africans and the aboriginal populations of North America and Australia.

Actually, I imagine that the Christian colonial powers have a far worse track record when it comes to annihilating cultures who happened to be in the way; the Armenian genocide occurred as the Ottoman Empire was in a state of total collapse, after centuries of relegating non-Muslims to dhimmi status. If you were to aggregate all of the historical evidence and run a side-by-side comparison, you'll likely find that the Spanish, French, British et al tended to have fewer qualms about mass murder from the get-go. I don't think that's due to anything worse about Christianity or better about Islam, although if we follow Perspicuo's logic we'd probably have to arrive at that conclusion.

But none of that matters, since what Perspicuo was insinuating was plainly wrong to begin with, as anyone who has read the wiki entry on the jizya can see. Hell, it even says ISIS is reviving it; so even the most fringe of fundamentalist nutters can still generally comprehend basic economics and the logic behind keeping people alive and shaking them down for cash rather than cutting their heads off.

 

[Bomb#20]

... even the most fringe of fundamentalist nutters can still generally comprehend basic economics and the logic behind keeping people alive and shaking them down for cash rather than cutting their heads off.

, not to mention the logic behind selling them for cash rather than shaking them down for it, and the logic behind keeping the younger females for themselves as sex slaves.

 

[Bomb#20]

No I don't ignore them. Oh, wait, I see what you're doing!

Then yes, I totally ignore them. I totally ignore anything and everything in order to promote the naive idea that there is only one dimension to everything!

Happy? Now I can go back to having adult discussions that don't misrepresent the other side because I'm damn tired of that.

Well, there's the rub. Whom are you going to have the adult discussion with? The most insightful thing O'Hehir wrote was "Given that I clearly belong to one of these tribes (you get only one guess), it’s entirely likely that I will mischaracterize the other one."

The reason untermensche misrepresents you is the same as the reason Athena and RavenSky accuse those who disagree with them of treating Muslims not as people but as incarnations of evil, the same as the reason Ben Affleck reacts to Maher and Harris criticizing Islam by calling them racists, the same as the reason O'Hehir calls them "analogous to polite Southern whites of 1955, who did not personally use the N-word and found the Klan distasteful, but who never questioned the fundamental rightness of white supremacy". It's because, as O'Hehir comes right out and says, "one side is primarily concerned with facts and the other with narrative".

Misrepresenting the other side is an essential element of the narrative O'Hehir and Affleck are committed to believing in. In their narrative, the apologists for Islam are the heroes -- the upholders of liberalism, siding with the oppressed non-Westerners against the oppressive West. For the so-called "Islamophobes" to be the actual upholders of liberalism -- for them to be siding with oppressed women and gays and religious minorities against an oppressive right-wing patriarchy -- is an intolerable challenge to their own hero status. It's a narrative utterly incompatible with their own; worse, it's a standing reproach to them for the treason of being apologists for a deeply illiberal faith. But all of their opponents secretly having an illiberal ulterior motive absolves them of that guilt. So protecting their preferred narrative practically requires that Maher, Harris et al. be motivated by "xenophobic" hostility to Muslims. And, being more concerned with narrative than facts, it's hardly surprising how little interest Affleck, O'Hehir et al. have in fact-checking their ad hominems.

 

[Warpoet]

, not to mention the logic behind selling them for cash rather than shaking them down for it, and the logic behind keeping the younger females for themselves as sex slaves.

When you have something even remotely relevant to contribute, come back.

 

[untermensche]

"one side is primarily concerned with facts and the other with narrative"

It seems to me the person running away from facts as hard as they can is Harris.

His narrative is that Islam is some incredibly destructive force in itself, and he uses evidence of Muslims doing things Christians have been doing for centuries as his evidence.

The fact is women were given the right to vote in Afghanistan before they were given that right in the US. Of course the history since has been one of constant interference in the affairs in Afghanistan by the West. We see what this interference has done in terms of the power of fundamentalists. Disrupt a society from without and you empower fundamentalists.

And Harris completely dismisses the massive encroachments into the region by the West that have directly resulted in huge increases in fundamentalist power.

His analysis isn't filled with lies. Fundamentalists do incredibly bad things, but the reason fundamentalists have so much power in the region is not because fundamentalism in itself gains you power.

Invade a nation of millions and terrify millions in the process and destroy countless lives in the process and you make the work of fundamentalists very easy.

All one has to do is look at the hysteria in the US that occurred after something very minor compared to the invasion of Iraq happened, 911.

 

[Herrick]

And Harris completely dismisses the massive encroachments into the region by the West that have directly resulted in huge increases in fundamentalist power.

His analysis isn't filled with lies. Fundamentalists do incredibly bad things, but the reason fundamentalists have so much power in the region is not because fundamentalism in itself gains you power.

He may largely focus on religious fundamentalism but does that mean he "almost completely dismisses" western influence? Has he ever attempted to portray this influence as something trivial?

 

[J842P]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7z2Ml2tI0

I still think Harris is right and no one has been able to rebut him successfully.

I am afraid that it is an example of liberals valuing narrative over facts and reasoning.

 

[untermensche]

And Harris completely dismisses the massive encroachments into the region by the West that have directly resulted in huge increases in fundamentalist power.

His analysis isn't filled with lies. Fundamentalists do incredibly bad things, but the reason fundamentalists have so much power in the region is not because fundamentalism in itself gains you power.

He may largely focus on religious fundamentalism but does that mean he "almost completely dismisses" western influence? Has he ever attempted to portray this influence as something trivial?

Somebody posted his great analysis of Western influence.

He waved it away as nothing and claimed it was overblown because of the Barbary Pirates. Yes, that's right, the Barbary Pirates.

In his analysis, Western encroachment since 1938 was completely dismissed because of the Barbary Pirates.

His analysis of the situation is a joke.

 

[untermensche]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7z2Ml2tI0

I still think Harris is right and no one has been able to rebut him successfully.

I am afraid that it is an example of liberals valuing narrative over facts and reasoning.

Where is his analysis of the situation is the word "oil"?

Why is it completely missing from his analysis?

It is an extremely important factor in this.

He talks about ISIS yet somehow doesn't talk about the US unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In fact I believe Harris still supports the US invasion of Iraq. That tells you how good his analysis is.

 

[Roller]

Reza Aslan, Ben Affleck, Bill Maher and Sam Harris walk into a bar... (Atheis...

I actually thought that Affleck's analysis of the current situation, on Maher's show, was spot on. Invasion in 2003 led to breaking up of Sunni/Shia neighborhoods furthering animosity between the two. Couple that with Saudi/UAE/Qatar/Turkey support for ISIS and we end up where we are today.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[untermensche]

I actually thought that Affleck's analysis of the current situation, on Maher's show, was spot on. Invasion in 2003 led to breaking up of Sunni/Shia neighborhoods furthering animosity between the two. Couple that with Saudi/UAE/Qatar/Turkey support for ISIS and we end up where we are today.

I thought Affleck was on the right side of the argument but was overly emotional, almost to the point of bullying, and not making the strongest arguments.

The point is; Harris and Mayer are not wrong. Religious fundamentalism is an incredibly destructive force and it continually does terrible things in the name of religion.

When Christian fundamentalists had their greatest power we call it the Dark Ages.

What Harris and Mayer completely ignore is the rise of fundamentalist power in the Muslim world is not some natural result of Islam. It is the result of many historical factors. Most of them are external to Islam.

The encroachment to control oil is a factor completely external to Islam, but it is the cause of a lot of fundamentalist power.

Saudi Arabia is a huge fountain of fundamentalism polluting the region.

 

[Roller]

I agree about emotional part. He sounded exasperated. But this fundamentalism seems to be fueled by, ironically, our allies that we are keeping in power. As you note, this is not much different than Middle Ages in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J842P]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7z2Ml2tI0

I still think Harris is right and no one has been able to rebut him successfully.

I am afraid that it is an example of liberals valuing narrative over facts and reasoning.

Where is his analysis of the situation is the word "oil"?

Why is it completely missing from his analysis?

It is an extremely important factor in this.

He talks about ISIS yet somehow doesn't talk about the US unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In fact I believe Harris still supports the US invasion of Iraq. That tells you how good his analysis is.

I have no doubt that Sam Harris would agree with your description of Iraq and with your description of Arab geopolitics of the 20th and 21st centuries.

That's besides the point.

His point is the there is a factor, and that factor is fundamentalist religion (and in this case he is talking about Islam, but he has plenty of scathing words for the other two big Abrahamic faiths if you care to look), which cannot be ignored and brushed aside.

Oil has nothing to do with why such a high percentage (40%) of Indonesians think that adulterers should be stoned to death, and why 16% percent think that apostates should be stoned to death.

You are giving the perfect example of someone who is more worried about fitting the facts into your narrative of Western meddling in the Arabic world, which by the way, I agree with. But that isn't germane to the point that Harris is making.

Finally, Harris does not now nor has ever supported the war in Iraq. That you would say that makes me wonder if you are even listening or reading what he is saying.

 

[untermensche]

Oil has nothing to do with why such a high percentage (40%) of Indonesians think that adulterers should be stoned to death, and why 16% percent think that apostates should be stoned to death.

You are giving the perfect example of someone who is more worried about fitting the facts into your narrative of Western meddling in the Arabic world, which by the way, I agree with. But that isn't germane to the point that Harris is making.

Finally, Harris does not now nor has ever supported the war in Iraq. That you would say that makes me wonder if you are even listening or reading what he is saying.

Here is Harris on the invasion of Iraq.

The truth is, I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it was a disaster. Much of the responsibility for this disaster falls on the Bush administration, and one of the administration’s great failings was to underestimate the religious sectarianism of the Iraqi people. Whatever one may think about the rationale for invading Iraq and the prosecution of the war, there is nothing about the conflict that makes Islam look benign—not the reflexive solidarity expressed throughout the Muslim world for Saddam Hussein (merely because an army of “infidels” attacked him), not the endless supply of suicide bombers willing to kill Iraqi noncombatants, not the insurgency’s use of women and children as human shields, not the ritual slaughter of journalists and aid workers, not the steady influx of jihadis from neighboring countries, and not the current state of public opinion among European and American Muslims. It seems to me that no reasonable person can conclude that these phenomena are purely the result of U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/#war_in_iraq

He doesn't know what to think about an unprovoked invasion?

To him it was bad because it was a distraction and it turned out badly, not bad in itself.

This man is a moral midget.

Unprovoked invasions of millions should elicit moral judgements. Harris has none.

And he drifts from reality by claiming the sectarian violence that resulted from an unprovoked attack of millions wasn't the result of U.S. foreign policy.

ISIS is a direct result of the invasion and aftermath. It's most effective leadership is former Baathist military leadership.

He had a preference for military men, and so his leadership team includes many officers from Saddam Hussein’s long-disbanded army.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/army-know-how-seen-as-factor-in-isis-successes.html?_r=0