• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Maher on Terrorism and the Charlie Hebdo Attack......

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Bill Maher gets it and tells Liberals.....what they need to turn to. What say ye?

"This has to stop," Maher said, returning to his main argument. "I'm the liberal in this debate. I'm for free speech. … It's not my fault that the part of the world that is most against liberal principles is the Muslim part of the world." "We have to stop saying, 'Well we should not insult a great religion,'" Maher continued. "First of all, there are no great religions. They're all stupid and dangerous. And we should insult them. And we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like."


"I know most Muslim people would not have carried out an attack like this," Maher said, "but here's the important point: hundreds of millions of them support an attack like this. They applaud an attack like this. … When you make fun of the Prophet, you get what's coming to you. … This is a problem in the world that we have to stand up to.".....snip~

Bill Maher On Charlie Hebdo Attack: All Religions Are 'Stupid And Dangerous'
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bill Maher gets it and tells Liberals.....what they need to turn to. What say ye?

"This has to stop," Maher said, returning to his main argument. "I'm the liberal in this debate. I'm for free speech. … It's not my fault that the part of the world that is most against liberal principles is the Muslim part of the world." "We have to stop saying, 'Well we should not insult a great religion,'" Maher continued. "First of all, there are no great religions. They're all stupid and dangerous. And we should insult them. And we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like."


"I know most Muslim people would not have carried out an attack like this," Maher said, "but here's the important point: hundreds of millions of them support an attack like this. They applaud an attack like this. … When you make fun of the Prophet, you get what's coming to you. … This is a problem in the world that we have to stand up to.".....snip~

Bill Maher On Charlie Hebdo Attack: All Religions Are 'Stupid And Dangerous'

Conan O'Brian made a similar statement also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sxwzg7Y-Bs
 

annata

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
3,713
Reaction score
2,016
Location
beneath the bodi tree
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
yep. I get tired of hearing "this isn't Islam" - but it is so called "radical Islam" base on a literal reading of the Quran.

so called salafi jihadism

According to Mohammed M. Hafez, contemporary jihadi Salafism is characterized by "five features":

*immense emphasis on the concept of tawhid (unity of God);

*God's sovereignty (hakimiyyat Allah), which defines right and wrong, good and evil, and which supersedes human reasoning is applicable in all places on earth and at all times, and makes unnecessary and un-Islamic other ideologies such as liberalism or humanism;

*the rejection of all innovation (Bid‘ah) to Islam;

*the permissibility and necessity of takfir (the declaring of a Muslim to be outside the creed, so that they may face execution);

*and on the centrality of jihad against infidel regimes.[7]
Salafi jihadism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is what it is, and it's problematic for the world. There is no reason not to criticize it
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
yep. I get tired of hearing "this isn't Islam" - but it is so called "radical Islam" base on a literal reading of the Quran.

so called salafi jihadism

According to Mohammed M. Hafez, contemporary jihadi Salafism is characterized by "five features":

*immense emphasis on the concept of tawhid (unity of God);

*God's sovereignty (hakimiyyat Allah), which defines right and wrong, good and evil, and which supersedes human reasoning is applicable in all places on earth and at all times, and makes unnecessary and un-Islamic other ideologies such as liberalism or humanism;

*the rejection of all innovation (Bid‘ah) to Islam;

*the permissibility and necessity of takfir (the declaring of a Muslim to be outside the creed, so that they may face execution);

*and on the centrality of jihad against infidel regimes.[7]
Salafi jihadism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is what it is, and it's problematic for the world. There is no reason not to criticize it



Heya AT. :2wave: Well Maher came out with the cold hard truth. Even with what he says about the liberal ideology. Moreover, if one can't even define the problem then. You can't ever discuss what the problem is.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
25,616
Reaction score
22,282
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What say ye?

I still do not agree with everything that Bill Maher says, but there are some strong points in that exchange. If one is a social liberal there is no way to support tolerance of Islam when they clearly, backed up with plenty of Quran text, do not support basic freedoms and equality. There is no such thing as Islamic tolerance of other religions, or those absent of religion and that is also backed up by plenty of Quran text on handling opposition. In that context, it then makes sense that mainstream Islamic belief has no real compatibility with democratic or most other western governmental or sociological ideologies.

And with that Bill Maher's statement is most accurate... "I’m for free speech. To be a liberal, you have to stand up for liberal principles. It’s not my fault that the part of the world that is most against liberal principles is the Muslim part of the world."

We are back to the same point. Until the silent majority of those that follow the beliefs of Islam force the religion to evolve then we are stuck in a place where modern societies cannot give tolerance to a religion that has no tolerance for those outside of that religion. While other religions have been forced to grow up here and there, in a sense Bill Maher is still right that religions can be dangerous. I am not going to call them stupid, that is just a swipe. But the danger is clearly there. It takes a system of belief to think cutting someone's head off while screaming "praise be to God" is reasonable. It also takes a system of belief to go murder a bunch of people over an "insulting" cartoon, claiming the right to do so from text. Were society can be rational and purposeful, we still end up acting with so much irrational behavior and a good percentage of the time we have to point the finger at systems of belief as the cause.

Liberals have been wrong about this for some time, it is nice to see Bill Maher put them to the task of being liberals standing up for rights and freedoms or Islamic apologists who by definition are Theocracy seeking people with strict social controls over their followers.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I still do not agree with everything that Bill Maher says, but there are some strong points in that exchange. If one is a social liberal there is no way to support tolerance of Islam when they clearly, backed up with plenty of Quran text, do not support basic freedoms and equality. There is no such thing as Islamic tolerance of other religions, or those absent of religion and that is also backed up by plenty of Quran text on handling opposition. In that context, it then makes sense that mainstream Islamic belief has no real compatibility with democratic or most other western governmental or sociological ideologies.

And with that Bill Maher's statement is most accurate... "I’m for free speech. To be a liberal, you have to stand up for liberal principles. It’s not my fault that the part of the world that is most against liberal principles is the Muslim part of the world."

We are back to the same point. Until the silent majority of those that follow the beliefs of Islam force the religion to evolve then we are stuck in a place where modern societies cannot give tolerance to a religion that has no tolerance for those outside of that religion. While other religions have been forced to grow up here and there, in a sense Bill Maher is still right that religions can be dangerous. I am not going to call them stupid, that is just a swipe. But the danger is clearly there. It takes a system of belief to think cutting someone's head off while screaming "praise be to God" is reasonable. It also takes a system of belief to go murder a bunch of people over an "insulting" cartoon, claiming the right to do so from text. Were society can be rational and purposeful, we still end up acting with so much irrational behavior and a good percentage of the time we have to point the finger at systems of belief as the cause.

Liberals have been wrong about this for some time, it is nice to see Bill Maher put them to the task of being liberals standing up for rights and freedoms or Islamic apologists who by definition are Theocracy seeking people with strict social controls over their followers.


Yeah OS. :2wave: I like that part about to be a liberal you still have to stand up for liberal principles. Freedom of speech and Maher says that's what it is about.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
25,616
Reaction score
22,282
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah OS. :2wave: I like that part about to be a liberal you still have to stand up for liberal principles. Freedom of speech and Maher says that's what it is about.

My friend it is everything, Bill Maher was probably just using freedom of speech as an example. Freedom to say what you will, express yourself as you will, have press that can say what it will, freedom to follow a religion or none, equality between men and women, fighting for minorities both in sexual orientation and race, cares about the general welfare of others, etc. Modern liberalism at its core is about social justice with social liberalism.

The issue is Islam is against every single one of those things. Islam will tolerate speech to a point but clearly wants limitations on what can and cannot be talked about with ultimate consequence for saying the wrong thing. Self expression and individuality is out the window, automatically. So is the press not under the control of authority. Islam is not tolerant of opposing religions and just about every nation in the region where Islam is dominant means other religions are diminished and even legislated against. There is no such thing as equality between men and women under Islam, and the Quran has specific text on how they are different all the way down to actual fractional value. The one area where Islam might get a pass, and I stress the word might, is when it comes to unity of races so long as it is under the banner of Islam. And even that is not consistent.

The main point that Bill Maher seems to encourage for other liberals that is there is no such thing as tolerance for those who follow an ideology that specifically is against everything that modern liberalism stands for. Worse, one that will hide behind said ideology as an excuse for division, violence, warfare, terror, and loss of life. You cannot have both, you cannot have liberalism thrive when dealing with everything Islam does in social restrictions. They are totally incompatible, and when you think about it purely along ideological lines then modern liberalism is incompatible with any religious fundamentalism, literalism, or any degree of Theocracy.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
My friend it is everything, Bill Maher was probably just using freedom of speech as an example. Freedom to say what you will, express yourself as you will, have press that can say what it will, freedom to follow a religion or none, equality between men and women, fighting for minorities both in sexual orientation and race, cares about the general welfare of others, etc. Modern liberalism at its core is about social justice with social liberalism.

The issue is Islam is against every single one of those things. Islam will tolerate speech to a point but clearly wants limitations on what can and cannot be talked about with ultimate consequence for saying the wrong thing. Self expression and individuality is out the window, automatically. So is the press not under the control of authority. Islam is not tolerant of opposing religions and just about every nation in the region where Islam is dominant means other religions are diminished and even legislated against. There is no such thing as equality between men and women under Islam, and the Quran has specific text on how they are different all the way down to actual fractional value. The one area where Islam might get a pass, and I stress the word might, is when it comes to unity of races so long as it is under the banner of Islam. And even that is not consistent.

The main point that Bill Maher seems to encourage for other liberals that is there is no such thing as tolerance for those who follow an ideology that specifically is against everything that modern liberalism stands for. Worse, one that will hide behind said ideology as an excuse for division, violence, warfare, terror, and loss of life. You cannot have both, you cannot have liberalism thrive when dealing with everything Islam does in social restrictions. They are totally incompatible, and when you think about it purely along ideological lines then modern liberalism is incompatible with any religious fundamentalism, literalism, or any degree of Theocracy.

"but here's the important point: hundreds of millions of them support an attack like this. They applaud an attack like this. … When you make fun of the Prophet, you get what's coming to you. … This is a problem in the world that we have to stand up to.".....snip~


Pointing this out is the other important point he made......its like he said. Their Mecca is like the Vatican. Yet they are lopping heads off in Mecca. If Christians were doing this would they not be all over that. It is their religious writings taken to the text.

Maher was harping about that to the Media types as well. He also points out how we have stats on a lot of their history. Treatment of women.....gays etc etc.
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is not particularly on Maher's comments, but on what may be done about would-be jihadists who almost certainly are active in this country. Section 2384 of the U.S. Code is an 1861 federal law that defines the crime of seditious conspiracy. Here is the text:


If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


This law is similar in some ways to the U.S. law against treason, but for several reasons, much easier to use effectively. The most useful part of section 2384 may be the one about conspiring to "levy war against the United States." This is similar to the language of treason, and 2384 has been used in more than one terrorist prosecution. It seems to be a very powerful weapon for sending these greasy SOB's to federal prison, for as long as twenty years. (I would have them spend the time at hard labor on chain gangs.)

Notice that you don't actually have to carry out your terrorist plot to violate this law. Even something a person says, or an act that by itself is completely legal, may create the violation. Acts like surveilling a synagogue or other prospective target, researching information about it, buying firearms and training with them, recruiting helpers, and making a hit list--even though each by itself doesn't seem all that serious--would be more than enough, in combination, to get jihadist mutts convicted of seditious conspiracy. Here is an article about all this:

http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/seditious_conspiracy.html
 
Last edited:

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
This is not particularly on Maher's comments, but on what may be done about would-be jihadists who almost certainly are active in this country. Section 2384 of the U.S. Code is an 1861 federal law that defines the crime of seditious conspiracy. Here is the text:


If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


This law is similar in some ways to the U.S. law against treason, but for several reasons, much easier to use effectively. The most useful part of section 2384 may be the one about conspiring to "levy war against the United States." This is similar to the language of treason, and 2384 has been used in more than one terrorist prosecution. It seems to be a very powerful weapon for sending these greasy SOB's to federal prison, for as long as twenty years. (I would have them spend the time at hard labor on chain gangs.)

Notice that you don't actually have to carry out your terrorist plot to violate this law. Even something a person says, or an act that by itself is completely legal, may create the violation. Acts like surveilling a synagogue or other prospective target, researching information about it, buying firearms and training with them, recruiting helpers, and making a hit list--even though each by itself doesn't seem all that serious--would be more than enough, in combination, to get jihadist mutts convicted of seditious conspiracy. Here is an article about all this:

http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/seditious_conspiracy.html



Heya Matchlight. :2wave: It doesn't look like to many of his tribe as he says is agreeing with him.
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Heya Matchlight. :2wave: It doesn't look like to many of his tribe as he says is agreeing with him.

Who's that--Maher? As many so-called liberals make clear all the time by running this country down, they don't like it much more than the jihadists do. Sure, they know it's wise to sound pious right now, when failing to show outrage at what happened in France might cause someone on the street to deprive them of their front teeth--but what they say is just happy talk. Some of us remember what many of these fine citizens have been saying all these years, savaging the United States while carrying water for Islamists.

I mean, how could a horrible nation created by white slave-owning Christian men, that tortured and enslaved millions of innocent Africans and treated them as only 3/5 of a person, that oppressed women and treated them as property, that stole the land of the Native Americans and then committed genocide against them, that waged nuclear war on innocent women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that invaded Iraq and murdered millions of its civilians for no reason except to steal their oil, that . . . well, I forget, but I know there's more--how is such a vile, sinful country even worth defending against jihadists who want to destroy our way of life?

Isn't it about time this horrible American way of life came to an end, anyway? I'm sure that deep in their heart of hearts, Bill Maher and his fellow leftists sometimes think so.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Bumping this up.
2bump.gif
As Maher ended up doubling and tripling down with what he said. Even Rupert Murdock has tweeted out that all other Muslims have to be held accountable until THYE get rid of their problem with their radicals.


Bill Maher Doubles Down on Islam: ‘Terrorists and the Mainstream Share A Lot of These Bad Ideas’.....

The outspoken satirist hosted the 13th season premiere of his HBO talk show Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night and doubled (and tripled, and quadrupled) down on the comments he made on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live Wednesday night where, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre that saw 9 fellow satirists, two policemen, and a maintenance worker be murdered by gun and RPG-wielding jihadists, the comedian—as is his wont—didn’t pull any punches, saying, “hundreds of millions of [Muslims] support an attack like [Charlie Hebdo].”

“We’re Americans so we don’t want to single out people, but when you look at that list just since 9/11, then we had the Madrid bombings in ’04, London in ’05, Mumbai, the Kenyan mall, Benghazi, which was one of 20 cities that erupted when that movie Innocence of Muslims was on the Internet, ISIS, Boko Haram who killed an entire village this week, Pakistan last year killing all those kids at the school, Canada parliament, Australia,” said Maher. “What we’ve said all along, and have been called bigots for it, is when there’s this many bad apples, there’s something wrong with the orchard.”.....snip~

Bill Maher Doubles Down on Islam:
 

Matter

Active member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
395
Reaction score
127
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Bill Maher on Terrorism and the Charlie Hebdo attack


This is free speech. I don't agree with all of Mr. Maher's views but I support his right to espouse them 100%. Free speech is one of the critical tenets of modern civilization.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private

Matter

Active member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
395
Reaction score
127
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Matter looks in both directions.

Where did the liberal apologists go? ;)
 

Serenity

Stay Human
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
29,920
Reaction score
26,815
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Bill Maher on Terrorism and the Charlie Hebdo attack

Morning! :2wave:

Can a moderator put this one in jail?

Moderator's Warning:
No worries. I can take care of that for you, i'll merge the two threads.
 

Matter

Active member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
395
Reaction score
127
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Re: Bill Maher on Terrorism and the Charlie Hebdo attack

Still no apologists? :lol:
 
Top Bottom