Acts of Terrorism megathread

[Hamilcar]

Timely piece by Sam Harris on "What Jihadis Really Want"
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

Straight from the source.

An excellent podcast.

It is rather ironic - the jihadis could not have done a better job proving the point people like Harris has been making for the last decade if they had asked Harris to write the article himself.

"They hate us for our freedom". A seemingly trite, silly statement that actually is an almost perfect summation of exactly why they do in fact hate us.

If it wasn't so serious, I would have said that they trolled Harris.

And it's ironic how GWB's often-mocked line is actually true.

[Razgovory]

Imam and His Assistant Killed in a Shooting Near a Mosque in Queens

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/nyregion/queens-mosque-shooting.html?_r=0

I guess we'll never know what killed them.

[Razgovory]

Timely piece by Sam Harris on "What Jihadis Really Want"
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

Straight from the source.

I like it when Harris talks about ESP and killing those who think differently than him.

[Martinus]

Timely piece by Sam Harris on "What Jihadis Really Want"
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

Straight from the source.

I like it when Harris talks about ESP and killing those who think differently than him.

Any evidence of the latter (other than voices in your head)?

[Valmy]

Imam and His Assistant Killed in a Shooting Near a Mosque in Queens

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/nyregion/queens-mosque-shooting.html?_r=0

I guess we'll never know what killed them.

WTF? I posted on this like two posts before yours and they caught the guy so why would't they?

[Berkut]

Does anybody think the ISIS types are not extremely religious in their motivation and ideology?

Absolutely. You here all the time that terrorism is not about religion, but about politics, economics, colonialism, yadda, yadda, yadda. religion is just the cover for their actions, and they would be doing this regardless.

People even point out how they are terrible Muslims - you have certainly heard how the 9/11 terrorists visited strip clubs, for example, to "prove" that they were not actually motivated by religion.

I think the debate is to the extent they represent the other Muslims who disagree with them. You know, the people they hate and fight far more than the West and call apostates.

I don't find that debate particularly interesting at all, myself. Of course they do not represent other Muslims who specifically repudiate violence, for example.

[Berkut]

Timely piece by Sam Harris on "What Jihadis Really Want"
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

Straight from the source.

I like it when Harris talks about ESP and killing those who think differently than him.

Any evidence of the latter (other than voices in your head)?

Don't bother engaging him. Harris has explained that comment a thousand times, and Raz and people like Raz don't care. They aren't interested in discussion, or actually understanding what people are trying to communicate.

[Martinus]

Timely piece by Sam Harris on "What Jihadis Really Want"
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

Straight from the source.

I like it when Harris talks about ESP and killing those who think differently than him.

Any evidence of the latter (other than voices in your head)?

Don't bother engaging him. Harris has explained that comment a thousand times, and Raz and people like Raz don't care. They aren't interested in discussion, or actually understanding what people are trying to communicate.

Fair enough. I think Harris is a smart guy with some interesting ideas, and while I don't agree with him on all things, he is not at all the kind of person people like Raz try to paint him as.

[Berkut]

Timely piece by Sam Harris on "What Jihadis Really Want"
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

Straight from the source.

I like it when Harris talks about ESP and killing those who think differently than him.

Any evidence of the latter (other than voices in your head)?

Don't bother engaging him. Harris has explained that comment a thousand times, and Raz and people like Raz don't care. They aren't interested in discussion, or actually understanding what people are trying to communicate.

Fair enough. I think Harris is a smart guy with some interesting ideas, and while I don't agree with him on all things, he is not at all the kind of person people like Raz try to paint him as.

Of course not - he trots out the same two "things that Harris believes" every single time his name comes up, and in both cases Harris would unequivocally state that his position is not at all what is claimed, and yet that doesn't stop people like Raz from just repeating it anyway. They don't care about the truth, or honest discourse.

[Razgovory]

Of course not - he trots out the same two "things that Harris believes" every single time his name comes up, and in both cases Harris would unequivocally state that his position is not at all what is claimed, and yet that doesn't stop people like Raz from just repeating it anyway. They don't care about the truth, or honest discourse.

Because he's a hate-filled and despicable man.  Harris has regularly made repulsive statements and when called on them claims he didn't actually say them.  He's often despised in the atheist movement itself for his reprehensible behavior.

Example:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/16/the-saga-of-slippery-sam/

Yesterday, I brought on the wrath of the defenders of Slippery Sam. Sam Harris has an amazing talent: he can say the most awful things, and a horde of helpful apologists will rise up in righteous fury and simultaneously insist that he didn't really say that, and yeah, he said that, but it only makes sense. And they have a battery of excuses that boil down to another contradiction: you must parse his words very carefully, one by one, and yet also his words must be understood in their greater context. They actually have a lot in common with radical Islamists: the sacred holy texts can only be understood in their original language, and the appropriate way to study them is by rote memorization.

So, in a report literally titled racial profiling, we're told that it's not about racial profiling at all; the new line is that it's about "anti-profiling", that we should be able to look at a group of people and easily rule out on appearance alone a whole bunch of individuals and make security so much easier. So people who look like grandmas and little old Asian ladies and five year old Scandinavian girls are all perfectly safe, would never harm a fly, and we should just wave them through the lines at the security gates. We should just screen youngish to middle-aged men, because old people and women and children are harmless.

See? He's not about racism at all, it's all about ageism and sexism. Nothing to see here, folks.

Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/16/the-saga-of-slippery-sam/#ixzz4HnNcAaB9

But at the same time, it's a lie. Practically the first thing he says is this:

    We should be honest. We're looking for suicidal jihadists.

suicidal-jihadist

It's not "anti-profiling" at all, whatever that is. He's got some sort of vaguely undefined search image in his head for what we ought to be looking, and he's not very clear on what it is, except that it's "suicidal jihadists", and not Norwegian grandmas. I think it's something like that guy on the right. I quite agree that if a wild-eyed long-bearded fellow with an AK-47 and an explosive belt shows up at the airport, you shouldn't let him on the plane. But then, the 9/11 hijackers showed up at the airport clean shaven, nicely dressed in Western clothing, and acted professionally to get aboard. We actually aren't looking for mad boogey men — we're looking for rational, determined human beings with evil plans. I don't know what they look like. I'd rather the people in charge of my safety did not have narrow preconceptions about what they look like. Slippery Sam has bigoted ideas about what they look like, and wants that implemented as policy.

In his earlier defense of profiling, he was quite clear on who he wanted singled out for special attention.

    We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.

He's very big on declaring his honesty, except when someone calls him on it, and then the familiar dodges begin.

I'm also seeing this from his defenders. How can you simultaneously say that no, this isn't about targeting Muslims for special screening, but hey, haven't you noticed that all the terrorism in the world is caused by Muslims? I just want to sit them all down in a special room that simply plays back their own words at them, and let them argue forever.

Their big gotcha right now is that Slippery Sam said this:

    If Jerry Seinfeld goes through the airport and gets the same search as someone who looks like Osama Bin Laden does, that's a crazy misuse of resources.

In the context (oh, that again — how dare I listen to the whole damn interview?) of a discussion of why airports need to profile people who look Muslim, I heard this as yet more special pleading for giving one class of people a pass, while holding up another class of people. It turns out that no, he literally meant Jerry Seinfeld specifically, in comparison with people who look like Osama Bin Laden generally. His whole argument is that celebrities like Jerry Seinfeld and Betty White shouldn't be treated to the same security measures as the common people, because it's a drain on resources.

    We've got $10 worth of attention. If you spend a dollar here, you've got nine to spend elsewhere.

I had no idea such a substantial fraction of our Homeland Security budget was being thrown away on useless searches of famous celebrities, and that so much of my time standing in line was wasted because Jerry Seinfeld was getting the same treatment as the thousand other people in line.

I'm sorry, Defenders of Slippery Sam, but if that's seriously your argument, you've lost it. It makes no sense. It represents a total lack of perspective on the problem. Celebrities are not a major drain on security, and I can't imagine how you or Slippery Sam propose to deal with it: a general dictum to screeners to give preferential treatment to people who look famous? A specific list of famous people who should be allowed to cut in line? I look forward to the day when I arrive at the airport and a Homeland Security flunky has to check their list to see if I'm Tom Cruise or Betty White. That'll save money and time, I'm sure. I'm also going to have to approve giving carte blanche to movie stars and comedians, because Lord knows every one of them is rational and stable.

Once again, the inconsistencies and pure stupidity of Sam Harris's anti-Muslim bigotry have led his devotees to plunge even deeper into ridiculous and bogus 'interpretations' to support him.

I like Adam Lee's succinct summary of the Harris problem: "That's precisely the problem with what Harris said: either it's racist, or it's meaningless."

Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/16/the-saga-of-slippery-sam/#ixzz4HnNk2C7N

Those people who immediate come to his defense and regurgitate the weak excuses Harris makes... What should we call them?  His clan?  His caste?  I know, his Tribe.  That's a good one.  I think it accurately describes those unthinking, irrational idiots who intentionally propagandize themselves with his pod-casts and will say anything to defend a deplorable man.  My tribe, right or wrong, right Berkut?

[mongers]

The exasperated tone is grimly amusing.

The article then goes into a Buzzfeed-style 6-point checklist counting all the ways we fail Islam. Worth a look.

http://www.clarionproject.org/factsheets-files/islamic-state-magazine-dabiq-fifteen-breaking-the-cross.pdf#page=30

Damn Legbiter, you're from a failed state/rogue nation, you support Trump and now you're quoting from an ISIS website,
you really are going to be on an NSA / Dept.homeland watchlist. 

[Martinus]

 

[Berkut]

[Berkut]

I really like the part of the article that points out how ridiculous it is that you have to actually look at Harris comments in context to understand what he is trying to say.

WHAT A CRAZY IDEA!

[Razgovory]

I really like the part of the article that points out how ridiculous it is that you have to actually look at Harris comments in context to understand what he is trying to say.

WHAT A CRAZY IDEA!

What sort of statement is require for you to turn on your own tribe?