bart, you wrote:
"If you, the reader are Muslim and currently outraged at what I've just asked,
instead of throwing a fit (or worse) why not write back and tell me where I'm wrong?"
I'm not Muslim, but here goes.
First, it is hard to argue with you because it is hard to figure out what are you saying.
Juan Cole's point is that Maher is a racist fuck. Are you saying that Maher *isn't* a racist fuck?
Yeah, I'll go out on that very treacherous limb.
I've seen no evidence that Maher is a racist fuck.
He's anti-religion, which makes him a man of logic and sanity.
People of logic and sanity have no reason to be bigots.
Not really. You say "you aren't going to defend everything Maher has said," so you could
theoretically agree that Maher is a racist fuck.
I said that because I wanted to focus on this point, not 99 other things Maher might've said.
Maybe before we go any further, you should spell out your actual point. Then this would be more productive.
*I* thought I was clear, but maybe you wish we were in a bar where we could pepper each other with questions.
If we could each do that, we'd be done with this conversation in minutes.
But we're stuck with the written word, so let's press on.
That said, you seem to be saying that because lots of Muslims kill themselves as a tactic in various conflicts,
that shows that Muslims are crazy. Are they crazy to kill themselves? Or to kill others in their various conflicts?
You don't really say. So again it is hard to argue. Let's go with the suicide aspect of it.
If a soldier charges an enemy machine gun, he might die, but death is not his intention.
Assuming you are trying to say that anyone who kills themselves for their cause is crazy, then I suggest you
look up Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff. While he didn't manage to pull it off, his attempt to commit
suicide and take Adolf Hitler with him would have saved millions of lives. Are you calling him crazy? If it is
crazy to give your life so that millions of others will live, then one of the world's leading religions seems to be
built around that same premise, and it isn't the Muslims.
Are we straying from the point?
I was talking about the last 1,000 people who blew themselves up for religion.
You want to go back to WWII.
It seems you are surrendering on the topic I was on.
Muslims who use suicide bombs are typically fighting against an enemy that has them completely outgunned.
Are you saying that it is crazy to fight an enemy that has you completely outgunned? Then you are simply a
pussy, who is perfectly willing to be a slave to the first person who comes along with superior firepower.
Yep, that's me.
A fight is the last thing you'll get out of Ol' Bart the Surrenderer.
Suicide bombers have been very, very effective in killing their enemies. Are you saying that it is crazy to
use tactics that are very, very effective in killing one's enemies, if the cost of that tactic is one's own life?
If that is true, then you are simply saying you value your life above all else,
That goes without saying. Patton said "I'm not asking you to die for your country.
I'm asking the other dumb son of a bitch to die for his."
and anyone who would lay down their life for their cause is nuts. Which means you think every member
of the US armed forces is nuts, because all of them are willing to lay down their lives for their cause.
But that is not their intention.
Those Sept 12 crazies in Afghanistan were positively GIDDY that they were about to die.
I saw the suicide tapes - they were extra-eager to murder themselves for Allah.
Maybe, (God I hope not) you are saying that all these muslims are crazy because they killing themselves for
their "religion," instead of as part of an armed resistance against oppressors. In that case, you are simply naive.
Did you consider a less hostile tone when you wrote this, my old friend?
It IS possible for friends to disagree without one of them being "a cowardly, naive pussy."
Suicide bombers might believe that they are going to be with Allah, but they don't kill themselves simply
to speed up the process. In every case, suicide bombers are trying to achieve a military objective, not simply to die.
So any handjob who blows up a Israeli pizza parlor has noble intentions?
Did you re-read your e-mail before you sent it?
Maher was actually right when he said the suicide bombers were brave,
and we were the cowards for fighting them from afar.
I don't think religious insanity is "brave."
If a terrorist slips into a hospital and slits the throats of all the babies in the Maternity Ward,
he might have a military objective, but "brave" is the last adjective I would apply to him.
As we all remember, he was kicked off TV for saying it. He certainly learned his lesson.
He's on HBO now where he can say anything he fucking wants.
If there's a lesson here, it's that American TV advertisers don't believe in Free Speech.
If you call Muslims worthless subhumans, you can make millions as a gadfly celebrity.
If you point out their bravery, you lose your cable (he means network) show.
It appears you, unfortunately, have learned the same lesson.
I have no idea what that last sentence means.
I asked a question about the last 1,000 handjobs to blow themselves up
and you went off on a disjointed rant about a half-a-dozen other topics.
Since you failed to answer the VERY simple question,
(Of the last 1,000 handjobs to blow themselves up, how many were Muslim?)
I must assume my question stumped you.
I am happy to argue more. But first, make your point in a single sentence,
so I can at least figure out what I am supposed to shoot down.
It goes without saying that any point I make would be easily shot down by your superior intellect.
I know you're a lawyer, but I'm guessing you're not a trial lawyer.
I think I could beat you in court even if you had the facts and the law on your side.
The jury would like me more.