Sam Harris Prefers BEN CARSON's Foreign Policy To Noam Chomsky's

[liberalnarb]

Sam Harris in a podcast said that he prefers the foreign policy of a man who doesn't believe the pyramids are tombs compared to Noam Chomsky's and said that if it was between carson and Chomsky he would vote for carson EVERY TIME!

TYT:

[immoderate]

1. Harris is no foreign policy expert.

Apparently.

--imm

[cpwm17]

2. Sam Harris is a troll, or really dumb.

He can say anything and his fans will still defend it.

[Marr]

3. A disappointingly shallow attack on Cenk's part.

His whole argument is built on the premise that considering a person's religious/political affiliations during immigration screening is the same as Japanese internment during WW2.

The two are not comparable. One is a matter of screening out potential terrorists from a population of immigrants, the other the illegal imprisonment of citizens based on nothing but their ethnicity. You can't say they're the same because they both used profiling-- that's just absurdly stupid. You might as well say there's no difference between Japanese internment camps and FBI profiling when looking for a serial killer.

He kind of made Harris' broader point about western liberals dismissing any attempt to address religious violence as 'bigotry' as well. There *is* a problem here, and it *is* built on religion.

I've read comments from Harris in the past about his frustration with the left in the US; a group that on the whole should be standing with women, gays, atheists, etc., in the middle east, choosing instead to defend an oppressive religion. He's expressed dismay at finding the only voices in the US willing to even consider the problem to be right-wing fascists, and I think that's what he was getting at there. And oddly, it's exactly what Cenk did.

[rickford66]

4. No idea who Sam Harris is.

And I wont waste electrons to find out.

[cpwm17]

5. A creepy, Muslim hating, pseudo intellectual "new atheist" with neocon leanings

that openly supports war, torture, and American Exceptionalism in his writings, but then denies it afterwards.

He has numerous pseudo-liberal bigoted fans that will defend his every word.

[rickford66]

7. I'm glad I didn't waste the electrons and am sorry you did.

He sounds like another oxygen thief.

[Marr]

8. Really?

Is this really all it takes for you to throw a person under the bus and ignore them forever? Just some anonymous person on the internet telling you not to listen to them? This is where echo chambers and toxic group think comes from.

I don't agree with Sam Harris on everything, but he makes thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments.

[cpwm17]

9. Sam Harris' foreign policy ideas are crap

and his hypocrisy, dishonesty, and open bigotry make his opinions not worth much.

He openly supports war. He openly supports torture and then dishonestly claims he doesn't. He hobnobs with and supports the positions of the neocon crowd.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

Let's play "Harris or Malkin?"

Harris' stance on Islam is often indistinguishable from certain batshit ideologues. See if you can tell the difference:

Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.

Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.

The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization. We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been hijacked by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran.”

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

Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so (LIE). Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

We cannot let our qualms over collateral damage paralyze us because our enemies know no such qualms. Theirs is a kill-the-children-first approach to war, and we ignore the fundamental difference between their violence and our own at our peril. Given the proliferation of weaponry in our world, we no longer have the option of waging this war with swords. It seems certain that collateral damage, of various sorts, will be a part of our future for many years to come.

[MisterP]

6. oh, THAT we've known since he endorsed torture in the name of the holy almighty fMRI

Last edited Thu Nov 26, 2015, 03:46 PM - Edit history (1)

this is actually a big problem for everyone trying to cook up an "objective morality":
as late as 1913 the Ethical Culture movement was promising to end war for good and eugenics was promising not just a biological utopia but to have found REAL morals in the petri dishes and embryology textbooks
in the 60s there were calls to invade Cuba, in the name of baboon trooping behavior
in the 70s E.O. Wilson was the first to ajudge women evolved for the kitchen

since the late 90s the New Atheists have said that the fundies were the only true exponents of their faith, that Islam needed a Reformation and would Westernize lickety-split, that the history of US intervention and cynical religious politicking by Jakarta/Islamabad/Cairo/Riyadh weren't important, that terrorists just needed a bong, a beer, and a good lay

these gaping misperceptions sank into Western foreign policy for a full decade: if we liked a group/tyrant we assumed they all shared our goals and values; we asked them to listen to their ulema less, we sat around waiting for Twitter to overthrow Tehran and thought that that had been what overthrew Tunis and Cairo, we thought that once the Bushies were out the Mideast would respond to a new interventionism that dropped any Crusade talk, we thought we could tell the moderates by who sounded most American when they talked to the agents giving them the guns and money, we thought we could drop our support and they'd just go home and hoe

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Doesn't surprise me at all. n/t

[cpwm17]

11. Sam Harris hobnobs with another neocon: Douglas Murray.

Douglas Murray is the one that interviewed Sam Harris above.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
http://www.amazon.com/NeoConservatism-Why-We-Need-It/dp/1594031479

Neo Conservatism: Why We Need It is a defense of the most controversial political philosophy of our era. Douglas Murray takes a fresh look at the movement that replaced Great-Society liberalism, helped Ronald Reagan bring down the Wall, and provided the intellectual rationale for the Bush administration's War on Terror. While others are blaming it for foreign policy failures and, more extremely, attacking it as a Jewish cabal, Murray argues that the West needs Neo-conservatism more than ever. In addition to explaining what Neo conservatism is and where it came from, he argues that this American-born response to the failed policies of the 1960s is the best approach to foreign affairs not only for the United States but also for Britain and the West as well.