Bill Maher: Islam is inherently worse than other religions.

[Bereta_Eder]

This idiot has a boner for muslims and just does some ad hominems to justify his misconception.
He says that most muslims condone killing someone if he's not muslim.
He's never been to albania, NE greece, turkey or bosnia. And of course Syria and Iraq before they were FUBAR.

[ricketyclik]

There are a half dozen or so countries where. Muslims have a terrorist presence, and they make up a distinct minority. People like you and Maher are significant contributors to terrorist goals.

(If I understand you correctly).

[Lorizael]

Bill Maher: Islam is inherently worse than other religions.

This leads to an interesting question. Is Bill Maher inherently worse than other liberals?

[ricketyclik]

This leads to an interesting question. Is Bill Maher inherently worse than other liberals?

Is that guy a liberal? He sure didn't sound like one in that clip. Maybe he's doing a Chris Hitchens?

[Lorizael]

Yeah, except for a few very stupid opinions (see above and his views on healthcare), he's generally on the left side of things.

[Dauphin]

Oh, and let's not forget that across the.Midwest 50% feel that people should be killed for drawing a cartoon about their original cult leader. Again Maher directly deals with this issue so actually watch the video.

Midwest? Damn those flyover state fundies!

[Dr Strangelove]

African Christians tend to be anti-feminists as well, and homophobes too. Guess who encourages and funds their homophobia? It ain't Putin or the Russian Orthodox Church, it's American conservative Christian groups.

[DinoDoc]

Let me see, 23K/2.1B = 0.001%. Not bad going, especially in the face of continual, blatant hostility from the likes of you. So yes, I'd say it's a peaceful religion.

How could 20,000 - 31,500 fighters rule so much territory including population centers that far outnumber them if they lack the support of the local population?

[ricketyclik]

How could 20,000 - 31,500 fighters rule so much territory including population centers that far outnumber them if they lack the support of the local population?

On the other hand, is a separate group responsible for each individual incident (assuming the number is correct)?

While we're on the subject; what was the civilian fatality count for Bush's "Coalition of the willing"'s (the majority of Australians opposed involvement, but we still went) invasion of Iraq? I know it's not apples with apples - I'm asking for actual casualties, not number of attacks.

Let me be clear (for the simple-minded): I'm not defending the so-called Islamic State. I'm questioning the attack on all Muslims.

[DinoDoc]

Let me be clear (for the simple-minded): I'm not defending the so-called Islamic State. I'm questioning the attack on all Muslims.

I'm merely trying to get beyond the platitude that such groups are supported by a tiny minority of Muslims. If ISIS, IS, ISIL, or whatever we wish to call them today is only supported by a small minority as alleged, why were they (small group of fighters) able to capture and hold so many large population centers virtually without opposition if they are only supported by so few people? Engaging in whataboutism doesn't answer the question though.

[ricketyclik]

If an armed, militant group attacked my town there'd be little resistance. We're not armed, unlike the US. I doubt those backwoods areas were armed either.

[rah]

Why is any despot able to hold territory with a smaller group of fighters? Hint, it's Fear.

[Sava]

Seriously though Oerdin, have you considered talking to a therapist to help you work through the irrational and open hostility toward Muslims your time in Iraq left you with?

DD

[Sava]

Also, considering the source, I'm classifying this thread as hate speech and not participating further.

[ricketyclik]

Very wise. I wish I'd taken that course.