Monday, November 6th - Part 4 of the long exchange on day two where Sam Harris and Scott Atran argue over Islam, and each other.
www.beyondbelief2006.org
therareoften.blogspot.com
Monday, November 6th - Part 4 of the long exchange on day two where Sam Harris and Scott Atran argue over Islam, and each other.
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
This video has been removed from your Favorites. (Undo)
Like to Favorite videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
"Christians killing Muslims" in the middle east? I'd love to see some data on that... the roaming death squads were Shitte if I'm not mistaken, and the Sunni are planting most of the bombs...
if by completely fraudulent you mean slightly vague. The estimate given in that study was 300000-900000. It just so happens that it is difficult to calculate. That is no reason, however, to ignore the study and instead take Bush's word that its wrong.
No it was completely fraudulent. Your response shows that you are living in your little bubble. You give the same king of response a truther gives when you dispute their claim that fire does indeed melt steel. They repeat their mistake and then tell you not to believe Bush. When did I ever mention that idiot Bush? You are so wrapped up in your partisanship you set everything in the black and white of Republican vs. Democrat.
... and your research told you that I was taking Bush's word. It's obvious you both know and care about USA politics because you opened your trap about Bush.
'It's obvious you both know and care about USA politics because you opened your trap about Bush.' My apologies for insinuating that it was bush who told you to take it on faith. I just think that you calling a study completely fraudulent seems a bit strange. Especially when similar studies have previously been integral to the decisions of whether a war is worth fighting in terms of civilian casualties. eg the war in congo.
The Lancet study was funded by Soros, it was sent to Lancet on the condition it be published before the election. The data was "collected" by a former official of Saddam Hussein's regiem, Riyadh Lafta.
"This axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease." - Richard Horton, Lancet Editor
No other study came within an order of magnitude of this one.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
The estimate given in that study was 300000-900000.
It just so happens that it is difficult to calculate. That is no reason, however, to ignore the study and instead take Bush's word that its wrong.
Hopkins was fatally flawed. It''s anecdotes.
I just did a bit of research on the subject, thats all
My apologies for insinuating that it was bush who told you to take it on faith.
I just think that you calling a study completely fraudulent seems a bit strange.
Especially when similar studies have previously been integral to the decisions of whether a war is worth fighting in terms of civilian casualties. eg the war in congo.
"This axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease." - Richard Horton, Lancet Editor
No other study came within an order of magnitude of this one.