TYT: Sam Harris Prefers Ben Carson's Foreign Policy To Noam Chomsky's

[WhoIsNumberNone]

Sam Harris recently did a podcast with Douglas Murray. He talked about President Obama’s approach to Syria. He also mentioned Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Noam Chomsky. Cenk Uygur, hosts of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

"During a discussion on whether the U.S. should allow Syrian refugees into the county, neuroscientist and atheism advocate Sam Harris continued his personal jihad with author Noam Chomsky while finding common cause with Christian conservative GOP presidential candidates who want to keep the refugees out.

In his podcast interview with author Douglas Murray, Harris lamented the “demagoguery on both sides” by the political parties, while accusing President Barack Obama of being “politically stupid” in the way he addresses the threat of Islamic fanaticism. Harris did have kind words for Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, despite admitting that he is a “religious maniac.’

It was toward the end of the broadcast that Harris had to take a shot at author Chomsky with whom he has had a running battleover ideology and political worldviews.

“Given a choice between Noam Chomsky and Ben Carson, in terms of the totality of their understanding of what’s happening now in the world, I’d vote for Ben Carson every time,” Harris stated. “Ben Carson is a dangerously deluded religious imbecile, Ben Carson does not…the fact that he is a candidate for president is a scandal…but at the very least he can be counted on to sort of get this one right. He understands that jihadists are the enemy.” ”*

Read more here: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/sam-harris-id-vote-for-dangerously-deluded-religious-imbecile-ben-carson-over-noam-chomsky/

[Quixote1818]

1. Sam Harris can be pretty narrow minded on some issues

He seems to completely misunderstand where Chomsky is coming from. Chomsky is not a big fan of radical followers of Islam, but his focus is on OUR mistakes in dealing with the Middle East which is a perfectly legitimate angle to focus on.

Sorry, Chomsky over Carson by a million miles! Not even close!

[cpwm17]

2. Sam Harris' low IQ fan club are attacking this video in the comment section.

They hate Cenk Uygur. Sam Harris and his fans call liberal critics of Sam Harris "the regressive left."

They'll also deny that Sam Harris supports war and torture, despite the fact he does:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

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.

[trusty elf]

3. Oh, FFS!

[img][/img]