Great discussion - except I felt that Robert makes excuses for Islam where it shouldn't be defended. In this area of discussion, we need less Ben Affleck and more Sam Harris. As long as Islamists are a protected group and Islam cannot be discussed critically, there will be more Ben Laden's and more violence. Islam, as an ideology, is inherently hateful and violent, and terrorism is its logical conclusion.,(reply>), @My Channel Dude, your assumptions are shit. This got boring real quick. Since you're so persistent in avoiding to tackle the only point I made, and instead attacking strawman arguments I have not made at all, we'll stop here. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it certainly ain't me.,(reply>), @My Channel Can you point to where I "used Harris as a beacon of sanity"? I generally loathe Harris. I think he's a pompous prick most of the time and I usually avoid his rants. However, in the conversation I referred to with Affleck, he was 100% correct. That's ALL I was arguing in my original comment. We MUST be able to criticize Islam and the problems of violence and hate it brings with it all over the world.<br><br>Do you agree that Islam is not a race/ethnicity, and therefore should not protected from criticism, as any other ideology? I don't really care if you do or don't, but considering this is what my point was I feel this is the topic we should be discussing, if we are to discuss anything.,(reply>), ​@My Channel It seems to me you're incorrectly implying two things. The first is that my reference to Harris was in regards to foreign policy. It wasn't. The reference to Affleck in this very same sentence obviously points to their exchange on Bill Maher's show a few years ago, where Affleck ignorantly and incorrectly implied that it was racist to criticize Islam. My reference to Harris was only about this exchange. So, from my standpoint, your point is a non-sequitur.<br><br>Your second incorrect assumption is that I am somehow opposed to wars in that region, and that I agreed with M. Crews in this regard. I am not, and I do not. I disagreed with a lot of his opinions. Most, probably. Bush's false claims of WMD's in Iraq were squishy and lame, but Saddam, a murderous and corrupt dictator, had to go. It took me some time to arrive at this conclusion, but it is Christopher Hitchens who made me think about it more and change my mind. I've humbly deferred to Hitch on this one. In regards to Afghanistan, our reasons were, similarly, kinda bogus on sight and ill-argued. But our presence there was, overall, very beneficial to the region while we were there. Our pull-out was a total disaster and seems to discredit the whole 20 years of US presence/occupation, but a lot of good was done and if the pull-out had been executed correctly, what good that had been done could have remained and we would be having a very different conversation right now.<br><br>Have I addressed your grievances with my comment? You haven't given me much to work with so I have no idea where you were going with that exactly. Please enlighten me further.,(reply>), @My Channel My comment wasn't about war. Did you read it? The context should be evident. Try harder.,(reply>), @Stephen Light Agreed. If I talked to Robert I would recommend he talk to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Yasmine Mohammed, etc, for a better and deeper understanding of what Islam inevitably leads to because of its fundamental principles. There are a lot of good people in Muslim-majority countries, but they aren't good people because of Islam - they are good in spite of it. Islam must be reformed, but it never will be - and we cannot afford to stand around and passively wait for them to do so while we count the bodies of the victims of their acts of terror.