ah, but what's the age of the earth? brain freeze.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5kHO0Jyfk

see, friedman is right but he's not taking it to it's logical conclusion. there's a widespread understanding that these regimes can only stay in place due to us backing. so, there's really some truth in the idea that getting to the united states is a kind of root cause analysis.

there's not a way to really take the monarchy in saudi arabia down, if we're constantly propping it up with weapons sales and building bases there and everything else.

it's politics first. religion is the means to the end to carry out the politics. and the foreign policy issue is the logical conclusion of the political concern. you're not picking and choosing to get the right answer, it's all interrelated.

but, it's not any real concern about the united states. it's a lack of concern for the lives of american citizens, in carrying out a tactical strike that they think will be useful in carrying out their regional geopolitical aims.

and, that's understood by the pentagon. it's why they've created a mess in the region, to keep the fight there.

i'm generally with dawkins on most things, but he seems to get the causality on this backwards. maher...he usually has a valid point to make, but he often ruins it with fuzzy thinking. you need to be a lot more careful with maher; he's usually right, but only in warped ways, and only if you correct his over generalizations. i don't exactly think he's a racist, so much as i think he's prone to generalizing specifics and legitimately doesn't understand what's wrong with it. it's not that he's approaching things with a discriminatory mindset, so much as that he's not very good at analyzing information, and honestly draws poor conclusions as a consequence of it.

but, religion is being brandished as a tool, here; it's not the root cause. if you could get in the way somehow, it might help, but only to a point. you can replace religion with nationalism or some other means of brainwashing. it's the political motives that are the actual concern, and we do share quite a bit of the blame for creating necessary reactions to obvious crimes.

the difference is that i think dawkins is going to see the logic in that. he might push back a little, but he's going to broadly agree. i consider him more in line with hitchens, who would certainly agree [if i'm not indirectly quoting him in the first place]. maher and harris and a few of the others are going to make excuses. or try and invalidate that, or say there's some answer, or draw foolish comparisons, or whatever else. and, they'll cross lines, sometimes. with maher, i get the impression he often doesn't know any better; i can't give harris the same benefit of the doubt.