20 comments

• Comment Link Tuesday, 27 November 2012 17:29 posted by William

  I am against the motion:
  Great Debate and a brilliant panel...very intriguing to listen to. I am a simple man comparitively however I do have loads of common sense which points to the obvious...democracy doesn't work in the Middle East precisley because of who they will elect.
  
  It was President Bush's biggest error over there as he blundered by keeping our military in that theater too long for this concept. They hate the West and what we stand for...they will not immitate our government successfully.
  
  Last I heard they have not surrendered to us so how do you impose your government on a people who are not submissive. It worked in WW II but that was on the heals of unconditional surrender. These people will never surrender ....they want to die for their faith. An estimated 20 million Iranians died in the 10 year war against Iraq...many of them never carried a weapon into the battlefield. They just martyred themselves. It is a culture of death. How do you put a liberal leader in charge of this?
  
  Just look at modern Iran for example...they have an elected President, but he takes all his marching orders from the Clerics. There is plenty of evidence out there proving that Iran intends to Nuke Israel and the USA but we live in denial...have you not watched youtube videos on this subject? He repeatedly calls for the death/demise of Israel labling them the little Satan. Iran's President is advancing nuclear armament pledging to drive Israel into the sea. While we set around hoping for liberal leaders to emerge. Meanwhile a mushroom cloud is appearing on the horizan!
  
  Our democracy is folding but it worked because it was founded on principles that work. Our government was good because we consistently voted for good people with strong Biblical and moral values. We cannot expect other nations who have strong opposing views of theocratic influence to follow our principles. Especially nations that feel that we are the Great Satan.
  
  Islam wants to bring about an Apocalypse in order to re-establish their world domination. Have we forgotten about the Ottoman Empire which once ruled the earth via the sword? This will repeat itself eventually if we don't educate ourselves. Through sheer numbers the Muslims could take over the world again and many of them believe that this is the right time...
  
  A liberal Muslim is an oxymoron if you think about it...how can they be practicing their faith and be a true Muslim? Perhaps there might be some liberal (unpracticing) Muslims or new converts - but if they are practicing their faith they are following the later part of their Koran which supercedes the earlier more gentle part of the book. They are told in it to follow the later part of the Koran which tells them to overthrow the world and cause the world to submit by the sword. Look at Africa in Samalia and Rowanda...that is how practicing Muslim's treat their enemies.
  
  Look, the Christians follow their Messiah Jesus, but He modled forgiveness---from the cross..."Father forgive them for they know not what they do (or know who I am)"... what if however Jesus had ordered ten thousand Angels down from Heaven to slay everyone present or told his followers (Deciples who wrote the New Testiment) to avenge his death and kill all the unbelievers? How much different would this world be?
  
  But that didn't happen and in fact Jesus told us to love our enemies and forgive those who sin against us. Jesus obliterated racism (Good Samaritan parable), elevated women (Mary Magdalene, Martha & Mary sisters, and woman at the well), denounced violence (sermon on the mount "turn the other cheek"). On the contrary the Koran demotes women to property (multiple wives who must cover their hair and bodies), promotes barbarism (such as decapatation and slavery), & demands world domination.
  
  A theocracy will result in any democratic election. They are trying to get to heaven and that is why they are following this book so closely. They are trying to earn their salvation and it is a culture of death. Grace is not a term in their vocabulary. Their Koran advocates for the overthrow civilized governments and to rule the world again. Muslims believe that they are being punished with poverty (by Allah) for losing the world to the infidels and they are in the process of converting or killing the Jews and Christians.
  
  If we are hoping for a liberal minded Middle East we might as well call it quits now and hand over our country to them. The only liberals in the Middle East now are the Israelis and we are all lucky that they are liberal or the nukes would have fallen on all of their enemies causing the end of the world as we know it.

• Comment Link Monday, 22 October 2012 15:09 posted by Roger

  I thought it was a really interesting discussion. Definitely worth a listen or at least read the transcript for a few minutes.
  
  I think simply looking at the "results" does a disservice to the complexity of it all.
  
  I saw it as a discussion, not an argument. It was basically highlighting the immense difficulty that comes with the democratic process and how to avoid the pitfalls of the past.

• Comment Link Saturday, 20 October 2012 17:18 posted by organizizer

  I'm a big fan of IQ2 - its well done, and its *so* needed.
  
  Donvan said he thought this was one of the better debates.
  
  I agree in one sense - that the topic was one of the most important ones IQ2 has taken on. kudos!
  
  I disagree, however, in the sense that i don't think it was well articulated, especially on the pro- side. One of the most important topics of our time did not receive the well-prepared, articulate, fact-based treatment that it merits.
  
  In light of the fact that our public discourse is so lacking in competent fact-based debate, I fervently hope that IQ2 will take this topic on again. (w/other debaters, a more nuanced question, or perhaps a special longer show w/expanded format..?)

• Comment Link Monday, 15 October 2012 03:23 posted by Wiil Waal

  I think the whole debate was about which one is good for the United States? All four debaters were arguing from the same benchmark! I feel sorry for the audience, they didn't get what they deserve, and I'm sure the don't even know that.

• Comment Link Sunday, 14 October 2012 15:28 posted by ikram

  There is so much ignorance.
  The truth is that there is no such thing as islamism and islamist. These two are made up words. The one who practice and believes in Islam is called a Muslim and the religion is called Islam. The things that are in accordance with the teachings of Islam are called Islamic not islamist.
  These ignorant people make up their own terms and then debate it.
  I feel sorry for the ordinary people who are kept in darkness while these people achieve their pity goals.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 10 October 2012 17:42 posted by Andy Lappin

  Against....stable dictators for the most part do not brainwash teenagers to become martyrs by committing acts of terror against civilian populations.

• Comment Link Saturday, 06 October 2012 15:11 posted by Mike Wilkens

  Better Elected Islamists Than Dictators?
  What about the null set?
  How well was Germany served by Hitler? Russia by Stalin? Cambodia by Pol Pot? Cuba by Castro Inc.?
  This topic is like the social justice folk's question which made the round of colleges in the 1970s: The lifeboat with supplies and life vests for 4 occupants and 5 are in the boat. Who should be sacrificed for the better good?
  The moral answer: all should survive.
  To the debate question: neither is an option. Where's the debate?
  
  BTW, I use a screen reader to navigate screens as a blind computer user. I tried to listen to the (rerun of) the debate but could not engage the video. Many screen readers have a heck of a time with Java implementation (scripts are OK) and that's life on the Net.

• Comment Link Saturday, 06 October 2012 14:47 posted by Daniel Scheinhaus

  The motion is too absolutist. Islamist leaders who believe in and work toward strengthening democracy are obviously better than dictatorships or monarchies. Ideally, of course, best is the establishment of secular democracies. Another thing not included in the motion is whether they are better for their own people or better for the U.S. and/or Israel. If they wisely pursue their foreign and domestic policies, again, they are better for their own people. Obviously, they must avoid eliciting the ire of an often aggressive U.S. foreign policy to the point that they become economic victims or are even invaded. Possibly, a shrewd policy that enables them to become very valuable to China or Russia could be helpful to them. Of course, if the U.S. and Israel were to change their policies, that is, show a more positive attitude to establishing a separate, democratic Palestinian state, thus permitting the existence of two democratic, secular states living side by side, that would be helpful. I am convinced that currently, Israel is in danger of being taken over by its religious right, while its own population is kept irrationally terrified by its own Likud, led by Netanyahu.

• Comment Link Saturday, 06 October 2012 10:18 posted by Karen Toman

  An excellent debate. My vote was against the motion after I heard all the arguments.

• Comment Link Friday, 05 October 2012 17:35 posted by Metamonkey

  Best debate I've seen in years. Dr.Jasser was absolutely excellent