@SamHarrisOrg Clarifying this tweet: I don't think @FareedZakaria is an Islamist. But the book he is pushing is pure, Islamist obscurantism.
-
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg Would be nice to know what@FareedZakaria thinks of this critique, at least. Seems awfully solidhttp://www.weeklystandard.com/article/16160 - 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Let me get this straight
@SamHarrisOrg.@FareedZakaria is an Islamist because he tweeted about a global survey of Muslims by Gallup? -
.
@thegeopolitico@FareedZakaria That's the power of the Gallup brand. No even cares to look at how the poll was run or who ran it. -
.
@SamHarrisOrg I know the people who ran it. Do you have inside info about this poll by@gallup or are you spitballing?@FareedZakaria - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@FareedZakaria Holy Shit, Sam. You never cease to offend! Your ignorance is so pure, special, confusing. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg yet not fucking word from you on all three being under White Supremacy for decades. Which has fed Islamism. -
@smorkingapple@SamHarrisOrg "White Supremacy" with 'Good Intent" ... so Sam can simply 'acknowledge it existed' then ignore its affects.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@FareedZakaria So now anyone sympathizing with American Muslims is on your hit list - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg witness the denial of academia because they do the research and come up with an answer that's not the one that fits your bias -
@davidBlandry@SamHarrisOrg its a matter of outright misrepresentation of the data:http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/16160 -
@born_a_joneser@SamHarrisOrg are you aware that 50% of Americans believe targeting innocent civilians is sometime justified? 36% < 50%. -
@davidBlandry What does that have to do with what he presented as a blatant misrepresentation of the data?@born_a_joneser -
@OnYouLikeGlue@born_a_joneser really, can you quote the blatant misrepresentation and why it is a misrepresentation? Or just 'the feels'? -
@davidBlandry Did you read the link? The authors of the study changed their categorization of 'radical' to lower the number.@born_a_joneser -
@davidBlandry And even then, their criteria is very strange, and they don't even make the totality of data available.@born_a_joneser -
@davidBlandry The original point seems to be the obfuscation isn't helpful and that this book/study does just that.@born_a_joneser - 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.