|
What The War on Terror Is Really About (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sykonee |
| quote: | Purple:
Violence is in culture of Muslim society. Its always been like that. Sholin_z posted a very nice explanation on what lead to this Shia and Sunnis, what was the incident which divided Muslims into two groups back like 2000 years ago; and you will see that even this aggressive way of life was their 2000 years back.
For outsiders like you and me, it all seems like 'wtf?'; but we have to understand that violence and 'show' of aggression has always been part of muslim culture, its like sports for them; and we have to accept that. |
| quote: | Purple:
First muslims dont kill to make others muslims, they kill because you are not leaving them alone, you call them evil, you deface Quran, you deface their god... |
Seems to me they use it as an excuse to continue their violent way of living, as you described it. |
|
|
| sasslife |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I downloaded it prior to watching it. Here's a new link
code:
h**p://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=ED29DA413A7A25B3
(Don't mess it up - I'm not going to upload again.)
"Enjoy" |
thaks for the share! |
|
|
| sasslife |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
prove it. or stop talking . |
hmm... World war 2 would be a good place to start!
What religious group did the NAZI's come from? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Ok so finally got round to seeing what all the fuss about this film was for!
Well while I was waiting for it to download, I decided to do a bit of background research on it, to see if I could work out what the motivations behind it were (which would then indictate what I might expect to see in the film). First of all, the documentary is from honestreporting.com which is the first clue. As I'm sure most of you are aware honestreporting.com is a propaganda machine for Israel which monitors media reports concerning Israel and where they find an article that criticises Israel, they label it biassed and inaccurate etc etc. Secondly I looked at the list of people interviewed and it contained such notables as Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson so now I know exactly what to expect!!
You really do need to understand the agenda the people who made the film are trying to push. That way you can begin to understand why what went into the documentary did. There are two objectives for the film makers - the first is to portray radical Islam as the greatest threat in the world, and secondly to exhonorate America from the causes of that ideology, and also from their recent actions in the Middle East. I do need to point out at this stage that I do think radical Islam is a great threat, I'm not arguing against that. Obviously what was shown in the documentary actually happened, however, what made the cut was pretty sensational and I'm not sure if that is representative of Radical Islam or was included to give extra substance to their argument (I'm going for the latter as the aim of the film makers is to sensationalise the threat).
The first point I'd like to make about the content of the film is the way certain issues are mentioned as being part of the global Islamist Jihad. I believe one of the interviewees makes the point that in the past we have considered these issues as localised, not global, and now we should consider them as part of the interlinked global problem. Amongst these issues we have Chechnya, the French riots, and much reference to Palestine. With Palestine I can see that what happens there can affect what happens elsewhere, but do events outside of Palestine affect what happens there? Are the Palestinians, for example, motivated by what's happening in Iraq, or are they motivated by the actions of Israel? As for Chechnya well they're probably more harshly treated by the Russians than the Palestinians are by Israel, so I think again, that is a localised problem, not neccessarily part of the global threat. Again, Chechnya can affect what happens elsewhere. As for the French Riots I am at a loss to explain their inclusion? Anyway, the point of the film makers is that all these issues such as Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, etc, are all part of the same global threat. I disagree (in a way) because that would mean these issues originated out of the same event (they didn't) and that solving these problems would involve the same solution (it won't). Sure there are similarities but they are seperate conflicts which have originated, and are prolonged, by the treatment of the people living there by a state, and therefore have nothing to do with religion. However, there is a global threat and these conflicts do affect that threat, but it was my opinion that the film makers were trying to convince me that as well as these issues affecting events elsewhere (and therefore our security in the West - which I agree with 100%) they also attempted to add weight to that opinion by saying these local issues originated because of the global Islamist threat, which I do not agree with (to summarise, they were basically saying look at all the violence in these places - this is because of Islamist ideology, not because the people there are pissed off with how they are treated)
The second aspect of the content I'd like to mention is what motivates radical Islamists and the reasons people support them. This is where the film makers exhonorate the actions of America and place the blame solely on the Arabs themselves. Radical Islamists commit the crimes they do because of all the propaganda and indoctrination they receive as children. Of course, this happens, and of course it adds to the hatred. Ammerica is characterised as wanting to take over the world, and what does America do to suggest this is not true? They invade Iraq, putting into action the neoconservative plan to create a world conductive to American interests (which you can read about HERE and see who supports such a plan HERE) So in short, America plays into their hands and does a great job of proving what these Radicals are telling people. At this point I need to remind people of the film maker's/interviewees agenda. They support this neconservative plan and need to persuade people that by acting out this plan is not the reason some hate America (and therefore the reason for the terrorist attacks) As you can guess, I think American meddling in the Middle East is to blame just as much as the propaganda...
I also want to add about the aims of the Islamists that showing a load of people saying they want to take over the world does not mean all groups adhere to that aim, or that when these terrorist attacks occur, the aim of the perpetrators is to take over the world (they're not stupid). Hizballah are the most powerful Islamist group in the world. They are certainly more powerful than the Lebanese army and are more than capable of taking over the country and installing an Iranian style theocracy in the country. But they haven't. Why? If all Islamist groups in the world want to take over the world why don't Hizballah take over at least Lebanon for a start? The majority of what I hear radical groups say (rather than a bunch of individuals who we have no idea who they are or who they represent) refers to "Muslim lands" (the Middle East) But to suggest that they do want to take over the world is great for pursuading people to agree with their argument...which brings me to my final point...what exactly were the film makers stated objectives for the documentary???
None. They spent 100 minutes merely saying "there are some Radical Islamists in the world and they are dangerous". Well no Sherlock! Is this supposed to be new? They don't even offer a solution to the problem! All they do is say this problem exists. Obviously I've talked about hidden agendas and the film serves that purpose (to exhonerate America to ensure people don't question their actions, and to place the blame on the Arabs thereby generating support for these American actions)
So, I've made a huge post so there is a hell of a lot there you can quote and give me examples of why I'm wrong but before you do that I should tell you that I do agree radical Islam is a huge threat, and I do agree with the reasons the film makers say this threat exists (propaganda in Muslim countries) My criticism centres around reasons they leave out (American action) and the hidden agenda they are pursuing. And I shall end with by commenting on something one of the interviewees said that I hope goes some way helping you see this hidden agenda...
"Whatever happens in Israel" is an indicator of what will happen to the West. The film makers are making it clear that we need to protect and support Israel because if Israel do not succeed, neither will we... |
|
|
| trancaholic |
^^^ I agree with 99% of what you wrote, but want some elaboration on these parts:
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
As you can guess, I think American meddling in the Middle East is to blame just as much as the propaganda... |
I've seen you bring up this point more than once before. To me it seems rather arbitrary to say that the two sources of hatred are equally responsible for the end result. In fact, I would say that given recent events in Israel (Israel pulling out leading to increase in frequency and severity of attacks; "homegrown" terrorists/fanatics in the west) the evidence points to a fundamental hatred of Israel and the west, to which the actions of the US can only serve as a booster rather than being its root cause.
I can certainly agree that if *I* was living in an Arab country, I would find the actions of the US much aggrevating, and I think that you would too, but that is a false scenario, and we *cannot* simply put ourselves in the shoes of the average Arab muslim. Instead, why don't we listen to what the most hateful say, and accept it for a fact that they believe that their god has decreed all non-believers to be eliminated? Do you have a problem with accepting the fascism of the poor? Or that it can be widespread?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I also want to add about the aims of the Islamists that showing a load of people saying they want to take over the world does not mean all groups adhere to that aim, or that when these terrorist attacks occur, the aim of the perpetrators is to take over the world (they're not stupid). |
What do you mean "they're not stupid"? That if they *could* they would? But why then say that their desires are otherwise?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Hizballah are the most powerful Islamist group in the world. They are certainly more powerful than the Lebanese army and are more than capable of taking over the country and installing an Iranian style theocracy in the country. But they haven't. Why? If all Islamist groups in the world want to take over the world why don't Hizballah take over at least Lebanon for a start? |
Maybe because they haven't been given permission by Syria? Syria who is already facing uncomfortable attention due to their previous role in Lebanon, and Syria who has witnessed what happens to those who come across as mega-lo-maniacs, right next door. |
|
|
| Purple |
I just finished watching the vedio too. George Smiley said it better than I ever could ...
I just want to add that:
One: this whole documentry is an over-exageration of the issue...
Two: when these guys sitting on podium (in political rallies) say they want to conquer the world and stuff it is merely an attempt to win hearts of the people than to actually mean it.. again it is an exageration of the issue; these guys clearly dont have the resouces to conquer the world; neither do they mean it literally.. invading the whole country to get this one guy on podium is over-reacting by US; and will only escalate the issue.. and make the guy at podium a national hero. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
^^^ I agree with 99% of what you wrote, but want some elaboration on these parts: |
Cool! I thought it would be much less!!!
| quote: | | I've seen you bring up this point more than once before. To me it seems rather arbitrary to say that the two sources of hatred are equally responsible for the end result. In fact, I would say that given recent events in Israel (Israel pulling out leading to increase in frequency and severity of attacks; "homegrown" terrorists/fanatics in the west) the evidence points to a fundamental hatred of Israel and the west, to which the actions of the US can only serve as a booster rather than being its root cause. |
First I'll use Israel as an example in order to expand my point. The reason there is now a hatred of Jews is because of the actions of Israel since 1948. History has shown us that Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully. For example, when the Crusaders invaded the Middle East, Muslims protected Jews from the Christians, who had a nasty habit of rounding them up in buildings and setting them on fire. Muslims offered the Jews protection from this. That suggests there is nothing inherent in the religion that promotes hatred of Jews. My point is, using Israel as a good example, is that all this propaganda the documentary refers to (the anti-Semitic school text books, cartoons, sermons, etc) originates not out of a hatred of Jews, but out of a hatred for what Israel has done to these people which in turn now manifests itself as a hatred against Jewish people.
To a lesser extent that is what I was saying about America. That these people who promote the hatred to their people, developed their hatred of America because they hate American values (but why single America out and not the rest of the West?) and also because of American involvement in the Middle East - support for Israel and oil.
| quote: | | I can certainly agree that if *I* was living in an Arab country, I would find the actions of the US much aggrevating, and I think that you would too, but that is a false scenario, and we *cannot* simply put ourselves in the shoes of the average Arab muslim. Instead, why don't we listen to what the most hateful say, and accept it for a fact that they believe that their god has decreed all non-believers to be eliminated? Do you have a problem with accepting the fascism of the poor? Or that it can be widespread? |
I don't really understand what you're saying here...?
| quote: | | What do you mean "they're not stupid"? That if they *could* they would? But why then say that their desires are otherwise? |
Simply that they cannot (which does not automatically mean that is what they desire) I have seen ample evidence from individuals to suggest some do want to take over the world (unless, of course, it'e merely rhetoric) but I am not convinced this is representative of the major Islamist groups. The reason is their aims are religious as set out in their holy texts.
Let me give you the example of the Jews/Zionists. A political ideology linked to their religion. Their aim was to establish the Jewish state in Israel, as described in their holy texts. They have no desire to take over the world and convert everyone to Judaism - just what was described in their holy texts. What makes you think the equally religions Islamists are any different? The stated aim of the Islamists is to establish the Caliphate as described in their holy texts. Why would they want any more of the world? In their opinion, the Kaffur are worthless wretched people. They don't want to 'save' them like Christians want to 'save' people.
| quote: | | Maybe because they haven't been given permission by Syria? Syria who is already facing uncomfortable attention due to their previous role in Lebanon, and Syria who has witnessed what happens to those who come across as mega-lo-maniacs, right next door. |
That's a poor attempt to dispute my point. The fact is, Hizballah could take over Lebanon and establish a theocracy - they haven't. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
George Smiley said it better than I ever could ...
|
No ! |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by sasslife
What religious group did the NAZI's come from? |
:rolleyes: staggering. |
|
|
|
|
