|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 28, 2008 20:43:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2008 1:27:43 GMT -5
I watched 30 seconds of it, and that was enough for me. I can scarcely imagine the reaction if someone made a "film" like that about the bible and, say, the bombing of Iraq for the last 10 years... or Hiroshima. I imagine Bill O'Reilly's head would explode.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2008 6:54:08 GMT -5
I watched 30 seconds of it, and that was enough for me. I can scarcely imagine the reaction if someone made a "film" like that about the bible and, say, the bombing of Iraq for the last 10 years... or Hiroshima. Are you kidding? They will . . . they have. People can say whatever the like about Christianity with impunity and point to fringe idiots leaders and lump them in with mainstreams followers [Jerry Falwell = all Christians; Fred Phelps = all conservative Christians] . . . and we have to defend ourselves . . . but let someone question the fringes of Islam and finger-pointing the goes the other way, and charges of Islamaphobia [not saying that's what you are saying] fly. There are fringe leaders in Islam. Did this go too far? Maybe. Did it say that all Muslims believe such? No. But it does [and admittedly I didn't watch the whole thing] point out that there are those with such a belief. The question is . . . what to do about it? Radical Islam believes that we infidels must convert or else. Mind you, it wasn't so many centuries ago that Christianity/Catholicism was just as radical [though in a lesser technological degree]. What to do . . . what to do. If the US/western world were to withdraw from the Middle East/the Gulf States strong Islamists would continue their desire to eradicate Israel, and conquer pockets of the world however they could, imposing their religious beliefs on the masses [see: Indonesia]. I have no answer but am open . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 29, 2008 8:31:33 GMT -5
...that's the worst possible sort of hate propagenda...
...a certain guy once convinced enough people that a certain religion was taking over his country and the world and it had to stop. With half truths, distorted facts, and lies, he was able to convince his people that for their own sake, they had to protect themselves against that religion that was spreading, taking over governments, banks, etc... threatening the very fiber of its nation. He introduced legislation in his country to restrict or remove that religion from the civil society... and... eventually... the world realized that Hitler had murdered 6 millions jews... In Mein Kampf Hitler describes in detail how the "The Jewish Peril" is a huge conspiracy to gain world-wide leadership... How the Jews were brutal murderers that would not accept any other religions, etc... Hitler achieved his goal by doing precisely what this video does. Propaganda, desinformation, instill fear and provoke hate towards a certain target.
...that video is nothing but a plea for another racial purge, this time on Muslims.
|
|
|
|
Post by mic on Mar 29, 2008 10:33:39 GMT -5
...that's the worst possible sort of hate propagenda... ...a certain guy once convinced enough people that a certain religion was taking over his country and the world and it had to stop. With half truths, distorted facts, and lies, he was able to convince his people that for their own sake, they had to protect themselves against that religion that was spreading, taking over governments, banks, etc... threatening the very fiber of its nation. He introduced legislation in his country to restrict or remove that religion from the civil society... and... eventually... the world realized that Hitler had murdered 6 millions jews... In Mein Kampf Hitler describes in detail how the "The Jewish Peril" is a huge conspiracy to gain world-wide leadership... How the Jews were brutal murderers that would not accept any other religions, etc... Hitler achieved his goal by doing precisely what this video does. Propaganda, desinformation, instill fear and provoke hate towards a certain target. ...that video is nothing but a plea for another racial purge, this time on Muslims. The air is getting putrid once again. I am always amazed at how simple it is: create foreign ennemies, attribute all your problems to them and underline that they are plotting against you (thus linking economic troubles to fear over a group of people). Then, if somebody questions this view, accuse him (her) of idealism (vs. your realism), or weak-minded liberalism. Add a few pictures of people having been killed by a bomb, and you get your terrified voters. Oh and re-use past historical examples to prove your point: 1938's appeasement is generally the best way to go. What surprises me even more is that Europe, where terrorism was an issue in Spain (Pays Basque), France (Corsica and Pays Basque), Germany (Red Fraction Army), Italy (far left and far right groups), UK (IRA), seems to be so prone to falling into the same traps over and over again. Where have all the sane people gone? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2008 11:13:14 GMT -5
Extremism that uses organized religion as its won trump card is the enemy here. Extremist Islamic factions want the kind of information HA posted out there, so as to provoke a Jihad. And guys like Osama Bin Laden have no problem getting cooperation. I watched a Pat Condell video not long ago where he pointed out that Islam is not to be agreed with, but it wants to be obeyed. And, of course, Condell has been labeled a racist by The Peace and Justice Commission in Berkley California. But, you be the judge. But, he's not just targeting Muslims either. He feels there's enough blame to go around. Please see Hello angry ChristiansNow before anyone accuses me of being an atheist, I'm not. However, I do feel it right to talk to God in my own way and not through my priest. In my opinion, Condell is doing nothing more that exercising his freedom of expression. I respect his beliefs as he respects mine. And I'm sure he'd agree with me when I point out to him that, it's best his beliefs don't conflict with mine. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Convince the little man and he'll do it with a smile on his face. Well, in my opinion, there's little difference between extremist Islamic clerics each interpreting the Koran the way they see it and fundamental Christians who use the bible as a control device. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by mic on Mar 29, 2008 12:10:08 GMT -5
Extremism that uses organized religion as its won trump card is the enemy here. Extremist Islamic factions want the kind of information HA posted out there, so as to provoke a Jihad. And guys like Osama Bin Laden have no problem getting cooperation. I watched a Pat Condell video not long ago where he pointed out that Islam is not to be agreed with, but it wants to be obeyed. And, of course, Condell has been labeled a racist by The Peace and Justice Commission in Berkley California. But, you be the judge. But, he's not just targeting Muslims either. He feels there's enough blame to go around. Please see Hello angry ChristiansNow before anyone accuses me of being an atheist, I'm not. However, I do feel it right to talk to God in my own way and not through my priest. In my opinion, Condell is doing nothing more that exercising his freedom of expression. I respect his beliefs as he respects mine. And I'm sure he'd agree with me when I point out to him that, it's best his beliefs don't conflict with mine. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Convince the little man and he'll do it with a smile on his face. Well, in my opinion, there's little difference between extremist Islamic clerics each interpreting the Koran the way they see it and fundamental Christians who use the bible as a control device. Cheers. First, I must say that I am not very familiar with Condell's work. This being said, I fail to understand how one could base his ideas on the premises that there is a religion out there which imposes certain behaviours on certain people. Saying for instance that Islam is a bellicose religion, and that people that 'have' this religion will thus be bellicose themselves is in my opinion the example of incoherent and insufficient logic: - His premisses are arguable. Saying that a religion is 'dangerous' (without really making it clear how) and that people will follow it to the letter are two things which can be discussed. Are we all following the Bible? Is it even possible to follow it without some interpretation (same for Islam). - It selects cases that goes with this logic but ignores others. Once you acknowledge that extremism is the deed of a minority (as big as it might be), you must acknowledge that you need more elements to your theory, because the division between extremists and non-extremists cannot be explained by religion itself. So what: is it the economy? or a left/right division? or the control over resources? - The causal link is arguable: is religion causing extremism, or is there something else at work? I suspect that income might just be as good an indicator for violent behaviours than religion. I am not trying to deny the existence of Islamic extremism. What I'm saying is that trying to find the ennemy in religion is not the way to go. Nobody cared about this in the past 80 years (except when it was to support Israel) and now suddenly we find out that there is a millenium old religion that will destroy our 'way of life'? I can't buy that. Just a word on the 'freedom of speech': as far as I know, all societies/states have rule to limit freedom of expression. That can go from defamation laws to rules against the promotion of hatred. Hey, even Habs'R'Us has rules limiting our freedom of speech, probably among the best enforced on the internet. And see the result. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2008 13:23:02 GMT -5
Now before anyone accuses me of being an atheist, I'm not. Interesting choice of words. I watched 30 seconds of it, and that was enough for me. I can scarcely imagine the reaction if someone made a "film" like that about the bible and, say, the bombing of Iraq for the last 10 years... or Hiroshima. Are you kidding? They will . . . they have. I had a feeling that answer was coming. I have never seen anything to compare to what HA posted. Doesn't mean it's not out there, but it means it hasn't been sufficiently widely distributed (wonder why that is). Presenting information, or using parody, is one thing, but these kind of theatrics and scare tactics are way beyond the pale |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2008 13:33:27 GMT -5
Good post, Mic. First, I must say that I am not very familiar with Condell's work. This being said, I fail to understand how one could base his ideas on the premises that there is a religion out there which imposes certain behaviours on certain people. Saying for instance that Islam is a bellicose religion, and that people that 'have' this religion will thus be bellicose themselves is in my opinion the example of incoherent and insufficient logic: - His premisses are arguable. Saying that a religion is 'dangerous' (without really making it clear how) and that people will follow it to the letter are two things which can be discussed. I think Condell said it well when he mentioned that there are extremists who feel Islam shouldn't be contained solely to Muslims. They feel it must be imposed on everyone. And he has a problem with that, and other religions who feel the same way. Excellent observations! We've talked about this before either at work or elsewhere. But, I honestly believe that if one religion were to eventually dominate the globe we still wouldn't have global peace. While one in every five on the planet today is a Muslim, we still see different perceives of the Koran as dictated by whichever Mullah interprets its writings. Sometimes we even see open eradications and genocide between Islamic factions as a result. Yet, we've also had our share of differences in Christianity as well. Why was the Protestant religion founded? Or, Anglicism for that matter? In my humble opinion, these religions were formed out of conflicting perceptions. I wonder if , "... God Wills It ..." or "... Allahu Akbar ..." might be phrases of convenience used by which extremists to rally their flocks in support of their own agendas; land grabs, oil, etc. I didn't interpret that, mic. To me, it's more like extremists using religion as a control tool. Actually, I do buy into it. I honestly believe Canada once had the potential for everyone to live here in peace. However, I find that Christianity is a much more tolerant religion than Islam. If one chooses not to practice one's faith (regardless what it may be), most Christians are tolerant of that. However, while the Muslims I know are very tolerant people, there is an element of Islam that dictates you, me and any other non-believers that we obey their teachings. A small story: The regiment I was with stepped up its fall training tempo only days after the towers came down. I was talking to a military padre and friend of mine outside the canteen during one of our breaks in training. He told me that the war between Islam and Christianity has never been settled and that the only thing we could do was "be ready." I was taken off guard by that remark, but later fully understood where he was coming from. Unlike him, I'm not willing to pick up the sword to defend my faith. However, if someone were to come up to me and tell me that the only way to live is by the way they dictate, then they'll be put off with my response. As Condell said, "... my personal freedom is much more important to me than your faith ... much, much more important ..." And I feel I can have my freedoms without compromising my beliefs and faith. The result I see is a group of mature people discussing, debating and enjoying the community they helped build by adhering to the rules they agreed to. If they didn't like the rules they would have either moved on or been shown the door. Where I think we miss the boat as a society is in political correctness. I'm a white, male, Anglophone (though I try hard to speak French at times), which makes me guilty of just about everything that's gone wrong in my country. Well, maybe not. But I feel this way every time our government bends over to pick up the soap for a minority group who feels they can come over here, criticize the way I live and point out my flaws. There's no assimilating to Canadian culture. It's all about they and their rights as landed immigrants. However, there are even Muslim communities in England who do not use English as a language and never will. They did what they had to in order to immigrate to England and now that they're there, the do not assimilate. Some may link this to the French/English cultures in Canada. I say it's completely different because the French are indigenous to Canada. In fact, I honestly believe they have the right to call themselves Canadians more than the English component do and as indigenous peoples they have the right to protect their culture. We used to have a distinct Canadian culture; however, that culture is being redefined now. There's nothing wrong with that if it's done correctly. However, while one side is ready to "buy the world a coke" some others are ready to take that bottle and crack you one upside the head. And it's not only Muslim extremists we're talking about here; we have a lot more of the same ilk in our white supremests, hard-line separatists and small-town rednecks. All enemies of mine. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by mic on Mar 29, 2008 14:18:59 GMT -5
Good post, Mic. You say that extremists use religion as a control tool (to which I fully agree), but the logical next step is to find what factors favour the emergence of extremism ... More generally, once you look at the conditions of these places, you tend to forget about Islam as a religion. Make people fearful of it, resentful of it and then tell them who is to blame for it. Keep them in poverty and wanting more, then tell them how to obtain it. Religion seems to be the tool of choice for extremism. But, getting to the root or origins of that extremism is easier said than done.  Cheers  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 29, 2008 15:21:24 GMT -5
Some may link this to the French/English cultures in Canada. I say it's completely different because the French are indigenous to Canada. In fact, I honestly believe they have the right to call themselves Canadians more than the English component do and as indigenous peoples they have the right to protect their culture. Don't want to veer the thread from the intended topic ... but the Constitution of Canada (1982) only refers to three indigenous groups in Canada. Indians, Inuit, and Metis. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 29, 2008 15:25:19 GMT -5
This whole thing can be summed up for me by quoting three men, all three brutally assasinated.
Man #1: I have a dream ... that we all can
Man #2: Imagine there are no religions and just
Man #3: Do unto others as you wish they'd do unto you
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Mar 29, 2008 16:01:41 GMT -5
Some may link this to the French/English cultures in Canada. I say it's completely different because the French are indigenous to Canada. In fact, I honestly believe they have the right to call themselves Canadians more than the English component do and as indigenous peoples they have the right to protect their culture. Don't want to veer the thread from the intended topic ... but the Constitution of Canada (1982) only refers to three indigenous groups in Canada. Indians, Inuit, and Metis. Yep. The French are not indigenous to Canada by way of law, or logic. How does being the first western group to settle (in large population, anyway) and wage repeated wars against the true indigenous people of Canada make the French themselves indigenous? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2008 16:24:57 GMT -5
Now before anyone accuses me of being an atheist, I'm not. Interesting choice of words. Interesting personal judgment. How does this fit into the discussion? Stuff like this has been out there for quite a while actually. It's hard to know where a lot of it originates from. I've seen clips on Al Jeezera (sp?) that promote anti-semitics and outright hatred. Still, it's hard to figure out where some other material comes from. For all we know it could be CIA-funded. As an aside, even 9/11 conspiracy theories are out there. Some actually believe that the American government not only allowed those plans to hit, but also assisted in the disaster, so as to facilitate what is happening now. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2008 16:25:50 GMT -5
Some may link this to the French/English cultures in Canada. I say it's completely different because the French are indigenous to Canada. In fact, I honestly believe they have the right to call themselves Canadians more than the English component do and as indigenous peoples they have the right to protect their culture. Don't want to veer the thread from the intended topic ... but the Constitution of Canada (1982) only refers to three indigenous groups in Canada. Indians, Inuit, and Metis. Again, it's only my belief there buds. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The Habsome One on Mar 29, 2008 17:42:38 GMT -5
I don't get what you guys are crying about. The film didn't say religion is bad, Islam is bad, all Muslims or bad, etc.
What it pointed out was that, the way things are going now, the Netherlands (and world) is changing. A type of (sometimes literal) interpretation of Islam is spreading that conflicts with Western values AND laws.
I don't know what the solution is, or even how exactly one is granted citizenship now, but I'd like for citizenship to be conditional on passing a test on the person's belief system. For instance, if he or she is asked whether it is ok for someone to be killed for converting from one religion to another, or for committing adultry, and the person says yes, because the Koran says honour killings are okay... they fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2008 17:45:05 GMT -5
This whole thing can be summed up for me by quoting three men, all three brutally assasinated. Man #1: I have a dream ... that we all can Man #2: Imagine there are no religions and just Man #3: Do unto others as you wish they'd do unto you#s 1 and 3 were killed for their beliefs. #2 was killed by a nut bar. That being said, religion is not the main problem when it comes to war (though it gets the main blame. Someone [Toeffler? I think someone else, actually] said that land causes the conflicts but that religion is the excuse. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 29, 2008 18:00:43 GMT -5
...a certain guy once convinced enough people that a certain religion was taking over his country and the world and it had to stop. With half truths, distorted facts, and lies, he was able to convince his people that for their own sake, they had to protect themselves against that religion that was spreading, taking over governments, banks, etc... threatening the very fiber of its nation. It was more than a Jewish purge, though, Doc -- any non-white non-straight non-perfectly healthy person (physically or mentally) was subject to the concentration camp and/or death. .
The video (at least what I saw of it) goes to far and focuses on everything evil about Muslims. But do you agree that some radicals go this far? Should they be censured?
fwiw, my next door neighbour is Muslim. I have friends who are Muslim. One cannot return home to Iran to visit his family because he fears he will be killed because he is a moderate.
Unfortunately, voices of moderates are not as loud as those who are not. But I think they are becoming louder and that may make a difference.
And hopefully the voices of moderate Westerners will become louder as well.
One final thing: Bush's biggest mistake was going to war with Afghanistan and then Iraq. If he'd have kept his isolationist policy (instead of listening to his advisers) I think this whole issue would have dissipated by now. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2008 18:05:27 GMT -5
Just a word on the 'freedom of speech': as far as I know, all societies/states have rule to limit freedom of expression. That can go from defamation laws to rules against the promotion of hatred. Hey, even Habs'R'Us has rules limiting our freedom of speech, probably among the best enforced on the internet. And see the result. When I posted this thread, I didn't know which direction it will go. I half expected someone to complain about why I would post a viceo like that. Then of course it would launch a debate about "freedom of speech". |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2008 18:08:22 GMT -5
As for the video.....
I am not sure it's such a bad thing. While the content is predictable to the point that it looks like somthing a high schooler made the effect it has is much broader. I would put forth the argument that the video and the cartoons before that have launch a bunker mentality by Muslims BUT in the long term, it will start to "make" people question their religion and the people who abuse it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2008 20:03:08 GMT -5
That being said, religion is not the main problem when it comes to war (though it gets the main blame. Someone [Toeffler? I think someone else, actually] said that land causes the conflicts but that religion is the excuse. I agree ... it's a convenient control tool used to defer attention off of another, often personal, agenda. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2008 20:07:45 GMT -5
As for the video..... I am not sure it's such a bad thing. While the content is predictable to the point that it looks like somthing a high schooler made the effect it has is much broader. I would put forth the argument that the video and the cartoons before that have launch a bunker mentality by Muslims BUT in the long term, it will start to "make" people question their religion and the people who abuse it. Well, how about the the Hamas Bunny? Interesting? |
|
|
|
Post by mic on Mar 29, 2008 20:10:04 GMT -5
Just a word on the 'freedom of speech': as far as I know, all societies/states have rule to limit freedom of expression. That can go from defamation laws to rules against the promotion of hatred. Hey, even Habs'R'Us has rules limiting our freedom of speech, probably among the best enforced on the internet. And see the result. When I posted this thread, I didn't know which direction it will go. I half expected someone to complain about why I would post a viceo like that. Then of course it would launch a debate about "freedom of speech". I am not sure what you mean by this or why you quoted me. I didn't complain about your post, and Dis mentioned the thing about 'freedom of speech'. I only wanted to underline that this very board is so successful because it regulates the limits to freedom of speech. I hope you're right. But I can't see how this would work. I fear that this just fuels these extremists. The 'See what they think of us? Would you rather be alone with them or with us?' type of logic. You hope that it will occur in the long run, but how do you think that this will happen? How do you think that such an approach would influence a kid whose parent's are involved in one of the many conflicts of the Near and Middle East? I suspect that buying him off is much more efficient. Help him having a strong and stable state, and make sure that he has sufficient income to make him think twice before going to explode himself in a terror attack. In a sense, show the efficiency of western democracies by making him have a better life. Attacking beliefs seems to me a sign of weakness that is not needed. Damn, 3-1 for the Leafs. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 29, 2008 20:49:07 GMT -5
When I posted this thread, I didn't know which direction it will go. I half expected someone to complain about why I would post a viceo like that. Then of course it would launch a debate about "freedom of speech". I am not sure what you mean by this or why you quoted me. I didn't complain about your post, and Dis mentioned the thing about 'freedom of speech'. I only wanted to underline that this very board is so successful because it regulates the limits to freedom of speech. It wasn't "directed" at you but more of a general comment. As for what we do here (HabsRus), we don't really control the subject matter. I can't remember what we have NOT discussed in here. So yes, there is freedom of speech BUT there are controls on how that speech is carried out. As for the rest of your post, I like to respond to it at a later time. You know, old people like me need to rest between thoughts...... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2008 21:29:20 GMT -5
One final thing: Bush's biggest mistake was going to war with Afghanistan and then Iraq. If he'd have kept his isolationist policy (instead of listening to his advisers) I think this whole issue would have dissipated by now. IMHO, Bush's best decision was to go after the cowards who planned 9/11 and they were in Afghanistan. However, his biggest mistake there was not following through on the mission itself. At first I felt he demonstrated all the correct actions in getting to the perpetrator, Bin Laden. Heck, he had him so incensed Bin Laden was actually visually upset, mad and frightened on camera. However, he adjusted his arcs of fire to Iraq. That alone was the biggest, single-most significant error of his presidency. It was this decision to invade Iraq that cost him any international respect he or his government might have had. After that, Afghanistan took a back seat. And Bin Laden? Well, by Bush's own admission, he didn't think of him too often. What's up with that!!!  He tags a guy as the chief plotter to 9/11 and then gives up looking for him???!!! However, he has since moved more American troops into the Afghan theatre of operations. And it's about time. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 29, 2008 22:07:25 GMT -5
Good post, Mic. You say that extremists use religion as a control tool (to which I fully agree), but the logical next step is to find what factors favour the emergence of extremism ... More generally, once you look at the conditions of these places, you tend to forget about Islam as a religion. Make people fearful of it, resentful of it and then tell them who is to blame for it. Keep them in poverty and wanting more, then tell them how to obtain it. Religion seems to be the tool of choice for extremism. But, getting to the root or origins of that extremism is easier said than done. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Mar 30, 2008 1:27:35 GMT -5
We have the neutron bomd.
We must not tell our children that we failed to use it and it led to millions of deaths in our own country.
No more American soldiers killed.
Wipe out the radicals.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 30, 2008 6:32:09 GMT -5
We have the bomb.
We must not tell our children that we failed to use it and it led to millions of deaths in our own country.
No more Arab soldiers killed.
Wipe out the infidels.
Matter of perspective, my friend. And not a good one at that. No one wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 30, 2008 8:08:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Mar 30, 2008 9:23:48 GMT -5
Violence begets violence, but turning the other shoulder isn't going to accomplish anything either. So where do we stand?
|
|
. 
He tags a guy as the chief plotter to 9/11 and then gives up looking for him???!!! 