Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
You know @rebecca , I was not going to say this until you posted the Rushdie thing. Perhaps what we need to do is encourage more silly insulting films to be made so that Muslim extreemist acclimatize to the notion that the world produces such drivel regularly and they should therefore not take it so seriously. Moreover, with many such cinematic banalities to view, the extreemist would be hard pressed to know where to direct his ire. I am being silly but not near so silly as they. And my sillyness does not include soliciting or commiting murder . Tolerance must be a two way street.
We should keep in mind, too, that many of these protests have not been violent, but the violent ones make it to the evening news.
Bomb New York for ten years. Grab men and boys off the street without warning, for ten years, labeling them "insurgents." Imprison them without trial (for ten years). Bust into New Yorkers houses at will, dragging out family members and beating them up. Set up checkpoints all around New York that people have to stop at, drag them out of the car and search them, and occasionally blow up family cars (as well as genuine insurgents, which by now as Americans we would feel totally justified in supporting).
At the end of this decade, air widely a film criticizing God, Jesus, and Americans.
Would New York react? Should it? Would the world look at the reaction and say, "There was no justification for New Yorkers to react?" Was it really the film that caused the reaction?
@Sile, that really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
@sndymorn, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain?
I'm just saying that if Americans experienced ten years of foreign occupation, they would react to it, and call it patriotic (and I don't disagree).
We have to remember that they had been at war with various people for a long time pre 9/11. you can't reasonably say "the effect of the war with America has had on them" without also including the effects of their previous wars.
But there may have been many who would have wanted to protest, but lived in areas where no protests occurred.
I'm don't think your data says as much as you think it says.
Yes, why trust numbers when you can rely on paranoia.
If no protests occured in certain areas, surely that is indicative that the people in those areas did not wish to protest.
BTW, I did not create this list, it was just doing the rounds of the internet yesterday and i thought it was insightful.
Back in the 1960s, which I lived through, not every Black person who had deep, deep resentments about racial inequality protested. Some attended meetings at their churches. Some joined and were "quiet members" of the NAACP.
This year I know a number of people who go to Obama rallies. I know others who wouldn't think of going to a rally, but who volunteer. And I know others who won't do either of the above, but make significant financial contributions.
In Thailand, during the Red Shirts demonstrations and rioting, which I lived through 2 years ago, virtually all of the "action" was in Bangkok. But the vast majority of protesters were actually from upcountry, who came into the capital to vent their anger; very few Bankokians protested.
And, my son lives in Islamabad, Pakistan. He has contrasted for me the nature of the dislike of the American government as being somewhat a function of which city in Pakistan you happen to be in. In Islamabad, where he lives, he says protests are much less likely, but that strong resentments still exist. In other cities, he feels protests are much more likely. Simply the nature of the inhabitants.
@Sile, that really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
@sndymorn, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain?
I'm just saying that if Americans experienced ten years of foreign occupation, they would react to it, and call it patriotic (and I don't disagree).
We have to remember that they had been at war with various people for a long time pre 9/11. you can't reasonably say "the effect of the war with America has had on them" without also including the effects of their previous wars.
The same could be said of New Yorkers' reaction to ten years of occupation. But it would be the current occupation which, realistically, was shaping New Yorkers' daily mindset and behavior. It's not that 2000-year-old history wouldn't matter, just that it wouldn't matter as much, on a day to day basis, as the most recent bombing or kidnapping.
What I wonder most often in all this is who actually made/remade the film. You can see that names have been changed in some of the voiceovers--I'm trying to make out what the original words were.
It could be anyone who wanted to stir up trouble or noise, either as the main point, or as a distraction. Or I suppose it could just be total ignorance, but as a quote from The State Within (great Brit minidrama) goes, "Coincidences make me twitchy."
Motive, motive, motive--what is it, and where does it point?
@Sile, the Taliban, Al Quaida, Hezbollah, the leaders of countries in the middle east... They all have a long history of war going back much farther than 9/11.
Trying to contrast what would happen if the same thing happened in a stable nation is just apples and oranges. War in these regions isn't new, and wasn't invented by America or the post 9/11 world and nor does the history of extremist Islam begin at 9/11.
We don't even have to go back 2000 years, we can just go back 30, even 20 and start from there. Afghanistan was at war from 1996 (I think) to 2001 (when America came) with the "United Front" after the Taliban took Kabul. (The Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan at this time).
These regions have a long a troubled history, mostly thanks to religion, and America's involvement is just one chapter in a long, long book.
I highly recommend White Man's Burden (Travolta, Belafonte, among others). It's an uncomfortable but fascinating look at role reversal in America. I think in order to understand the Muslim world better, it would be really eye-opening to put ourselves in their shoes.
If I were a rich person, I'd hire a writer, director and producer for a film called "The Middle West," showing, say, a Kansas town under Arab occupation, and following the evolving reactions of the townspeople as they deal with an occupation that is alternately benign and brutal. It would be a really worth exercise to try and conceive of honest equivalents to today's situation in the Middle East.
I thought I was an open-minded, intelligent person until I saw White Man's Burden--so many additional messages sank in. The one that sticks with me is the scene where the affluent, black citizens are gathered for a dinner benefit for local, poor white children, and the blushing, shy white kids come out on stage, paraded in front of the audience as an "example of the good work you're doing." I felt a wave of embarrassment, almost humiliation--and yet it was supposed to be a "good" thing, you know, feeding and clothing poor kids. Can't recommend this film highly enough.
Both parties are to blame, the west as well as Islam. Anyone who takes sides is simply being biased. Be a Buddhist, follow the middle path - and blame both sides. Ok, the last part got unintentionally funny, but seriously life is never black and white. No side or person is either entirely good or entirely evil. So taking sides is not the right thing to do.
We don't need to make a movie, just have a look at what's happening in Europe.
Let's narrow it down and look at Britain, specifically London, where the Islamists have isolated themselves, created their own Sharia law courts (there are over 100 in Britain now) and where non Muslims can't go for fear of beating.
@ Rebecca Since Iranian extremists believe they should have nipped Rushdie in the bud, I assert that between Rushdie and this disgusting film(ten ? Years) there could have been many "insults" to the prophet fabricated in a deliberate effort to aclimatize these people to the idea that the world does not need to honor or cowtow to their way of thinking. The more insults to their prophet the less any one insult's impact will have. Again, I am being silly , but my message is that Muslim extreemists must adopt a live and let live attitude. In the USa in the fifties,Elvis was shown from the waist up on television because his devilish gyrations might cause offense. Today MTV is in such bad taste that Elvis seems tame. We got used to it and I for one found the solution , for me and my children , is to ignore MTV .
Many ultra orthodox Jews walk the streets of Los Angeles passing billboards and news stands depicting what they would consider degradations of all sorts including insults to their deity. They keep their heads down and go about their business. So too, do the peaceful Muslims of this country. I hope I am being clear.
Others can explain it much better, since it concerns politics. All I am saying is, no side can be so completely pure that they're always blameless. It defies logic and experience.
Another bit of bizarreness...several days ago Fox ran a ticker suggesting the Libyan protest was not over the movie, but rather a drone strike in Pakistan which killed a Libyan-born man. Did anyone else see this, or hear it suggested? This was when the protesting was being reported only in Libya and Egypt.
Sile, there have been a number of reports that some of the protesting was not about the film, but rather about other issues such as drone attacks, or a compilation of issues. And these are not reports just on FOX, since I don't listen to FOX.
@sndymorn, I see what you're saying. And I agree. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely to be a reality as it would be against the Islamist manifesto. The rules they live by are convert or kill, there is no room for middle ground.
Well, that's not quite true. Sharia law allows for people of other faiths, but they must pay an extra tax and aren't granted the same rights as Muslims. You can be of another faith but you are a second class citizen and still must abide by the Sharia.
It really depends on the sect. The "twelvers" (Ahmedinejad) will just kill us to bring the 12th Imam.
It would be nice if they would just sort their shit though
Others can explain it much better, since it concerns politics. All I am saying is, no side can be so completely pure that they're always blameless. It defies logic and experience.
I know what you mean. Jimmy Carter for example, blurgh.
Sile, there have been a number of reports that some of the protesting was not about the film, but rather about other issues such as drone attacks, or a compilation of issues. And these are not reports just on FOX, since I don't listen to FOX.
Thanks for that, @vinlyn...I'll try to dig some up today.
Others can explain it much better, since it concerns politics. All I am saying is, no side can be so completely pure that they're always blameless. It defies logic and experience.
I know what you mean. Jimmy Carter for example, blurgh.
Carter ... one of the greatest visionaries of our time.
I find Asia Times Online a constant source of broad perspectives--here's writer Christof Lehmann's take on the role Hollywood may play in Western-Muslim relations:
Excerpt:
"The Arab American scholar, D Jack Shaheen, studied more than 1,000 movies, from the oldest Hollywood productions to the greatest blockbuster productions up to 2001 before he wrote the book Real Bad Arabs, How Hollywood Vilifies a People.
Shaheen concluded that over 300 movies, more than 25% of all those he studied, vilified Arabs and Muslims in one way or the other, comparing it to World War II Nazi propaganda against the Jewish people. Shaheen argues that both have caused unspeakable human suffering due to the fact that it would be difficult to have a population accept the brutal treatment of an entire people without those people first being deprived of their humanity.
Others can explain it much better, since it concerns politics. All I am saying is, no side can be so completely pure that they're always blameless. It defies logic and experience.
I know what you mean. Jimmy Carter for example, blurgh.
Carter ... one of the greatest visionaries of our time.
We'll ignore his presidency for now and move to more recent times, like in 2009 when he declared that Hamas (a known terrorist organization) should be the governing authority in Gaza. Horrendous man.
It's sad how we demand Muslims accept responsibility for their actions, but we avoid responsibility for ours.
If it's pointed out that we drop bombs, the excuses come out -- "It's necessary." "They started it."
Many of our bombing targets are not ethical ones, and it doesn't matter who started it. But beyond that is the incessant failure to accept and acknowledge the bombing. It's a strange world indeed where teenagers throwing rocks makes news, but blowing up homes doesn't.
Has anyone else noticed that Palestinians under 18 are most often referred to as "youths," but Jewish residents under 18 are "children?" I think it goes to what Christof is suggesting above--in order to justify a killing, one tends to dehumanize or at least de-innocentize the victim.
An interesting exercise: take news stories from, for example, Israel, and reverse the terms "Palestinian" and "Jewish." The same tool can be used with articles on Chinese and Tibetan issues, Indian and Pakistani, etc. Notice how the verbs, adjectives, and overall slant change depending on which population is being referred to, and how unusual it sounds to hear the text with the words swapped.
I fully believe, by the way, that culpability always exists on both sides of a conflict. But the news is generally skewed so far in favor of one that it becomes necessary to sound defensive of the other, simply to get closer to an accurate view of the situation. Then, one's attempt at balance is taken as a sign of "side-taking," and the conversation derails.
@music I would be interested to know how the west influenced extremist Islam pre 9/11. Can you explain?
I would be willing to bet (if you could even know for certain) that our meddling in other countries affairs (since world war II) have driven some increase in involvement/sympathy/funding toward extremism of all kinds (particularly in the middle east). This isn't to say that extremism wouldn't exist and perpetrate the same acts; however, the numbers they can attract are increasing and they use our governments actions as a marketing tool.
I have been training my dog more intensively as of late (she is part wolf (not a hybrid, very intelligent, and very strong willed). The best way to train is to ignore undesired behaviour and reward wanted behaviour. It is the same with children. Humans are animals and they function on the same principles, albeit we can become aware of our training and thus make things more complicated.
We should be ignoring all negative actions, rewarding positive actions, and showing love and compassion to our enemies -no matter what they do to us. This is a long road and it will take time for things to change, but staying true to this course of action is, IMHO, the only way out of our spiral into a circle of violence.
I love dog training! I had a really naughty Boxer and worked with her and she became so much happier. So rewarding.
And it's totally true.... With dogs, even children.
But how much can we ignore terrorists? How long can we allow them to kill people? What we view as strength - compassion, understanding, logic - they view as weakness.
Had we not retaliated to 9/11 all it would have meant to the terrorists is that we submitted to them.
I don't really know of a better way to describe someone who married a six year old.
I guess that because they didn't have sex (consumating the marriage) until she was nine that changes things? I mean... He was only 44 years older than her...
Had we not retaliated to 9/11 all it would have meant to the terrorists is that we submitted to them.
Perhaps in the short term; but just like a dog, they will try everything to get our attention and when they get nowhere they try something different. If we reward wanted behaviour, then they learn to "chose" those behaviours because it gets them somewhere.
I also want to point out that the dog is doing just as much training of the human as well: It isn't a one way street. The same would apply to our brothers and sisters in the middle east.
I find Asia Times Online a constant source of broad perspectives--here's writer Christof Lehmann's take on the role Hollywood may play in Western-Muslim relations:
Excerpt:
"The Arab American scholar, D Jack Shaheen, studied more than 1,000 movies, from the oldest Hollywood productions to the greatest blockbuster productions up to 2001 before he wrote the book Real Bad Arabs, How Hollywood Vilifies a People.
Shaheen concluded that over 300 movies, more than 25% of all those he studied, vilified Arabs and Muslims in one way or the other, comparing it to World War II Nazi propaganda against the Jewish people. Shaheen argues that both have caused unspeakable human suffering due to the fact that it would be difficult to have a population accept the brutal treatment of an entire people without those people first being deprived of their humanity.
He may have been the scholar that Turner Classic Movies had on one evening last year when the night's them was anti-Middle Eastern themes in American movies. It was quite interesting, as they discussed particular films, and then showed the films, and then had a follow-up discussion of each film.
In some cases, I felt his assertions were on-target. But in other cases I thought he was seeing prejudice where there was simply lack of knowledge.
I am reminded of a science film I used to show in my classroom. It was produced by NOAA (the Weather Bureau), and was about tornadoes. Ironically, it had been filmed in the area in which my school was located. There was one scene where it showed school children "in the position" in a school where there was a tornado warning. There was a shot of a Black student kneeling, and he suddenly looked up and rolled his eyes. Each year I showed the film it got a big laugh...even from me. But one year a parent demanded to see the film, and declared it was racist...because of the eye rolling...and "everyone knows only white children roll their eyes".
I don't really know of a better way to describe someone who married a six year old. I guess that because they didn't have sex (consumating the marriage) until she was nine that changes things? I mean... He was only 44 years older than her... Nah... I'm still going with pedophile.
How old were other brides at the time?
How would you describe Abraham...? He married his sister for a start...
I don't really know of a better way to describe someone who married a six year old.
I guess that because they didn't have sex (consumating the marriage) until she was nine that changes things? I mean... He was only 44 years older than her...
Nah... I'm still going with pedophile.
You might find this interesting -- it's a quick read on the topic:
I once saw a small book--I think it was actually a Ph.D. dissertation--comparing several tunes of Jewish, Christian and Muslim liturgical chants. While taking on different words over time, the underlying tunes had remained basically the same as they traveled through the various religions. Always thought it would be great to have a short stage production where three teenagers--Jewish, Christian and Muslim--ran into each other and started arguing over religion. In the course of the debate they'd discover the shared tune, and the production would end with them singing it together, each in his own language.
So allowing for the differences of the time, perhaps it's not fair to describe Muhammed as a pedophile.
But what about the way it affects modern Islam? Child brides are still common as the act of taking a child wife was effectively sanctioned by Muhammed. Given that the Qur'an and Hadiths can not be changed, even to make allowances for modern thought, under sharia marrying a child is still acceptable.
How would we describe a modern day Muhammed with a child bride? Would we still make an allowance?
And Islam isn't the only religion this happens in, but a quick google of child bride statistics shows that the places that it is most common is regions where the majority are Muslim.
But how much can we ignore terrorists? How long can we allow them to kill people? What we view as strength - compassion, understanding, logic - they view as weakness.
Had we not retaliated to 9/11 all it would have meant to the terrorists is that we submitted to them.
I understand your perspective, but what it seems to be missing is that many Muslims in the Middle East and around the world feel the same way about the US. We've been meddling in Middle Eastern politics and pushing our weight around for decades (particularly because of their strategic position and rich oil supplies), from invading and occupying two predominately Muslim countries and bombing others to supporting dictators with money and weapons (e.g., Mubarak) and backing military coups against democratic governments (e.g., the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran). Our drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc. are killing innocent civilians. And stories that make US troops look bad often fuel their growing hostility, from troops videotaping themselves urinating on corpses to burning Korans (accidentally or otherwise) and raping and murdering civilians. From their point of view, we're more like an imperialist power trying to make the Middle East submit to our regional hegemony than defenders of truth and freedom. So while I think killing a US diplomat in protest of this or a film critical of Islam is beyond the pale, I can certainly understand where much of their anger is coming from, and it's not just the result of extremist religious ideologies, but our fairly aggressive foreign policy in the region as well (especially considering this took place in Libya, which is rather unstable at the moment and has had a rocky relationship with the US ever since Gaddafi came to power in 1969).
So allowing for the differences of the time, perhaps it's not fair to describe Muhammed as a pedophile.
But what about the way it affects modern Islam? Child brides are still common as the act of taking a child wife was effectively sanctioned by Muhammed. Given that the Qur'an and Hadiths can not be changed, even to make allowances for modern thought, under sharia marrying a child is still acceptable.
How would we describe a modern day Muhammed with a child bride? Would we still make an allowance?
And Islam isn't the only religion this happens in, but a quick google of child bride statistics shows that the places that it is most common is regions where the majority are Muslim.
I think that you might find the subject of Sociology interesting. Its all about answering questions like these.
@Jason, you make a valid point, definitely. I'm not saying we're perfect, have behaved perfectly, have always made the best desicions, absolutely not. But people seem to have this self hating tendency to blame everything on the west and ignore the fact that extremists, their ideologies and their beliefs are the core of the problem.
It doesn't mean we haven't exacerbated it and it doesn't negate any part we have played, but to say it is purely the result of politics is totally wrong. To describe the actions of terrorists as retaliatory only does no justice to the truth of the matter.
So allowing for the differences of the time, perhaps it's not fair to describe Muhammed as a pedophile.
But what about the way it affects modern Islam? Child brides are still common as the act of taking a child wife was effectively sanctioned by Muhammed. Given that the Qur'an and Hadiths can not be changed, even to make allowances for modern thought, under sharia marrying a child is still acceptable.
How would we describe a modern day Muhammed with a child bride? Would we still make an allowance?
And Islam isn't the only religion this happens in, but a quick google of child bride statistics shows that the places that it is most common is regions where the majority are Muslim.
I think that you might find the subject of Sociology interesting. Its all about answering questions like these.
I never liked sociology (ok, I guess what I really mean is that I had a few friends who got their degrees in it and they all ended up as Marxists trying to convert me lol) but it's definitely worth exploring how people going about answering these questions. Cheers.
So allowing for the differences of the time, perhaps it's not fair to describe Muhammed as a pedophile.
But what about the way it affects modern Islam? Child brides are still common as the act of taking a child wife was effectively sanctioned by Muhammed. Given that the Qur'an and Hadiths can not be changed, even to make allowances for modern thought, under sharia marrying a child is still acceptable.
How would we describe a modern day Muhammed with a child bride? Would we still make an allowance?
And Islam isn't the only religion this happens in, but a quick google of child bride statistics shows that the places that it is most common is regions where the majority are Muslim.
I think that you might find the subject of Sociology interesting. Its all about answering questions like these.
I never liked sociology (ok, I guess what I really mean is that I had a few friends who got their degrees in it and they all ended up as Marxists trying to convert me lol) but it's definitely worth exploring how people going about answering these questions. Cheers.
Hahaha... well I think many people who are more attracted to certain ideas go into sociology; however, its really the science (social-science) of cultures and groups. Its about using not just an outside perspective to understand them, but also an inside perspective.
But people seem to have this self hating tendency to blame everything on the west and ignore the fact that extremists, their ideologies and their beliefs are the core of the problem.
It doesn't mean we haven't exacerbated it and it doesn't negate any part we have played, but to say it is purely the result of politics is totally wrong.
To describe the actions of terrorists as retaliatory only does no justice to the truth of the matter.
The 'core' of the problem? Another way of saying they are the problem...
Totally wrong as opposed to totally right?
The truth... a slippery little sucker... don't stop reading... keep going until you are unable to form decisive opinions!!
Yeah, I really want to see the different answers people have come up with to these questions - I'm sure not all sociologists agree on it and there is probably a wealth of perspectives to take into consideration. Really interesting stuff.
But people seem to have this self hating tendency to blame everything on the west and ignore the fact that extremists, their ideologies and their beliefs are the core of the problem.
It doesn't mean we haven't exacerbated it and it doesn't negate any part we have played, but to say it is purely the result of politics is totally wrong.
To describe the actions of terrorists as retaliatory only does no justice to the truth of the matter.
The 'core' of the problem? Another way of saying they are the problem...
Totally wrong as opposed to totally right?
The truth... a slippery little sucker... don't stop reading... keep going until you are unable to form decisive opinions!!
You are correct. I am absolutely and unequivocally saying that extremists are the problem.
Extremists of every religion, too, but when extremists of other religons pose a nuclear threat we'll talk about them then.
I'm afraid a simple body count shows which side commits the most violence. We talk a good game about the evils of innocent casualties in a market suicide bomb, and then kill just as many--actually, more--innocents ourselves. No one in the Mideast can really take us seriously, seeing this. In fact, I don't take us seriously, and I know many, many patriotic vets who feel the same. The intent of the soldiers is not in question; the results of the soldiers' actions are. No matter how honorable one's intent, killing is killing. The machine keeps cranking us through, and we numbly accept that it must keep moving.
I'm afraid a simple body count shows which side commits the most violence. We talk a good game about the evils of innocent casualties in a market suicide bomb, and then kill just as many--actually, more--innocents ourselves. No one in the Mideast can really take us seriously, seeing this. In fact, I don't take us seriously, and I know many, many patriotic vets who feel the same. The intent of the soldiers is not in question; the results of the soldiers' actions are. No matter how honorable one's intent, killing is killing. The machine keeps cranking us through, and we numbly accept that it must keep moving.
No one is saying war doesn't completely and utterly suck. You have no one arguing against you there.
But what would you propose as a realistic alternative?
@Jason, I would offer that the term "meddling" is often being overused, in general. For example, if Secretary Of State Clinton makes statements about what Iran should do in regard to their nuclear reactors, America is accused of meddling. Yet, Iran is constantly making statement, as well, but telling America what it should do. That aspect of meddling goes both ways. And, we have to remember that when the U.S., and when Iran makes such statements, who are they doing it for? Part is for telling the other country what they should do. Part is actually for domestic consumption. Part is for distribution to the world in general.
And meddling is quite natural when you live in an interconnected world. For example, do you think your athletic foot wear should be made by 10 year-olds in sweatshops in China? Oops...you're meddling. Do you think the Chinese should build that huge dam and flood that extensive area? Oops...you're meddling. Do you think China should burn so much high-sulfur coal and put all that particulate matter into the atmosphere? Oops...you're meddling.
And, we (meaning all countries) invite meddling with trade. We have a stake in the stability of the middle east because they agreed to supply us with our oil.
And this idea that America is the great meddler. Syria has meddled in the Lebanon situation for decades. Iran meddles in the affairs of Iraq constantly. And so on and so on. It's the way history has worked forever.
I'm afraid a simple body count shows which side commits the most violence. We talk a good game about the evils of innocent casualties in a market suicide bomb, and then kill just as many--actually, more--innocents ourselves. No one in the Mideast can really take us seriously, seeing this. In fact, I don't take us seriously, and I know many, many patriotic vets who feel the same. The intent of the soldiers is not in question; the results of the soldiers' actions are. No matter how honorable one's intent, killing is killing. The machine keeps cranking us through, and we numbly accept that it must keep moving.
No one is saying war doesn't completely and utterly suck. You have no one arguing against you there.
But what would you propose as an alternative?
Depends on which theater of operation you're referring to.
We are actively killing civilians, currently, in:
Iraq Afghanistan Pakistan
The short of it is that we kill too many civilians, period. Without getting into the argument of whether or not we should be militarily engaged in this three nations, we can address the issue of civilian casualties. There are too many; it is an outrage by humanitarian standards, and shameful by military standards.
Of all the methods by which civilians die, the drone is perhaps the most hated. I think it's pretty understandable. Dropping bombs from a jet is still Goliath vs. David, but at least the pilot is physically present. The drone "pilot" on the other hand risks nothing, and the remote-controlled, robotic aspect of this death machine, I believe, really affects people's psyches. It has cranked up negative feelings toward America, and rightly so.
I would instantly retire the drone program. It is utterly destroying any slim chance we have at peace in these three countries.
Comments
Perhaps what we need to do is encourage more silly insulting films to be made so that Muslim extreemist acclimatize to the notion that the world produces such drivel regularly and they should therefore not take it so seriously.
Moreover, with many such cinematic banalities to view, the extreemist would be hard pressed to know where to direct his ire.
I am being silly but not near so silly as they. And my sillyness does not include soliciting or commiting murder .
Tolerance must be a two way street.
Bomb New York for ten years. Grab men and boys off the street without warning, for ten years, labeling them "insurgents." Imprison them without trial (for ten years). Bust into New Yorkers houses at will, dragging out family members and beating them up. Set up checkpoints all around New York that people have to stop at, drag them out of the car and search them, and occasionally blow up family cars (as well as genuine insurgents, which by now as Americans we would feel totally justified in supporting).
At the end of this decade, air widely a film criticizing God, Jesus, and Americans.
Would New York react? Should it? Would the world look at the reaction and say, "There was no justification for New Yorkers to react?" Was it really the film that caused the reaction?
@sndymorn, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain?
This year I know a number of people who go to Obama rallies. I know others who wouldn't think of going to a rally, but who volunteer. And I know others who won't do either of the above, but make significant financial contributions.
In Thailand, during the Red Shirts demonstrations and rioting, which I lived through 2 years ago, virtually all of the "action" was in Bangkok. But the vast majority of protesters were actually from upcountry, who came into the capital to vent their anger; very few Bankokians protested.
And, my son lives in Islamabad, Pakistan. He has contrasted for me the nature of the dislike of the American government as being somewhat a function of which city in Pakistan you happen to be in. In Islamabad, where he lives, he says protests are much less likely, but that strong resentments still exist. In other cities, he feels protests are much more likely. Simply the nature of the inhabitants.
There are many flavors to anti-Western hate.
It could be anyone who wanted to stir up trouble or noise, either as the main point, or as a distraction. Or I suppose it could just be total ignorance, but as a quote from The State Within (great Brit minidrama) goes, "Coincidences make me twitchy."
Motive, motive, motive--what is it, and where does it point?
Trying to contrast what would happen if the same thing happened in a stable nation is just apples and oranges. War in these regions isn't new, and wasn't invented by America or the post 9/11 world and nor does the history of extremist Islam begin at 9/11.
We don't even have to go back 2000 years, we can just go back 30, even 20 and start from there. Afghanistan was at war from 1996 (I think) to 2001 (when America came) with the "United Front" after the Taliban took Kabul. (The Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan at this time).
These regions have a long a troubled history, mostly thanks to religion, and America's involvement is just one chapter in a long, long book.
If I were a rich person, I'd hire a writer, director and producer for a film called "The Middle West," showing, say, a Kansas town under Arab occupation, and following the evolving reactions of the townspeople as they deal with an occupation that is alternately benign and brutal. It would be a really worth exercise to try and conceive of honest equivalents to today's situation in the Middle East.
I thought I was an open-minded, intelligent person until I saw White Man's Burden--so many additional messages sank in. The one that sticks with me is the scene where the affluent, black citizens are gathered for a dinner benefit for local, poor white children, and the blushing, shy white kids come out on stage, paraded in front of the audience as an "example of the good work you're doing." I felt a wave of embarrassment, almost humiliation--and yet it was supposed to be a "good" thing, you know, feeding and clothing poor kids. Can't recommend this film highly enough.
We don't need to make a movie, just have a look at what's happening in Europe.
Let's narrow it down and look at Britain, specifically London, where the Islamists have isolated themselves, created their own Sharia law courts (there are over 100 in Britain now) and where non Muslims can't go for fear of beating.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html
Since Iranian extremists believe they should have nipped Rushdie in the bud, I assert that between Rushdie and this disgusting film(ten ? Years) there could have been many "insults" to the prophet fabricated in a deliberate effort to aclimatize these people to the idea that the world does not need to honor or cowtow to their way of thinking. The more insults to their prophet the less any one insult's impact will have.
Again, I am being silly , but my message is that Muslim extreemists must adopt a live and let live attitude.
In the USa in the fifties,Elvis was shown from the waist up on television because his devilish gyrations might cause offense. Today MTV is in such bad taste that Elvis seems tame.
We got used to it and I for one found the solution , for me and my children , is to ignore MTV .
Many ultra orthodox Jews walk the streets of Los Angeles passing billboards and news stands depicting what they would consider degradations of all sorts including insults to their deity. They keep their heads down and go about their business. So too, do the peaceful Muslims of this country.
I hope I am being clear.
Well, that's not quite true. Sharia law allows for people of other faiths, but they must pay an extra tax and aren't granted the same rights as Muslims. You can be of another faith but you are a second class citizen and still must abide by the Sharia.
It really depends on the sect. The "twelvers" (Ahmedinejad) will just kill us to bring the 12th Imam.
It would be nice if they would just sort their shit though
Excerpt:
"The Arab American scholar, D Jack Shaheen, studied more than 1,000 movies, from the oldest Hollywood productions to the greatest blockbuster productions up to 2001 before he wrote the book Real Bad Arabs, How Hollywood Vilifies a People.
Shaheen concluded that over 300 movies, more than 25% of all those he studied, vilified Arabs and Muslims in one way or the other, comparing it to World War II Nazi propaganda against the Jewish people. Shaheen argues that both have caused unspeakable human suffering due to the fact that it would be difficult to have a population accept the brutal treatment of an entire people without those people first being deprived of their humanity.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NI18Ak01.html
If it's pointed out that we drop bombs, the excuses come out -- "It's necessary." "They started it."
Many of our bombing targets are not ethical ones, and it doesn't matter who started it. But beyond that is the incessant failure to accept and acknowledge the bombing. It's a strange world indeed where teenagers throwing rocks makes news, but blowing up homes doesn't.
Has anyone else noticed that Palestinians under 18 are most often referred to as "youths," but Jewish residents under 18 are "children?" I think it goes to what Christof is suggesting above--in order to justify a killing, one tends to dehumanize or at least de-innocentize the victim.
An interesting exercise: take news stories from, for example, Israel, and reverse the terms "Palestinian" and "Jewish." The same tool can be used with articles on Chinese and Tibetan issues, Indian and Pakistani, etc. Notice how the verbs, adjectives, and overall slant change depending on which population is being referred to, and how unusual it sounds to hear the text with the words swapped.
I fully believe, by the way, that culpability always exists on both sides of a conflict. But the news is generally skewed so far in favor of one that it becomes necessary to sound defensive of the other, simply to get closer to an accurate view of the situation. Then, one's attempt at balance is taken as a sign of "side-taking," and the conversation derails.
I have been training my dog more intensively as of late (she is part wolf (not a hybrid, very intelligent, and very strong willed). The best way to train is to ignore undesired behaviour and reward wanted behaviour. It is the same with children. Humans are animals and they function on the same principles, albeit we can become aware of our training and thus make things more complicated.
We should be ignoring all negative actions, rewarding positive actions, and showing love and compassion to our enemies -no matter what they do to us. This is a long road and it will take time for things to change, but staying true to this course of action is, IMHO, the only way out of our spiral into a circle of violence.
And it's totally true.... With dogs, even children.
But how much can we ignore terrorists? How long can we allow them to kill people? What we view as strength - compassion, understanding, logic - they view as weakness.
Had we not retaliated to 9/11 all it would have meant to the terrorists is that we submitted to them.
I guess that because they didn't have sex (consumating the marriage) until she was nine that changes things? I mean... He was only 44 years older than her...
Nah... I'm still going with pedophile.
I also want to point out that the dog is doing just as much training of the human as well: It isn't a one way street. The same would apply to our brothers and sisters in the middle east.
In some cases, I felt his assertions were on-target. But in other cases I thought he was seeing prejudice where there was simply lack of knowledge.
I am reminded of a science film I used to show in my classroom. It was produced by NOAA (the Weather Bureau), and was about tornadoes. Ironically, it had been filmed in the area in which my school was located. There was one scene where it showed school children "in the position" in a school where there was a tornado warning. There was a shot of a Black student kneeling, and he suddenly looked up and rolled his eyes. Each year I showed the film it got a big laugh...even from me. But one year a parent demanded to see the film, and declared it was racist...because of the eye rolling...and "everyone knows only white children roll their eyes".
How would you describe Abraham...? He married his sister for a start...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081016000558AAqpHiN
So allowing for the differences of the time, perhaps it's not fair to describe Muhammed as a pedophile.
But what about the way it affects modern Islam? Child brides are still common as the act of taking a child wife was effectively sanctioned by Muhammed. Given that the Qur'an and Hadiths can not be changed, even to make allowances for modern thought, under sharia marrying a child is still acceptable.
How would we describe a modern day Muhammed with a child bride? Would we still make an allowance?
And Islam isn't the only religion this happens in, but a quick google of child bride statistics shows that the places that it is most common is regions where the majority are Muslim.
It doesn't mean we haven't exacerbated it and it doesn't negate any part we have played, but to say it is purely the result of politics is totally wrong. To describe the actions of terrorists as retaliatory only does no justice to the truth of the matter.
Totally wrong as opposed to totally right?
The truth... a slippery little sucker... don't stop reading... keep going until you are unable to form decisive opinions!!
Extremists of every religion, too, but when extremists of other religons pose a nuclear threat we'll talk about them then.
But what would you propose as a realistic alternative?
And meddling is quite natural when you live in an interconnected world. For example, do you think your athletic foot wear should be made by 10 year-olds in sweatshops in China? Oops...you're meddling. Do you think the Chinese should build that huge dam and flood that extensive area? Oops...you're meddling. Do you think China should burn so much high-sulfur coal and put all that particulate matter into the atmosphere? Oops...you're meddling.
And, we (meaning all countries) invite meddling with trade. We have a stake in the stability of the middle east because they agreed to supply us with our oil.
And this idea that America is the great meddler. Syria has meddled in the Lebanon situation for decades. Iran meddles in the affairs of Iraq constantly. And so on and so on. It's the way history has worked forever.
We are actively killing civilians, currently, in:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Pakistan
The short of it is that we kill too many civilians, period. Without getting into the argument of whether or not we should be militarily engaged in this three nations, we can address the issue of civilian casualties. There are too many; it is an outrage by humanitarian standards, and shameful by military standards.
Of all the methods by which civilians die, the drone is perhaps the most hated. I think it's pretty understandable. Dropping bombs from a jet is still Goliath vs. David, but at least the pilot is physically present. The drone "pilot" on the other hand risks nothing, and the remote-controlled, robotic aspect of this death machine, I believe, really affects people's psyches. It has cranked up negative feelings toward America, and rightly so.
I would instantly retire the drone program. It is utterly destroying any slim chance we have at peace in these three countries.