See for yourself what the fuss is about. It was released on Thursday and pulled on Friday due to death threats against England's ISP employees.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. Facts are stubborn things.
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TxP-SOA0_0
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkVmBx4dyG0
Islam is in a struggle with itself.
The documentary emphasizes the crazies in the muslim world, and I don't mean to suggest they are just a tiny group.
Why do you suppose we haven't had a major terrorist attack in this country in the last 6 years? Do you believe that our anti-terrorist efforts are so scary-good that we have defeated them? If Madtown can get 400 of his relatives into the country, it can't be THAT hard for terrorists to sneak in.
I think the answer is that the extreme elements in the Islamic world are still relatively weak. We need to have policies that encourage moderates in Islam's internal civil war.
Wouldn't you say we are doing just that in Iraq--and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Egypt and Jordan and Iran and just about everywhere else?
The cut and run advocates seem to think Muslims just aren't suited for things like freedom and representative democracy. It may be true that the teachings of Islam tend to poison minds against normalcy. I tend to think, though, that Muslims are first and foremost people, and as such, respond positively to pretty much the same things all people respond positively to--including freedom and having a stake in their own political and economic destiny.
It's not credible to argue that our presence in Iraq has accomplished anything positive in the war on terrorism. Radicals have been strengthened in the Islamic world, relations badly damaged among our traditional allies. It was a misstep.
I bought into the notion of bringing democracy to Iraq. I think Iraq is generally on a positive path. We have to continue to help Iraq on this long, painful journey. I don't believe them Democrats will behave sharply different from the Republicans.
Ironically, if Bush had somehow been more quickly successful in Iraq, he would have overreached in Iran and made an even bigger disaster.
Not me. I think we should have paved the place when we were on our way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, built some refineries and pumped all of the oil we could've out of both Iraq and Kuwait.Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
I care more about some cheap gas than I do about the rights of some nomadic herdsman in the desert. And at least I'm honest to myself about it. Whatever happened to "to the Victor go the spoils?"
I'll be willing to bet I'm not the only person here that would rather see gas for less than $2.00/gal than have Achmed have a chance to vote for someone who will screw him over, anyway.
To bolster Iron Mikes point, all of that oil would still be 1000 feet under the sand if it wasn't for American and British technology and smarts. And the nomads would still be nomads. So an argument could be made that we do have some moral rights here - they own the sand over the oil, but we're the ones who made it worth more than just sand.
I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.
We are coddling muslims in this country alone. Allowing them the right to prayer in schools and public sanctuaries, I mean while other religious activity is being stamped out, but yet the right of muslims to carry on their religous beliefs are being protected.
Yeah, it's a crock when the boy scouts aren't allowed to have a meeting at the public school after hours if they intend to say the boy scout oath...
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country...
IMO, the whole Middle Eastern problem boils down to Muslim vs. Jew, as it has for thousands of years. We're deluding ourselves to think that we're any more than bit players on this stage.
The only question that can be posed is do we back Isaac or Ishmael?
My sympathies lie with the Israelites.
Western Civilization is under attack by their Jihad, and to think it is just about religion is also laughable, lets not forget about the profitable opium fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan.IMO, the whole Middle Eastern problem boils down to Muslim vs. Jew, as it has for thousands of years. We're deluding ourselves to think that we're any more than bit players on this stage.
The only question that can be posed is do we back Isaac or Ishmael?
My sympathies lie with the Israelites.
Ah, but to the Muslim it's ALL about religion. Don't forget that Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabism, also known as petro-Islam.Western Civilization is under attack by their Jihad, and to think it is just about religion is also laughable, lets not forget about the profitable opium fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan.IMO, the whole Middle Eastern problem boils down to Muslim vs. Jew, as it has for thousands of years. We're deluding ourselves to think that we're any more than bit players on this stage.
The only question that can be posed is do we back Isaac or Ishmael?
My sympathies lie with the Israelites.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...wahhabism.html
Read what the radical Islamists think about other religions, and then read what moderate Islamists write. Wait a minute, the moderate Islamists don't write anything, they live in fear of the radical Islamists.
Is there such a thing as a moderate Islamist? Because I sure haven't heard from any. All I read about is how much they want to get rid of the Jews.
If we tried to colonize Iraq and take their oil, we'd be facing global terrorism 1000 times worse than what we see today.Great Britian tried to occupy Iraq back in the twenties, didn't go so well.I'll be willing to bet I'm not the only person here that would rather see gas for less than $2.00/gal than have Achmed have a chance to vote for someone who will screw him over, anyway.
The idea of promoting democracy is that democracies are far less likely to start wars. Wars are no damn good for business.
War ! good god, y'all
What is it good for?
Asolutely nothin
Say it, say it now War!
You're absolutely right, the average Muslim only understands religion, but the Bin Ladens of the world do these acts of terrorism not only based on religion, but also to protest and protect their other interests outside of religion.Ah, but to the Muslim it's ALL about religion. Don't forget that Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabism, also known as petro-Islam.Western Civilization is under attack by their Jihad, and to think it is just about religion is also laughable, lets not forget about the profitable opium fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan.IMO, the whole Middle Eastern problem boils down to Muslim vs. Jew, as it has for thousands of years. We're deluding ourselves to think that we're any more than bit players on this stage.
The only question that can be posed is do we back Isaac or Ishmael?
My sympathies lie with the Israelites.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...wahhabism.html
Read what the radical Islamists think about other religions, and then read what moderate Islamists write. Wait a minute, the moderate Islamists don't write anything, they live in fear of the radical Islamists.
Is there such a thing as a moderate Islamist? Because I sure haven't heard from any. All I read about is how much they want to get rid of the Jews.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...04/MN67246.DTL
You've just moved yourself up to my all-time most-favorite PackerRats poster!!!!!
Yep, there are about 5 million Muslims living in this country. And yet the greatest domestic terrorist attack in the history of this country was by a white Christian male who had served in our military. So maybe judging people by stereotypes isn't such a great idea.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
Whats your point? there are 180 million Caucasians in this country, I assume just by the percentages a white person would commit the largest "Domestic" assault on this country. five million, I will take 180 million over 5 million any day.Yep, there are about 5 million Muslims living in this country. And yet the greatest domestic terrorist attack in the history of this country was by a white Christian male who had served in our military. So maybe judging people by stereotypes isn't such a great idea.
Anyways I was a bit fired up about what I saw and what I read, when in reality I should probably rethink some of the things I said. I rarely post off the cuff like that.
Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday.
*edit added*
Also, check out the 1 hour 17 minute video "Obsession" posted here in 10 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...5A96CBDC2582F7
The Bottom Line:
Formally Numb, same person, same views of M3
The Evolution of Religious Bigotry
Courage without consequence.
By Jonah Goldberg
I just watched Fitna, a 17-minute film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.
Released on the Internet last week, Fitna juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as “apes and pigs,” protesters holding up signs reading “God Bless Hitler” and “Freedom go to Hell” — these are among the powerful images from Fitna, Arabic for “strife” or “ordeal.”
Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt’s grand imam threatened “severe” consequences if the Dutch didn’t ban the film.
Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual theatrical hand-wringing, heaping anger on Wilders for sowing “hatred.”
Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.
During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing, and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.
At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he’d scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.
It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).
Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXΘΥΣ, which means fish and also is an acronym for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren’t alone.
In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you’ve seen these, too. The fish is “updated” with little feet on the bottom, and “IXΘΥΣ” or “Jesus” is replaced with either “Darwin” or “Evolve.”
I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.
The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.
As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. “Namely: It’s acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with ‘Shalom’ written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with ‘Usury’ written inside the same symbol would be an outrage.”
But it’s the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.
Whatever the faults of Fitna, it ain’t no Darwin fish.
Wilders’ film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.
Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry, and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.
It’s fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren’t part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer — in film, book or cartoon — is dubbed “intolerant,” while calls for violence, censorship, and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger.
It’s not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it’s that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.
The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.
— Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
The film provokes by stigmatizing Islam as being inherently evil.
One could also takes quotes from the bible, and juxtapose christians intimidating people at abortion clinics, or bombing federal buildings in Oklahoma.
I find it ironic that Goldberg turns a blind-eye to a film that paints muslims with a broad brush within a column that complains about the stereotyping of christians. Bizarre.
Perhaps. But aren't Jesus fish a display of moral superiority and rightousness?
The blindness of people is unbelievable. Its the Hatfields and McCoys all over the place.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
