What do you think about this video on Islam?

[S.A.M.]

Well I certainly could see it as propaganda and the journalist said its bombed in terms of audience viewing.

It did? How did the journalist assess that? I thought that assumption was belied by all the talk the film generated.

I was surprised he made the distinction because it seemed contradictory to me.

You're assuming the man actually has an educated opinion. I mean he goes to a country where half the population is under occupation and feels at home. What does that tell you?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well its in the video watch it again its in part 1.

Well lot's of people go to visit Israel and feel at home that's not my concern, I just do not see what it has to do with whatever theory he has about Islam. I don't think he is being honest. Anyway he was denied entry into England and he was prosecuted by the Dutch courts for the film.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

 

[S.A.M.]

It was a rhetorical question

I think he's genuinely one of those people who we spoke about, the ones who are afraid to lose the culture they are used to. So I suppose the ghettoes in the Netherlands make him as fearful as they make the Danes.

I think the decision to ban him as an inciter was wrong. I had initially thought it a good idea, but our conversation in the assimilation thread has made me realise that these issues need to be out in the open. Instead of reacting with fear and insecurity, Muslims should address these concerns.

Meanwhile denying him entry or prosecuting him has only given him more public support. So it seems to have been counter productive.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I do not question whether he believes he will lose his culture. What bothers me about him is the use of propaganda to make sweeping negative generalizations about Islam. He took the most extreme interpretation of Islam and then went on to prescribe them to all Muslims and this I think is wrong.

All other questions of immigration etc is another matter. What makes him an asshole is not wanting to protect his culture nor nation but trying to inject bigotry into society with his ill conceived notions.

Well I have never really been a fan of censorship so...

 

[(Q)]

Instead of reacting with fear and insecurity, Muslims should address these concerns.

Gee, we've been telling you that since you got here, many tens of thousands of posts ago, Sam.

 

[S.A.M.]

Gee, we've been telling you that since you got here, many tens of thousands of posts ago, Sam.

Pointless to tell me since the issues that Lucy and you have with Muslims in Europe or Russia or wherever have little or no relevance for me. Except for the security checks I get pulled up for consistently.

In fact, either of you would probably not like my views, seeing as you prefer to live in communities of a very particular type and mix with very selected people.

 

[joepistole]

The US never attacks a country that can fight back.

The Ottomans did not create the Third World. The western nations did. And still continue to sustain it.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty

Well when you are the post powerful country in the world it is kind of hard t find an equally matched opponent SAM. But with few exceptions, george II, the US does not look to fight.

 

[S.A.M.]

Name one year in the last 100 when the military was not engaged.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Name one year in the last 100 when the military was not engaged.

How do you define "engaged'? for example the positioning of thousand of US troops in South Korea is not "looking for a fight" rather it to try to prevent one, specifically to prevent the north form trying to invade again.

 

[S.A.M.]

So can anyone put a thousand troops in the US to keep them from trying to invade yet another country? Or would that be an engagement?

 

[ElectricFetus]

So can anyone put a thousand troops in the US to keep them from trying to invade yet another country? Or would that be an engagement?

If the USA openly asks for those troops like South Korea does, sure.

 

[S.A.M.]

Heh, yeah right. To protect them from their relatives in the North, after the US and Russia had divided their country between them.

When Japan lost control of Korea at the end of World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union split the peninsula into two territories pending promised national elections, which never took place. Instead, after Moscow and Washington failed to agree on a way forward, the United Nations in 1948 declared the Republic of Korea (ROK), with its capital in Seoul, as the only legitimate government on the peninsula. The Soviets rejected that assertion, and in 1950, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) invaded. The United States, heading up UN forces, came to the aid of South Korea. War ensued until 1953, when a cease-fire froze the front line at roughly the thirty-eighth parallel.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Heh, yeah right. To protect them from their relatives in the North, after the US and Russia had divided their country between them.

I guess it would have been better if we had let North Korea rule the whole country eeh? Considering the death camps, starvation and oppression of the north Korean people I was actually a very good thing the US adn the UN did not let the Russians take the whole thing.

 

[S.A.M.]

Because North Korea was ruling the country when it was divided. Right. Possibly, the millions of people suffering now in North Korea [not to mention the families divided all these years] need never have happened.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Because North Korea was ruling the country when it was divided. Right. Possibly, the millions of people suffering now in North Korea [not to mention the families divided all these years] need never have happened.

so if the US did not interfere the people would have risen up against the Russians alone, and later the rule of the kims alone? your high.

 

[(Q)]

Pointless to tell me...

Yeah, we know that, too.

In fact, either of you would probably not like my views, seeing as you prefer to live in communities of a very particular type and mix with very selected people.

What communities and what particular type and mix of selected people do you refer, Sam.

Or, is that another of your twisted views?

 

[GeoffP]

Because North Korea was ruling the country when it was divided. Right. Possibly, the millions of people suffering now in North Korea [not to mention the families divided all these years] need never have happened.

Possibly and possibly not, Sam. Or perhaps everything would be infinitely worse. If you can think of a reason things would be better, post it by all means. But hypotheticals don't help.

 

[GeoffP]

In fact, either of you would probably not like my views, seeing as you prefer to live in communities of a very particular type and mix with very selected people.

I wasn't going to comment, then I did. Sue me.

It's an interesting point you raise, Sam - but the problem with mixed communities vis-a-vis islam (which I presume is your point) is that they don't actually stay mixed for very long. There's usually overgrowth, assimilation, or ghettoization of the non-s. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, and so forth. Do you object to Middle Eastern monoculture?

 

[S.A.M.]

I object to people who have never been to the Middle East and know absolutely nothing about it having an opinion on its culture.

PS. Pakistan and Iran are not the Middle East.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I object to people who have never been to the Middle East and know absolutely nothing about it having an opinion on its culture.

PS. Pakistan and Iran are not the Middle East.

I object you being so picky, even if you lived in a country you can't accurately speak for it.