posted
All right, I'm coming out of my semi-lurker shell to post something that will probably be highly controversial... but oh well.
Tonight, the Islam student association, the Jewish student association, the College Democrats, and the College republicans sponsored a showing of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West at the Drexel theater, across the street from campus. I went with one of my roommates, and even though we vary extremely with our religious and political views(well, more religious than political- she's Baptist, I'm a druid), we both managed to get something out of the movie. What we got from it was very different, but that's another story for another time.
THe movie depicted, rather graphically sometimes, the induction of suicide bombers, and speaches made by various radical Islamic figureheads (with a disclaimer that this is the MINORITY of Muslim groups- most Muslims are peace loving, law abiding citizens). There was commentary from an ex-Nazi, the daughter of a Martyr, and other various American and British figures. A lot of comparison was done between the Radical Muslims and Nazi Germany- too much, in my opinion. There are similarities, but the issue can't be dealt with the same way- we can't just eliminate one person and have the regime crumble, like many people(in my experience) thought would happen when we captured/killed Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
After the movie(it's an hour long), there was a discussion held amongst the audience. Aside from the arguing going on, one comment absolutely astounded me. One student said, "I'm completely sure no one in this audience supports the terrorists."
This comment linked together with a later comment from another student in my mind. "Don't ever judge someone based on appearance."
Personally, I believe it's that kind of thinking that could get you killed someday. Assuming that no one around you could side with a terrorist, in a group of about 250 people? It;s estimates(according to the movie) that 10-15% of Muslims support terrorism. And there are a LOT of muslims in the world. The suicide bombers behind the 9/11 attacks did all their training here, in the united states. Assuming that you're completely safe is exactly what this film was trying to say you SHOULDN'T do. There is a very real threat, and I really think there had to be at least one person in that room or on this campus that sides with the terrorists.
I only had one problem with the movie: It portrayed America as innocent. Now, while Nazi Germany, at least from what I've learned(and I very well could be wrong), had no real, undeniable reason to blame the Jews. This isn't the case this time. The radicals are teaching their children that America wants to take over the world. How are we contradicting this idea when we go to their country, topple their leader, in order to spread OUR way of life? Also, I'm of the opinion that it's the spread of technology that is destroying nature- the pollution, the ignorance of people who think what they do has no repercussions- and forgive me for not being PC, but it's mostly americans that do this. America is NOT completely innocent, and never has been.
So, now that I've given my opinion, what does anyone else think? Has anyone seen the movie that would like to comment?
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen the movie, but then I don't think anything you've said is really that controversial.
One thing though, it may be that technology is what is destroying nature, but it's also technology that is going to save nature too. I don't blame technology though, I blame people. It's perhaps a small but important distinction in terminology.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an ever changing trend. India and China, but mostly China, will overtake the US in destructive pollution in the next 15-20 years.
China's skies around most of the major cities are already black with soot. People have to wear masks to work in those cities. The Three Gorges Dam, while an impressive feat of engineering, is ridiculously destructive to the river ecosystem. I commend China in TRYING to incorporate renewables into their energy economy. Currently Iceland is showing them the benefits of, and helping them build geothermal plants, and Iceland said there's plenty of geothermal power all over China that could be used. At least China is listening, but they aren't acting as much as they could or should be.
Every year brings newer and better technologies to clean up our environment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then let me clarify: It's the people that use technology for no regard for the consequences that are destroying nature.
Which, again, are mostly americans.
And if you turned back the clock two-hundred years, you would probably say the people most harming nature with technology would be the British. A few thousand years, and you're looking at Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, or any number of other people. Just like you can't point to a cold snap and say, "Global warming? Ha!" you can't point to a specific point in time and make as wide an indictment as you're making, Tinros.
And anyways, visit a Chinese or an Indian river sometime...or what Lyrhawn said.
quote:How are we contradicting this idea when we go to their country, topple their leader, in order to spread OUR way of life?
There are so many factually incorrect statements in your post, but I'll focus on this one: exactly which "their leader" did we topple, Tinros?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
She said it wrong, but I think she has a point from a propaganda point of view. I've seen propaganda videos that tout Americans as conquerors based solely on the war in Iraq, it's a recruitment boon to terrorist groups.
I hope she isn't buying into it, but it's an effective base for propaganda.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was implying Hussein, or Bin Laden. Not that I think they shouldn't have been taken out of power, jsut that it's not helping our case in regards to clarifying that we don't want to take over the world. Which, I'm assuming, we don't.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How are we contradicting this idea when we go to their country, topple their leader, in order to spread OUR way of life?
I do not think that it has been established that we invaded Iraq to spread our way of life. If that was our goal we could have invaded Zimbabwe or some other easy country.
I am sure America is not guiltless, but who is? When people opposed the Nazis, the opponents were the British, who sat by and watched while Hitler took over Czechoslovakia and Austria, and the United States, who interned the Japanese and asked Latin American countries to deport Germans including German Jews to Germany, and the USSR, which was in the midst of killing off 10s of millions of its people. But that is not to say that these countries deserved to be attacked by Germany. America today being human is not guiltless but we still don't deserve to have people fly airplanes into our buildings.
I also notice that Islamic terrorists if they are responding to oppression must have been oppressed by Thailand, Indonesia, Denmark, Kenya, Salman Rushdie and Theo van Gogh. They are not fighting oppression.
I think we have a problem in understanding Islamic terrorism because, since we don't think that way, we can't believe other people do. "Surely nobody here supports terror" because we don't; but some people do support terror. Surely nobody would want to fight because they think God tells them to, it must be poverty or American oppression or something, but some people do think God wants them to kill other people and they are not too particular about who.
What I am interested in right now is whether Wahabbi Islam is the most natural interpretation of Islam or whether it's just a weird interpretation.
[ April 11, 2007, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
