News To: The Terrorists

4
0
Anttech said:
I also have no interest in these types programs. Turkey for example has many "western" type shows, even some greeks soap operas are shown there, involving Thrace.
Great for Turkey - they are, after all, the only secular Muslim democracy. What about the inhabitants of other Muslims states in North Africa, the Persian Gulf and Asia? Would they find any interest in "Eastenders" or say, a western talk show?
Anttech said:
Many other European type shows do indeed get into the Arabic countries as well. AL-Jazzera is basically a Western news show in Arabic, but from the point of view of Arabs...
Indeed, Al-Jazeera is a based on a western news-channel model and is a mainstream news channel. However, I wonder what our friend Hans will have to say about these http://www.memritv.org/" NOTE: You can show only Al-Jazeera clips using the search function.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4
0
Anttech said:
The BBC try and stay objective, and let you the viewer decide, thus the quotes.
It's a very minor point, but the use of apostrophes in BBC headlines is very selective.
 
210
0
What about the inhabitants of other Muslims states in North Africa, the Persian Gulf and Asia? Would they find any interest in "EastEnders" or say, a western talk show?
Nobody with half a brain would find "EastEnders" interesting. However yes they do have interest in some western talk shows, for example News Night, but I would doubt Jerry Springer or any of circus type show. Morocco and Algeria are actually quiet diverse cultures and have a lot of "European" influence. North Africa's History is intertwined into Southern European history.

Anyway this is heading off topic. These "closed cultures" as you put it, arent actually as closed as *you* seem to think. Although you live in Israel, how far into North Africa, and the ME have you actually been? And how many people from these regions would you consider as good friends of yours?
 
210
0
Yonoz said:
It's a very minor point, but the use of apostrophes in BBC headlines is very selective.
What are you basing this on, 1 quotation, or have you conducted a study into "quotations used by the BBC?" If you have, fancy sharing your finding? :biggrin:
 
4
0
Anttech said:
Anyway this is heading off topic. These "closed cultures" as you put it, arent actually as closed as *you* seem to think. Although you live in Israel, how far into North Africa, and the ME have you actually been? And how many people from these regions would you consider as good friends of yours?
You're right, it is heading off-topic. Would you at least agree with the following statement:
"Muslim societies are less open than their western counterparts."
 
4
0
Anttech said:
What are you basing this on, 1 quotation, or have you conducted a study into "quotations used by the BBC?" If you have, fancy sharing your finding? :biggrin:
:redface: No, I haven't conducted such a study. It's come up in a conversation I've had and since I began paying attention to the matter my impression is that the BBC use apotrophes to avoid criticism by people who, for example, would claim "Horseman Without a Horse" is not anti-semitic. There's at least one such person on PF.
 
210
0
Yonoz said:
You're right, it is heading off-topic. Would you at least agree with the following statement:
"Muslim societies are less open than their western counterparts."
Its a matter of perception, our society is less open to Radical Islamic ideals than their society. Their society is less open to Christian Liberal ideals than "European" society... We have cultural differences...
 
4
0
Anttech said:
Its a matter of perception, our society is less open to Radical Islamic ideals than their society. Their society is less open to Christian Liberal ideals than "European" society... We have cultural differences...
I think western societies have shown more understanding for radical Islamic ideals than Muslim societies have shown for Christian (?) liberal ideals, especially considering the violent nature of radical Muslims. Thus they are more closed than western societies.
 
210
0
I think western societies have shown more understanding for radical Islamic ideals than Muslim societies have shown for Christian (?) liberal ideals, especially considering the violent nature of radical Muslims. Thus they are more closed than western societies.
ehhh? So why are we locking up Islamic clerics in London for preaching their radical view point? No Yonzo (I hate this term) Western societies show no tolerance for Radical Islam. As for violent nature, just look at Iraq for a rebuke. the USA invaded Iraq, they had violent intentions as a Government, a democratically elected government, what does that say about the people? Look at Murder rates as well there. Western society is juss as violent as Islamic society.

Its a matter of perception, for one who claims to be so open minded you can only see one side of the story. Its not your fault and I don't blaim you, you were born into the middle of it.
 
4
0
Anttech said:
ehhh? So why are we locking up Islamic clerics in London for preaching their radical view point?
It is not because of what they preach, it is because of what they practice. If you recruit people to harm other people, you get locked up, whether you're a cleric or a mafioso.
I have to go now, I'll continue later.
 
210
0
Yonoz said:
It is not because of what they preach, it is because of what they practice. If you recruit people to harm other people, you get locked up, whether you're a cleric or a mafioso.
I have to go now, I'll continue later.
Wrong Yonzo, they are locked up and sometimes expelled for "incitement to violence" a new Law in the UK, which prohibits people from *preaching* publicly about jihad and the likes... I agree with the law more or less, but it contradicts this "open" mind we all have to radical Islam.
 
4
0
Anttech said:
Wrong Yonzo, they are locked up and sometimes expelled for "incitement to violence" a new Law in the UK, which prohibits people from *preaching* publicly about jihad and the likes... I agree with the law more or less, but it contradicts this "open" mind we all have to radical Islam.
Are you referring to Abu Hamza al-Masri?
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
Yonoz said:
I think western societies have shown more understanding for radical Islamic ideals than Muslim societies have shown for Christian (?) liberal ideals, especially considering the violent nature of radical Muslims. Thus they are more closed than western societies.
I don't think the that's an accurate generalization across the board, unless you're very specific about what you mean. I don't know how much understanding the average muslim in the Middle East has about life in the US, but it can't be less than the understanding of the average American about life in the Middle East.

I think Muslims in the Middle East are receptive to a relationship with western society and in importing as much western 'culture' as they can afford.

Regardless of Iran's government, the people are very receptive to western culture. In fact, one possible motivation for Ahmadinejad's rantings are to distract Iranians from economic problems like inflation and high unemployment. Iran's assistance to Hezbollah probably doesn't gain him much respect with Iranians, who would probably like to see the money being spent in Lebanon being spent on Iranians, instead. However, the issue of whether Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy probably does inspire a little more nationalism among Iranians. Quite a few people believe a closer economic relationship between western countries and Iran would make the nuclear issue go away, since that would have a much more direct impact on the average Iranian than nuclear weapons would.

Quite a few of the smaller Arab countries are also much more open to western culture than the traditional regional powers. Being small has forced them to adapt to improve their economic health. In fact, a close economic relationship with Europe is pretty much essential to the UAE, especially since the attitude in the US resulted in at least one of their business efforts being rebuffed.

The cultural changes happening in the richer Arab nations are part of what fundamentalists like bin Laden are fighting against. They've just realized it's easier to mobilize people against countries like Israel or the US than to get people to rise up and throw away their cellular phones.

In that sense, the position of a lot of Muslims isn't that different than white collar Americans decrying the outsourcing that has cost them their jobs as they drive their Toyotas and Hondas around town.

One of the biggest mistakes of the Bush administration has been its belief that a change in the type of government, alone, will result in an environment less conducive to terrorism. Democracy hasn't made Lebanon or the Palesinians any friendlier - it resulted in members of terrorist groups becoming part of the official government. Of course, better trade relationships, alone, haven't been that effective either, since better economic relationships with dictatorships has its own problems.
 
4
0
Anttech said:
As for violent nature, just look at Iraq for a rebuke. the USA invaded Iraq, they had violent intentions as a Government, a democratically elected government, what does that say about the people? Look at Murder rates as well there.
I'd rather not get into the charged Iraq topic, it has been discussed exhaustively and I don't think we'll agree on the relevant aspect, i.e. what the US administrations' intentions and motives were in invading Iraq. As for the American people, I don't think they are violent, even if the worst claims about their government are true. They certainly have not advocated any killing, which can't be said for many Muslim societies.
Looking at the murder rates may help form an opinion about the US military and administration's management of Iraq, but let's not forget who is doing the bulk of the killing.
Anttech said:
Western society is juss as violent as Islamic society.
I strongly disagree.
Anttech said:
Its a matter of perception, for one who claims to be so open minded you can only see one side of the story.
Aren't we are both one-sided? It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?
Anttech said:
Its not your fault and I don't blaim you, you were born into the middle of it.
I think that puts me in a unique position to shed some light on matters that are being portrayed in what I perceive to be an erroneous fashion.
 
210
0
They certainly have not advocated any killing, which can't be said for many Muslim societies.
Electric chair anyone?

Although you wouldnt admit that going to war *is* at its very essence "advocating" killing, it actually is.

I think that puts me in a unique position to shed some light on matters that are being portrayed in what I perceive to be an erroneous fashion.
No I dont think it does Yonzo, it puts you on the defensive.
 
4
0
BobG said:
I don't think the that's an accurate generalization across the board, unless you're very specific about what you mean. I don't know how much understanding the average muslim in the Middle East has about life in the US, but it can't be less than the understanding of the average American about life in the Middle East.
True, however one need only examine the treatment of foreign ideals, values and customs by both groups. I think that despite ignorance and prejudice, western societies have tolerated much animosity and violence, and reacted to it in a very mild fashion - all the while, self-criticism and pluralism flourish. This is in sharp contrast to attacks on western targets that are supported by many Muslim societies, and actually raise more support for their perpetrators!

BobG said:
I think Muslims in the Middle East are receptive to a relationship with western society and in importing as much western 'culture' as they can afford.
That may be right, but keep in mind there are powerful entities that control what these people see and hear. It is difficult to persuade someone against the rhetoric they hear countless hours every week in anything from http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1261".

BobG said:
Regardless of Iran's government, the people are very receptive to western culture. In fact, one possible motivation for Ahmadinejad's rantings are to distract Iranians from economic problems like inflation and high unemployment. Iran's assistance to Hezbollah probably doesn't gain him much respect with Iranians, who would probably like to see the money being spent in Lebanon being spent on Iranians, instead. However, the issue of whether Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy probably does inspire a little more nationalism among Iranians.
I absolutely agree.
BobG said:
Quite a few people believe a closer economic relationship between western countries and Iran would make the nuclear issue go away, since that would have a much more direct impact on the average Iranian than nuclear weapons would.
Unfortunately, there is no time to try that route.
BobG said:
Quite a few of the smaller Arab countries are also much more open to western culture than the traditional regional powers. Being small has forced them to adapt to improve their economic health. In fact, a close economic relationship with Europe is pretty much essential to the UAE, especially since the attitude in the US resulted in at least one of their business efforts being rebuffed.
Though consumerism is the most dominant aspect of western culture, there is quite a difference between being major consumers of western products and services and being open to western culture and ideals. http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=uae", in the form of slavery.

BobG said:
The cultural changes happening in the richer Arab nations are part of what fundamentalists like bin Laden are fighting against. They've just realized it's easier to mobilize people against countries like Israel or the US than to get people to rise up and throw away their cellular phones.
I don't think they want people to throw away their cellphones. I think they want them to turn their backs on western values. In any case, can you stop these cultural changes? At what price? If a Muslim entrepeneur wants to open a modern nightclub, is it the someone in the west's job to stop that? If Arab teenagers want to wear provocative clothing, is it the west's fault? Should western firms turn away liberal Muslim businessmen, should we be complicit to the denial of liberties - is that not against our ideals?

BobG said:
In that sense, the position of a lot of Muslims isn't that different than white collar Americans decrying the outsourcing that has cost them their jobs as they drive their Toyotas and Hondas around town.
We are all paying a price for globalization, but only some of us are being violent about it.

BobG said:
One of the biggest mistakes of the Bush administration has been its belief that a change in the type of government, alone, will result in an environment less conducive to terrorism. Democracy hasn't made Lebanon or the Palesinians any friendlier - it resulted in members of terrorist groups becoming part of the official government. Of course, better trade relationships, alone, haven't been that effective either, since better economic relationships with dictatorships has its own problems.
I think such a grand scheme can't be judged this early, though the outlook is grim. We may yet see Lebanon return to its former beauty, and it seems the Palestinians are only beginning to realize now the power of the people in a democracy, and the responsibilities that come with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4
0
Anttech said:
Electric chair anyone?
Are Iraqis being executed in electric chairs? :confused:

Anttech said:
Although you wouldnt admit that going to war *is* at its very essence "advocating" killing, it actually is.
Yes but in traditional wars armies fight each other, and civilians stay out of harm's way. I don't think the American people advocated a war against Iraqi civilians, and I think they would rather see as little casualties for both sides, but you'll have to ask an American. On the other hand, I've already covered Muslim support for suicide attacks.

Anttech said:
I think that puts me in a unique position to shed some light on matters that are being portrayed in what I perceive to be an erroneous fashion.
No I dont think it does Yonzo, it puts you on the defensive.
Are the two contradictory?
 
523
0
Yonoz said:
Yes but in traditional wars armies fight each other, and civilians stay out of harm's way.
In most wars, civilians were frequently treated with cruelty, their possessions taken, forced into slavery or sexually assaulted, or even killed.
Civilian populations have suffered in almost every war throughout history, despite enormous changes in the conduct and technology of warfare; in fact the ratio of civilian to military deaths in European wars ranges from 1:1 to over 10:1 [5].
http://www.aetheling.com/docs/Persistence.html" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4
0
daveb said:
In most wars, civilians were frequently treated with cruelty, their possessions taken, forced into slavery or sexually assaulted, or even killed.
Yes but did the US seek a civil war in Iraq?
 
210
0
Are Iraqis being executed in electric chairs?
No it was a dig at capitial punishment in some US States. In reply to your, "They certainly have not advocated any killing, which can't be said for many Muslim societies."
 
210
0
Yonoz said:
Yes but did the US seek a civil war in Iraq?
How can a country seek a civil war by invading another country :confused:
 
4
0
Anttech said:
No it was a dig at capitial punishment in some US States. In reply to your, "They certainly have not advocated any killing, which can't be said for many Muslim societies."
Sorry, I meant killing in the scope of the argument, ie the killing of Muslims because they are Muslims.
 
4
0
Anttech said:
How can a country seek a civil war by invading another country :confused:
That's exactly the point. You made references to the war in Iraq:
Anttech said:
As for violent nature, just look at Iraq for a rebuke. the USA invaded Iraq, they had violent intentions as a Government, a democratically elected government, what does that say about the people? Look at Murder rates as well there.
While I pointed out that the US sought a traditional war in which they would only engage the Iraqi military - thus they did not intend to harm Iraqi civilians. Civilians are killed in the civil war - except that is not and never was the US's intention.
 

kyleb

You can't drop piles of bombs in Baghdad without intending to harm Iraqi civilians.
 
4
0
kyleb said:
You can't drop piles of bombs in Baghdad without intending to harm Iraqi civilians.
There is a difference between intention and consequences.
 

Related Threads for: To: The Terrorists

  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
21K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Top