This movie is irresponsible

I am from Madrid and was there when the train bombings happened and all I can tell you is READ READ READ. Before talking about this have some knowledge... it is a big lie what you wrote. There was a trial for this and there was no relation with any home grown terrorist group. ETA, what you call in an absurd way home grown terrorist group, was the first time in the history condemning a terrorist attack, the Madrid bombs. You have no idea about this and you are not respecting the people who died there with this big fat lie. READ READ and READ.

As much as disagreed with the OP on his post, I'll have to disagree with yours to just about the same extent.

I've said before and I'll say it again, partisan politics stinks. Of course, I am assuming that the two of you are diametrically opposed on the political spectrum but I could be wrong.

Your supposition as the devil's advocate is as incredulous as the OP's is myopic.

I guess the Nazis were right about the world-wide pacifist and Jewish conspiracy?

And I guess the US was correct that there was a world-wide Communist conspiracy to destroy "freedom and democracy because they are godless apple pie hating reds!"?

While were still on the US, I guess there really was a world-wide Satanic conspiracy to rape and torture children to, in their own homes, while magically never causing physical vaginal stress?

Am I beginning to see a pattern? Each one completely disproven and each one having nothing to back it up for its conclusion at the time, akin to the current dilemma.

There is nothing more ignorant than someone stating something is "simplified and wrong so we should ignore it" without somehow backing that statement up with, well...anything.

Oh, that logical fallacy you used doesn’t win you anything. You know that whole "oh wont somebody think of the children" argument (aka: they are forgetting the Madrid bombings and other terrorism, despite the fact that the existence of attacks is never questioned, in fact bringing them up for no reason is also a petty argument)

Hey Bruce, he never said that terrorism or Islamic extremists do not exist. Rather Western governments use what does exist and perpetuate fables that paint it as a much larger threat than it really is... All in their own self-interest in creating what they see to be their ideal world.

Of course terrorism poses a threat to our society, as it always has. More than ever we are creating the terrorist threat and fuelling its growth. While it may be a disparate and loose movement now, more attacks on countries in the Middle-East could soon change that.

An interesting question... Who would you say is the bigger terrorist group: a group that has killed around 4000 people or a group that has killed at least 600 000?

It was broadcast in late 2004, months after the Madrid bombings and months prior to the London bombings. We can only hope that Curtis wiped the egg from his face and crawled back under the stone from whence he came.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Terrorists are not exclusive to muslims, this is something people seem to fail to realise, first of all the word terrorist is thrown around so much these days that it has almost lost its meaning. USA have commited acts of terroristm too and are at this very moment. Terrorists is not something new to the world, it has always existed so why do Bush stir it up as a new threat to the world and they as the "good guys" will save us from the "bad guys". Well it's blatantly obvious that it's because they want to control the people to support their brutal conquest throughout the world. This is by no means a knew method, nazis used it and so have every damn superpower ever. They glorify their own nation, they show the same things in media over and over again and knowingly cut out parts that would make people go against them. It's not exactly anything original, they are controlling people by fear, manufacturing concent, nothing more nothing less.

"Pay attention to the movie next time, and you will see that Extreme Islam is similar and similarly dangerous to Neo-Conservatism"

You might have had a point if Western governments put out manifestos demanding that everyone had better convert to Christianity, and if you don't they have the right to kill you;

or defended the use of suicide attacks as a legitimate means of political defence;

or demanded that women be controlled under the strictures of the Caliphate...

But this isn't happening.

Now, are Western ghouls making tons of money as Iraq bathes itself in blood? Yes. Who are killing the majority of innocent citizens now? Iraqis themselves in suicide attacks, done in the name of Allah and his inevitable glory!
Have Western governments caused enormous amounts of deaths in interventions? Yes. Is it right to invade countries like Afghanistan and Iraq to defend the freedoms that we are exacting on this board right now? Yes. It's hypocrisy to suggest otherwise. 'Oh yes, I enjoy these freedoms, but not enough to allow others to enjoy it.' Come on now. If not on Iraq can we at least get together on getting rid of the Taliban?!
Report only in the last few weeks in Somalia about a 13 year old girl, raped, and then stoned for apparently being adulterous!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7708169.stm

It's one thing for this reasonably balanced documentary to admit that there are Islamic terrorists in the world, it's quite another to suggest that nothing can be done about that. Further, seeing as we have a Democratic administration in America now, does intervention by them no longer come tainted with the tag 'neo-con'? Why not. It's aims for freedom of expression and democracy in said regions are exactly the same (although I hope private interests aren't sucked so mercilessly as under Bush), so if people are to support one and not the other is contradictory.

Back to initial quote from reply above, I don't see many similarities between Radical Islam and Neo-Cons: I see a whole of death-drives in the former (self and otherwise), and gleeful patriotism in the latter, but I know which one I would rather have running my government. The one that wouldn't demand my sister only go outdoors in full hijab, or have my father ashamed if she gave birth to a girl rather than a boy.

It's not perfect, but I know which one I prefer.