MovieChat Forums > Britz (2007) Discussion > Who's side are you on? Sohail or Nasima?

Who's side are you on? Sohail or Nasima?


Sohail rocks!

reply

[deleted]

I'm on Sohail's side in that he tried to stop the unjustified death of dozens of innocent people - suicide bombing in public areas achieves absolutely nothing. Did 9/11 and the London bombings compel the Allies to withdraw from Iraq? I don't think so.

But I also sympathize with Nasima's reasons as well. She has unfirtunately been the victim of terrible persecution in her own country - not just from low-life estate-born police officers but also well-to-do doctors. But by wiping out half of London's top bankers, she will still have achieved nothing... and only exacerbated hatred and ill-feeling to the majority of peace-loving Muslims even more. She had the right idea, but the wrong application.

reply

i agree with what youve said about nasima, but wasnt the iraq war partly a RESULT of 9/11 etc, not a cause for it???

Don't blame the sweet and tender hooligan!

reply

sohail

reply

[deleted]

Both and neither

"And what am I supposed to do while you're on a yellow brick quest for a brain?"

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Seriously, how could anyone British be on Nasima's side???

reply

oelbr1 - "Sohail... is both British and Muslim"

100% British for sure. Not at all Muslim though - drinks, screws women before marriage, even talks down the culture.

As for Nasima, yes... following on from deadbydesign's comments, I think her comments were aimed at the "non-innocent civilians", but her actions weren't. Her mission was to take out London's financiers and impact the British economy. But the reasons for her actions were targeted to those who put Labour in power.

What I don't get about terrorists is that they don't aim for the most obvious targets of their troubles - The Man in the big White House, and the one in the No. 10 terrace. If they succeeded that way instead of killing innocen civilians, I think even all Brits regardless of colour would be rejoicing!!

reply

What I don't get about terrorists is that they don't aim for the most obvious targets of their troubles - The Man in the big White House, and the one in the No. 10 terrace.
Well, they do, it's just that these people tend to be better protected and sometimes, luckier. Flight 93 on September 11, 2001 was believed to be targetted at the White House. The IRA attempted to assassinate Margaret Thatcher and other Conservative politicians by bombing their hotel during a party conference in 1984, and launched a mortar bomb at 10 Downing Street in 1991.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I admire Sohail for taking a stand which he believes to be the honorable one but which must be very difficult for him.

As for Nasima - yes, I can quite see where she would be outraged by what is going on around her. However, if she is muslim far and away beyond any other 'category' i.e. before she is Pakistani, or British, then perhaps the honorable thing for her to do would be to live in an islamic country, where she would feel less out of place. These days it is quite easy to move around (the results of which can be seen in the fragmentation of communities everywhere n earth) and a move to a muslim country shoud present no problem for her.

That said, I really wonder at the motives of those muslims who protest loudly at what they see as racial profiling and discrimination in UK policing. Surely they can see that as innocent muslim UK citizens, their interests are being safe guarded by thse actions, as well as those of non-muslims. Muslims of a certain appearance have to date been solely responsible for the outrages which have occurred, and have been implicated in those which have been (through luck or good management) prevented. There would be little gained in the police stopping car loads of blue haired grannies on their way home from evening service at the local Methodist church.

What I feel would make a difference is a return to the days of 'polite' policing, which seems to have gone the way of common sense. Perhaps a more civil, conciliatory tone of voice when actually stopping those of whom the police have cause to feel suspicion, explaining what it is they are being stopped for, addressing them as Sir and Madam, handling them with respect, and not, e.g. punching them in the stomache for simply opening their mouths to make a request. Civility costs nothing, and the lack of it can cost everything. There's plenty of time for 'Gene Hunt/Jack Regan' once some sort of guilt or possibility thereof has been established. Prior to that a little bit of Dixon of Dock Green would not come amiss, IMHO. I may be wrong, and those who are determined on mischief will not be swayed by politeness, but it may prevent those who are not radical from becoming so. Just an idea.

reply

Sohail 100%!! If he had lived I believe he would have rightfully turned them all in. Nassima was a doctor who took an oath to save lives... not take them.

"However, if she is muslim far and away beyond any other 'category' i.e. before she is Pakistani, or British, then perhaps the honorable thing for her to do would be to live in an islamic country, where she would feel less out of place"

I could not agree with this statement from a previous poster more! And Sohail said this is well...if you don't like it here no one is making you stay- leave.

reply

I found it hard to be on a "side", actually, but I did get some understanding of what motivated both Sohail and Nasima, and was therefore able to empathize with them.

For Sohail, I really got a sense of his discomfort in the fact that he was having to spy on the people closest to him, that is, the friends he grew up with because of their connections to the terrorist cells being investigated. Then there was the underlying suspicion of him solely due to his nationality and religious faith by his superiors in the MI5.

For Nasima--my heart went out to her. She was an idealist who simply wanted to protest the injustices being committed against her Muslim peers, but I don't think she would have ended up being a terrorist if she hadn't suffered such personal losses which, to me, were the motivating catalysts which propelled her to her final act. The grief at finding her best friend committing suicide, the alienation when her own father disowned her because she admitted her emotional/sexual involvement with a non-Muslim black man, etcetera. I recall that she was undecided about whether or not to go on a terrorist mission even after the training until she viewed the photo of her own "funeral", and I suppose that it was then that it must have occured to her that there was nothing left to go back to. If she had refused to go on a terrorist mission after the training, the leaders of the training camp would have found someone else, but I dare say that Nasima might have been the one who's body was found decomposed wearing her replacement's personal belongings.

reply