In his mind what he did was justifiable, he was prepared to give up his own life to try and change what he felt was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Was he evil, misguided maybe? Looking at 7/7 what made a family man decide to sacrifice everything to kill innocent people? The one guarantee is that it wasn't brainwashing. He came to a clear and reasoned decision (in his own mind)that it was the right thing to do.
shareHe panicked at the end though when he ran into Boots. He obviously had second thoughts. I'm not sure how moral I think he was as he was committing suicide leaving a dreadful legacy for his son. I don't think he was amoral even if what he intended was immoral.
I'm a fountain of bloodshare
In the shape of a girl
His moral compass had gone array, but he wasn't ever motivated out of personal gain or a power trip of leadership.
shareOmar was an idiot. Maybe less of an idiot than the others but still and idiot.
He found some cause and he was on a power trip. He rebuffed his brother who sensed his confusion but then again his brother was another type of idiot as well whose devoutness just made him see things differently.
Its that man again!!
[deleted]
The assumptions underlying most of your assertions are:
1. Islam is superior
2. Muslims are superior
3. Non-Muslims are legitimate targets
4. The world should be Muslim
5. There should be an Islamic Caliphate
6. Conversion of non-Muslims ("kaffirs") to Islam is a necessary and desirable goal.
And to a large extent this is reflected in the type of language even mainstream, so called "acceptable" Muslims use to describe non-Muslims - non-Muslims are Kaffirs for example.
Islam has no conception of HUMAN rights - only rights for Muslims, but even these are contingent upon service to Allah. Therefore, these are not rights because they are trumped by "Allah's wish". However that may be defined and by whomever that may be defined - the definer is usually a man and someone with a great deal of power.
No-one is permitted to question the origins of Islam.
No-one is permitted to question what existed prior to Islam - for example in Arabia or Iran.
I could go on.
So while the points you raise about America's butchery of innocents in recent wars are legitimate, I question how concerned you would be if the victims were non-Muslim. My guess is that you would not be at all bothered because the only thing that concerns you is the welfare of Muslims, not humans per se.
It is why Muslims seldom give to non-Muslim charity EVEN THOUGH millions of non-Muslims regularly give to charities aiming to alleviate the suffering of Musilm peoples.
The Muslim world and Muslims in general are not trusted even though point by point the arguments in favour of Palestinian, Chechnyian, Kashmiri rights etc are compelling.
And it is for that reason that people like me are becoming as estranged from the human rights of Muslims as we are from the human rights of the brutal leaders of USA, Saudi, Russia etc.
Complete and utter nonsense. What makes you think huh_oh_i_c is even a Muslim in the first place? Even if s/he was, what makes you think only Muslims hate America? There are people all over the world, Muslim or not, who also hate America.
And it is for that reason that people like me are becoming as estranged from the human rights of Muslims as we are from the human rights of the brutal leaders of USA, Saudi, Russia etc.
You're so perfectly and absolutely correct. If only a majority of people had similar statement's then it would be such a wonderful life
shareIt's moral for Americans to kill innocents, but not for Muslims to attack back?
You're an idiot. There's a big difference between combatants and civilians, and still a big difference between civilians in a war zone, and those not.
there's also a big difference between targeting civilians, and not.
I suppose most westerners think of their soldiers going to war as moral persons, even though it's clear that the vast majority of the people they kill are far MORE innocent than the ones that gotten blown up on 7-7 or 11-9
Since most of the West is a democracy, it means that most citizens WANTED to go to war against Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, NO, those people who got blown up WERE NOT INNOCENT.
SO, YES, Omar was a moral person.
It's moral for Americans to kill innocents, but not for Muslims to attack back?
Gimme a effing break outta the hypocrisy book here!
"Since most of the West is a democracy, it means that most citizens WANTED to go to war".
One might as well speculate about how many of the Muslim civilians killed by Americans in the Middle East were extremist fundies and (would have) cheered the acts of terrorism of their brothers in faith. And it's completely immoral to even think of it this way - which ones present in the towers in 9/11 had voted this or other politician, or which were even Americans, and therefore "more deserving of being murdered" (besides, it's not like politicians are in the habit of telling the truth to their people about what they're really up to, or why, in faraway foreign countries... most people supporting the Afghanistan/Iraq affairs probably sincerely believed it was all about bringing freedom and democracy for the poor devils... and when a civilian died in the process, it's an unfortunate accident and a fairly isolated occasion). There is no such thing as morally justified murder and 9/11 is an example of collective punishment - the same Palestinians are currently accusing Israel of.
"It's moral for Americans to kill innocents, but not for Muslims to attack back?"
Whoever said that? Strawman arguments reflect poorly on a posters credibility.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
And what if some of the people he blew up disagreed with or actively protested against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
shareYou terrorist sympathizer maggot, clearly more wars by USA need to be launched in the Middle East until you finally realize Islam is the problem and Islam is the what's responsible for all the deaths of Muslims (who don't have a right to complain if they chose to be Muslims.
shareNo.
Blowing innocent people up is murder and is immoral.
it doesnt matter if you think its for the right reasons - what if he justified to himself that it was ok to kill someone based on their hair colour, height or type of shoes they wear? just because religion is involved doesnt make it any better, sane or rational.
He came to a clear and rational decision on logic and reasoning that is irrational and immoral. to come to a rational decision that what he did was good, he has to first take the irrational step that islam is true and the next irrational step that suicide bombing is also rational.
not brainwashing? what about the qur'an? and the indoctrination of religion? is that not brainwashing that can be a slippery slope in some religions?
Evil people do evil things - only religion makes good people do evil things.
Like the scene with Omar's brother showed, his religious brother tried to convince him using those same religious scriptures why suicide bombing is forbidden in his religion... And yet Omar still decided to go ahead with it anyway.
This just goes to show that Omar's motivations were never truly religious to begin with, but he was motivated by politics at best or just pure vengeance at worst. Like many youths in Britain (not just Muslims, but even a growing number of non-Muslims), he feels anger over the atrocities and war crimes perpetrated by America & Britain in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. In Omar's case, that anger has reached a dangerous level of frustration, and he doesn't know how to control or channel that anger in the right way, so he ends up turning to extremist political ideologies advocating violence...
As for that last part, if you think religion is evil, then you should know that there is a far greater evil that is currently taking over our own secular societies...
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
- Albert Einstein
It's no coincidence that the worst war crimes known to humanity have been perpetrated in the name of the state. This was was true during the World Wars and is still true with the false "War on Terror" today... When you take away religion, what it often leads to is the far deadlier state dogma taking its place. If you oppose both religion and nationalism, then great, but unfortunately, many of the people who oppose religion also happen to be the staunchest of nationalists and/or state worshippers...
"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"
No, what this shows is how religious doctrine can be used to justify almost any action.
Just because someone else can find a different bit of scripture that contradicts another bit doesn't mean it overrides it. All it shows that religious scripture contradicts itself.
Yes, there are always political elements in terrorism, but you need something a bit more to motivate some people. The reward of paradise goes that extra bit.
Take a look at Waj. How was Omar trying to convince him to go ahead with it? It certainly wasnt political motivation. It was through the reward of the afterlife.
This is how you get that extra motivation from young, brainwashed, ineducated muslims. It is cowardice in the extreme. And evil.
Taking away religion won't stop war. Humans love war. We just find excuses to do it.
Religion makes it much easier, though, to get the common man involved. It becomes much easier for a "soldier" to go into battle thinking he is fighting for god.
That is why religion almost always is involved in war somehow.
We're not discussing nationalism here, its one of many reasons to go to war.
When you take away religion, what it often leads to is the far deadlier state dogma taking its place.
No, what this shows is how religious doctrine can be used to justify almost any action.
Just because someone else can find a different bit of scripture that contradicts another bit doesn't mean it overrides it. All it shows that religious scripture contradicts itself.
Yes, there are always political elements in terrorism, but you need something a bit more to motivate some people. The reward of paradise goes that extra bit.
Take a look at Waj. How was Omar trying to convince him to go ahead with it? It certainly wasnt political motivation. It was through the reward of the afterlife.
This is how you get that extra motivation from young, brainwashed, ineducated muslims. It is cowardice in the extreme. And evil.
Taking away religion won't stop war. Humans love war. We just find excuses to do it.
Religion makes it much easier, though, to get the common man involved. It becomes much easier for a "soldier" to go into battle thinking he is fighting for god.
That is why religion almost always is involved in war somehow.
We're not discussing nationalism here, its one of many reasons to go to war.
Utter nonsense. It can be argued that Stalinist russia replaced god WITH the state, and that it was a kind of religion in itself. I am against religion and similar domgas, religious or not.
But anyway, the USA is a secular country is that deadlier than anywhere else to live? Sweden too? Deadly?
Who the *beep* cares or should care what was justifiable in Omars's or similar scum heads?Anyone who likes movies. share
[deleted]
To us he is of course an evil person, he wanted to blow innocent people up just to get a point across. But in the end very few people actually believe themselves to be evil and Omar believed he was doing the right thing.
shareMoral, yes. Good, no.
The two are not the same.
Morality is based on rules (usually social, or religious) on what other people think you should do. It is rigid in the sense of "if this happens, this is what you must do". If you break it, you are immoral. For example, your priest tells you that you should burn all heretics because your god demands it. This is obviously evil, but it is also moral.
Goodness is simply a distillation of the golden rule: do not do unto others, what you do not want done unto you, and its active counterpart: do unto others, what you want others to do unto you. It depends on your judgement, not on a set of rules. So if you refuse to obey the priest in the previous example, you are being good, but also immoral. If your child is dying from a treatable illness and your religion forbids you to seek modern medical care, you are being both immoral (i.e. sinning) and good by ignoring your faith and going to a doctor anyway to save his life.
[deleted]
Perhaps Omar was once a moral person. Perhaps he regains his moral centre at the end of the movie. But during?
On the one hand, it's easy if not to agree with his argument vis a vis the WoT, the US, NATO etc. then *understand* his position. I'm not compelled to start throwing fertiliser next time I'm in town - but I can certainly understand why Omar's family and friends aren't happy.
That said, I believe Chris Morris threw several curve balls at the viewer who, if attentive, might draw a radically different conclusion about Ahmed.
I always thought it odd that he is the one character who - undoubtedly - fails to fit the profile. He's not religious. He's wealthy by many of the region's standards. He's been heavily subsumed into Western Culture. Compared to the others he has the intellect of a top Brain Surgeon.
He has a "friend" who works in "security" who just so happens to be "connected". He repeatedly manipulates his friends, especially Waj (who is the group's conscience) with all manner of elaborate conceits. Watch the movie again and ask yourself how often Omar, who we believe has no interest in religious wars, is the active instigator?
Even at the end when he asks Waj "What does your heart tell you?", he doesn't NEED to say the next line knowing full well what consequences might befall his most loyal follower.
And then there's the - seemingly - casual throwaway comedy line near the end when speaking into the mobile phone, "I'm working for MI5". Almost everyone discounts that sentence entirely as just another clever piece of Morris cheek (repeated in the closing credits by Barry, "I thought he was working for MI5") - but, when you really think about it, Four Lions begins to make a hell of lot more sense if you think of Ahmed as a deep intelligence asset whose role is to play Agent Provocateur.
Morris spent a lot of time researching Four Lions. Many of the characters in it can be seen as almost 1-to-1 mappings of people who've been arrested in Britain on various (possibly trumped up) charges.
The interesting thing is, whenever you look at these characters in detail, they are almost always as thick as a bricklayer's sandwich and/or mentally challeneged. None of them could set off a firecracker - much less a highly precise mixture of volatile explosives. To do that you need facilitators - whose allegiance belongs to whom?
I'm not suggesting Morris definitely argues the case for Ahmed as an Agent Provocateur - but given his almost pathological attention to detail making Ahmed's group look and sound exactly like recent bombing suspects, not to mention six, perhaps seven allusions to loyalties unseen - I think it's a very, very real possibility.