Not too much conversation here.
I just saw it today. My girlfriend fell asleep. The documentary gets really bogged down in
aimless conversation sometimes, but there are short runs of very interesting ideas. I felt
it was not well organized.
I guess in the West I am used to hearing the Israeli side so often, and it is the one I gravitate
towards, although neither side is totally right or wrong, I just feel the Islamic society has so
many defects. I don't think I am so biased that I cannot hear something new, and there was
new stuff in this movie.
I have swung from around 2000 thinking it's only fair to have a Palestinian state to thinking
a few years later that such a mess can only be worsened by rewarding the Palestinians with
their own state, to now after seeing this movie thinking again that a two state solution may
be possible.
The truth of this situation is really not understood I think, and one good thing this documentary
accomplished was to take some people who would really know and have valid opinions and
highlight what it was that they believed.
What we really need is as penetrating a look at Palestinian society and Palestinians strategist,
and the fact that we never hear from them is one reason I mistrust them. Arafat was bad enough,
but these new leaders of the Palestinians and their connections with Iran, Syria, and other
terrorists in the area only serves to show them as aggressors and intolerant, of course which
also plays into the image of radical Islam as well.
This whole idea of a religious elite running whole countries and parts of the world while
oppressing the people in their lands of a different faith is by nature at war with the ideals of
the West, ideal which the West does not really seem to be caring about or living up to either.
This mess makes a mockery of civilization and my opinion is that it still comes from the
Palestinian side, after all in their Palestinian state Jews are not supposed to exist, yet in Israel
Palestinian/Arabs can exist.
Justice has to be the basis of any trust, and trust is necessary, but the bottom line of radical
Islam just seems incompatible, whatever all of these guys say.
One thing this did well is to highlight that there is a radical nutso side of the Israelis too,
the idea that the terrorist group would try to blow up the Mosque over the rock of the dome
risking worldwide conflagration is scary, even though I think this is just what Muslims have
done throughout history. And the Afghanistan Taliban destroying those Buddhist statues in
the mountain is another example of that. For some reason the world is forced to respect the
blasphemies against non-Muslim religions by the radical Muslims, but Muslims reserve
their right to be expansionist still - I just cannot agree with that.
reply
share
gillianzz-1
11 years ago
Not sure where you get the idea that Muslims have "done throughout history" acts of terrorism? Fox News perhaps? You also lump all 'Islamic society' together as though you're talking about a single entity. That's like saying all Europeans are the same because they are basically Christian.
The fact is - and this is easily verifiable - that the Muslim empires of the C7th onwards practiced religious tolerance to a remarkable degree. Far greater and more enlightened than the European Christians of the same era.
Under their rule, you were free to practice your religion provided you paid a tax. It was in their interests if you didn't convert because non-Muslims filled their coffers. Over time people did convert, but it was mostly due to 'pull' rather than 'push' factors.
Muslim cities like Baghdad and Cordoba in Spain were great multicultural centres of philosophy and learning, encouraging and producing great thinkers like Averroes and the (Jewish) Maimonedes whilst pushing out the boundaries of our scientific knowledge. Cordoba had public libraries, street lighting and Europe's first university.
The radical Islamists you are talking about are an entirely new phenomenon. There is no historical precedent for what they believe and practice, regardless of their rhetoric.
From what you've written it looks like you haven't had much exposure to the Palestinian side of the debate. There is a ton of info about it out there. I'm amazed that you 'never hear from them'. It's there if you look for it and very well documented.
reply
share
bruce-129
11 years ago
This pro-Muslim speech you're giving is warmed over mush served over and over talking
about the great civilization of a totally different era and a totally different people.
I ought to just cut you off right there for bothering to bore me with that.
The facts are that in modern history Jews and Arabs lived there, but the Arabs persecuted
the Jews like they have done all minorities. It is specifically in their holy books to behave
like this ... is it not?
All the arguments that are pro-Palestinian, and I've heard them all, evaporate to nothing in
the simple light of day, the truth. The Palestinians are entitled to reparations and re-settlement
but their history since Israel became a state does not qualify them for nationhood, and neither
does any of the other convoluted arguments made.
Islam's goal is to take over states, and until that changes trying to apply any law or precedent
is merely appeasement and wishful thinking.
These are real people, but they are being abused and put in the situation that are in by
the twisted or obsolete interpretation of Islam they follow. If Saudi Arabia was not so
nationally puerile and arrogant they would try to reform Islam so it is palatable to the world,
not intensify it and ship it as terrorism all over the world with their oil money.
I will agree with you that the breed of Islamic radicals are not driven by ideology, but by
sheer lust for power ... this is absolute evil when it gets in control of a state or states, and the
people are innocent and kept ignorant, or course when some find out the truth they choose
to follow a criminal path or intolerance, but that arrogance is where this all stems from in my
opinion and the use of force.
> Under their rule, you were free to practice your religion provided you paid a tax.
Sure! You don't even see how ridiculous that system is and what it really means. Islam
cannot coexist with any other system, it simple will not.
reply
share
gillianzz-1
11 years ago
One thing this did well is to highlight that there is a radical nutso side of the Israelis too, the idea that the terrorist group would try to blow up the Mosque over the rock of the dome risking worldwide conflagration is scary, even though I think this is just what Muslims have done throughout history
Sorry to 'bore' you bruce-129 but I was responding to the above statement from you. If you're referring to modern history, then you're wrong about that too. Oh, and 'radical nutso' Israelis are not a new phenomenon. Try googling 'The Stern Gang'. I'm always amused by the collective amnesia of Americans for anything pre-1947 when it comes to discussing Israel.
Islam cannot coexist with any other system, it simple will not
Rubbish. All you're doing is applying a simplistic 'domino theory' kind of logic to what is a diverse and complex region of the world. Lazy.
Btw, I'm not 'pro' anything, least of all religion. I'm more interested in social history.
reply
share
bruce-129
11 years ago
Typical Islamist, focus on the small amount of terrorism that the Israelis did during the formation of Israel, which was of a totally different nature than the global pointless civilian terrorism we see from Islamist ... like the Munich Olympics.
Then talk about how tolerant Muslims are towards other people and each other, and then tell us about their great achievements hundreds of years ago.
Boring, yes, it's boring, because I have considered and read about all this, I have heard both sides, and your point of view is just not validated, except if you are some kind of brainwashed Islamist still supporting worldwide jihad.
If you are interested in "social history" how do you find yourself so in favor and defensive of a very pernicious low-tech form of totalitarianism that only works to preserve the power of its elite and does nothing for its members and certainly nothing for the world?
reply
share