Sure, when you put it that way it does seem racist. However, I still believe that that is not the over-all, nor the intended impression in that it is not refering to all of the Arabs in the region . . in fact it depicts many of the forces as being allied with the US.
The cry of racism here is too strong, I think rather that what it is is a satire that has nothing to do with the 'nature or brown skinned arabs' so much as it has to do with the folly of exacerbating the resentiment in an already dangerous region where the majority of people profess a great dislike for us and our relationship with Israel already . . . without our invasion of a soveriegn country without any real, and ostensibly evident reason to do so.
Also, your cry of racism would almost make it sound that you would call someone a racist if they said that the there were fundamentalists in the region at all . . . and clearly there are people being killed relatively regularly in the mid-east, and in north Africa . . and under the guise of fundamentalist Islam . . . to deny that is the depths of liberal refusal to recognize the unpleasant
For the majority of the piece the Jews took no action.
When one bombs your nation and you do nothing in the interest of keeping peace (as they did in the movie for the very large portion and did in real life in Gulf War 1.0), that is showing restraint.
<strong>Yeah, let's not re-examine the way we think about regions of foreigners when our at
titudes are proven to have a strong racial bias. Let's not learn from our own
stereotypes being proven wrong by actual historical events.
What you're essentially saying here is "Yeah, it's a racist view that's been
disproven by very very very recent and applicable historical events, but let's go
with it anyway."
Easier than changing your mindset, though.</strong><hr></blockquote>No, I said that it would indeed appear racist if it were as you characterize it, but, it isn't like that . . . it shows a general rise of violence due to initial AMerican and British violence . . . sit also shows the fragmentation of different competing groups in the region some of them portrayed as fighting on our behalf and because of our instigation. Is it then being racist about Americans?!?!
as to "being proven wrong by actual historical events." of that I am not convinced. I think that there are still groups that are violently opposed to 'the West' and that their numbers have grown . . . . where you find the cartoon racist is where it says those factions will grow because of our violence, and you think that that is a misperception based on race (at least that's what I understand you to say) and I think that there are groups there allready, that are allready growing, and, would swell drastically if we were to attack based on our flimsy evidence . . and definitely, if Israel were to attack Bagdad . . . . this isn't 'racist' it has nothing to do with racial ideas it has to do with attitudes that have been shown to exist in the region . . despite your unproven, and wrong, assertion that the bombing of Afghanistan did not change attitudes (even so, I still backed the Afghanistan effort)
<strong>For the majority of the piece the Jews took no action.
When one bombs your nation and you do nothing in the interest of keeping peace (as they did in the movie for the very large portion and did in real life in Gulf War 1.0), that is showing restraint.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed. Doing nothing for a while and then nuking Baghdad is some awesome restraint.
<strong>it shows a general rise of violence due to initial AMerican and British violence</strong><hr></blockquote>
Has there been a general rise in violence since our invasion of Afghanistan?
I've seen no evidence to say that, can you come up with any?
If you want to look at lives lost from terrorist action I'd bet the numbers were much higher the 6 months prior to the invasion than the 6 months during/after.
[quote]<strong> sit also shows the fragmentation of different competing groups in the region some of them portrayed as fighting on our behalf and because of our instigation. Is it then being racist about Americans?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see what the characterization of Americans has to do with my point about racism. It's making biased assumptions about the administration, yes, but I don't see why you would label that "racism" for me when I had no desire to. Let's not put words in my mouth.
[quote]<strong>as to "being proven wrong by actual historical events." of that I am not convinced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The same people who think this flash movie is clever were the ones saying that an invasion of Afghanistan would cause a huge rise in violence and an "increase in the number of terrorists". Didn't happen. You can't argue that because it didn't happen. It's been a year and a half since 9/11 and where are the non-standard terrorist actions? It's been over a year since we dropped our first bomb on Afghanistan?
How long until you are convinced that the middle east isn't a sea of brown people just looking for an excuse to kill everyone?
[quote]<strong>I think that there are still groups that are violently opposed to 'the West' and that their numbers have grown</strong><hr></blockquote>
Evidence? Logic? Tangible results?
Again, you just *think* that because you find that racist bias to be an acceptable way of thinking.
[quote]<strong>and I think that there are groups there allready, that are allready growing, and, would swell drastically if we were to attack based on our flimsy evidence</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well of course you believe that, that's my entire point.
[quote]<strong>despite your unproven, and wrong, assertion that the bombing of Afghanistan did not change attitudes (even so, I still backed the Afghanistan effort)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I say no one's attitude changed? You're really pathetic with this putting words in my mouth crap, it's getting irritating.
There has been no rise in terrorism, as was predicted by the folks who find this movie clever. No reports of massive influx of cash/people into big terrorist organizations.
My assertions is proven by those simple and palpable facts. Unless thousands of people are being killed by terrorists and we just don't hear about there's nothing about my assertion that is unproven.
Red herring. A racist red herring. Them brown people are violent animals, you just wait and see.
hey no reason for a mod to call me names...aren't you supposed to stop that sort of thing?
what about Bali? very peaceful place for the most part (bali, that is) until something galvanized a group of militants to randomly kill huge amounts of innocent people ...
anyway, perhaps you're right about the lack of an increase in direct violence, thats due, in part, to a dramatic increase in the crack down on on groups all over the Mid-East and also in Europe and the US [quote] In the wake of September 11th, western countries, hitherto a haven for Arab Islamists, have acceded to demands from Arab governments to round up Islamist exiles. Across Europe, new laws have been introduced to intern foreigners. Nor is the crackdown restricted to militant groups. Insiders say at least 23 European leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest Islamist group professing non-violence, have been called in by the police and interrogated.<hr></blockquote>From a conservative web site.
perhaps your right it may also be due to the lack of Islamists in the middle east and their waning support . . I don't really know . . the impression I get of it as growing may simply be due to the increased spotlight on "Terror" and perhaps out of a little fear . . .however I am not a racist and do not believe that Arabs are inherently violent.
I think that the portrayal can be seen as 'racist' . . .
but I still think that the polarization of anti-Americanism is going to be a real problem if we go in without a "smocking gun" --there are just too many people who do not think that we are justified and who think that we are acting out of alternative motives and are just plain bullies . . . and those people are everywhere . . . even in the US and come in all races . . .
. . . I do believe that there will be a smoking gun, but we should wait and try other alternatives
An oppressed group of people will eventually react violently. And if it continues that form of reaction will continue. Unless mediation between them can be achieved.
So far, WE (the good 'ol U.S of A) has been the backstabbing aggressor for the past 40 years. Mediation has always been that we alone have the upper hand and get what we want from them ("our interests").
Still, its kind of creepy how some of our (and the cartoon's) observations seem to be appearing over there now...let's hope it won't go too far that way.
I'll stick with my last post in this thread though...you have many different enemies there in Iraq and around it. And all they need is a reason to turn.
Comments
The cry of racism here is too strong, I think rather that what it is is a satire that has nothing to do with the 'nature or brown skinned arabs' so much as it has to do with the folly of exacerbating the resentiment in an already dangerous region where the majority of people profess a great dislike for us and our relationship with Israel already . . . without our invasion of a soveriegn country without any real, and ostensibly evident reason to do so.
Also, your cry of racism would almost make it sound that you would call someone a racist if they said that the there were fundamentalists in the region at all . . . and clearly there are people being killed relatively regularly in the mid-east, and in north Africa . . and under the guise of fundamentalist Islam . . . to deny that is the depths of liberal refusal to recognize the unpleasant
<strong>However, I still believe that that is not the over-all, nor the intended
impression in that it is not refering to all of the Arabs in the region . . in fact
it depicts many of the forces as being allied with the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Violent characterization, not anti-America characterization.
[quote]<strong>The cry of racism here is too strong, I think rather that what it is is a
satire that has nothing to do with the 'nature or brown skinned arabs' so much as it
has to do with the folly of exacerbating the resentiment in an already dangerous
region</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, let's not re-examine the way we think about regions of foreigners when our at
titudes are proven to have a strong racial bias. Let's not learn from our own
stereotypes being proven wrong by actual historical events.
What you're essentially saying here is "Yeah, it's a racist view that's been
disproven by very very very recent and applicable historical events, but let's go
with it anyway."
Easier than changing your mindset, though.
[quote]<strong>Also, your cry of racism would almost make it sound that you would call
someone a racist if they said that the there were fundamentalists in the region at
all . . . </strong><hr></blockquote>
I said nothing of the sort. You're trying to put words in my mouth. tsk-tsk
<strong>
The Jews show restraint, the Arabs come out of the woodwork and grow in number like violent rodents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you watch the flash movie? Did you notice that the Jews showed restraint by nuking Baghdad?
When one bombs your nation and you do nothing in the interest of keeping peace (as they did in the movie for the very large portion and did in real life in Gulf War 1.0), that is showing restraint.
It's all the usual suspects too, going at it in one spectacular thread!
Where's my popcorn?
<strong>Yeah, let's not re-examine the way we think about regions of foreigners when our at
titudes are proven to have a strong racial bias. Let's not learn from our own
stereotypes being proven wrong by actual historical events.
What you're essentially saying here is "Yeah, it's a racist view that's been
disproven by very very very recent and applicable historical events, but let's go
with it anyway."
Easier than changing your mindset, though.</strong><hr></blockquote>No, I said that it would indeed appear racist if it were as you characterize it, but, it isn't like that . . . it shows a general rise of violence due to initial AMerican and British violence . . . sit also shows the fragmentation of different competing groups in the region some of them portrayed as fighting on our behalf and because of our instigation. Is it then being racist about Americans?!?!
as to "being proven wrong by actual historical events." of that I am not convinced. I think that there are still groups that are violently opposed to 'the West' and that their numbers have grown . . . . where you find the cartoon racist is where it says those factions will grow because of our violence, and you think that that is a misperception based on race (at least that's what I understand you to say) and I think that there are groups there allready, that are allready growing, and, would swell drastically if we were to attack based on our flimsy evidence . . and definitely, if Israel were to attack Bagdad . . . . this isn't 'racist' it has nothing to do with racial ideas it has to do with attitudes that have been shown to exist in the region . . despite your unproven, and wrong, assertion that the bombing of Afghanistan did not change attitudes (even so, I still backed the Afghanistan effort)
<strong>For the majority of the piece the Jews took no action.
When one bombs your nation and you do nothing in the interest of keeping peace (as they did in the movie for the very large portion and did in real life in Gulf War 1.0), that is showing restraint.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed. Doing nothing for a while and then nuking Baghdad is some awesome restraint.
<strong>it shows a general rise of violence due to initial AMerican and British violence</strong><hr></blockquote>
Has there been a general rise in violence since our invasion of Afghanistan?
I've seen no evidence to say that, can you come up with any?
If you want to look at lives lost from terrorist action I'd bet the numbers were much higher the 6 months prior to the invasion than the 6 months during/after.
[quote]<strong> sit also shows the fragmentation of different competing groups in the region some of them portrayed as fighting on our behalf and because of our instigation. Is it then being racist about Americans?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see what the characterization of Americans has to do with my point about racism. It's making biased assumptions about the administration, yes, but I don't see why you would label that "racism" for me when I had no desire to. Let's not put words in my mouth.
[quote]<strong>as to "being proven wrong by actual historical events." of that I am not convinced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The same people who think this flash movie is clever were the ones saying that an invasion of Afghanistan would cause a huge rise in violence and an "increase in the number of terrorists". Didn't happen. You can't argue that because it didn't happen. It's been a year and a half since 9/11 and where are the non-standard terrorist actions? It's been over a year since we dropped our first bomb on Afghanistan?
How long until you are convinced that the middle east isn't a sea of brown people just looking for an excuse to kill everyone?
[quote]<strong>I think that there are still groups that are violently opposed to 'the West' and that their numbers have grown</strong><hr></blockquote>
Evidence? Logic? Tangible results?
Again, you just *think* that because you find that racist bias to be an acceptable way of thinking.
[quote]<strong>and I think that there are groups there allready, that are allready growing, and, would swell drastically if we were to attack based on our flimsy evidence</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well of course you believe that, that's my entire point.
[quote]<strong>despite your unproven, and wrong, assertion that the bombing of Afghanistan did not change attitudes (even so, I still backed the Afghanistan effort)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I say no one's attitude changed? You're really pathetic with this putting words in my mouth crap, it's getting irritating.
There has been no rise in terrorism, as was predicted by the folks who find this movie clever. No reports of massive influx of cash/people into big terrorist organizations.
My assertions is proven by those simple and palpable facts. Unless thousands of people are being killed by terrorists and we just don't hear about there's nothing about my assertion that is unproven.
Red herring. A racist red herring. Them brown people are violent animals, you just wait and see.
what about Bali? very peaceful place for the most part (bali, that is) until something galvanized a group of militants to randomly kill huge amounts of innocent people ...
anyway, perhaps you're right about the lack of an increase in direct violence, thats due, in part, to a dramatic increase in the crack down on on groups all over the Mid-East and also in Europe and the US [quote] In the wake of September 11th, western countries, hitherto a haven for Arab Islamists, have acceded to demands from Arab governments to round up Islamist exiles. Across Europe, new laws have been introduced to intern foreigners. Nor is the crackdown restricted to militant groups. Insiders say at least 23 European leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest Islamist group professing non-violence, have been called in by the police and interrogated.<hr></blockquote>From a conservative web site.
perhaps your right it may also be due to the lack of Islamists in the middle east and their waning support . . I don't really know . . the impression I get of it as growing may simply be due to the increased spotlight on "Terror" and perhaps out of a little fear . . .however I am not a racist and do not believe that Arabs are inherently violent.
I think that the portrayal can be seen as 'racist' . . .
but I still think that the polarization of anti-Americanism is going to be a real problem if we go in without a "smocking gun" --there are just too many people who do not think that we are justified and who think that we are acting out of alternative motives and are just plain bullies . . . and those people are everywhere . . . even in the US and come in all races . . .
. . . I do believe that there will be a smoking gun, but we should wait and try other alternatives
[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
An oppressed group of people will eventually react violently. And if it continues that form of reaction will continue. Unless mediation between them can be achieved.
So far, WE (the good 'ol U.S of A) has been the backstabbing aggressor for the past 40 years. Mediation has always been that we alone have the upper hand and get what we want from them ("our interests").
Some of them have a right to be pissed.
And all this for a ****in' cartoon.
Kinda like this thread.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Mikey Offender ]</p>
Is this the thread you were talking about with that thread you started a few days ago?
heh
Still, its kind of creepy how some of our (and the cartoon's) observations seem to be appearing over there now...let's hope it won't go too far that way.
I'll stick with my last post in this thread though...you have many different enemies there in Iraq and around it. And all they need is a reason to turn.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
Ugh. Who dredged this back up again...
they are calling for UNITY in the face of the Aggression from the Invader:
LINK
It would've been better if you had just let this thread drop off the front page. Thanks for giving it another bump.
Originally posted by groverat
It would've been better if you had just let this thread drop off the front page. Thanks for giving it another bump.
ok . . . I'll start another thread
Originally posted by Artman @_@
Still, its kind of creepy how some of our (and the cartoon's) observations seem to be appearing over there now...
Like what?