You want it, you'll get it.
"I only caught some of the first part but the programme makes the very subjective point that the rise of Islam came about when a young Egyptian student studied in America and came to the conclusion that Western society was decadent, corrupt and meaningless and it was this that caused the culture clash."
Never judge a book by its cover. You're not able to know what has been shown what you haven't seen. It could be anything. Hence you're not able to write a review about the documentary because you haven't seen the< documentary. If you reply, i'll deliberitaly ignore any comments from you regarding Part 1 unless you specifiy you've seen it as a whole. Futhermore, its lowers your credibility over the whole documentary simply because you haven't seen the whole documentary.
"The fact that I can't recall the name of this student from Egypt shows how how important he is in the scheme of things."
Perhaps there's something wrong with your memory? Perhaps you didn't care for it? The fact a murderer cannot recall what he did means it wasn't important, didn't happen? Ugh. You assume the reader sees your memory as credible, humble and accurate; I, by default, would not touch such assumption from an unknown person with a 10 ft pole unless he or she is known to me for having an excellent memory and being humble.
"You might be shocked to know that that ALL ideaology is based upon the notion that the society we live in has no moral worth and needs to be changed."
1) Its written 'ideology'
2) Where do you argue this point?
3) No moral worth? Why no?
"Who are you inclined to believe? This subjective pseudo documentary or Bin Laden himself?"
A good question which you don't answer at all. You first argue this documentary has it wrong because OBL said something different. Then you push your own opinion via 'subjective pseudo documentary' while you don't push such about OBL whereas you don't question OBL's credibility.
"But does this mean Islamic terrorism is not a threat to the West?"
The author did not argue otherise this with a 'yes'.
"Does this mean for example the Israelis should stop searching Arabs at check points?"
Israel was left out of the movie. I bless the author, for that subject is both heavily loaded and blurred that an independent documentary would be needed to flesh it out. James Miller tried to make one of how life goes there (which is not about history), with his own footage, but unfortunately he got shot.
"Does this mean people should be allowed to carry knives onto jumbo jets?"
Does it mean Americans should be allowed to carry guns? You see, i'm able to produce unrelated rhetoric the movie doesn't docu as well.
"Again it's a ridiculous notion that because Islamic terrorism is aphallic in structure we've not to worry about terrorist atrocities."
That wasn't the point of the author. I think you misunderstood it and that based on your own beliefs you oppose the theory you're confronted with. After all, Curtis his theory is a Nightmare :)
"You might like to remember the BBC made a docudrama a couple of months ago called DIRTY WAR which had the scenario of a dirty bomb exploding in London , and let's not forget the BBc co-production called THE CELL"
Moot point. Its simple actually: Adam Curtis != BBC; BBC != Adam Curtis.
As for your comment questioning BBC's neutrality: I'm well aware no news station is neutral and those who took BBC for granted were and are wrong; however some networks are taking it to the extreme for their agenda which is far from objective and fact-based. Compared to these, BBC is an utopia. What's that sound, did i hear someone mentioning Fox News somewhere? Must have been a nightmare...
I've been loving too much, caring too little -- TormentoR.
reply
share