Islamic Terror, know your enemy

[sebbysteiny]

The main purpose of this thread is to discuss the following program.

 

http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=3PWIK8YTZS8&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static5.sjl.youtube.com/vi/3PWIK8YTZS8/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJaDY-4_40RTcb6A6rA9mQb

 

The video makes no pretence at being 'impartial'. It's about 40mins. But I don't think evidence can be dismissed simply because it was presented by somebody with an opinion. If anybody believes that other information is needed to provide 'neutrality', here is the place to put it.

 

Many people have asked about what makes Islamic Terror unique etc.

 

This video in my opinion gives a very good idea of what fanatical Islamicists feel and think.

 

So I would like to discuss any points, evidence or anything else related to the nature of extremism including criticisms or support of the points raised in the video.

[Edella]

 

This video in my opinion gives a very good idea of what fanatical Islamicists feel and think.

 

This video in my opinion gives a good idea of what Glen Beck,the host of that video, feels and thinks about Keith Ellison,the first Muslim (and my new) congressman.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV7tP1_0xrQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV7tP1_0xrQ

 

BTW,During the campaign, Mr Ellison was supported by the National Jewish Democratic Council as well as a prominent Minneapolis Jewish newspaper, which endorsed him over his Republican rival Alan Fine, who is Jewish.

[sebbysteiny]

This video in my opinion gives a good idea of what Glen Beck,the host of that video, feels and thinks about Keith Ellison,the first Muslim (and my new) congressman.

 

I'm very puzzled about what this post is doing here. I said it was not 'impartial'. It was the evidence within that I was focusing on? What's the link you gave got to do with the evidence in the documentary?

[Qfwfq]

I'm very puzzled about what this post is doing here.

:D

Huh???

[sebbysteiny]

The point is to discuss the evidence, not the person who presented it.

 

 

 

It's funny. I've got some kind of warning thingy for posting an Extremist post.

 

So apparently it is 'extremist' to post a video that proves, for example, how President Armajinidad thinks we are all complete idiots by saying on Western TV that he wants peace and love and all things nice and then, a few days later, IN ARABIC preaches how Islam must rise up to the West and extract unforgettable vengance to the chorus of 'death to America'.

 

If it takes being labelled an extremist by people who have, in my view, not bothered to look at the evidence, then so be it.

 

Tormod, great site.

 

But did you actually WATCH the video? Didn't think so. Because if you disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the evidence, you need only post a reply.

[Edella]

The point is to discuss the evidence, not the person who presented it.

Sebby,I think one has to consider the source,not just the evidence.If I were to present evidence of U.S. corruption from Michael Moore,would you be able to disregard the source? I sure hope not.The video I presented shows Glen Beck is a bigot,and I for one can not disregard that fact.

So apparently it is 'extremist' to post a video that proves, for example, how President Armajinidad thinks we are all complete idiots by saying on Western TV that he wants peace and love and all things nice and then, a few days later, IN ARABIC preaches how Islam must rise up to the West and extract unforgettable vengance to the chorus of 'death to America'.

Glen Beck claims the media only portrays Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a good guy,and leaves out his anti-West rants.Glen refers to Mike Wallace"s interview with Armajinidad as "flowery." Check it out and tell me if you think "flowery" is an apt description:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZFE5uXvUE0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZFE5uXvUE0

 

BTW,Armajinidad's rants are in Farsi,not Arabic.They are two completely different languages.You should know this Sebby.

...the conclusions drawn by the evidence[of the video]

I've watched the video three times,and the only conclusions I can draw from it is that we have a serious problem with Islamic extremism, and we need to find solutions quick.This is,of course,a no-brainer.

[sebbysteiny]

I've watched the video three times,and the only conclusions I can draw from it is that we have a serious problem with Islamic extremism, and we need to find solutions quick.This is,of course,a no-brainer.

 

Excellent, which means we can discuss the details :hihi:. QP to you.

 

The purpose of me posting this was that I wanted people to understand the extremist ideology that we are up against. Any other agenda or conclusion that may be formed by that documentary is not relevant to this thread, with the sole exception of whether it is possible to negotiate with them.

 

The one thing that the presenter and I agree on is that the evidence he pointed to represents a major gap in peoples understanding of Islamic terror. People in the West generally do not know quite how much hate they have for us.

 

So my purpose was to present evidence as to how extremists think, act and feel so that you can see it happening and feel what it is like to live under a society with a strong Islamic extremist presence and, perhaps, even put yourself in the shoes of a person in an angry mob.

 

The things I wanted to demonstrate most was: the double speak, where an extremists speaks with moderate language in English, but in their native tongue, what they say amounts to insitement to genocide; the veracity of the hate, whose language is so full of hate and extreme that it is impossible to imagine how bad it is until you hear it; the targets, the Jews and the West; and it's origins, school text books, surmans and other media where the allegations they believe simply do not have any basis in truth and are infact completely made up.

 

It was videos like that that finally convinced me of where the morally correct stance is, and that is against extremist Islam with everything we have. I do not believe there is any pandering or anything to discuss with them. I think such sentiments show a lack of understanding of quite how repugnent they are.

 

I think that understanding Al Quaeda is good, but only so far as it aids confrontation and not cooperation.

 

And lastly, did you really watch it 3 times? Wow. I didn't even do that :doh:.

 

Sebby,I think one has to consider the source,not just the evidence.

 

I take your point about the presenter. I would rather a different presenter present the evidence but only because that would give people one less reason to ignore it.

 

But there was one film I found extremely useful and I posted it here before and people emailed me telling me they found it as useful as I found it. Unfortunately, for copy right issues (I'm guessing), google video stopped it.

 

This link was the closest to the stuff on that other video.