Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Utterly utterly horrific
PS if anyone wants to see the offending film it's here...
If we as a species stopped killing people we disagreed with (or more specifically here, people incredibly tenuously connected to people we disagreed with), the world would be a far better place.
is it supposed to be clever?
Are you satirizing something? Or just being a sack of shit?
Not particularly well, admittedly.
in non-western countries comes from people on the liberal left.
The west DID NOT go into Iraq to stop human rights abuses, they went in because of WMDs, that was their stated intent.
Are you calling The US and UK govs liars?
He's a witless dick scab. Move along.
1) cat_race ones
2) forzaboroza ones
3) silkeeeskillzzzz ones
4) n posts - ask me anything
5) football ones
Are there any examples of the 'liberal left' taking action to end human rights abuses in 'non-western' countries? At government or non-governmental letter. And I mean *real* action, not just writing a letter to the Guardian.
It's when you type tripe.
Are you saying 38 Degrees' heroic email awareness campaigns are all for nothing?
Bloody hell, my typing is even worse than usual today....
Burma, Ruwanda, Zaire/DRC, Algeria, etc. etc. etc?
(as by action, I assume that you mean violent, military action)
Um, Kosovo? The protection forces in the former Yugoslavia (lead by the EU and the US under Clinton), Somalia.
Could the 'movements' in those countries against despot leaders be described as 'liberal left' movements? I'm not sure they can (at least not all of them, or not conclusively).
In most cases, I suppose I do mean military intervention, but by default rather than choice, in that likes of Sadam Hussein rarely stand down following a robust letter campaign, or even UN sanctions.
And in that respect, the left are often willing to highlight human rights abuses but very rarely, if ever, actually do anything about it - especially in relation to 'western' intervention in 'non-western' countries.
I can't think of a single intervention made by a right-leaning government made on humanitarian, rather than self-interest, grounds.
but probably in not such a level-headed and non-personal manner.
You could always say everything's about oil, but I thought that might have been a humanitarian response mainly.
but it was more to do with oil, protecting western investments and undermining the influence of Russia. Sarkozy was also making a play in the lead up to an election.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with those reasons - I'd much rather geo-political power was held by nominally secular, democratic countries like those in the west rather than Russia and China - but the action was not taken for humanitarian reasons.
I am not sure I completely agree. I'd like to keep a bit of that possible naivete that enables me to accept their stated humanitarian reasons. Even if we agree that it was definitely for humanitarian reasons, we'd be splitting hairs about whether or not it was genuine love for the fellow human beings, or a selfish desire to avoid being someone who is seen to be doing nothing when a massacre is taking place, and in the end all human activities ever are reduced to selfish transactions . . . if they were in it mainly for oil-grabbing imperialism, they were quicker off the blocks than Obama for example, and at least we can give them credit for acting faster, whatever the reasons.
If it had been perceived as US-driven, it would have caused even more problems in the region.
Just because Obama and Hilary Clinton weren't making the speeches and driving the UN resolutions, doesn't mean that they were slow off the mark. It was a co-ordinated approach.
and a million others
do you have the internet?
his method to bring the right wing into disrepute, by offering only vestigel ill thought out points of view that are mere snippits of right wing doctrine......he is lampooning the torys, by displaying weak examples of their way of thinking.
(trying to bring em down from the inside)
But, at the same time, all he's done is made a shit film. There's absolutely no rational reason why it should lead to something like this.
But I'm nonetheless pessimistically anticipating articles/comments in the Guardian and the Independent basically along the lines that it was the guy's fault for making it a a la the Danish cartoon scandal.
compared to other religion-backing papers like the Mail or the Telegraph.
even tho BY COMPLETE COINCIDENCE it turns out almost always to be done as an deliberate provocation by fringe european/US far-right media/politicians :-/
What a bunch of cunts.
not free speech
risky business using scare quotes on DiS.
But the fact people are exploiting their ability to use free speech to say something we'd rather they didn't say doesn't change the fact they're using free speech.
here we go
It's like a low budget porn film. I was waiting for the blow-job scene.
this is kind of well known, so I would have thought that a more understanding respo9nse from the us rather than this
"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."
unfortunately this changes nothing for anyone as the wording is meaningless as the US obviously DOES believe that there are many renuous justifications for extremely violent behaviour.......so uynfortunately this is meaningless coming from them.
The Dalai Lama could say it though, that would be better than the US.
It doesn't even come across as a story board / pilot, for a semi-serious attempt at a movie?
I think it's a serious attempt at a film but by a fringe amateur with no proper connection to the film industry - not massively different to if you or I picked up a camera and decided to make a film ('cept you'd probably do a lot better than this...)