10 Apr 08
Originally posted by shavixmirTwo people featured in the video also sued him, one, a rapper, for falsely identifying him as a killer. Mr Wilders' negligence in matters of fact does his credibility no good. (A certain Dutch user on this site used similar tactics in the Debates forum once, showing films that were not what they purported to be).
Another point worth mentioning about brother Geert is that he was paid by the Israeli embassy to ask questions in the Dutch parliment.
10 Apr 08
First of all, I have not watched the video yet, but will do so probably tonight.
Secondly, I have no doubt that this video will, with 99% probability, be a misrepresentation and generalization of Muslims.
However, nobody has described what things are factually wrong. Are there factual mistakes in it? It would be nice to know how to properly debunk it.
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by PalynkaThe hallmark of good propaganda is that it takes a set of facts out of context and allows the target audience to string together its own interpretation, ideally based on emotional response. In this case, the target audience is in no position to understand the context of Koranic verses referring to Jews, for example. So, really, it's the mode of presentation and the intention behind it that I deplore here, not the 'facts'. It's not a documentary but propaganda. Drawing a distinction between the two categories might be an instructive exercise.
However, nobody has described what things are factually wrong. Are there factual mistakes in it? It would be nice to know how to properly debunk it.
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageTrue. But for that I'll need to see it before I can raise specific questions. The factual mistakes could be done beforehand...
The hallmark of good propaganda is that it takes a set of facts out of context and allows the target audience to string together its own interpretation, ideally based on emotional response. In this case, the target audience is in no position to understand the context of Koranic verses referring to Jews, for example. So, really, it's the mode of present ...[text shortened]... opaganda. Drawing a distinction between the two categories might be an instructive exercise.
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageit is not difficult to go to A Quranic website and corroborate the verses for oneself, to view them, not only to validate them but also see them in their original context, for example, http://www.quranexplorer.com/, as for the facts being taken out of context, judge for yourselves, were not the instances shown real events, in real time, by real people, displaying their real views? as to whether the 'target audience', is able to understand a man having his head chopped off with a small implement in a ritual type of sacrifice, how much interpretation is required ?, yes its appeal is emotional if you can stomach that sort of thing, but any public servant surely must reach not only a persons mind but also his heart if he is too motivate them to action!
The hallmark of good propaganda is that it takes a set of facts out of context and allows the target audience to string together its own interpretation, ideally based on emotional response. In this case, the target audience is in no position to understand the context of Koranic verses referring to Jews, for example. So, really, it's the mode of present ...[text shortened]... opaganda. Drawing a distinction between the two categories might be an instructive exercise.
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagehe should be happy with all the free publicity that it brought him, it took his profile out of the Dutch domestic context and beyond to international waters!
One factual mistake in the original film was that rapper Salah Edin was wrongly identified as Mohammed Bouyeri.
10 Apr 08
Help us to understand how any populous society would choose and/or cheerfully
resign itself to life on earth under militant totalitarianism. Reasonable to believe
an honest question framed in an informed historical perspective deserves
an honest, objective, non-philosophical speculation/agenda driven answer...
Thanks.
🙂
10 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbydude, please do not think i am being rude, but is there any way that you can put this question in simple terms so that it is better understood as I have read it several times now and still cannot grasp its entirety. my confusion perhaps has to do with the different constituent parts of this nobly based question, i.e militant totalitarianism and its ideology and its effects on the populace, plus a historical perspective and also the terminology is a little confusing for me as well, the only way in fact i know how to try to deal with anything like this is in a very limited philosophical fashion, first defining the terminology, secondly looking at areas of concern, seeing how their constituent parts relate to one another and to the whole, thirdly trying to draw conclusions, i really don't know any other way, perhaps someone else can help - if there was something a little less abstract, you know a reference, this would also really help, regards to you grandpaps, Robbie 😀
Help us to understand how any populous society would choose and/or cheerfully
resign itself to life on earth under militant totalitarianism. Reasonable to believe
an honest question framed in an informed historical perspective deserves
an honest, objective, non-philosophical speculation/agenda driven answer...
Thanks.
🙂
10 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIndonesia is the world's largest Muslim country. The population includes 200,000,000 Muslims. What's this "militant totalitarianism" you're talking about? Bangladesh has 140,000,000 Muslims. Is that a case of "militant totalitarianism" too?
Help us to understand how any populous society would choose and/or cheerfully resign itself to life on earth under militant totalitarianism.
We had "militant totalitarianism" foisted upon us here in Indonesia from 1965-1998. We have the likes of America, Australia and the U.K. to thank for that. Is that the "militant totalitarianism" you are talking about?
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyok Grandpaps, go for it! or do you mean me for me to express my view in a succinct and comprehensive manner, lol, which is it easier to do, explain something that is simple in difficult terms or explain a difficult concept in simple terms? 😀, wait till i think about what FMF has said because he has provided a reference.
Robbie, how about one simple declarative sentence....
🙂
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe simple sentence is contained in the quote above my post.
ok Grandpaps, go for it! or do you mean me for me to express my view in a succinct and comprehensive manner, lol, which is it easier to do, explain something that is simple in difficult terms or explain a difficult concept in simple terms? 😀, wait till i think about what FMF has said because he has provided a reference.