Fitna

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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!

Motivate them to action? Towards a certain end? Based on emotion? I see.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Help us to understand how any populous society would choose and/or cheerfully

resign itself to life on earth under militant totalitarianism.

I don't get the point of this question in this context.

I gather the ancient Romans were fairly cheerfully resigned to their circumstances. Perhaps the right mix of bread and circuses is required.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it 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 peopl ...[text shortened]... ly must reach not only a persons mind but also his heart if he is too motivate them to action!

Actually... van Gogh wasn't beheaded.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Motivate them to action? Towards a certain end? Based on emotion? I see.

incredibly interesting, yes emotion, i think you will perhaps agree, maybe not that the most powerful motivating force is surely an emotional appeal, we are human and have an emotional side, and orators, at least the best ones are able to exploit this to achieve their goals, it would not only be deceitful but unrealistic to think that the author in making this film was doing anything different, however we are not here talking about blind emotion, adherence to some type of creed or ethical policy regardless of factual occurrences and all too real evidence, mr wilders did not make up the killings, beheading, bombings, mullahs speeches etc. did he? he simply put them together in a kind of collage of events and tried successfully or otherwise to provide what he thought may have been the scriptural motivating factors by providing Quranic verses, although, surely there are many other factors that have produced these events as well.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he simply put them together in a kind of collage of events and tried successfully or otherwise to provide what he thought may have been the scriptural motivating factors by providing Quranic verses, although, surely there are many other factors that have produced these events as well.

Wilders' contention: the Koran instructs Muslims to act like killing machines (who are all coming to get you). Therefore Islam is a cancer upon the face of the world. Do you agree with Wilders? That's the bottom line.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't get the point of this question in this context.

I gather the ancient Romans were fairly cheerfully resigned to their circumstances. Perhaps the right mix of bread and circuses is required.

if it wasn't so serious it would be really funny, think about today's films (circuses), the original version of rambo had how many killings, 1 if my memory serves me correctly, the dude in the helicopter, the new version of Rambo holds the record with the most kills out of the entire Rambo series, with 236 kills and an average of 2.59 kills per minute this number of kills is more than the kills in the previous three movies combined. why do people like watching people being killed for entertainment? is there any difference from the ancient Roman theatres? and also consider the number of cookery programs on t.v. we even have very popular 'celebrity', chefs????

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Wilders' contention: the Koran instructs Muslims to act like killing machines (who are all coming to get you). Therefore Islam is a cancer upon the face of the world. Do you agree with Wilders? That's the bottom line.

hey dude, can i have time just to think about this for a moment, it is wonderfully succinct and to the point, but it will take some thought as there are many facets i need to consider in my own mind before I can say anything, however it is an incredibly contemporary question, what i would like to say is that I consider Islam and democracy to be incompatible, there is no freedom in the former, the very meaning of Muslim is one who has submitted to the will of Allah although this all to often means the will of the mullahs and in my wife's own country of Pakistan (a socialist democratic republic) there is no such thing as freedom of speech or a social conscience or democracy, this is the problem!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't get the point of this question in this context.

I gather the ancient Romans were fairly cheerfully resigned to their circumstances. Perhaps the right mix of bread and circuses is required.

Bosse, there is NO question in the post, only one simple sentence...

requesting help in understanding the motivations or possible reasons

underlying any populous society's choice of bondage over freedom.

Would welcome your insights (especially since robbie appears to have

slipped behind the moon, is busy reading books or out of town).



Thanks,

Bobby


🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Bosse, there is NO question in the post, only one simple sentence...

requesting help in understanding the motivations or possible reasons

underlying any populous society's choice of bondage over freedom.

Very hypothetical. I'd prefer to discuss some actual example rather than a society in the abstract. But to satisfy you, I'll postulate an enlightened dictatorship that assures the material comfort and security of the populace and even consults people's wishes through a kind of inquisitorial polling system to ensure that its decisions are welcomed, not resented.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Very hypothetical. I'd prefer to discuss some actual example rather than a society in the abstract. But to satisfy you, I'll postulate an enlightened dictatorship that assures the material comfort and security of the populace and even consults people's wishes through a kind of inquisitorial polling system to ensure that its decisions are welcomed, not resented.

Bosse, from your thoughtful reply I'm understanding that "material comfort and security" are the primary bondage/freedom

(historical) motive tradeoffs you would assign. One simple question if I may... would this proposition appeal to you?



🙂