Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: beheading video...should one watch?

In reply to:

---

And finally what effect do you think the U.S. entertainment industry has in the rest of of the world, on unsophisticated peoples? How do we look creating great scenes of slaughter and mayhem for entertainment, not to mention what is to traditional cultures, floods of depraved sexuality, greed and horror. Are we so accoustomed to these things that we can't imagine how they look to others? I can tell you they see plenty.

As horrible as the beheadings are, are the images we send out to the rest of the world really better? If you slaughtered your animals with a knife for food would these beheadings have the same impact? If in that context you saw what we watch for entertainment what would you think of our culture?

---

I see, md55, brothers kill their sisters with the approval of their families, honor killings, child marriage, slavery and systematic sexual abuse of slaves (what Muqtadar Al Sadr and various mullahs refer to as "sex slaves") and you criticize us for flooding that 'peaceful society' with a flood of "depraved sexuality" from Hollywood?

Moral relativism.

What is it that we do that you equate to the "poorly constructed equation" of cutting the heads off of living human beings?

Let's take a look at an excerpt from an Egyptian 9-11th grade text books:

A description of Jihad in Grade 11 from an al-Azhar religious schoolbook makes compelling reading, as do two other descriptions of Jihad in Egyptian State schools, Grade 9 & 10, that are also reproduced here, and in more detail in our written statement NGO/27 to the UN Sub-Commission:

“[One] of the rules derived by the [religious] scholars from these [Qur'anic] verses is the following: Obligation to fight the infidels with utmost vigor and power until they become weak, their state disappears and they submit to the rule of the law of Islam.” – Commentary, the Surahs of Muhammad, Al-Fath, Al-Hujurat & Qaf, Grade 11 (2002, pp. 312), p. 24 (al-Azhar)

And now two more ordinary quotations from books in the State schools:

“Jihad is honour. Inability to perform it is a cause for grief.”
– Islamic Education, Grade 10, (2002, pp. 111) p. 69 (State school)

“Jihad is one of Heaven's gates. Whoever desists from it willingly is humiliated by God...” – Arabic Literature: Literature, Texts, Eloquence, Grade 9, (2002, pp. 201) p. 144 (State school)

But it is once again the al-Azhar teaching that goes to the core of this gruesome subject. Pious justifications are offered to Grade 11 students concerning the reasons for beheading infidels:

“When you meet them in order to fight [them], do not be seized by compassion [toward them], but strike the[ir] necks powerfully…Striking the neck means fighting, because killing a person is often done by striking off his head…This expression contains a harshness and emphasis that are not found in the word “kill”, because it describes killing in the ugliest manner, “i.e. cutting the neck and making the organ – the head of the body – fly off [the body]” – Commentary on Surahs of Muhammad, Al-Fath, Al-Hujurat, Qaf, Grade 11 (2002), pp.19-20.

So md55, where do you think these folks get their idea that it's OK to cut the heads off of Christians and Jews? Do you think it's our fault, our media, our "depraved" movies?

I think if you want to criticize a culture constructively in order "to find a course through life with less conflict" you may want to start with a systematic program of the education of children which encourages them to cut the heads off of Christians and Jews.

I highly recomend "WAR IS THE FORCE THAT GIVES US MEANING" by Chris Hedges if you want to understand the reasons why you were encouraged to watch those videos, very incitful book about the processes that foment war.

I don't think we are encouraged to watch those videos, but certainly, they are best sellers in the Middle East. Are you saying that it is war which gives their lives meaning?

The post was in response to:

"It really pisses me off that some people are pressuring us to watch these videos. Most of those folks seem to be strongly pro-war, and they think that by watching these videos and realizing how terrible our enemy is, we'll be more in favor of Bush and the Iraqi occupation. By like some of you said, that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do, and to live in fear as a result."

I recommend reading the book, it is titled: “War is a force that gives US meaning”. It is about the universal processes of war. It speaks very directly to the above.

2x6sps my post was focused on trying tp step outside particular cultural filters and to look at a spectrum of violent video material through an array of possible filters or biases. The purpose of this is understanding. Do you think that the filter of a fundementalist Mullah's moral superiority produces broad understanding of your experiences of watching Kill Bill 1&2? Does the resulting understanding produce sound moral judgment?

I did not intend to enter into a moral values discussion, but to provoke an examination of the perceptual processes of differing materials in different contexts. I asked questions, I did not offer any judjments other than what I believe are the judgments of the viewers I was refering to. I asked if we are incapable of imagining how they look to others. I simply asked what do the things we are accustomed to look like to others. I left the moral judgments to the reader after having considered the perceptual process.

You call this moral relativism and then jump to a detailed listing of others moral failings while dismissing through moral relativity, the possible effects of our cultural products because of the greater sins of the projected audience. To me this looks like what I project are the moral judgments of fundemetalist Mullahs, littanies of the offenses of the infidels while dismissing like examination of ones own cultural characteristics. The result is that you miss the point entirely and simply go on the attack.

Not sure if this has been covered in some other thread, but I recommend watching "The Fog of War" (and, hey, we get to do it using our Axiom speakers!). Some of the key points (to me) by Robert McNamara about three different conflicts were:

WW II - McNamara worked under General LeMay, who led the firebombing of some 67 Japanese cities, burning to death 100,000 civilians in Tokyo in one night, according to McNamara. McNamara said that LeMay once told him they would both have been prosecuted as war criminals if we had lost the war. I don't comment on this now to criticize how we waged war on Japan, but to note how different the world is now. Unless we are attacked directly by some other nation, we can't just go in and unleash all-out war like we did in WW II. It's a very different matter fighting an insurgency in Iraq.

Cuban Missile Crisis - McNamara says the CIA erroneously reported that the missiles in Cuba did not have nuclear warheads yet, when they in fact did. LeMay wanted to launch an all-out invasion of Cuba, which likely would have triggered a nuclear conflagration. Fortunately, according to McNamara, the U.S. ambassador to the USSR, Thompson, understood what was needed to get Kruschev to back down, and his plan worked.

VietNam - McNamara basically said that we didn't understand our enemy, we didn't understand what was really going on, and we were wrong about that war.

One of his big themes was how easy it is, in the "fog of war," to make mistakes. He suggested that, given the possibility of error and the grave consequences of war, if the case for war is not so clearcut as to garner the support of our allies, going to war unilaterally may well be a mistake.

Anyway, whether you agree or disagree with him, it's interesting to hear what McNamara has to say about war.

Sorry md55, but you lost me. I thought your point was that we shouldn't criticize those who cut off heads or the culture which celebrates such atrocities because we have offended them by flooding their society with our "sexually depraved" entertainment and because in our own way we are just as bad.

I also took your point to be that since our culture is not perfect we are in no position to criticize the values of the culture of the head takers.

BTW, seems to me that when you talk about the "spectrum of violent video material" you are conflating fictional depictions of violence with snuff/recruitment videos - video recordings of actual murders.

I think I understand the world view of the mullahs, and of course I don't ascribe any moral superiority to such a world view. I am judgmental and consider such folks (folks who issue fatwas against Salman Rushdie or who take the heads off of living human beings, or celebrate such conduct) to be moral imbeciles.

I'm sure I've missed your point because it seems to me that you propose an analysis which purposefully avoids taking into account the moral value of the conduct under discussion.

As to the rest of your point, again, you lost me, and I'd be very grateful if you could take the time to provide clarification as to what you're point is.

2x6, you could always try re-reading md55's post after clearing your mind of the misconception that everything he says is bullshit.

pmb, if I wanted to say that everything md55 says is bullshit, I'd say it. I've read his post several times and I just don't understand his point. If you can explain what you think he means, I'd appreciate it.

I didn't get it either, but was afraid of displaying my ignorance.