Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta action. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta action. Mostrar todas las entradas

sábado, 25 de mayo de 2013

Objurgating obscurantism II...




I have been very angry this week, I could have done people harm with probably very little provocation. I like to think I am extremely tolerant, maybe a secret person. I have read many articles, watched myriad reports, listened to many weak and cowardly politicians and heard once again the same excuses still being used.



The debate hasn't been had, is still not being had and isn't being allowed to be had. David, Boris, John et al were right about one thing: British foreign policy is not the problem; if it were how could they explain the atrocities all over the world, in about 25 countries on 4 continents only in the last month! (including sect on sect attacks).



However, our leaders and politicians are wrong about something else: I have a surprise for you, Islam IS the problem. By denying this or adding ifs and buts and caveats and excuses nothing will ever change. Islam needs reform. An ex near-neighbour of mine Ali Miraj writes that the atrocious and heinous event in Woolwich is "only the latest act of barbarism: Muslims, we must take on this cancer in our midst". He suggests there are two key issues: the first was influenced by his experience of radical Muslim groups as long ago as 1993: first, "the historic failure to clamp down on those inciting hatred"; secondly "the ineptitude and utter failure of self-proclaimed Muslim leaders to tackle these extremists head-on with intellectual argument." However, this 2nd point will not work when, as Raewald says, [edit] Islam provides/provided [young jihadists] "with what they imagined was justification for their barbarism remains the real problem; with no recognised spiritual hierarchy to definitively interpret the Koran otherwise, Islam will always provide the enemies of our peoples with an excuse for violence against us" (my emphasis). In many Muslim countries radical and extreme interpretations of the Koran would not be allowed, the Imams would be punished and imprisoned...or worse; probably because of this many have gravitated to the welcoming arms of liberal Europe and especially Britain, Londistan, a rich and fertile hunting ground to spread their bile and poison.



For how long must the appeasement continue? Just as the serious and chronic and widespread Muslim grooming scandals were ignored because of the fear of accusations of racism and/or they didn't like the messenger so too the revelations of hate-preaching in some Mosques was turned on it's head so that the messenger became investigated. Judges, police, CPS, politicians sort it out, stop the pandering and appeasement! Why can one man get arrested immediately for a few online comments whereas Muslim hate-preachers get away with constant and regular death threats and inciting hatred on a daily basis. And Muslims, no ifs, no buts, expose the haters, expose the extremists, open the Mosques, heal thyselves. 

Objurgating obscurantism II...


I have been very angry this week, I could have done people harm with probably very little provocation. I like to think I am extremely tolerant, maybe a secret person. I have read many articles, watched myriad reports, listened to many weak and cowardly politicians and heard once again the same excuses still being used.

The debate hasn't been had, is still not being had and isn't being allowed to be had. David, Boris, John et al were right about one thing: British foreign policy is not the problem; if it were how could they explain the atrocities all over the world, in about 25 countries on 4 continents only in the last month! (including sect on sect attacks).

However, our leaders and politicians are wrong about something else: I have a surprise for you, Islam IS the problem. By denying this or adding ifs and buts and caveats and excuses nothing will ever change. Islam needs reform. An ex near-neighbour of mine Ali Miraj writes that the atrocious and heinous event in Woolwich is "only the latest act of barbarism: Muslims, we must take on this cancer in our midst". He suggests there are two key issues: the first was influenced by his experience of radical Muslim groups as long ago as 1993: first, "the historic failure to clamp down on those inciting hatred"; secondly "the ineptitude and utter failure of self-proclaimed Muslim leaders to tackle these extremists head-on with intellectual argument." However, this 2nd point will not work when, as Raewald says, [edit] Islam provides/provided [young jihadists] "with what they imagined was justification for their barbarism remains the real problem; with no recognised spiritual hierarchy to definitively interpret the Koran otherwise, Islam will always provide the enemies of our peoples with an excuse for violence against us" (my emphasis). In many Muslim countries radical and extreme interpretations of the Koran would not be allowed, the Imams would be punished and imprisoned...or worse; probably because of this many have gravitated to the welcoming arms of liberal Europe and especially Britain, Londistan, a rich and fertile hunting ground to spread their bile and poison.

For how long must the appeasement continue? Just as the serious and chronic and widespread Muslim grooming scandals were ignored because of the fear of accusations of racism and/or they didn't like the messenger so too the revelations of hate-preaching in some Mosques was turned on it's head so that the messenger became investigated. Judges, police, CPS, politicians sort it out, stop the pandering and appeasement! Why can one man get arrested immediately for a few online comments whereas Muslim hate-preachers get away with constant and regular death threats and inciting hatred on a daily basis. And Muslims, no ifs, no buts, expose the haters, expose the extremists, open the Mosques, heal thyselves. 

sábado, 26 de enero de 2013

Odeon options...




Having got back into the swing of life back in England I decided to push the boat out: now I have two direct debits: my cinema card arrived and I popped into town to the local moving-picture theatre. Three choices attracted my attention:

(i) Lincoln: an American historical drama already received with widespread critical acclaim and a dead cert for Oscars (although some historical facts are missing) The film covers the last four months of Lincoln's life and his efforts exactly 148 years ago to get the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution passed. No doubt a political and historical Spielberg masterpiece highlighting how close the Amendment came to failure and only a white lie (did I say white?) assuring the passage: had an end to hostilities in the Civil War peace been seen as a possibility without the outlawing of slavery and involuntary servitude (and it was a very real possibility) the Amendment would have failed.




(ii) Les Miserables: another contender for Oscars; sumptuous moving musical and film version of the extraordinarily successful stage show of the 1862 novel by Victor Hugo. The book, like the stage show, began with largely negative reviews only to overcome the bad vibes and become immensely popular (the stage show being a global phenomenon). This film seem set on the same path -except the reviews are very positive! Set in France after Napoleon has fallen (for the second time) up until the June Rebellion of 1832. Rather than bore you with the history, the Daily Beast sets the scene.



(iii) The Last Stand: Arnie doing what he does best; this time as a small Mexican-border town Sheriff .'You fucked up my day off.' An entertainingly unpretentious, old-school cops-and-drug-barons action movie (hat-tip for those words to Peter Bradshaw at the Guardian): Weekend escapism and worth it just for Genesis Rodriguez's pout.



Guess which one I went to see...no contest, right?

Odeon options...


Having got back into the swing of life back in England I decided to push the boat out: now I have two direct debits: my cinema card arrived and I popped into town to the local moving-picture theatre. Three choices attracted my attention:
(i) Lincoln: an American historical drama already received with widespread critical acclaim and a dead cert for Oscars (although some historical facts are missing) The film covers the last four months of Lincoln's life and his efforts exactly 148 years ago to get the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution passed. No doubt a political and historical Spielberg masterpiece highlighting how close the Amendment came to failure and only a white lie (did I say white?) assuring the passage: had an end to hostilities in the Civil War peace been seen as a possibility without the outlawing of slavery and involuntary servitude (and it was a very real possibility) the Amendment would have failed.

(ii) Les Miserables: another contender for Oscars; sumptuous moving musical and film version of the extraordinarily successful stage show of the 1862 novel by Victor Hugo. The book, like the stage show, began with largely negative reviews only to overcome the bad vibes and become immensely popular (the stage show being a global phenomenon). This film seem set on the same path -except the reviews are very positive! Set in France after Napoleon has fallen (for the second time) up until the June Rebellion of 1832. Rather than bore you with the history, the Daily Beast sets the scene.

(iii) The Last Stand: Arnie doing what he does best; this time as a small Mexican-border town Sheriff .'You fucked up my day off.' An entertainingly unpretentious, old-school cops-and-drug-barons action movie (hat-tip for those words to Peter Bradshaw at the Guardian): Weekend escapism and worth it just for Genesis Rodriguez's pout.

Guess which one I went to see...no contest, right?