Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Pligganease]

Ah, so only blind killing is terrorism, and the only peope that blindly kill are Arabs? That's a horrible way to think about things.

[Gopher]

On the question of "terrorism" that has now come up. If the UN could not resolve this, what makes you think this divided group of people can?

[corroonb]

So Thunndarr master of logic.

Water is wet is a semantic tautology since wetness is defined by the presence of a liquid i.e. water. This is a fact, proven by the language used

A lot of terrorists are Arabs is not such a statement and if you think it is you are a very strange person indeed.

A lot of terrorists are Arabs (you agree)

A lot of Arabs are terrorists (you disagree)

In Hollywood movies a lot of Arabs are terrorists and a lot of terrorists are Arabs (can one be true given that the other is false).

To the question are Arabs always protrayed as terrorists in movies.

You responded helluva (very many) terrorists were Arabs.

Why did you make this statement if not to imply that Hollywood were justified in using this stereotype?

Are any Arabs portrayed in Hollywood movies as not being terrorists?

I think not, usually when Arabs are shown in a Hollywood movie (contemporary) they are portrayed as terrorists or extremists. Never in a sympathetic light.

So for Hollywood most Arabs are in fact terrorists because Arabs are only really portrayed as violent terrorists (see Malcom X).

Is helluva lot = most ?

So when you say a helluva lot of terrorists are Arabs, I assume you are not just making a general statement for the sake of itself but to take part in an arguement. If not why say this at all?

I deduced from this statement that you were defending the movie industry against accusations of Islamophobia.

Were you doing this or not?

You are using a very deceitful and clever technique. You are taking sentences out of context to make you seem reasonable when you were being anything but.

So lets recap:

In Hollywood Most Arabs are portrayed as terrorists ie most Arabs are terrorists

You come along at this point and say a helluva lot of Arabs are terrorists.

I took it from this response that you were defending Hollywood and therefore agreed with the above conclusion which I drew ages ago.

So deducing that you implied that a helluva lot of Arabs were terrorists.

I went on at length to illustrate the logic behind this but alas someone does not lilke reading.

So you why did you say that a helluva lot of terrorists are Arabs at this point in the argument if not to suggest that Hollywood has some justification in doing this?

So what are your views Thunndarr besides holding the bizarre idea that Arabs being terrorists is an incontrovertible fact?

Even if I were to agree that a lot of terrorists are Arabs, why does the American movie industry not portray Arabs in a positve light ever when the vast majority are not invloved in terrorism of any kind?

Thus you were tacitly supporting this racist stereotyping by stating that
a helluva lot of terrorists are Arabs.

Why else would you make such a statement at that point?



A lot is more than 10, 20, 100, 100,000, 1,000,000?

Is a helluva more than half, ie = most?

(Note I don't resort to cheap personal insults, one of the chief weapons of those with poor debating skills)

You and your cohorts have referred to me as a moron and stupid and I have not responded in kind.

[yawarakaijin]

What's all this about who is and who is not a terrorist? In today's world the definition of a terrorist is quite simple. A terrorist is ANYONE who can't afford high cost military equipment to do the killing properly and honorably. A terrorist is ANYONE who is fighting against YOU. C'mon people, it's all quite simple. Why all the fuss?

[Gopher]

[corroonb]

I said terrorists are those who kill from philosophical, religious or political grounds. Not blind killing, but ideologically motivated killing, yet again your rudimentary literacy is demonstrated impeccable. By your definition any violent criminal regardless of ideology is a terrorist when I was clearly referring to those who were committing acts of terrorism for ideological reasons not from greed or insanity. Arab terrorists are usuall of this ideological type bacause they tend to be highly dedicated, some other groups such as the Chechnyan rebels, Tamil Tigers etc. are similar.

Keep on going, this is very amusing.

Gopher, when you say majority are you saying more than half of terrorist groups are Arabs or more groups come from Arab region than any other region?

If so, you should go back to Wikipedia.

And some of those groups are no longer active such as Black September.

And Gopher,do you seriously think Hollywood could not do more to present a more balanced and rational view of the world for American consumption? Are you suggesting that trying to be sensitive to (ie not insulting at every opportunity) other cultures is a bad thing? Or that by presenting Arabs as stereotypes, reconciliation and peace are not going to be difficult to achieve, assuming peace and reconciliation is a good?

Allegation driven discourse? The majority of terrorist groups are Arab is not an allegation?

Didn't you make allegations about every Arab nation essentialising the US in your first post?

[Thunndarr]

[corroonb]

Quotations, quotations, quotations?

So you don't think Arabs are sterotyped at all and that Hollywood is justified in portraying Arabs as terrorists because according to you a helluva lot of terrorists are Arabs?

Is this a correct summary of your view or am a misreading you?

If this is correct why did you not say that at first?

I wasn't suggesting that such film should be about being an Arab per se but about presenting a Arabs in a non-negative light ie not terrorists or suicide bombers, as human beings. A character who was an Arab and a doctor for example, lots of Arab doctors work in Ireland and are highly thought of. A film about Arabs or Muslim adapting to the west would be interesting and has been done before with other ethnicities in British film. East is East for example.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_is_East_(film)

What other ethnicities are interesting enough for a feature film?

[Thunndarr]

[Gopher]

[deleted]

[corroonb]

I think that is a legitimate question. I don't think ethnicity as a theme or subject has anything to do with what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that a Arab character in a feature film doesn't have to be a terrorist, he/she could be presented in a non-negative light, ie not as a terrorist or suicide bomber.

Sayid in Lost is a good example except he's an ex-Iraqi torturer and was involved with a terrorist cell. He wasn't just a shop owner or taxi driver who wanted a better life in Austrailia

I really don't understand why you added that last part, when I read that I felt kinda sick (I'm sure you'll quote this part). I was curious as to what you actually meant by that last comment.

Again you quote one line instead of answering a reasonable question and then accuse me of using a straw man.

BTW if you won't elaborate on your statments or answer clarifying questions, then straw men are inevtiable because I can't read your mind.

You by quoting me out of context are using a straw man argument.

Quote an opponent's words "out of context" -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Adventurer]

[Thunndarr]

[dogbert]

There was that movie where Antonio Banderas played an Arab Muslim who helped the Vikings. That was a positive portrayal, notwithstanding Banderas being neither Muslim nor Arab.

[laogaiguk]

I must admit, I don't remember many really bad Arabs from Hollywood. I am sure they can be evil, but the only Arab I truly remember from anything was Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood. I am sure they probaby stereotype them, just as they do with anybody else. But it hasn't left any lasting impression, as it just doesn't happen enough.

Must better than Indian kids being complete dweebs/geeks