Filmmaking for peace...

[Mr Blackstock]

It is incredible that from so many people so many opinions come forth, and all have very good points. Obviously there is no one method of helping to project peace and understanding, however there are beginnings. Surely, with all the people on the host board, there must be a wealth of information on middle eastern film makers. As suggested earlier, could everyone post what they know, and contacts. You never know, there may be enough eventual interest to warrant easier access to such film material. I would be very keen on seeing many web addresses, names, whatever, posted here.

Its an idea!?

------------------

[redrice]

i second mr blackstock's call.

i think that more important even than expressing our opinions, at this point in time, is helping other people get their voices heard. film is one way of trying to build dialogue between people, which can open the way to peaceful coexistence, rather than just the kind of vendetta which the leaders on both sides, self-appointed or democratically elected, naturally prefer, since it reinforces our dependency upon them.

a small-guage arab-islamic film festival may turn out to be a tall order: but till we try, we don't know, right?

anyone with any information, please step forward.

best,
peter

------------------

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:


And I'm sorry Alex, but I just don't see how the fact that most Americans are perhaps a little too materialistic, makes it somehow OK for someone to mass-murder our innocent citizens.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's a bit of a stretch in connecting the dots. And you start from the wrong point. It isn't the American Citizen who is too materialistic, it's our corporations who don't understand when enough is enough.

A big difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:


You lefties are just using this as a convenient excuse (as usual) to blame the US for anything that is wrong anywhere, even though it's totally out of context with the real reasons for any of this.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You lefties????

You fail to acknowledge that in this country, if the economy is going good, just shut-up and make your money tends to be the thought of the day...If times are bad, then don't rock the boat, just show your loyalty and patriotism.

What is the point of freedom of speech if no one listens, or cares?

We commit paper violence in this country on par with physical violence commited by "less sophisticated" countries.

Somehow, paper violence is deemed more "civilized". Charles Keating embezzels 100 million dollars from his retired banking customers with fraudulent money-market offers, then gets out of prison after two or three years on stupid legalese technicalities.

Meanwhile, once these retired investors realized they would never get back their life savings, some committed suicide instead of enjoying their retirement years devoid of their life savings.

But a street "thug" can get 5 years for a one on one crime.

This is "civilized"???

No, it's rule of stupid law. Which in our country, we have perfected.

Then we go around acting like we are more civilized than third world countries because our acts of paper violence are surreptitious in nature and less overt than bopping someone over the head.

Both are evil, plain and simple.

Funny how the people who complained about things that were wrong in this country BEFORE Sept.11 get clumped into the terrorist sympathizer group.

It makes you wonder if the big whigs who run this country are feeling guilty that if they had listened to complaints from their own citizens a little more closely, BEFORE SEPT. 11th, perhaps our standing in the world would be more revered.

Naw, that would mean us "lefties" really had a point with our pre-Sept. 11 complaining.

We could never concede that point, now could we.



------------------
Alex

[Dominic3]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crimsonson:
[B]MATTIAS I AGREE WITH 100%
"Nothing is BLACK and WHITE!! NOthing".

Crimsonson, when it comes to the issue of ethics, freedom IS BLACK OR WHITE:

Either you believe in voluntary relationships between men, or you believe in the initiation of physical coercion.

Either you believe that a man's life belongs to him and it is his right to pursue his own happiness, or you don't.

Either you believe in free speech or you believe it is morally acceptable to supress free speech.

Either you believe in individualism, or you belive that the individual should be subordinated to "god" or "the state" or "one's Race".

Either you believe in private property rights or you believe it is morally acceptable to deny such rights and live off the efforts of others by force (socialism).

It is as simple as that -
Voluntary relationships between men (freedom) or the initiation of physical force.
One side embraces individual rights and the other does not. One side is right and the other is wrong but the middle is always evil.




[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited October 13, 2001).]

[redrice]

dominic writes:

"Either you believe in private property rights or you believe it is morally acceptable to deny such rights and live off the efforts of others by force (socialism)."

well, no, i'm afraid it's a lot more complex than that. (the same goes for your other points.)

private property is not a simple, straightforward concept; and in many societies which have never heard of communism, it is either meaningless, or means something quite different from what it means to us.

in many societies there is no private property in land, for instance. you can own a tea pot, or a sheep. but you and your family 'belong' to the land, not vice versa, and the land cannot be sold or bought. (that's why families are usually named after houses or places, and not vice versa).

this was true over most of europe, as throughout most of the third world, for most of history. individuals and families might own personal property, animals, corn, but not the land they grew on or grazed them on.

and in nomadic societies, the whole idea of ownership is diametrically opposed to ours, because the further you travelled each year, the more of a liability possessions would become.

in all these societies, the security which we seek through money was provided by complex traditions of mutual responsibility and hospitality.

what we call 'development' is simply the attempt by the most technologically powerful modern societies, which have long since destroyed their own social fabric, to destroy these complex social traditions elsewhere, so as to make other people as dependent upon money to satisfy their needs as we are ourselves.

and money is just a symbolic shorthand for the fact that in our society, we all accept (though we do not all agree) that only certain people should have the power to obtain enough of something, whenever there is not enough of the thing in question to go round.

you seem incapable of imagining that rational people can ever put the common good before their own. or that one could ever reasonably expect them to give up their own silly little private ambitions, just for a moment, and think about what their egotism is doing to the world - and what their kind of life is doing to others.

we hear a lot in the west about freedom. but we don't hear much about justice, until it's time to go and bloody someone else's nose. perhaps that's why islam is so much more attractive to much of the world than our over-sold and over-priced post-christian-atheism.

peter

------------------

[Dominic3]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrice:
"well, no, i'm afraid it's a lot more complex than that. (the same goes for your other points".

Ok Peter, then answer me this, if a man does not have the right to keep what he earns by his own efforts, what then is the purpose of his life? service to "others" as the sole justification to his existence? Slavery?

There is no rational defence for choosing a society based on the initiation of force over a free society which upholds the absence of physical coercion.

No one has the RIGHT to initiate the use of force against some one else for what ever reason....unless your are a dictator Peter.

Look around the world , this concept of a morality based upon physical force is precisely why the world is a twisted mess.

Redrice said "you seem incapable of imagining that rational people can ever put the common good before their own".

I beleive in a benevolent world where people act benevolently by personal choice, not by government force.
I reject the socialist concept which enslaves the population and sacrifices one person for the financial benefit of another.

Redrice said,"one could ever reasonably expect them to give up their own silly little private ambitions, just for a moment, and think about what their egotism is doing to the world"

Why should anyone do what YOU want by surrendering that which they value ( their "silly little ambitions) in favour of that which they do not value?

This morality of sacrifice that you advocate, the advantage to one at the expense of another, is at the heart of human malevolent behaviour.

I will say one last time - the political defintion of a "free society" is the absence of physical coercion - freedom means the absence of the initiation of physical force - the freedom to pursue ones own happiness, neither at the expense of yourself nor at the expense of others.



[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited October 13, 2001).]

[Alex]

Freedom.

Many of us are using this word, Freely.

I question the idea that we are truly free in the U.S. The Bottom line is we are free to create many products and services in the U.S., but these are products and services that MUST be consumed by others.

In other parts of the world, you are free to "eeke" out a living for yourself and your family on a plot of land.

Goods and Services are traded on a much more localized level. Goods and Services where the creator is not one of the locals isn't normal. They have lived "mano a mano", the people know each other, and they know personally know the makers of the goods and services they purchase or barter for.

Our whole capitalistic structure is designed to sell our products to people we will never meet.

This two systems will inevitably clash as we in America push for a global economy.

What we call freedom, others call invasive, because our products and services do invade their land and culture.

Meanwhile, we SEVERELY limit what comes into this country in the form of stories from other countries. What kind of freedom is that?




------------------
Alex

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:

In other parts of the world, you are free to "eeke" out a living for yourself and your family on a plot of land.

.......

Meanwhile, we SEVERELY limit what comes into this country in the form of stories from other countries. What kind of freedom is that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same freedom that lets you CHOOSE to pay for your editing equipment on credit cards at an inflated percentage rate. The same freedom that lets you CHOOSE which editing equipment you buy, never mind that none is made in the U.S. The same freedom that lets you CHOOSE to be an editor instead of a dirt farmer. The same freedom that lets you CHOOSE to 'eeke' out a living in your choosen profession. And, most importantly, the same freedom that lets you CHOOSE which words are best to express yourself in this forum without fear of government reprisal for being critical of your homeland. The very fact that you can publicly ask the question,"What kind of freedom is that?" only demonstrates the irony of your position.

Roger

[digvid]

redrice -

First of all, I don't think many Americans see the UK as "their poodle." If people in the UK see it that way, it's their problem.

Second, America would love to have freed the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but the other Arab nations would not allow us to do this. The Kurds had nothing to lose by taking our side, because Saddam attempted genocide against them even before we invaded Iraq in 1991. We are still protecting the Kurds that live in UN controlled parts of Iraq.

There is another thing I would like to say (not directed at redrice--just something I want to say). I've heard a lot of Americans and others say that partial blame for the Sept. 11 attacks lies with America due to its support of Israel and lack of support for the Palestinians. Please take a look at the timeline below:

1880 - sparsely populated area (ruled by Turks) that is now Israel and Jordan populated by Zionist settlers. These settlements attracted more people, both Jews and Arabs.

1917 - UN takes over management of "Palestine" area, to be overseen by Britain

1922 - Britain divides "Palestine" into two districts--"Western Palestine" and "Transjordan." Jews are not allowed to take up residence in Transjordan, although Arabs are allowed in Western Palestine, which consists of 22% of the original area of Palestine.

1946 - Transjordan is given independence and declared a "Palestine-Arab" state.

1947 - Arabs object to independence of Western Palestine, so UN divides it further into Jewish and Arab sections. 75% of land given to Jews is arid desert.

1948 - Western Palestine declares independence as "Israel". Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq immediately invade. Jordan captures the "West Bank" of the Jordan River and eastern Jerusalem, Egypt takes the Gaza Strip and southern Jerusalem, but Israel survives. Arab leaders tell Arabs in Israel that if they leave, Israel can be destroyed and the land returned to Arabs. Despite pleas from Israeli prime minister, 720,000 Arabs leave for Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq (most go to Jordan). Instead of integrating these people into their societies, Arab leaders confine them to refugee camps, where many remain today. Arab peoples remaining in Israel retained Israeli citizenship and full legal rights.

1949 - Jordan annexes Judea and Samaria

1956 - Egypt seizes the Suez Canal, built by the international community and declares ownership. They also blockade the main Israeli port city. Israel attacks and captures the Sinai Peninsula.

1957 - Israel withdraws completely from the Sinai Peninsula, to be replaced by UN peacekeepers. Egypt allows all international ships to pass through Suez Canal except Israeli ships.

1966 - Egypt invades the Sinai, expelling UN peacekeepers. Syria begins shelling of Israeli villages from the Golan Heights. Egypt again blockades Israel.

1967 - Israel attacks and takes Judea and Samaria from Jordan. Also pushes Syrians from the Golan Heights and retakes the Sinai.

1973 - Egypt and Syria attack on Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur. Egypt invades the Sinai, and Syria the Golan Heights.

1982 - Israel returns Sinai to Egypt

Note also that "zionism", or the expression of the desire to create a Jewish state, was outlawed and punished by death in some Arab countries (such as Iraq) *before* the creation of Israel in 1948.

Now, this timeline is obviously written from the standpoint of someone who is sympathetic to Israel. My point is this though: there are two sides to every story, and if you look at history from this standpoint, you can see exactly why Israel does what it does and why America supports them.

The people that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks did not do it because of religion. After all, look at where they spent their time in the two days leading up to the attacks: many were spotting in bars drinking alcohol (even a single sip is forbidden for Muslims) and some in a strip bar. I think they did it because they come from nations with corrupt leaders who take all the money that comes into their countries. They have leaders (political and religious) that incite their people to hatred and violence.

It seems to me that many Arabs are bigots who hate Jews because of their race, and they hate anyone who supports them. A prime example of this is what happened immediately following Sept. 11. Every known Arab news agency began to circulate fabricated stories about how Ariel Sharon was supposed to be in New York but mysteriously cancelled before Sept. 11, and how 4000 Jews failed to show up for work that day in the Twin Towers. They claimed that not a single Jew died in the attacks. They also claimed that the Israeli intelligence agency carried out the attacks to drum up anti-Arab sentiment in the US. Many Arab-Americans even latched onto these ideas, and they were widely accepted as fact in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. Of course, this is total BS. In fact, hundreds of Jews died in the twin towers, and many of the fire-fighters that died rescuing other people were Jews as well. The quick acceptance of these wild stories demonstrates the racial bias so many Arabs have against Jews.

Many Arabs seem to blame America for all the problems they have in their countries. Despite claims to the contrary, America is not "propping up" any regime in the Middle-East. There is currently no government in any Middle-Eastern country that was installed by the United States. We have supported some dictatorial governments there (such as the Shah's in Iran), but we generally tend to support the lesser of the evils. After all, look at what the Iranians put in place after the Shah left. The government they have now is more oppressive and brutal than the Shah's.

America has certainly made mistakes in its foreign policy, but so has every nation. We in no way deserved the attacks on innocent civilians that took place on Sept. 11. And anyone that tries to make any connections between the Sept. 11 criminal act and America's foreign policy should keep their mouth shut and save their arguments for a more appropriate time, i.e., after victims' families have time to grieve, etc.

Sorry about the lengthy post (this has to be the longest I've ever written) but I had to say my piece!

- digvid

------------------

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by digvid:
redrice -


America has certainly made mistakes in its foreign policy, but so has every nation. We in no way deserved the attacks on innocent civilians that took place on Sept. 11. And anyone that tries to make any connections between the Sept. 11 criminal act and America's foreign policy should keep their mouth shut and save their arguments for a more appropriate time, i.e., after victims' families have time to grieve, etc.

- digvid
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the catch-22. When times are good, people wonder why should anyone complain, and they pay very little attention and even less time to a "cause", when times are bad, just shut-up and tow the line.




------------------
Alex