[TimEricsson]

The people who named their son OBL are anti-national traitors.



Traitor this, traitor that.

They're idiots, nothing more.

[avaicavum]

Time to go nineteenth century British on their ass !!!

[Bromikka]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Surreal, indeed. We think Bush uses propaganda in America - no, Bush ain't got nothin' on radical Muslims. Everyone in America is at least aware of the opposing viewpoint, even if only as a nuisance.

But this... this is a worldview so completely and utterly devoid of facts, so thoroughly detached from reality... it's really rather stunning. I don't even want to call these people ignorant; they're just living in a completely different world. My thoughts exactly.

[Katoabralia]

Originally posted by aneeshm


In a sense, you're right - they are living in a world so divorced from reality that the idea of the Indian state may not mean much to them at all, much less the concept of being a traitor to it. No, I'm right because people need to do something more concrete than name their kid after a bad guy in order to be considered traitors in my books.

[AnriXuinriZ]

[DOWNLOADnowADOBEphotoSHOP]

Originally posted by Richelieu




Shut up, fool!

[robstamps]

Originally posted by Janaki

Shut up, fool!
I've been waiting to say that to Richelieu on Poly
I feel much better now.

[tousuarshatly]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Anywho.



Oh? What would make you think otherwise? I've just met to many American dumbasses.

[fruttomma]

I like your response to it, Aneeshm: naming your kid after a war criminal is pretty funny, unless you picked a war criminal who has committed crimes against Hindu Civilization.

Anyway, these people's image of Saddam is so divorced from the reality of his life that the name has little meaning. If they named their kids "Saint Nicholas," thinking of a fat old white guy in a red suit who rides around in the sky dropping toys down chimneys, it wouldn't really say anything about the ancient bishop of Asia Minor. Same rules apply here, IMO. If they had proverbs like "a kurd in a mass grave is worth ten running free over the sands," that would be genuinely icky.

[THOUTHCAW]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Oh yes. Americans are certainly victims of propaganda, too; I just don't think American propaganda is as good as the Islamic variety.

I wouldn't claim that Americans understand both sides of every issue or can see things from the other point of view; I'm merely saying that Americans are aware of the other point of view. Creationists know that evolutionists exist, even if they don't know a damn thing about evolution. Evolutionists know that creationists exist, even if they can't comprehend how someone could believe that stuff.

In general, Americans - wealthy and educated as they are - are inundated by enough media that they know other points of view exist, and know that things might not be exactly how they see things.

But random, poor villagers in a town with no electricity might not even be aware of the concept that they might not be right. They won't have seen any pictures of the United States, won't know anything about how its government operates, won't be getting hourly news reports on the web about casualty counts and vote tallies, won't be aware of the minority viewpoints in our country or the protests against Bush - none of these things are available to them. They have no tools with which to form a different worldview, and it's a shame.

Everyone in the United States at least has the opportunity to learn about the other side, even if their own willful ignorance prevents them from making the choice to do so. In many thoroughly destitute areas of the world, no such choice exists, and the only information coming into the village is Islamic propaganda. Media in Amerca is biased. It's generally news being presented by an American for Americans. It's inherently biased by the reporters American Education and views of life and society and value system. The views are also biased in how they perceive what they see/hear in the media by their own American value systems.

I agree that many villagers don't have the same tools as the average American to gather information at the same rate. And sure, they are certainly the victims of propaganda from extremists.

However, have lived in the third world and in the North America, I know from experience that people in the third world (educated or not) have much knowledge of what happens in the West. It might be received by word of mouth more so than via internet or TV but they actively try to keep themselves involved....not sure I find all that many American's doing the same wrt the third world.

That aside, the issue in most cases no so much that these people love Saddam Hussein. Often it's just that they don't appreciate the West impossing their values and culture on them. They love for Saddam is more about tell the Americans that they don't want American messing with their culture.

[MegaJIT]

Originally posted by Arrian




On the subject of Americans and our supposed inability to understand other worldviews - I think you may find that those of us here on Apolyton don't quite fit the stereotype. Even those of us who hold positions you likely vehemently disagree with, Janaki, are generally better informed than the (stereotypical) ignunt 'murican who can't find Iraq on a map.

-Arrian Oh no...you Poly guys are definitely not the average American. I have great respect for you folks. It's them regular Americans I got's issues with.

[BqTyG9eS]

Media is biased. Corrected. Everyone has bias, and everyone's media is biased. The key is to understand that and attempt to sort through it. One problem with American media is that it claims to be even-handed, or at least try to be even-handed (and I'm actually *not* talking about "fair and balanced" Fox).

In some countries, the bias is more open - the Brits, I find, are more clear about it. That can make it easier to interpret.

The real boon, IMO, is the internet. It allows one to get news from a variety of sources, including non-western ones. It also introduces even more disinformation, as we all know, but one can learn to weed out at least some of it.

A truely unbiased, culture-neutral news stream would be both nearly impossible to create and also be of limited use. It would simply report facts and quotations, without any analysis. Once you analyse something, you are likely bringing your own bias/culture into it.

-Arrian

[CO2490pL]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Err, I think I already tried to explain that part. It has to do with the fact that most countries simply don't have the overabundance of available information that us Americans have, especially non-Western countries. Probably not 'overabundance' but that doesn't mean they don't have enough to know that there is more than one perspective.

[RBJamez]

Originally posted by Janaki

That aside, the issue in most cases no so much that these people love Saddam Hussein. Often it's just that they don't appreciate the West impossing their values and culture on them. They love for Saddam is more about tell the Americans that they don't want American messing with their culture.
Since when did America start imposing her culture on Indian Muslims living in Bihari villages?

[ZZipZZipe]

Originally posted by Lorizael
*nod* You are correct. The rest of the world is not awash in ignorance, unaware of the brilliant beacon of knowledge America has to offer.

This tiny, poor, isolated village in India, however, probably is. These villagers are not the only once this debate is about. But I do appreciate the sarcasm.

[jokiruss]

Originally posted by Sava
Hey, did you guys know that from 1980-2004 the group that made the most use of suicide bombing as a tactic was the Tamil Tigers? And no, that's not the name of a sports team, they are a violent Marxist Hindu group doing all sorts of things in Sri Lanka.

Hinduism... the religion of peace. Sorry dear, I don't think the Tamil Tigers are a Hindu group. The majority of tamils in Sri-Lanka happen to be Hindu. The Tigers are not a religious organization.

[Qvqnubpj]

Originally posted by Janaki


Sorry dear, I don't think the Tamil Tigers are a Hindu group. The majority of tamils in Sri-Lanka happen to be Hindu. The Tigers are not a religious organization. I GOT ONE... let me reel him in

[baronaaba]

Originally posted by Janaki

Funny thing is, I'm not even Hindu.

[ionitiesk]

Funny thing is, I'm not even Hindu.

Or a "him"

[Kamepherype]

I should probably let this go, I know.

-Arrian