Wow, the film makers Heineman and McNally are total pieces of shit. They were warned several times that people would be killed if they didn’t blur their faces. Heineman and McNally said it would be fine, then said no one ever warned them, then said it’s normal to show faces, then said it’s really the governments fault, not theirs.
Heineman and McNally are responsible for this person’s death, and are too cowardly to admit it.
Yup that’s how you never ever get future work as all potential victims are gonna be too scared now to come forth for any kind of reveal. They didn’t deserve an award for just manipulating and then outing vulnerable people.
Jihadists are a plague on this planet.
Religion is a plague on this planet
Violent ones, yeah
Are there peaceful Jihadists?
I’m not Muslim, but I have a couple (well, two) friends who are, and they talk about Jihad like their struggle to be a better person. Like quitting booze or pop.
I won’t pretend to know all the intricacies, but I know for a fact that it isn’t just about terrorism.
I wouldn’t call them “jihadists” though. I feel like that implies a pretty high degree of fanaticism.
I did some searching and I can see that. The Wikipedia page is pretty clear on the distinction between Jihadists and jihad. I wasn’t aware that that the former is so closely associated with violence/aggression/domination
Yeah, the English phrase would be like “following God’s light”
Anyone living life by their book can be considered a jihadist, though in Islam it’s reserved for monotheists
Jihad is defined as “a struggle or fight against the enemies of islam.”
A jihadist is defined as “a person who advocates or takes part in a jihad.”
Im not sure why you’re trying to muddy the waters here.
Unless youre trying insinuate that every muslim living by their books creed is meant to engage the enemies of islam, which is another problematic stance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
Here you go
Thats a very interesting article, thank you!
Almost as if the same word can mean multiple different things
The guy was crazy for appearing in the documentary without a mask in the first place.
Did he really think the empire trying to subjugate his people was going to protect him once he outlived his usefulness?
Maybe the empire that invaded his country should have done more to protect him once he outlived their usefulness.
Why would you expect such an empire to help him once he was of no further use?
Like if they wanted to help people like him, they wouldn’t be there in the first place, let alone funding the very worst warlords, protecting the drug trade, locking people up in blacksites and torturing them, protecting Blackwater and others from prosecution for their crimes, etc.
You have to be really, really fucking evil for people to support the Taliban over you.
I expect everyone to get the people who help them into a safe place. Sadly, my expectations are usually not realized.
Did the film makers advised him to wear a mask and did he actively decide not to?
Otherwise, I tend to blame the film makers still, at least partly.
I’m gonna go ahead and blame the person that actually killed him.
Do you blame a scorpion for stinging someone who picks it up?
deleted by creator
The point is that it has predictable behavior.
You can look at every military action the US has taken since WWII to see the same behavior.
I am not excusing the US’s behavior, I’m just saying it’s wild that he could look at Bagram and the black sites or the weddings, hospitals, and ambulances the Americans bombed, and not see the only difference between him and the other victims is that he is currently useful.
Ah, yes. The renowned unit of elite war fighters, the Green Beets.
