Archived copy:
The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
91–100 of 238 posts
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#92“More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary. A majority had not seen it.” Just a reminder that the far ends of the political spectrum loop back and connect.
One doesn't need seeing the film to notice the racism in the title. The title could be "terrorist rehab", but it now looks like jihad is bad per se, while jihad for Muslims can mean anything from "struggle against self ego" to "defend country from invasion". All Muslim scholars denounce terrorism and yet she chose "jihad" in the title.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#93It sounds like an IRL example of "read the title and didn't read the article, left my angry comment"
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#94I don't understand how the national review writer could write this and not realize the documentary was unethical. Why is "carceral system" in scare quotes? By their own description the facility obviously meets the definition.
Yes, it's impossible to know for sure to what extent and how the men might have been threatened. That doesn't mean you throw up your hands and say "whatever, I now have no moral obligations".
> The accusation was rooted in the question of free consent: Even if the men signed release forms — which they did — they might have done so only because they were under the control of a “carceral system.” If that were true, though, it could be equally true that the men were forced to criticize the film and affirm the claims in CAGE’s letter. Either way, the idea that Smaker had coerced her subjects into cooperating and put them at risk became a doc-world trope that was impossible to disprove, because, by order of the Saudi state, the men were prohibited from communicating with anyone outside the country without permission.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#95“More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary. A majority had not seen it.” Just a reminder that the far ends of the political spectrum loop back and connect.
One doesn't need seeing the film to notice the racism in the title. The title could be "terrorist rehab", but it now looks like jihad is bad per se, while jihad for Muslims can mean anything from "struggle against self ego" to "defend country from invasion". All Muslim scholars denounce terrorism and yet she chose "jihad" in the title.
The article mentions that "jihad rehab" is the name of the Saudi program the subjects of the documentary are enrolled in. She didn't chose "jihad", she chose "jihad rehab".
"Terrorist rehab" would be quite an ill-suited name. There is no indication that the men in the documentary ever were terrorists, aside from one of them.
You could have suggested "Guantanamo rehab". That would have better qualified the men in the film than "terrorists". Even then I think it's unfair to call racist her decision to name the film after that Saudi program.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#96>In fact, Smaker’s film is nothing less than a nearly two-hour indictment of America’s deeply shameful experiment with unlawful imprisonment. Just absolutely wild to read this sentence in the National Review of all places.
The National Review is one of the publications I respect most. It's rare to see someone criticize their own side.
Let’s be serious here.
The National Review was a loud mouthpiece for the politicians promoting the war on terror, including the use of enhanced-interrogation-teqniues-don’t-call-it-torture. A piece of that national shame is all theirs.
I guess it’s nice they don’t seem to support it anymore, but it looks more like a shift of convenience to me — the better to stroke the current conservative narrative to redefine “free speech” so as to cast speech they dislike as “cancellation”, that it can be repressed while still claiming to own the moral high-ground.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#97> The “authorship” or “inclusion” principle, as this is known, insists that filmmakers share the ethnic and cultural identity of their subjects. According to these standards, not only are outsiders incapable of understanding the experiences of others, they don’t even have the right to try; to do otherwise would be to take an opportunity away from a better-qualified person of color. As a white American, Smaker would b…
I disagree with this principle.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#98“More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary. A majority had not seen it.” Just a reminder that the far ends of the political spectrum loop back and connect.
This is all reminiscent of the 80s and 90s Christian right groups picketing outside of Rock and Roll concerts demanding that Marilyn Manson be forbidden from playing in their town because of his corrupting influence on the youth, that his music was going to lead to real physical harm. Same with dungeons and dragons before that. Had any of them ever listened to that music? Ever played a D&D session? Nope. It's interes…
> This is all reminiscent of the 80s and 90s Christian right groups picketing outside of Rock and Roll concerts
The PMRC was an absolutely bipartisan effort. Tipper Gore was a founding member, and probably the most prominent person amongst their leadership. Probably a good idea to try and project your biases onto history a little less.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this from another article or did you change the quote? The article says "...signed by over 200 filmmakers, many of whom had never seen the film"
The original copy referencing 230 filmmakers appears in the NY Times in September.
I was more interested in "many" vs "majority". Those mean very different things.
Re: The Cancellation of ‘Jihad Rehab’
#100Is anyone aware of a Marxist view of 9/11 and the WOT?
Invasion on Afghanistan rendered 9/11 relatively insignificant, except as a trigger - a Franz Ferdinand kind of event.
I suspect Marxist view of that is similar to their view on other cases of US destroying entire regions just to win the next elections.