Tom Holland’s new film about ISIS really pro-ISIS because it says ISIS is Islamic which will make Muslims join it

Okay, it’s a pile of boilerplate, buzz-word-filled word-salady cr*p typed by an inadequately-literate “journalist”, but it’s been making the rounds. Read the whole thing, I’ve only pinpointed a portion of the stupid.

(By the way, I’m not harping on the grammar and syntax purely because I’m a bitch. This sort of writing is intended to convey meaning, but not through things as solid as sentence structure. You aren’t really supposed to read it. You’re supposed to glance at the word salad and intuit that it’s the sort of stuff that you can’t articulate but that you definitely approve of. Zero ideas, all attitude.)

‘Last night’s Channel 4 polemic, “The Origins of Violence”, had the potential to be a fascinating dive into a deeply important topic; how Islamic is the Islamic State (Daesh)?

…anyone with a Wikipedia-level knowledge of Islam agreed that setting people on fire or drowning them in cages hasn’t much to do with a religion which is avowedly peaceful [“Avowedly peaceful”, forsooth. – Ed]. Indeed, anyone who wanted to make the opposite case more had to explain why so few Muslims were violent – if Islam itself was the problem.

….Holland’s response, which mixes a simplistic populism [I keep hearing that word all of a sudden. – Ed.] with wild irrelevancies, speaks to the fundamental inability [it’s a fundamental inability. Not just the regular kind. – Ed] of so many Western intellectuals to view the world in nothing [you mean “anything’] less than stark apocalyptic terms [I’m old enough to remember when the cool word was “manichean”. – Ed], in clashes of civilisations and religions, in centuries-long sweeps of superficial but (sic) ultimately unsatisfying analyses.

This brand of political analysis – often made by the more well-heeled of the Western intelligentsia, ritually [“ritually”? Are you trying to say “routinely”? – Ed.] ignores the material impact (sic?) and immense frustrations that inequality, under-employment, public corruption and lack of security can have on life in Muslim countries. [See, “under-employment” doesn’t “have” frustrations “on” things. And “life” can’t feel “frustrated” (AFAIK). Sue your teachers. – Ed]

It isn’t all about Islam – sometimes, it’s about issues so mundane as housing, petrol prices, schooling or universities. [I once ran off half-way round the world to join a rape/murder/torture cult because gas prices were too high. Long story. – Ed] In fact, it’s far more often about that. One can focus on their extreme ideology, which is interesting in a parlour room [I didn’t realize these guys were sitting around shooting the breeze in a parlour room, Alistair. Do tell. – Ed.] sense – or you can focus on stopping the bombs going off, and the genocides Holland rightly seems concerned about – by addressing legitimate grievances first and draining the extremists of their recruitment pools. [Once again, in something resembling English. – Ed]

A white [Eeewwww! – Ed] Christian man [They’d be more receptive to a woman? Maybe a lesbian? – Ed] denigrating well over a billion Muslims is not going to do that. Holland should know – the last time he made a film about his views on Islam, called “Islam: The Untold Story”, it drew a staggering 1,200 very justified complaints.

Holland, no doubt with the best of intentions, is helping Daesh get what they want.

Share
  • tom_billesley

    This sort of writing is intended to convey meaning.
    No longer. Now it’s intended to convey feelings.

  • J. C.

    I thought Tom Holland was currently filming the next Avengers movie…???

    *Nevermind. Different Tom Holland… 😉

  • H

    Remind me never to get on that editor’s bad side 🙂 Reading the comments was a little discouraging – “Holland’s views are essentially no different from Daesh” ( the commenter does not trouble himself to explain how the two sets of views are similar, however)”; then there’s the old “well others did it so it’s alright” argument (Thomas Jefferson raped a black slave girl repeatedly, according to one commenter, who was trying to imply, I suppose, that therefore Mo’s actions were acceptable or normal. I guess that I missed those quote from Jefferson where he claimed to be the perfect man and worthy of emulation.)

    Anyway, despite the rather discouraging comments, I’m starting to get a sense that there is a slight shift occurring in these sorts of discussions – the apologists for and defenders of the religion of peace are just that – defenders, and on the defensive, more than was previously the case. Just a general sense I’m getting from reading these sorts of articles and the corresponding comments: I hope it’s accurate.

  • Tokenn

    Military action is fine, but Islam has to be attacked _ideologically_….its history exposed, the absurdities of its religious/philosophical doctrines and the viciousness of Sharia throughout history until the present day. Muslims need to be convinced that their sacrifices and privations and martyrdom is for a lie…