Timbuktu: The Unseen View on Jihad
The film Timbuktu provides an alternative viewpoint to the standard western portrayal of Jihadists. Sissako provides a humanizing look into the life and struggles of Malians. The movie embraces many concepts that would otherwise be foreign to westerners. The people depicted in the movie are often dehumanized through our media and streams of information. Through this constant barrage of negative information, these extremists and the people under their control are almost never viewed with tolerence. We as Americans often overlook the fact that the middle east is filled with people who have everyday relationships, struggles, and lives. This movie helps shed light on the mostly unseen, intricate lives of these
…show more content…
The Jihadists think and fully understand their choices before they make them. Their free will is just as strong as any of ours. The film does a fantastic job demonstrating how these jihadists view themselves as justly as we do. That is one of the concepts spread throughout, while we might believe that we are fighting an evil plague of jihadists, they believe the exact same thing about us. In Nick Pinkerton’s review of Timbuktu, he cites the lack of violence portrayed as a way for Sissako to encourage the viewer to humanize the jihadists and understand the internal weight they carry (Pinkerton 87-88). This also helps the viewer empathize and find similarities they share with the jihadists. While the cultures and locations might be a world's away, this movie helps bring out the human traits in these people. In Elisabeth Lequeret’s review of the film, she provides historical background and contextual information of the jihadists (Lequeret 67-68). She touches on the fact that the choices made are logical to the jihadists. The decisions made are rational and thought out. While many of the decisions and mindset are formed through internal struggles and unseen baggage, to them, the decisions seem just and …show more content…
The movie creates a succinct experience unlike none other. The blend of realism, acceptance, and masterful cinematography creates affinity between two incredibly different cultures. The movie helps humanize the jihadists without vilifying them, something which is almost impossible to see today. The movie makes it encouraging for the view to get process their own thoughts and feelings on jihadists without them being pushed on. Timbuktu makes no attempts to justify many of the terrible acts committed by the jihadists, instead it urges a different view and a open mind on the reasoning and history behind these people. The topic as a whole is very controversial and touchy due to many of the tragedies that have happened in recent years, however Timbuktu is able to deliver a clear, unbiased narrative of the everyday trials and tribulations of living in Jihadist occupied
The reason I picked this book is because I have always been curious about terrorism. Truthfully, I really didn’t expect the book to take the stance it did, which focused mainly on the religious implications of what influences people to commits acts of terror. I liked the fact that the book takes new angles in approaching the search for truth, by focusing on case studies and performing interviews with the people who have committed terrorist acts. This is like getting the insiders view of the inner workings and frame of mind people have before, during, and after they have unswervingly performed the acts of violence.
Contemporary studies of the Timurid dynasty in Iran and Central Asia have long been dominated by nationalist, sectarian and ideological agendas which typically present the empire of the Timurid as an exclusively Iranian phenomenon. This paper re-evaluates the political and religious interpretation through the authoritative and administrative methods in the midst of Timur and Shuh Rukh reign, how did they keep up their empire through the political results in Central Asia and Western Persia. This paper display’s Timur and Shuh Rukh as an independent model, in like manner with the capital cities and territories; my proposal for that is to illustrate an analysis of the circumstances that appear at the particular time. My investigation will merge
The documentary film, “The Children of Beslan,” gives a first-hand account by some of the children who survived the terrorist siege of their school in Beslan, Russia. On September 1, 2004 terrorist took over School No. 1 in the town of Beslan with demands that Russian forces leave Chechnya. The terrorist held over one thousand adults and children hostage for three days. The surviving children explain how their lives were forever changed by this tragic chain of events. The three day siege ended in a violent clash between the rebel extremists and Russian Military Forces which left one hundred seventy-one children and more than two hundred adults dead. In my opinion, this documentary film is a very good depiction of how terrorist use soft targets along with propaganda and violence to create an atmosphere of fear in an attempt to gain power and political control.
A week prior to my second deployment to Iraq, my friend took me to a San Diego movie theater to see Fahrenheit. The rest is history. Those two hours sent me on a twelve year journey. In many ways, Amir 's film documents those twelve years. In that way, the film was extraordinarily personal. The war in Iraq defined my late teenage years and early twenties, and antiwar activism has defined my life ever since. At this point, I wouldn 't have it any other way.
The daily bombings and attacks instill a sense of fear in the people and make them wonder if they’re ever truly safe. This film allowed me to examine my own life and look at it from a different perspective. I constantly find myself complaining about miniscule things that in the scheme of things aren’t even that bad. I feel in a way that I’m blind to the
...viewer recognizes that agencies, such as the CIA, are valuable in the War on Terror for the data collecting they’re involved in. On examining of the film, the movie’s setting, agencies involved, and the subject matter targeted, the appropriate historical and social themes were connected to the plot. The circumstances in the film depicting the aftermath of September 11th attacks and the U.S. government’s role in tracking Osama Bin Laden were realistic. After the 9/11 attacks, Americans felt that radicalized Islamic groups and their leaders that encouraged these followers to attack America were enemies to their country. Therefore, the film didn’t have to have a poster of Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden to be used as propaganda to make the point that the radicalized Islamic group was the enemy of the United States; this decision had already been made by the United States.
In the first scene we observe a Muslim man inside a firearm store, attempting to buy a gun. The owner is a white Caucasian male that presents a negative attitude towards the customer because of his Muslim background. This feeling triggers in the owner, negative attitudes based on the assimilation and stereotypes with the Muslim race. Being immediately associated with the Al Qaeda terrorist group, which was responsible for suicidal bombers that have killed thousand of Americans.
“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.
In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism is wrong, he defines what terrorism is, what causes terrorism, and what people believe terrorism to mean. With a working definition in place, Khatchadourian examines terrorism’s role in a just war and shows that terrorism is never just, even during war. With the assertion that terrorism, even during wartime is unjust, Khatchadourian analyzes the variations of innocence and non-innocence surrounding the victims of a terrorist attack. The analysis of innocence and non-innocence is accomplished through review of the principal of discrimination and the principal of proportion and how each relates to terrorism. From these philosophical and ethical standpoints, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism is unjust and wrong because of the way it groups and punishes the innocent with the guilty, not allowing the victim to properly respond to the charges against them. Finally, Khatchadourian looks at how terrorism is always wrong because of the way it denies a person their basic human rights. In examination of person’s human rights, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism specifically “violates its targets’ right to be treated as moral persons,” as it inflicts pain, suffering and death to those who are not deserving (298).
In the essay, the writer acknowledges the misunderstandings that come from media images by explaining the contrasts between these images and the teachings of the faith to support her claim that fear is the reason for this misconception. The conception that many people have of Muslims is that they are terrorists, anti-Semites, and fanatics. This conception exsists because television news and newspapers support that stereotype. The broadcast of such stereotypes encourages fear and accusations of the Islamic relegion's teachings. The writer explains that Islam teaches peace, tolerance, and equality. She further states that Muslims shown in the media have violated these teachings ...
While the movie was released after the event of 9/11, the film made a bold move to show equality. The movie portrayed the Christians and the Muslims being one of the same. Balian made a point to the people he was protecting during battle, that the Muslims where no better than the Christians who took Jerusalem from the Jews. The movie made the point that both the Christians and the Muslims were the same, looking for the same prize as one another. The only difference between the two was they were on different sides of the battle. The film showed how there can be differences in the multiple kinds of religions, yet on a simple, basic level, there are many familiar traits. It is important to come to the mindset of learning of the different cultures, and hold onto the humanity of treating others how one would want to be
This movie came out in 2003 meaning that it was being written and filmed soon after 9/11 and the start of the war on terror and these aspects can be seen in underlying qualities throughout the movie. The plot of the movie revolves around
The rise of terrorism and extremism in the Middle East during the time this piece was composed prompted Mohi-Ud Din to engage in a passionate argument about how these terrorists have ruined the image of Muslims. He explicitly highlights the main points of his argument by using transitional words such as firstly, secondly, and thirdly. He initiates his argument by proposing that the media’s one-sided focus on Muslim extremists prevent the viewers from recognizing that the majority of Muslims are not violent. Next, he debunks the stereotypes Americans have about Muslims and then he shifts his concern to how America’s political and military actions have exploited Muslim countries. He concludes his argument by explaining why Islam is not a threat to
certain area of freedom, thereby both acknowledging and protecting personhood. The terrorist can't show this type of respect. For if you have any basic rights at all, surely the right not to be killed or maimed for a terrorist cause is one of them” (4). Each human needs respect and their own rights and terrorism obliterates those two basic principles. Treating human lives as a means to an end is hardly the proper way to go around things, and that is one of the largest consequences of terro...
...ous and being there can raise concern. These political concerns relate closely with issues addressed in the film particularly with the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism. The senior Taliban leader Ahamd Shah depicts an accurate image of what members of the Taliban are like, which means killing any American who comes into their country.