CH4 just finished (Britz)

TheCrow said:
Are they trying to encourage racial extremists?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The director was on Channel 4 news the other day defending his work. It seems he was trying to put the other point of view across so we can better understand the reasons behind people going to the extreme.
 
TheCrow said:
For or Against terrorists seems to be the only 2 views available. Is there more?

Is he saying he is pro terrorist?
Click to expand...

He didn't come across as being pro or anti terrorist. I think he understands that there are 2 sides to the argument, and he's trying to portray that on TV as a representation of his research.
 
Last edited:
Saw it and got a big lol from me for all the inaccuracies e.g. being filmed in India when claiming to be in Pakistan, the unprofessional behaviour and sandwich eating in a taped interview by the police etc. :)
 
Typical leftie C4 'don't have a clue' broadcasting!

You want good broadcasting via C4? 'Dead Man's Shoes' was on Film4 earlier!
 
For all the hype and advertising I thought that C4 may actually pull something out of the bag.

Unfortunately it turned out to be hours of misinformed claptrap wrapped up in a lovely CSI-esque shiny wrapper.

The director can defend his work all he wants - he wrote the damn thing so of course he'll defend it.
 
I've recorded it and I'm looking forward to seeing it this weekend.

I'm not sure how you can say that it's uninformed as I'm sure the director had loads of researchers working on the project and just because it doesn't conform to your view-point it doesn't make it wrong. As far as I'm aware the programme doesn't condone extremism but simply demonstrates that some of the ways we deal with extremism are counter-productive.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;10402284 said:
I've recorded it and I'm looking forward to seeing it this weekend.

I'm not sure how you can say that it's uninformed as I'm sure the director had loads of researchers working on the project and just because it doesn't conform to your view-point it doesn't make it wrong. As far as I'm aware the programme doesn't condone extremism but simply demonstrates that some of the ways we deal with extremism are counter-productive.
Click to expand...

:confused: You havent even seen it though? so why not do the sensible thing and watch it before commenting?

Tell me if you still hold that view after view the second part. the suicide bombers video should never have been shown as it was the defining memorable image of the program that sought to justify terrorism.
 
Superficial said:
:confused: You havent even seen it though? so why not do the sensible thing and watch it before commenting?
Click to expand...

I will, though just because I've not seen it yet that doesn't exclude me from having an opinion. I was just wondering how someone can label it as 'misinformed claptrap' without showing where the errors and mistakes are.

Superficial said:
:Tell me if you still hold that view after view the second part. the suicide bombers video should never have been shown as it was the defining memorable image of the program that sought to justify terrorism.
Click to expand...

If you are doing a double hander, showing both sides of the same coin, then surely to have to show how both sides justify their actions?

It will be interesting to see if I still hold the same opinion once I've watched it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom