Honestly, it's an adaptation for Western audiences. Of course the lead is going to be white. I'm more concerned the subject material is inevitably going to be dumbed down.

It's that balance between decent people and arseholes - it's always favourable to the arseholes.

In politics or any serious consideration, if an opportunist cheats there will be a small scandal - but it's to be expected of them, time passes and eventually they're credited for their ingenuity and resourcefulness. If a decent person cheats once, it can be held against them forever, a lifelong symbol of moral bankruptcy.

That's the difference between an arsehole and a decent person. Both types of people have some kind of moral balance, with "good" on one side of the see-saw and "bad" on the other side. The problem is, arseholes move the pivot closer to the "good" side when they're talking about someone virtuous - any bad counts double.

Before i get accused of insulting some group or other, the left and right and centre all have arseholes, it applies to every group. If someone wants to say that I'm biased, and "arseholes" say the exact same thing about me, only i'm the arsehole. Well i can certainly consider that, but if we were to search through all news items in the western world to see how the 'virtuous' are held to account compared to the 'non-virtuous', does anyone doubt which way that would go? For whatever agreed definition of virtuous.

I think it's about time the left started fighting dirty, personally. Go ahead and punch a nazi - i won't criticise you for violence. The little bastard wouldn't care if one of his mates punched me.

If something bad happens to them, they want you to moralise. If something bad happens to you, lol you're a fucking snowflake.

@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

@transmorpher
i would say we disagree but i cant even say that.
you didn't counter ANYTHING i said,you just accused me of being dishonest.

which has been pretty much your position this entire thread.i thought i was doing you a solid by laying down some history,which helps explain some facets of radical islam.

notice my wording:facets.

do you realize that i taught comparative religion and cultural religious history?
do you realize just how foolish you appear to me right now?

you want to counter my argument....by not countering my argument,and implying i am being dishonest.

ok sweetheart,
i think i see the problem here.
YOU are seeing the dynamic through a singular lens.

you want to ignore the historical implications and simply focus on islam itself?
ok,that's fine.
i find it stupid,short sighted and incredibly biased,but whatever..

yoooou have an agenda to get to don't ya?

ok.
then let us just strip the dynamic of ALL historical implications and focus solely on islam itself.
(which is why you mentioned Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens )
you clever clever boy...
i see what you did there../ruffles hair.
you are SO adorable when you are being myopic and lazy!

so what would you like to discuss?
how islam is in desperate need of a reformation?
or maybe how the original intent of islam from a spiritual perspective was hi-jacked by his cousins and turned into a political conquest machine,that subjugated ...

you know what?
why am i bothering?
you have revealed yourself to be a condescending,sanctimonious know-nothing.who read a couple of books and thinks he 'get's it".

no dude..you read sam harris.

look man,
i am not here defending islam,because as religions go,islam is kinda shit.
but to ignore how neoliberalism and american interventionism have amplified,and worsened and already crappy situation.

that's not even intellectually dishonest.
that is just plain lazy.

whats next?
you gonna do some 'thought experiments" and try to argue that at least america's "intentions" were nobel?

you WERE! weren't you!!

and this little revisionist nugget "Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention."

oooh really?
because,unlike YOU,i actually know the history of that region.
so if you want we can compare how some cities and countries were considered "progressive" and even "liberal",and even some (granted,only a few) that were considered "secular" *gasp*.

how about this,instead of me repeatedly taking you to the woodshed to give ya some of that "learnin",how about you just go look up the history of kabul,afghanistan.

that's it.just one city.

and then come back and tell me that neoliberalism,colonialism and good old fashioned empire building hasn't been a major force in the rise in fundamentalism and radicalization in the middle east.

it looks like you really ARE going to make go all the way back to the dark ages!

and dude..seriously..hitchens ROCKED,but sam harris?
no..juuust no.
i don't do apologists as a counter argument.

edit:i will say that i agree with this "There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward."

you mean that islam may need a reformation?
*gasps*/clasps hands to face.
didn't i fucking already SAY that?

ah well,foiled by my pedantic ways.

And western intervention made those problems exponentially worse and directed their anger outwards towards us.

Ignoring the many factors that historically and consistently radicalized people from many religions to demonize one is the right being dishonest.

Islam has a problem. It's the same problem all religion has, it's easily abused to foster hatred of non/incorrect believers and violence towards them. It just happens that this problem is most pronounced in Islam today. That has not been the case for much of history, including recent history.

Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention.

Again, this is the left being dishonest. Please stop doing it, you're only making things worse for the refugees by fueling the far right.

There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward.

EDIT: Everything you've said has been rebutted by Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens and so on.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

I think the fact that they're Japanese has a *lot* to do with how this played out. I'm not going to claim to be any sort of cultural expert, but I know in general that Japanese culture is wildly different from what we're used to in more Western nations. Pride is huge, as is suppressing emotion. Could easily see this having started as sulking and just continuing out of a sheer inability to admit to a mistake (even indirectly). The wife likely could have talked to him about it and gotten him to speak, but she wouldn't want to hurt his pride or feel as though she's accusing him of anything negative. Don't see anything like this happening in damn near any other society on Earth.

This isn't one of those things you can discuss in isolation. There does exist the problem of violent criminals that refuse to listen to any and all authority. When you have free citizen that murders somebody, if you are lucky enough to catch and convict them they go to jail. Some of these folks continue to violently attack other inmates. Some even continue to violent attack the prison guards when they come in to try and stop that. There comes a point where the question is what to we do? Just how many resources do we expend working with individuals hell bent on abusing the rights and bodies of everyone else around them? Western legal systems have already ruled any form of punishment through physical force as out of the question, so self preservation isn't a motivation. There exist scenarios where the only option left for protecting people from an individual is isolation.

It's good to do our best to treat even the worst elements of society with the highest standard possible. The trouble is in practice failing to punish certain actions with imprisonment or isolation leads to predictable abuse of otherwise innocent bystanders.

What I find interesting is that modern manga evolved post WW2 and took a lot of influence from American comics brought to Japan by GIs . Characters in manga often don't really look asian, their faces are, if anything, exaggerations of western beauty ideals. If you did see flatter faces and almond shaped eyes it was often the face of a villain or fool. That said, Motoko is unquestionably Japanese, I think its a shame they didn't cast an Asian actress for the roll... but I guess in the end this is a western movie, made predominantly by westerners in English. It's cultural appropriation. Is it theft or flattery? Does Ghost in the Shell belong first to the Japanese, or does it belong as much to its western fans?

I just hope it doesn't suck

also Scarlett is nice to look at regardless.

Quote from the YT comments I found myself agreeing with:

"Here's a few things the US forces aren't doing: Burning people alive for witchcraft, keeping sex slaves, beheading journalists, kidnapping people for ransom, forcing 1/2 of the population to cover their bodies and effectively live in bags, denying education to women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, burying people so only their head is exposed and stoning them for adultery, suicide bombing their own children to get to one US soldier, denying that the holocaust existed, and the list goes on. All of the horrible things I've listed are however practiced by the people that the US, and allied nations are fighting. So my questions are:1. Why are we holding the US army to such a high moral standard, yet we give a free pass to enemies, who are doing far, far, far worse, with the only thing stopping them from doing even worse being that they aren't as well equipped or trained as the US armed forces. If we are appalled at what the allied armies are doing, then we should be doubly appalled at what the other side is doing. Otherwise we have a double standard. 2.Why did this video single out the US? When quite a lot of the western world is involved in these conflicts. This is why I stopped being a leftie. Because the left is regressing. The leftists are targeting the high end of morality instead of trying to establishing a baseline of ethical behavior which to work from."

The Dreadful Chronology of Gaddafi’s Murder

"Much has been written about the catastrophe visited upon Libya following the murderous attack by France and the US—400,000 people driven from their homes, an endless cycle of terror and reprisal, the creation of yet another failed state in the wake of a US foreign policy initiative. But the real damage was done to Africa itself, for had Gaddafi’s proposal for a trans-African banking system reached fruition, that unhappy continent for the first time in centuries would have had true freedom and real independence within its grasp, a circumstance the Western powers could not abide. Freedom and justice were never part of the West’s agenda."

Speaking only to Assad's motivation or provocation, Assad like his father needs none save preservation of his power.

I had a friend formerly of the Syrian special forces in the 80's who informed me that no SF units were allow within 250 miles of the capital at that time owing to the wiping out of the population of a small city with nerve gas. Assad is well and western educated but of the same cloth as his father.

It is easily referenced on the Net.

The western world had no right to go intervening in Syria's internal affairs in the first place. Guns and mercenaries were flooding in what was Assad supposed to do about it? What about those chemical weapons, notice we don't use that as a reason for our meddling anymore? It's because we now know that it was actually rebels on our side who used them and they were supplied by a Saudi prince. We constantly try to imply is was Assad but in fact we knew it was our side almost from day one. Whats the real reason for all this mess? Well it's oil of course. Qatar wanted to build oil pipelines in Syria and Assad wanted to do a deal with the Iranians and Russians instead, so we decided to give him and his people the international equivalent of a punishment beating. The cold war is over? Pull the other one.

Lol, you just quoted Russia Today, the Western arm of the Russian propaganda machine. Of course they want to paint their histrionic theatrics as 'scaring' the West. How did that turn out? (hint: aside from Russia still owning Crimea, which apparently nobody can do anything about, everything is fine.)

Of course, in keeping up his love of and commitment to histrionic theatrics, Trump praises Putin. Whadda guy.