OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"?

This is a part of our Cambodia forums to chat about anything Cambodia-related. This discussion forum is at the top of our site because it's usually the busiest part of the expat community chatter with random topics on just about everything, including expat life, Khmer politics, Cambodian blogs we have or have come across, or whatever else our members want to discuss. Whether you're an expatriate, tourist, Cambodian or random traveler just passing through South East Asia, you are welcome to talk about anything or start new topics yourselves.
Tim Linkinwater
Expatriate
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 10:42 pm
Reputation: 13

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by Tim Linkinwater » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:14 pm

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but proselytising is still a criminal offence here, right?
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by OrangeDragon » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:17 pm

Rain Dog wrote: I cannot recall a single Hollywood movie that shows Jewish people in a bad light. The closest I can think of is the movie about the Jewish Mob boss Meyer Lansky ---- and even that painted a picture at the end of a sympathetic tired old man finally "Going Home" to his "Promised Land" of Israel.

Meanwhile channel surf at any random point in time and it is almost impossible to NOT see a sneering, evil Arab, with a bad accent, or a bomb going off with the Islamic Call to prayer in the background. Multiply this factor x 10 if you are browsing any Rupert Murdoch owned media.
Are you kidding!?

Do you not remember Passion of the Christ? Which was called out heavily for being Anti-Semitic...
Munich showed Jews being murdered by Arabs, then justified the Arabs' actions.
User avatar
khmerinade
Expatriate
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 3:40 am
Reputation: 3
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by khmerinade » Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:35 pm

Tim Linkinwater wrote:Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but proselytising is still a criminal offence here, right?
So why do I have monks standing at my door waiting to pray for me in the mornings? Didn't anyone tell them it's a criminal offense?
horace
Expatriate
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 12:34 pm
Reputation: 0
Great Britain

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by horace » Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:44 pm

:facepalm: They are begging not proselytising
User avatar
khmerinade
Expatriate
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 3:40 am
Reputation: 3
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by khmerinade » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:19 pm

By definition, the monks certainly are.

proselytizing: advocate or promote (a belief or course of action)
Sir_Quality_U_Feel
Expatriate
Posts: 1322
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 8:32 am
Reputation: 6

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by Sir_Quality_U_Feel » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:20 pm

khmerinade wrote:By definition, the monks certainly are.

proselytizing: advocate or promote (a belief or course of action)
I don't think monks advocate and certainly do not promote their religion. How so?
I'll give ya 500 Riel for it...
Soi Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:53 am
Reputation: 5

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by Soi Dog » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:35 pm

OrangeDragon wrote: Munich showed Jews being murdered by Arabs, then justified the Arabs' actions.
The movie Munich didn't justify anything. It showed the conflict from both perspectives, and I thought it was brave to do so. People will decide for themselves what they feel is and is not justified, based on their own affiliations and experiences. The Palestinian view is omitted in most dialogue on the subject in the US, in particular. The movie showed and discussed the killing of many Palestinians by Israelis as well. How many innocent Palestinians were killed when Israelis forcefully took over the land in 1948? As a retaliation after the Munich massacre, The Israelis killed up to 200 hundred in PLO camps with air strikes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by OrangeDragon » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:06 pm

Soi Dog wrote:
OrangeDragon wrote: Munich showed Jews being murdered by Arabs, then justified the Arabs' actions.
The movie Munich didn't justify anything. It showed the conflict from both perspectives, and I thought it was brave to do so. People will decide for themselves what they feel is and is not justified, based on their own affiliations and experiences. The Palestinian view is omitted in most dialogue on the subject in the US, in particular. The movie showed and discussed the killing of many Palestinians by Israelis as well. How many innocent Palestinians were killed when Israelis forcefully took over the land in 1948? As a retaliation after the Munich massacre, The Israelis killed up to 200 hundred in PLO camps with air strikes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Note: I'm not justifying the Israelis in any way... just pointing out that it was a recent film to show them in a negative light.
Rain Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:40 pm
Reputation: 29

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by Rain Dog » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:20 pm

OrangeDragon wrote: Are you kidding!?

Do you not remember Passion of the Christ? Which was called out heavily for being Anti-Semitic...
Munich showed Jews being murdered by Arabs, then justified the Arabs' actions.
OD --- i am more than a little surprised that you buy all this brainwashing. i thought most yanks that had made it to this part of the world were trying to escape this stuff.

Soi Dog has already corrected you on your 'Munich' comment so i will address the other points.

1) "Non-Stop" ---- i never even heard of it until now. the controversy you mention does not even rate a mention on the wikipedia entry for the movie nor on major reviews from iMDB or Rotten Tomatoes. It is ONLY mentioned on far right wing sources like Breitbart and limbaugh --- the same sources that find that Shariah Law is going to take over the USA and Obama is a secret Mooooooslim Love Child ---- these are your sources ? Really?!

2) 'Passion of Christ" ---- Ironic that you bring this up, as it actually helps prove my point. Mel Gibson wanted to do an authentic as possible portrayal of Catholic doctrine of the Crucifixion of Christ. Doing this also required the ugly reminder that it was in fact corrupt Jewish priests that conspired to have the Romans crucify Jesus. While this ugly reality did result in "Real' Anti-semitism centuries ago (Jews as Christ Killers etc.), most of modern Christianity had long since moved on from that. However the Anti Defamation League tried to kill the movie and and their efforts resulted in 20th Century Fox refusing to distribute it; forcing Gibson to consider other options of distribution. This resulted in a backlash from the Christian community and threatened to drive a wedge into Christian - Jewish Relations. Finally cooler heads prevailed and the movie was released ONLY due to the Christian Backlash against trying to censor it. Gibson though had burned all his bridges with the Hollywood establishment and ultimately became an independent producer and an anethma to the Jewish establishment in Hollywood. He subsequently did not help his case much with anger-management issues resulting in Anti-Semitic slurs, but the fact is he got something produced and distributed that the establishment tried to kill off --- and in many ways sacrificed his career as a Hollywood insider to do so.

But hey --- there is no bias emanating out of Hollywood ----- Right?

:lol:
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by OrangeDragon » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:17 am

I wish I was more than a little surprised you buy all of the propaganda... but then again that's all most of non-america knows about America. (Though funny how they then lash out at Americans for talking about places they've never been or know little actual fact about.)

1) No... my sources were watching American friends and family, most of whom aren't extreme right wingers, flip out about it. For months. Constantly referring back to it. And are we reading the same wikipedia!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Stop_(film" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Critical_response
Rotten Tomatoes gives it a rating of 59%, based on reviews from 194 critics, with an average score of 5.8/10. The site's consensus states: "While Liam Neeson is undoubtedly an asset, Non-Stop wastes its cast—not to mention its solid premise and tense setup—on a poorly conceived story that hinges on a thoroughly unbelievable final act."
Entertainment Weekly, delivered a positive review of the film, grading it with a "B", and saying that "At a certain point either you'll fasten your seat belt and go with Non-Stop's absurd, Looney Tunes logic or you won't.
Susan Wloszczyna of RogerEbert.com submitted a medial review, saying [...] continuing by saying "The rather ingenious if preposterous premise, one that only goes way off course in the heavy-handed third act...'Non-Stop' is so ridiculously entertaining in spite of its occasional lapses in real-world logic."
This whole criticism you're seeing, is at the issues I outlined earlier. They just find that plot tool absurd and outside the realm of reality... odd considering the number of mass killings in the Us in the last year by white people instead of muslims.


2) All of that writing to say that the Jews don't actually run Hollywood enough to stop an anti-semitic film. A film consisting of a number of Jewish actors. Fox passed it on because there were rampant protests against it... not because of influence from Hollywood Jews or because they were Jew owned, and even the Christian community condemned it as not following the story accurately and having too much "gore" violence. And Gibson's career in Hollywood was over WELL before the Passion thanks to M. Shamalamacrapmovie's Signs mess, but if any of his directorial actions killed him there it was Apocalypto... what a miserable pile of crap that was. And his beating up his baby-mama didn't help his career much either.

Speaking of brainwashing... the actions by the ADL and the polarization (to some extent) of the religious groups was the best free marketing a crappy gore flick with a Christian theme could have ever hoped for. People who didn't even WANT to see it did so just out of some sense of obligation... you mean to tell me that wasn't planned? Please. They know how propaganda works... and they worked it to dump hundreds of millions into the box office.
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Morris, Bing [Bot], Deefer, Denmac, General Mackevili, Google [Bot], IraHayes, LIVIDZX, lurcio, NormanChomsky, Soriya, Username Taken, Yerg and 291 guests