# Hollywood propaganda, for the wrong side



## billc (Mar 8, 2011)

From John Nolte at Bighollywood.com, a story that the Radical muslim terrorist said part of his motivation for the shooting came from scenes from the movie "Redacted" which was used in a progaganda clip on youtube.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/j...-motivated-by-hollywoods-anti-war-propaganda/

An Islamist propaganda video roughly matching Uka&#8217;s description is in fact to be found on YouTube. On November 20, 2010, a German-language YouTube user going by the name &#8220;24jasmina&#8221; uploaded the video under the title &#8220;American Soldiers Rape our Sisters! Awake Oh Ummah.&#8221;
The video begins with roughly 80 seconds of footage apparently showing American soldiers marauding in a family&#8217;s home and raping a teenage girl. The footage appears to be filmed with a night vision camera and comes complete with vulgar and incriminating dialogue. At one point during the rape scene, gunfire can be heard off-camera and then a soldier on camera says: &#8220;I f****** killed them all.&#8221;

The same footage can also be seen on YouTube under the English-language title &#8220;Footage of Abeer Qassim.&#8221; The description specifies &#8220;rape footage of Abeer Qassim.&#8221; Unlike the German-language YouTube page, however, the English-language page indicates that the footage comes from the Brian De Palma film _Redacted_.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 8, 2011)

That's horrible. However, as some of your other posts have shown, it's pretty common for people to take things out of context and warp them for their own political agenda.


----------



## billc (Mar 8, 2011)

True enough, and I don't believe in censorship in any way, but can you ever imagine this happening in world war 2?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 8, 2011)

why would depalma make this movie, KNOWING it would cost lives unless that was his goal, since it was NOT a true story?

Depalma is a traitor IMO


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> True enough, and I don't believe in censorship in any way, but can you ever imagine this happening in world war 2?



It happened _*all the time*_ in World War 2. Both sides had enormous propaganda machines that twisted anything they could coming from the other side to portray the enemy as decadent, cruel, dangerous, whatever served them. In the US, pacifist groups routinely distributed propaganda against the war.

The only difference is that the stuff can reach more people now - which means its statistically more likely to reach some kind of whacko or another. Also, during WWII everybody who liked blowing **** up was on a front somewhere.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 9, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> It happened _*all the time*_ in World War 2. Both sides had enormous propaganda machines that twisted anything they could coming from the other side to portray the enemy as decadent, cruel, dangerous, whatever served them. In the US, pacifist groups routinely distributed propaganda against the war.



Amen.

all sides had huge propaganda machines during WW2, covering both sides of the story. Embellishing their own achievments while hiding all information to the contrary. And some of it is still believed today. The 'French surrender monkey' meme is one of them. It was created to prevent American citizens to take the German capabilities too seriously. And what better way than to paint the French that way. They also sat on the information about the concentration camps initially to avoid Americans thinking about it as a 'Jew' problem and resisting the efforts to join the war.

Meanwhile the Germans portrayed the concentration camps as places where jews would live in clean, family oriented units. Not in luxury, but in humane conditions. I saw one of those propaganda movies in high school history class. They were created to prevent the German populace from resisting too much, and to give them a way in which they could support the deportation of Jews without their conscience getting in the way. And of course those movies were not shared and shown by the allies when news of the concentration camps reached the general population, to make sure that noone would sympathise with the Germans.

Propaganda has always, and will always be a large part of every conflict. These days it is not as easy as it used to be, because it is much aharder to restrict access to information. Otoh it has also become much more difficult to know which information originated where and whether it was planted or not. The game has just become more complex.

In any case, don't get too worked up over propaganda because then you'll just be humming along to the tune of the piper in the background without even realizing he's there. Always be aware of the Wizard's first rule.


----------



## Darksoul (Mar 9, 2011)

-Wizard's First Rule...I know that one, haha!

So true.


Andrew


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 9, 2011)

I get a real kick out of some of the WWII propaganda, it's so clumsy by today's refined by Madison Ave. standards.


----------



## granfire (Mar 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I get a real kick out of some of the WWII propaganda, it's so clumsy by today's refined by Madison Ave. standards.



LOL, I suppose. But that was at a time when 'going to town' (you know the next bigger dwelling, like Mancato, was a huge deal, that only happened once, maybe twice a year...)

Is it a good or a bad thing?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I get a real kick out of some of the WWII propaganda, it's so clumsy by today's refined by Madison Ave. standards.



These links are broken for me.
Which is weird, because if I open them directly in my browser, they work.


----------



## billc (Mar 9, 2011)

I'm sorry, you missed what I was trying to get at.  The Radical muslim website was using an American made movie, Brian Depalma's "Redacted" for its propaganda.  My point is you would never have seen Americans, in world war 2 depicting american soldiers in a bad light in a movie, which could have been used by the enemy.  You have that here today.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm sorry, you missed what I was trying to get at.  The Radical muslim website was using an American made movie, Brian Depalma's "Redacted" for its propaganda.  My point is you would never have seen Americans, in world war 2 depicting american soldiers in a bad light in a movie, which could have been used by the enemy.  You have that here today.


True, but this isn't WWIII.
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 9, 2011)

There are obvious good guys and bad guys in this conflict, just like world war 2 and Brian Depalma and the other people who make our guys look bad, and then send it forth into the world are despicable.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> There are obvious good guys and bad guys in this conflict, just like world war 2 and Brian Depalma and the other people who make our guys look bad, and then send it forth into the world are despicable.


Who is good and who is bad?
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 9, 2011)

Wow.  It's not too late to order Redacted on netflix.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 9, 2011)

You are suggesting we treat Muslims like they are the Japanese, in WWII, right? No shades of grey, just black and white. Is that what you are suggesting?
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 9, 2011)

Well, the radical muslim terrorists would be the bad guys.  The soldiers of the United States and it's allies would be the good guys.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, the radical muslim terrorists would be the bad guys.  The soldiers of the United States and it's allies would be the good guys.


So everything our allies do is good?
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 9, 2011)

How about portraying radical muslim terrorists who rape, torture, and kill innocent men, women and children, simply because they are non-muslims, as radical muslim terrorists who rape, torture and kill innocent men, women and children simply because they are non-muslims.  And then you could show our guys killing the radical islamic terrorists in order to save innocent men women and children.  That might be a good starting point.  Instead of say showing our guys as the rapists and killers.  The perspective of hollywood is a tad bit off don't you think?


----------



## billc (Mar 9, 2011)

I know that everything that the radical muslim terrorists do is bad because even if they open up hospitals, or give out food, it is simply to further their abilitly to rape, torture and kill innocent men women and children who are or are not muslim.  The "Al Capone ran soup kitchens" stuff is still pretty silly, especially when applied to radical muslim terrorists.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> How about portraying radical muslim terrorists who rape, torture, and kill innocent men, women and children, simply because they are non-muslims, as radical muslim terrorists who rape, torture and kill innocent men, women and children simply because they are non-muslims.  And then you could show our guys killing the radical islamic terrorists in order to save innocent men women and children.  That might be a good starting point.  Instead of say showing our guys as the rapists and killers.  The perspective of hollywood is a tad bit off don't you think?


Since their are incidences where American soldiers rape and torture, should those stories not be told in an Hollywood movie? 
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 9, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Who is good and who is bad?
> Sean



if you seriously need to ask this question.............


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if you seriously need to ask this question.............


Yes, I am seriously asking why we should treat the world as if we were fight WWII.
Sean


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 9, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Since their are incidences where American soldiers rape and torture, should those stories not be told in an Hollywood movie?
> Sean



I can think of two movies and at least three episodes of TV that did exactly that


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 9, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Yes, I am seriously asking why we should treat the world as if we were fight WWII.
> Sean



We absolutely should not. One of the things I hated about Bush was that he seemed to view the world through WWII/Cold War eyes. The world ain't like that anymore.

But the point was brought up earlier that we wouldn't have seen this kind of behavior during WWII.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 9, 2011)

no, you are wrong, it IS EXACTLY LIKE THAT


the japanese launched a surprise attack with no declaration of war that cost a crap ton of american lives

radical islamics launched a terrorist attack with no warning that cost a crap ton of american lives

there is a good guy, it is US

there is a bad guy, it is THEM

there is no confusion on this one, and tryng to play "but we are not perfect either" is a waste of electrons

no we are not perfect, but that does not take away from the FACT that we are the better, more honorable and more decent party in this struggle.


----------



## billc (Mar 9, 2011)

Thanks twin fist. That is exactly the point.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no, you are wrong, it IS EXACTLY LIKE THAT
> 
> 
> the japanese launched a surprise attack with no declaration of war that cost a crap ton of american lives
> ...



Good or bad...
What about the Japanese Americans that were put in concentration camps. Were they good or bad?

And actually, yes, there is confusion. You're just looking at the wrong timescale.
For example, suppose Iran was able to launch special ops in the US because the current US regime is not to their liking. They succeed in doing so, cause massive upheaval, tens or hundreds of thousands of dead, and as a bonus, you end up with a fundie regime. Incidentally, most of your family died. Iran doesn't even care that you know they did this, they're that arrogant.

Now, fast forward a couple of decades. There will be a festering hatred against Iran, right? Then someone comes along, builds a cause for waging a dirty war against Iran, and give you a chance to inflict major harm to the society that supported those actions, and which still looks down on you today. Would it be a terrible stretch of the imagination to argue that there would be many volunteers and that Iran had it coming to them? Would you think you were evil for striking back, or would you think that you are finally scoring one for the good guys? Or would you forgive and forget and try to just make the best of the ******** that Iran made of your country?

Now, switch Iran and the US, and you have exactly what happened. And instead of Iran you could pick a number of countries where the US bent the lawful government over a barrel because it was not in their best interest. Islam is just the propaganda vehicle which is used to get those people to do bad things.

If you look at this conflict only since 2001, because that was the first time that the US got hit bad since WW2, then yes, I can see how you could argue that they are the bad guys and you are the good guys. If you look back over the last 50 or 60 years and look at how the US messed up the middle east and caused death and mayhem just for political gain, then I say... who threw the first punch?

What is happening today is bad, ok. But just saying you're the good and the other bad without any qualifications is just putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalala because you don't want to deal with complexity or accept the fact that the US is not entirely blameless. The extremist leader may hate the US for religious reasons. The majority however just hates the US for what it did to them and their kin. I am also not saying they are good and the US is bad.
However if the US kills tens of thousands for political gain, then it's only natural that someone is going to try and exact revenge. They're doing nothing that the US didn't do as well.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 10, 2011)

i dont engage in moral realativism, it is a false way of thinking.

you simply can not compare a people that think flying a plane full of civilians into a building is ok to a people that bend over backwards to avoid colateral dammages.

they are BAD people and we are not.

is really is that simple, efforts to make it more complicated are a waste of time.

until the united states starts strapping bombs to retarded people and sending them into the market to remote detonate, we are BETTER than the radical islamics are


----------



## granfire (Mar 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i dont engage in moral realativism, it is a false way of thinking.
> 
> you simply can not compare a people that think flying a plane full of civilians into a building is ok to a people that bend over backwards to avoid colateral dammages.
> 
> ...




Well, define 'we'

after all there has been a 'we' that thought it ok to park a truck full of fertilizer in front of a government building...just happened to have a daycare in it...

the we and the them, it's always a few people, not a collective. As there are radical islamists, there are radical whatevers that draw from the ranks of 'we' and do abominable things. and just because the armed forces represent 'we' does not make them above reproach. 

Propaganda is just that: a way to make your side pallatable. What the propaganda looks like depends on the side you stand on when you look at it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 10, 2011)

In WWII we fought against countries with real armies; now we face negative attitudes of a few radicals, and many of them, including those that attacked us on 9/11 were from countries we are allied with. Do you still think we should outlaw an entire religion, as we did in WWII?
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 10, 2011)

I think it would be fairly easy to show the radical islamic terrorists for what they are, and also show islam as a seperate part of the picture.  After all, more muslims are killed by these terrorists than westerners.  So it is a silly idea that you can't show radical muslim terrorists without implying that all muslims are bad.  The failure of hollywood to do this, show the terrorists for what they are, and instead, the way Brian Depalma did in "Redacted" to show american soldiers as rapists and murderers, is really a scandal. 

We see movies all the time where "Neo-nazis" are the bad guys.  They even substitute Nazis for islamic terrorists, the famous case being Tom Clancy's book.  They use neo-nazis all the time and noone ever says, yeah, but not all germans are nazis.  That hollywood fails to do this in the case of Islamic terrorism shows that there moral compass is almost permanently bent toward seeing the United States as the bad guy of all bad guys in every situation.

Back to my opening point, In world war 2, would American directors and actors have made movies that showed Americans as the bad guys and the Germans, Japanese and Italians as the victims of atrocities?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I think it would be fairly easy to show the radical islamic terrorists for what they are, and also show islam as a seperate part of the picture.  After all, more muslims are killed by these terrorists than westerners.  So it is a silly idea that you can't show radical muslim terrorists without implying that all muslims are bad.  The failure of hollywood to do this, show the terrorists for what they are, and instead, the way Brian Depalma did in "Redacted" to show american soldiers as rapists and murderers, is really a scandal.
> 
> We see movies all the time where "Neo-nazis" are the bad guys.  They even substitute Nazis for islamic terrorists, the famous case being Tom Clancy's book.  They use neo-nazis all the time and noone ever says, yeah, but not all germans are nazis.  That hollywood fails to do this in the case of Islamic terrorism shows that there moral compass is almost permanently bent toward seeing the United States as the bad guy of all bad guys in every situation.
> 
> Back to my opening point, In world war 2, would American directors and actors have made movies that showed Americans as the bad guys and the Germans, Japanese and Italians as the victims of atrocities?


No, but, again, this isn't WWII.


----------



## billc (Mar 10, 2011)

It isn't the Korean war or Vietnam either, but we have a group, Radical Muslim terrorists who are out to kill anyone who opposes their agenda of spreading Sharia across the world.  How hard is it to make a movie that would show them as the bad guys.   Not a movie that says, we are just as bad as they are, but an accurate portrayal of the terrorists for what they are.


Let's have some clarity, as one of my favorite radio hosts, Dennis Prager, always seeks.  What do you mean when you say, this isn't world war 2?


----------



## billc (Mar 10, 2011)

From bighollywood.com, the "sucker punch" squad, which is a column that points out the usual hollywood story telling device where anti-american, conservative, tea party points of view are sprung on an audience. This sucker punch squad gives away the plot to Source Code, apparently, and it involves a big bomb, and of course the initial ignorant American reaction that the bomber is a radical Muslim terrorist or sympathizer. Want to bet who the real bomber is, and you don't get three guesses?

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/j...iew-terrorists-attack-america-in-source-code/  Spoilers (not really, you know who the bomber is going to be...ahead)

Finally he tracks down who it is &#8211; a completely white, milquetoast, middle-America looking guy. Follows him to his van where the dirty bomb is, and the guy is actually proud of it. Open the van door and there&#8217;s a big metal box &#8211; with the American flag on the front of it (he&#8217;s a PATRIOT!). Says some nonsense about life is hell and we need to rebuild from the rubble, but for that you need rubble.
Later on when he&#8217;s captured, on the TV news voice-over &#8220;his website contained anti-government statements.&#8221;
And there you have it. At this point I didn&#8217;t give a crap how good the story or movie was in general.
On the OTHER hand, I&#8217;m hearing that *Battle: LA* is very pro-military/pro-America. So I imagine the former will get glowing reviews and box office death while the latter will get crappy reviews (it&#8217;s already getting slammed on RottenTomatoes) but will do great at the box office.
You want fanboy smoochie-smoochie with Hollywood, there are all kinds of sites for that. Hollywood is engaging in political and social war with America and we are simply engaging back.


Of course, the reviewer may be mistaken, we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It isn't the Korean war or Vietnam either, but we have a group, Radical Muslim terrorists who are out to kill anyone who opposes their agenda of spreading Sharia across the world.  How hard is it to make a movie that would show them as the bad guys.   Not a movie that says, we are just as bad as they are, but an accurate portrayal of the terrorists for what they are.
> 
> 
> Let's have some clarity, as one of my favorite radio hosts, Dennis Prager, always seeks.  What do you mean when you say, this isn't world war 2?


We were fighting nations and their armies, and now we aren't. That is what I mean, in case you forgot what I just wrote a few minutes ago.
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 10, 2011)

Great.  But that still doesn't explain why hollywood cannot show radical muslim terrorists as the actual bad guys they are, and our guys for the good guys they are.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Great.  But that still doesn't explain why hollywood cannot show radical muslim terrorists as the actual bad guys they are, and our guys for the good guys they are.


You know; I was in the military, and we had jails with soldiers in them, at the time. Have things changed that much?
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 10, 2011)

dont be obtuse. Sure there are bad apples, but overall? americans are the definition of goodness and light


----------



## granfire (Mar 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> dont be obtuse. Sure there are bad apples, but overall? americans are the definition of goodness and light



:lfao:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> dont be obtuse. Sure there are bad apples, but overall? americans are the definition of goodness and light


Goodness and light doesn't make for very good fiction. LOL


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Great.  But that still doesn't explain why hollywood cannot show radical muslim terrorists as the actual bad guys they are, and our guys for the good guys they are.



24 (season 2)
True Lies
Unthinkable
The Siege (sorta)
Athens
Munich
Several different iterations of Law and Order
The Hurt Locker
The most recent episode of Castle

And that's just off the top of my head and 11:30 at night.

Seems they're pretty good at doing exactly that. I'm not saying they don't also portray our 
guys as screwing up - but let's not use too broad a brush here. Different directors paint different pictures, based on the story they're trying to tell.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i dont engage in moral realativism, it is a false way of thinking.
> 
> you simply can not compare a people that think flying a plane full of civilians into a building is ok to a people that bend over backwards to avoid colateral dammages.
> 
> ...



Why is that a wrong way to think?

Strapping bombs to people is BAD.
Flying ariplanes into a building is BAD
OVerthrowing a sovereign government for your own profit and causing thousands of deaths is BAD
Abducting people and torturing them (or having them tortured if we are nitpicky) even though a number of them are innocent is BAD
Invading a country based on LIES is BAD

The first 2 are about terrorists.
The latter 3 are about US actions.

Could you please explain how doing bad things make you a good person?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2011)

granfire said:


> :lfao:




americans give more to charity than any other people
america always sends food, money, troops, whatever is needed

these are historical facts


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> OVerthrowing a sovereign government for your own profit and causing thousands of deaths is BAD
> Abducting people and torturing them (or having them tortured if we are nitpicky) even though a number of them are innocent is BAD
> Invading a country based on LIES is BAD
> 
> ...




overthrowing a government that used wmd's against it's own people and threatened to use them against everyone else isnt always bad, and might just be a good idea

lots of people were questioned, only 3 ever waterboarded, so stop tell that lie as is we "tortured" 100's cuz it just inst true

invading a country based on information that the ENTIRE FRIGGIN WORLD BELIEVED and that Saddam himself stated??

seriously?

get some new lines, those are old, and clearly not true, in ANY way shape or form.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 11, 2011)

The rest of the world did NOT believe saddam had WMD.
We demanded proof, remember? The freedom fries silliness?
Remember that the US did not want to show us what they had?

Remember how no WMD turned up so far?
Noone outside the US believed there were WMD. The Inspectors said there were none.
The only reason the UK went along was because Tony blair always bent over for Bush.

Then we get to the overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Iran because they were too friendly with the soviets. That was what it was all about.

About the torture: you conveniently forget to mention the people who were shipped off to syria and egypt for processing.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 11, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> The only reason the UK went along was because Tony blair always bent over for Bush.


----------



## granfire (Mar 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> americans give more to charity than any other people
> america always sends food, money, troops, whatever is needed
> 
> these are historical facts




Yes, and they complain they never get any aide when they turn it away because the giver isn't to their standard...

Americans are not alone giving aide. Never were. But they are sure most vocal about it...


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> The rest of the world did NOT believe saddam had WMD.
> 
> 
> Noone outside the US believed there were WMD.




Bruno, dont make me embarrass you by posting proof that you are wrong...seriously, this is soooooo 10 years ago and it is proven BS


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 11, 2011)

To TF and Bruno

a) Bruno's right about world opinion. US and Britain were the only members of the UN security council who believed the current program of inspections wasn't sufficient.
b) It's clear Hussein had WMDs - he used them (gas weapons) on his own citizens during the 80s and 90s. It's less clear whether or not he had them when we invaded.
c) It's unfair to say the Iraq invasion was purely for profit - the removal of Hussein was probably a good thing - but the amount of money Bush and Cheney have made personally from security contracts and reconstruction does give pause.
d) The USA does routinely outsource our torture in a process called "rendition" where we turn over captives to countries where torture is legal. This is documented fact.
e) On the other hand, the top two contributors to the tsunami relief efforts a few years back were 1) the US government and 2) private US citizens.

Like everybody else, we have our good points and bad points. As compared to Uganda and Iran, we look pretty good. As compared to, say, New Zealand or Iceland, we're a bunch of schoolyard thugs.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Bruno, dont make me embarrass you by posting proof that you are wrong...seriously, this is soooooo 10 years ago and it is proven BS


Spare us please.
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2011)

there has NEVER been even a single iota of evidence that ethier Bush or Cheney profitted from the war, and anyone saying different is misguided, ill-informed or extreemly paranoid

we save everyone's butts, and then they ***** about us doing it.

prime example 1991

saddam is heading for saudi, and they SCREAM for help, we help, then they ***** about the way we helped....


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2011)

we can afford to disagree about the small stuff, no worries


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> there has NEVER been even a single iota of evidence that ethier Bush or Cheney profitted from the war, and anyone saying different is misguided, ill-informed or extreemly paranoid



I may actually be "extreemly paranoid," but at least I can spell my affliction correctly. 

Actually, the links between Cheney and Halliburton, and between Bush and US oil interests are well-documented. I don't personally believe they went to war _because of_ potential profits from the war and the rebuilding - but they and people close to them have benefited from decisions they made.


----------



## billc (Mar 11, 2011)

Everybody uses haliburton.  The episode of Castle had the bad guys as former american special forces guys who were going to make it look like to innocent Pakistani americans were the bombers.  the U.S. special forces were doing it to create more concern for our troops or something silly like that.  The focus of the siege was less about real terrorism and more about our reaction to it and I haven't seen unthinkable, it is also about wether or not torture is justified.  I didn't see munich but Speilberg lost some respect from the jewish community because of the way he portrayed the israelis and the terrorists.  Also, though True Lies was a hit, Cameron said he wouldn't make another movie like it.  Remember, true lies was before 9/11.  Athens, never heard of it, and 24, yeah, finally.


----------



## granfire (Mar 11, 2011)

I must be bored out of my gourd that I even keep opening billi's posts....
Heck, TVLand is like World Premiers compared to his....posts.....

Hint for the disgruntled:
If you don't like it, write your own script, make your own movie.

(however, if you make the world too black and white you and up with bad not even B material)

But then again, not even his thoughts are his own.


----------



## billc (Mar 11, 2011)

Off my topic but here is a review of Battle for Los Angeles, just out today.  the reviewer doesn't think it is great but he says the military and the U.S. is actually portrayed in a positive way.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/h...ner-that-over-uses-the-shaky-cam/#more-454608


----------



## billc (Mar 11, 2011)

It is confirmed now that the radical muslim terrorist who murdered our air force members in germany did watch the clip from Redacted in a four minute propaganda movie.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/german-authorities-confirm-that-frankfurt-shooter-viewed-de-palma-clip/

I hope Depalma is proud that his work served for this inspiration.

According to the German wire service dapd, the German Attorney General&#8217;s Office has confirmed that the video clip viewed by the Frankfurt Airport shooter Arid Uka &#8212; and that allegedly provoked him to kill American soldiers &#8212; was indeed the rape scene from Brian De Palma&#8217;s fictional anti-Iraq War movie _Redacted_. Attorney General spokesperson Frank Wallenta confirmed the identity of the clip to the German television news magazine Spiegel TV.
Uka viewed the De Palma clip as part of a four-and-a-half minute propaganda video that was posted on a German-language YouTube page under the title &#8220;American Soldiers Rape our Sisters! Awake Oh Ummah.&#8221; The video was removed from YouTube shortly after the publication of a Pajamas Media report noting its existence and linking it. It can currently be viewed on The Daily Caller here.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 11, 2011)

So by your logic, any scene in any movie that might make Americans look bad should not be filmed? It's gonig to make for a lot of really boring movies, real quick.

And Spielberg did not lose respect from the Jewish community because of the way the events were portrayed, but because the move was not very good. Israeli movies are far more critical on Israeli actions than Munich ever was, but their directors don't lose the respect of the Jewish community. What the heck is the 'Jewish community' anyway?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It is confirmed now that the radical muslim terrorist who murdered our air force members in germany did watch the clip from Redacted in a four minute propaganda movie.
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/german-authorities-confirm-that-frankfurt-shooter-viewed-de-palma-clip/
> 
> I hope Depalma is proud that his work served for this inspiration.



Of course, Depalma has covered this topic before, only it was Vietnam, and Michael J. Fox and Sean Penn in _Casualties of War_, but in the instance of _Redacted_, he himself was inspired by real, documented events in Iraq, involving 5 U.S. Army soldiers, who gang-raped a fourteen year old girl and murdered her and her entire family.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2011)

did Depalma show them being tried and convicted?

better question, why make this movie and NOT show them getting convicted of the crime UNLESS your goal is to make america look like ***?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2011)

Here is a quote from the jackass himself

"De Palma himself has commented "the right wing is gonna come at this  film. I mean, I've done something that is, it just can't be done. You  can't ever say anything critical of the troops."[_citation needed_]  He argued that the film provides a realistic portrait of U.S. troops  and how "the presentation of our troops has been whitewashed" by media. "

got that? this is how he sees teh troops, all of them.

so yes, he is, IMO a traitor AND a moronic coward

that being said, i loved Carrie and The Fury


----------



## granfire (Mar 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> did Depalma show them being tried and convicted?
> 
> better question, why make this movie and NOT show them getting convicted of the crime UNLESS your goal is to make america look like ***?



Casualties of war?
It has been a while since I saw it, but I do believe it showed in the end the sentences they all got.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2011)

granfire said:


> Casualties of war?
> It has been a while since I saw it, but I do believe it showed in the end the sentences they all got.




I was talking about redacted Gran


----------



## granfire (Mar 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Here is a quote from the jackass himself
> 
> "De Palma himself has commented "the right wing is gonna come at this  film. I mean, I've done something that is, it just can't be done. You  can't ever say anything critical of the troops."[_citation needed_]  He argued that the film provides a realistic portrait of U.S. troops  and how "the presentation of our troops has been whitewashed" by media. "
> 
> ...




Oh, come on. You think that the presentation of the soldiers in movies like D-Day was accurate? Heck, Even Sands of Ivo Jima has them looking more like they are going out for Sunday dinner. (and don't knock those movies, cherished holiday tradition around here. Nothing says Merry Christmas like a Midway marathon)

fact is, warfare is not easy on the human mind. What a flippin boring story if all participants are knights in shining armor. And it's not traitorous to pick a story that shows those in uniform who do not conduct themselves as we see fit. 

But I guess you are taking the Southern approach: If you don't like reality, you just think it pretty?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2011)

attack the post, not the poster gran, you are getting close to a TOS violation

did you read what i said? in his OWN WORDS, DePalma tells us that he sees the troops as raping murderers. And since he refused to show the trials, that America condones those acts.

that is traitorous.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> attack the post, not the poster gran, you are getting close to a TOS violation
> 
> did you read what i said? in his OWN WORDS, DePalma tells us that he sees the troops as raping murderers. And since he refused to show the trials, that America condones those acts.
> 
> that is traitorous.


 
Supposedly, Depalma was told by lawyers that he had to be very careful in referencing-or *not* referencing the real events.

Speaking of the real events, though-five *U.S.* soldiers rape and murder a 14 year old girl and her family. Sounds like plenty of inspiration for terrorism right there-the useful illustration of a fictional documentary is just icing on the cake.....the fact is that the events portrayed *did* happen, and the people inspired for _jihad_ don't give a rat's *** if the perpetrators were sentenced to 110 years in jail or not......not in the least because they weren't subjected to penalties under _shariah_.


----------



## granfire (Mar 11, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> attack the post, not the poster gran, you are getting close to a TOS violation
> 
> did you read what i said? in his OWN WORDS, DePalma tells us that he sees the troops as raping murderers. And since he refused to show the trials, that America condones those acts.
> 
> that is traitorous.



Huh? What?

Where did I attack you? 

But yeah, I hear that kind of thinking around here, too. The 'if you are not with us, you must be against us' 

Well, you seemed to have quoted Wiki, which btw asked - indirectly - for a citation of said statement. 

He has,as free citizen of this great nation the freedom to say what he wishes. Just the same way you can call him a traitor (but I am not sure if you can legally do that, since he has not been convicted of a crime, it could be considered libel/slander) 

Point is: If you don't like the message (ironic how you tell me not to attack the messenger...) send your own!  why do you think I posted http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94333 here and not in the library?!

It is always easier to criticize those who do. But instead of just pointing fingers get busy yourself. 

War is one ugly business. We managed to clean it up a lot, but in the end there is still blood and guts spilled. And frankly, the picture of the enemy that is put before the troops does make it vaguely acceptable to treat all of that kind with like methods. 
Certainly a trained psychologist can explain it much better. 

You are attacking a story teller. Don't like the story, don't look at it.


----------



## billc (Mar 11, 2011)

Well, with all the good that the U.S. Army has done to liberate people around the world, the security they have helped to provide around the world at great sacrifice to themselves and their families, it is easy to see why Depalma would concentrate on  the minority of bad actors found in the military.  Especially at a time when these men are fighting, dying and being horribly wounded to kill really evil people, to keep these evil people from hurting more innocent people.  You may hate bush, think that we went to war for oil and all the tinfoil hat stuff you want.  These men and women deserve better from the people they are protecting.


----------



## billc (Mar 12, 2011)

This column about the shooting in Germany is by Brent Bozell. He discusses how little attention the shooting was given in the mainstream press.

http://www.mrc.org/bozellcolumns/columns/2011/20110309020443.aspx

from the column:

These journalists have lost a connection to the war on Islamic extremism and the troops fighting in Afghanistan. The Washington Post recently published a touching story of how Gen. John Kelly went to St. Louis and delivered a &#8220;passionate and at times angry speech about the military's sacrifices and its troops' growing sense of isolation from society.&#8221;

He told the crowd &#8220;Their struggle is your struggle...If anyone thinks you can somehow thank them for their service, and not support the cause for which they fight -- our country -- these people are lying to themselves....More important, they are slighting our warriors and mocking their commitment to this nation.&#8221;

Gen. Kelly did not tell the crowd he&#8217;d lost his 29-year-old son Robert in Afghanistan four days earlier. He became the most senior U.S. military officer to lose a son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan. Like many in the military, he fears the American public is unaware of the price that military families pay in one of the longest periods of sustained combat in U.S. history.

This passage underlined the problem: &#8220;President Obama devoted only six sentences to the war in Afghanistan in his State of the Union address in January. The 25-second standing ovation that lawmakers lavished on the troops lasted almost as long as the president's war remarks


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2011)

gran, 
as I understand the laws of slander/libel, public persona's are more open to such things and are in fact less protected, that said, that is why i said IN MY OPINION he was a traitor.

Here is the thing, What Depalma did, was dispicable, IMO, and he did it IN TIME OF WAR, which is a CRIME.

He gave comfort to the enemy, as I see it. That makes him a traitor. NO ONE in america pretty much saw this movie, cuz theaters rightly wouldnt show it..

but you can bet your *** the radical islamics have seen it.

and it inspires hatred of the troops

thats down right un-american, IMO

leaving out the fact that they were punished makes it look WORSE, IMO. Dont you agree?


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> gran,
> as I understand the laws of slander/libel, public persona's are more open to such things and are in fact less protected, that said, that is why i said IN MY OPINION he was a traitor.
> 
> Here is the thing, What Depalma did, was dispicable, IMO, and he did it IN TIME OF WAR, which is a CRIME.
> ...




Obviously, I don't agree with you on many levels (and I don't think 'opinion' is a workable defense in court).

the label of 'un-american' is a favorite of those who want to bully those who disagree into conforming. 
White washing war crimes should also be unamerican, and frankly, unless they would have shot those fellows on the town square where the victims resided I don't think anybody there noticed there had been a court martial and a sentence handed down. 
Raping and murdering civilinas ought to be thoroughly unamerican. Those guys did a lot more damage to the troops than a movie maker of whom you say yourself nobody saw it.


Times of war, oye...

See, this whole war thing is one iffy subject. It was unamerican, too, to speak up against the validity of the reasons for the invasion, too. 
I consider it more american to speak up when things are not right. 
You chose your language, I chose mine, he chose film. 

In any case, with little more than a cheap video editing program and a bit of footage from 'Call of Duty' 'Helo' and what have you, one can compose a pretty convincing video were you have to do at least one double take to make sure it's not real people. Better equipment (and sources) give you better results. 
maybe the film maker should sue them for copy right infringements? (now that would be ultra american) 

You are angry at him for showing that the people in uniform are fallible human beings. And he is unapologenic for it. 
It's not like you can dispute that the incident happened. And you might not agree that he did not tell the absolute end of the story...I don't think you can force him. It's not like that is a completely new phenomenon in the movie business either. 'based on' or 'inspired by' a true story does not usually mean it is the true story. 

And let's face it, radicals are hardly ever swayed by reason. Or they would not be radical....


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2011)

he told a story, but didnt tell the WHOLE story, just the parts that make us look bad.

will you even admit that?


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> he told a story, but didnt tell the WHOLE story, just the parts that make us look bad.
> 
> will you even admit that?



I do believe I said so....

But wait, no, I did not say 'us'.

Then again...if somebody who did not know anything about America was to watch TV, they were left to think that we are either morons (thank you Disney and Nick) or homicidal maniacs (thaks to any other network)

But yeah, us, as in fanatics don't care to differentiate...(but 'we' tend to do the same to 'them', too)


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2011)

fine, then we have a starting point.

he told an incomplete story, and just the part that makes us look the worst

possible motivation?

cuz he really thinks that way about american troops

he statements back that up.

ok, so he hates the troops. Nothing illegal about that. But making that movie created and inspired more hate, and it cost lives.

thats dispicable.

IMO


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

I am not speculating on what his motivations are. 

Maybe they were more honorable than the intentions of those who kind of hushed 'the incident' 

But frankly, I am a cynical B**** when it comes to those things. Human nature sucks, in either direction. I have long since made my piece with it. I can't safe the world, so why bother trying (I spend my efforts closer to home) 
People do bad things, some people are nasty and revel in other people's misery. 
Heck, my own Sister-in-law will only call my house if she has bad news of some sort...

I think the incident gave enough ammunition to the extremists. Not having to make their own footage was just the icing. 

You are shooting at the messenger, instead of pointing at the real perpetrators who soiled the honor of the uniform by committing that gruesome act. 
And frankly, while I do not support capital punishment, having these guys sentenced and executed would have probably gone a long way towards credibility of the leadership. It's not like they have not thrown the lower ranks under the bus for complying with orders given by their superiors! This was something you would look at in the states as capital murder...


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2011)

the soldiers killed in germany by that extreemist nutbag were not guilty, yet they died


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> the soldiers killed in germany by that extreemist nutbag were not guilty, yet they died



the 3000 people of 9/11 (with the exception a the few in the Pentagon maybe) were not involved in Middle Eastern Policy either...

Then again Iraq was not involved in that attack either...so there. It's not exactly a new thing, hitting the wrong target because they are loosely connected to the real thing, just because one can't lay hands on the real thing. 

And no, that's the cynical B. speaking again. Things are the way they are. 
The movie make did not pull the trigger either. So what' is the beef you are having with him? 
He depicted a real event and his images were abused.
Chances are the real even had already spread through the ranks of the extremists, long before the bodies were even cold, in all likely hood magnified, as those things go. The movie just provided good visuals. 

The fact that the punishment was not included? Bohoo, they are where now? Sitting in Leavenworth...in relative comfort. You think that is going to satisfy anybody from where the victims lived?
I am sure you'd love to have the shooters from Franfurt sent to the US to stand trial and get the needle...


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2011)

and the radical islamic nutbags? do they KNOW they we arrested trried and convicted those animals?

not if DePalma has anything to say about it.

clearly you dont see the wrongness of his actions, and that is that. I wont waste your time anymore trying to get you to see what you dont want to see.


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and the radical islamic nutbags? do they KNOW they we arrested trried and convicted those animals?
> 
> not if DePalma has anything to say about it.
> 
> clearly you dont see the wrongness of his actions, and that is that. I wont waste your time anymore trying to get you to see what you dont want to see.



LOL, sorry I won't be converted.

(But I am pretty sure the convictions, if the news was spread only served to fuel the fires)


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2011)

i dont possibly see how, but whatever. Nothing but love for ya Gran


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Nothing but love for ya Gran



Right back at ya!


----------



## fangjian (Mar 12, 2011)

I just started checkin out this thread today. I never saw Redacted but hope to.

Occasionally, there will be parties or gatherings of friends.  Sometimes at these parties, my family and friends will be there along with my friends who were with me in Iraq. I hate these parties. My squad-mates are very _outspoken_ about telling stories of the war. The stories are always truly awful. The war warped our minds to a new type of reasoning. As soon as they start, I always go over and try to silence them. Nudge their elbow. Cover their mouth. etc   It's 'cause I am embarrassed.  It's not as bad as Redacted, but definitely nothing to be proud of.  I feel I conducted myself professionally while I was there, but some of my brothers did not. 

I'm not so sure DePalma's mouth should be covered just because we are embarrassed.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 12, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> So everything our allies do is good?
> Sean



US has had some crap for allies i have to say. over the years.



Twin Fist said:


> dont be obtuse. Sure there are bad apples, but overall? americans are the definition of goodness and light



Heh.Don't tempt us to prove you wrong. 

Its my opinion that this after 9/11 atmosphere has a lot in common with the cold war. only its these planks instead of russians.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 13, 2011)

Relativism effects us all it seems.  Free speach is a sacred right in the US unless someone speaks something you disagree with, then that person is a traitor.  Rapist and murderers are animals that deserved thier conviction.  Unless that 14 year old girl and her family were Americans living in say Texas, instead of Iraqis in a war zone.  Then those soldiers' sentence would seem a bit light.  Torture is dispicable, unless it is used by "the good guys" then it is an ugly tool that must be used.  Actions that result in the death of innocents are terrible, terrible, things that should emote nothing but feelings of disgust, unless those actions are performed by "the good guys."  Then those resulting deaths are just unfortunate side effects.

Until more people wake the hell up, edecate themselves, and actively oppose any actions, by any country, agency, or personel that aren't moral then we will be forever caught in the loop of hatred and violence.  It is correct to look upon the murders committed by Islamic radicials with disgust.  Murder is a disgusting act.  However, if you look upon the murder and rape of an Iraqi girl and her family with any less disgust or revulsion than you do those actions of your enemy, then you should really examine why.  In the Quran it says that the murder of an innocent is the same in severety as the genocide of the  entire human race.  Interesting sentiment since this is the book many of you blame as the source of the radicals you hate so much.  See how ironic it is?


----------



## billc (Mar 13, 2011)

From what I have heard, and you can clarify, by innocent they mean an innocent who is actually a muslim, and that that does not apply to non-muslims.  To those familiar with the koran, is this accurate.    
Also, no one is ignoring the rape and murder by those american soldiers.  They were caught and punished I believe before major attention was put on what they did.  The point of this post was to point out that for this conflict, 95 percent of the movies made about the confilct shows our soldiers in the worst light possible.  That is not fair to these men and women.  It also shows the absolute worst face possible to the world, and an inaccurate one at that.  Right now, American military personel are on the way to help the survivors of the Japanese earth quake.  What kind of movie would Mr. Depalma make about that?


----------

