Except that there is no slande or libel, in fiction, dude. Defamation is a possibility, but an individual has to prove that a character from the story is modeled after them in a defamatory way.
American flag waving may actually sell at the box office...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
Except that there is no slande or libel, in fiction, dude. Defamation is a possibility, but an individual has to prove that a character from the story is modeled after them in a defamatory way.
As the accusation is that these films are being exported which films are these? Is this just hot air again as I've never seen any anti American war films either advertised or mentioned anywhere over here. Not that I will watch war films, my other half sits and criticises them making it impossible to watch. He was a military instructor and can't get out of that mode when watching war films, he likes them though and has also never heard or seen of these anti American war films you chatter about.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a script review of an upcoming movie that goes to the point of hollywood and the entertainment industry being anti-american to the point that they will distort real villians in order to portray americans as the bad guys..."The Whislte blower"
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/y...l-inaccuracies-plaque-screenplay/#more-345286
From the article on the movie whistleblower:
And by shifting the focus of the movie to “America is the worst and the American military in all its forms is the darkest force since Darth Vader,” the plot of The Whistleblower loses its importance and passion because of the failure to address the cause of sex slavery and its real culprits and turns into a comic feminist rendition of Matt Damon’s wet dream fantasy Bourne movies.
In the attempt to quench a leftist thirst for putting down the military, The Whistleblower like its ilk of naĆÆve but dangerous political movies, sacrifices the real issue of sex trafficking like a virgin to a persistent dragon of propaganda.
On a more tragic note, the creators of The Whistleblower indirectly (or, perhaps, directly) abuse children by using them for their political purposes. Letting the real culprits off the hook and chasing the American military contractors instead, proves that the creators are not really concerned about sex slavery as much as they think they are but simply use the rape of children as a platform to denigrate American military. Otherwise they would deal with real statistics that shows the American peacekeeping force as the least involved in the debauchery and abuse of all the UN peacekeeping nations worldwide.
-------------------------------
A MORE ACCURATE PORTRAYAL:
A simple research such as the one contacted by William Norman Grigg in his article “Beasts in Blue Berets’ (published in The New American with some references to similar expositions in the Village Voice) will reveal shocking abuses, for example, of Belgian UN peacekeepers in Somalia who fried a young boy for stealing food and a Belgian Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper rewarded with a bomb threat (in Belgium) for breaking the undesired news.
The research will also reveal disturbing accounts of Italian troops torturing and abusing Somalis and a 46-page report documenting that “the criminal events were not just the result of ‘rotten apples’ that you may find in any structure, but were rather the consequence of a stretched line of command and amused compliance toward such high jinks by some junior officers.”
Then, there are 47 Canadian UN troops who served in Bosnia, yes in Bosnia, and were accused of “drunkenness, sex, black marketeering and patient abuse at a mental hospital they were guarding.” The Whistleblower is a German-Canadian co-production so where is the Canadian self criticism of this outrageous case? All you get about other UN troop abuses in the screenplay of The Whistleblower is a throwaway line that ends with the protatgonist telling the audience Americans aren’t legally accounable for anything they do.
No, Kathy, they are accountable and interestingly they proportionally commit less abuse than any other participant country as evidence after evidence will show if you only bother looking at it, instead of listening to your boyfriend!
Many international humanitarian observers and Pentagon officials note that such problems (prostitution, sex trafficking, narco-business) are predictable, given that “the international police task force [in Bosnia] is a compendium of people from diverse countries with different degrees of professionalism and training and different backgrounds in operations and ethics”. This sounds like the real problem, doesn’t it?
Now, why the creators of The Whistleblower chose to go after the least guilty and by doing so let the real culprit slip away? Isn’t this against any investigative logic?
----------------------------------------
THE CREATORS OF THIS MOVIE SACRIFICE ACCURACY TO TRASHING THE U.S.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/y...l-inaccuracies-plaque-screenplay/#more-345286
From the article on the movie whistleblower:
And by shifting the focus of the movie to “America is the worst and the American military in all its forms is the darkest force since Darth Vader,” the plot of The Whistleblower loses its importance and passion because of the failure to address the cause of sex slavery and its real culprits and turns into a comic feminist rendition of Matt Damon’s wet dream fantasy Bourne movies.
In the attempt to quench a leftist thirst for putting down the military, The Whistleblower like its ilk of naĆÆve but dangerous political movies, sacrifices the real issue of sex trafficking like a virgin to a persistent dragon of propaganda.
On a more tragic note, the creators of The Whistleblower indirectly (or, perhaps, directly) abuse children by using them for their political purposes. Letting the real culprits off the hook and chasing the American military contractors instead, proves that the creators are not really concerned about sex slavery as much as they think they are but simply use the rape of children as a platform to denigrate American military. Otherwise they would deal with real statistics that shows the American peacekeeping force as the least involved in the debauchery and abuse of all the UN peacekeeping nations worldwide.
-------------------------------
A MORE ACCURATE PORTRAYAL:
A simple research such as the one contacted by William Norman Grigg in his article “Beasts in Blue Berets’ (published in The New American with some references to similar expositions in the Village Voice) will reveal shocking abuses, for example, of Belgian UN peacekeepers in Somalia who fried a young boy for stealing food and a Belgian Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper rewarded with a bomb threat (in Belgium) for breaking the undesired news.
The research will also reveal disturbing accounts of Italian troops torturing and abusing Somalis and a 46-page report documenting that “the criminal events were not just the result of ‘rotten apples’ that you may find in any structure, but were rather the consequence of a stretched line of command and amused compliance toward such high jinks by some junior officers.”
Then, there are 47 Canadian UN troops who served in Bosnia, yes in Bosnia, and were accused of “drunkenness, sex, black marketeering and patient abuse at a mental hospital they were guarding.” The Whistleblower is a German-Canadian co-production so where is the Canadian self criticism of this outrageous case? All you get about other UN troop abuses in the screenplay of The Whistleblower is a throwaway line that ends with the protatgonist telling the audience Americans aren’t legally accounable for anything they do.
No, Kathy, they are accountable and interestingly they proportionally commit less abuse than any other participant country as evidence after evidence will show if you only bother looking at it, instead of listening to your boyfriend!
Many international humanitarian observers and Pentagon officials note that such problems (prostitution, sex trafficking, narco-business) are predictable, given that “the international police task force [in Bosnia] is a compendium of people from diverse countries with different degrees of professionalism and training and different backgrounds in operations and ethics”. This sounds like the real problem, doesn’t it?
Now, why the creators of The Whistleblower chose to go after the least guilty and by doing so let the real culprit slip away? Isn’t this against any investigative logic?
----------------------------------------
THE CREATORS OF THIS MOVIE SACRIFICE ACCURACY TO TRASHING THE U.S.
You are aware that this movie is based on the book written by a Nebraska police officer who worked in Bosnia?
Kathryn Bolkovac?
billi, billi, billi
yeah, working for Dynacorp, the military contractor-you know, the real villain in the real story.
Her story, and maybe not the ultimate real villain. the united nations is rife with sex scandals and not one movie. The U.N. sex scandals aren't just in bosnia but world wide, a much bigger story and a much bigger human tragedy, and nothing from hollywood.
We have yet to see how the actual movie will play out but the story actually covers several countries, not just the U.S.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jul/29/unitednations
From the article and the author Kathryn Bolkovac:
She said: 'When I started collecting evidence from the victims of sex trafficking it was clear that a number of UN officers were involved from several countries, including quite a few from Britain. I was shocked, appalled and disgusted. They were supposed to be over there to help, but they were committing crimes themselves. When I told the supervisors they didn't want to know.'
----------------------
AND YET, FROM THIS EARLY PEAK AT THE MOVIE, THE U.S. IS THE MAJOR VILLIAN...HMMMM...
------------------
HMMMM....
She claims she was 'appalled' to find that many of her fellow officers were involved. She was fired by the British company after amassing evidence that UN police were taking part in the trafficking of young women from eastern Europe as sex slaves.
------------------
WHAT DOES IT MEAN, "SHE WAS FIRED BY THE BRITISH COMPANY..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jul/29/unitednations
From the article and the author Kathryn Bolkovac:
She said: 'When I started collecting evidence from the victims of sex trafficking it was clear that a number of UN officers were involved from several countries, including quite a few from Britain. I was shocked, appalled and disgusted. They were supposed to be over there to help, but they were committing crimes themselves. When I told the supervisors they didn't want to know.'
----------------------
AND YET, FROM THIS EARLY PEAK AT THE MOVIE, THE U.S. IS THE MAJOR VILLIAN...HMMMM...
------------------
HMMMM....
She claims she was 'appalled' to find that many of her fellow officers were involved. She was fired by the British company after amassing evidence that UN police were taking part in the trafficking of young women from eastern Europe as sex slaves.
------------------
WHAT DOES IT MEAN, "SHE WAS FIRED BY THE BRITISH COMPANY..."
Why, absolutely nothing:
DynCorp International (/ˈdaɪn.kɔrp/)[SUP][2][/SUP] is a United States-based private military company (PMC) and aircraft maintenance company. DynCorp receives more than 96% of its $2 billion in annual revenues from the US federal government.[SUP][3][/SUP]
The corporate headquarters are in Falls Church, Virginia. However, substantially all of the company's contracts are managed out of its office at Alliance Airport in Fort Worth, Texas.
Listen to idiots. Believe idiots. Quote idiots.
Sound like.........
from the article:
A former United Nations police officer is suing a British security firm over claims that it covered up the involvement of her fellow officers in sex crimes and prostitution rackets in the Balkans.Kathryn Bolkovac, an American policewoman, was hired by DynCorp Aerospace in Aldershot for a UN post aimed at cracking down on sexual abuse and forced prostitution in Bosnia.
DynCorp sacked her, claiming she had falsified time sheets, a charge she denies. Last month she filed her case at Southampton employment tribunal alleging wrongful dismissal and sexual discrimination against DynCorp, the British subsidiary of the US company DynCorp Inc.
DynCorp has the contract to provide police officers for the 2,100-member UN international police task force in Bosnia which was created to help restore law and order after the civil war.
Bolkovac has also filed a case against DynCorp under Britain's new Public Interest Disclosure Act designed to protect whistleblowers.
As well as reporting that her fellow officers regularly went to brothels, she also investigated allegations that an American police officer hired by DynCorp had bought a woman for $1,000.
DynCorp, the British subsidiary of the US company DynCorp Inc.
Where is the american part of that...perhaps the movie should focus on Britain rather than the U.S. since it seems most of the action is taking place against the BRITISH subsidiary.
A former United Nations police officer is suing a British security firm over claims that it covered up the involvement of her fellow officers in sex crimes and prostitution rackets in the Balkans.Kathryn Bolkovac, an American policewoman, was hired by DynCorp Aerospace in Aldershot for a UN post aimed at cracking down on sexual abuse and forced prostitution in Bosnia.
DynCorp sacked her, claiming she had falsified time sheets, a charge she denies. Last month she filed her case at Southampton employment tribunal alleging wrongful dismissal and sexual discrimination against DynCorp, the British subsidiary of the US company DynCorp Inc.
DynCorp has the contract to provide police officers for the 2,100-member UN international police task force in Bosnia which was created to help restore law and order after the civil war.
Bolkovac has also filed a case against DynCorp under Britain's new Public Interest Disclosure Act designed to protect whistleblowers.
As well as reporting that her fellow officers regularly went to brothels, she also investigated allegations that an American police officer hired by DynCorp had bought a woman for $1,000.
DynCorp, the British subsidiary of the US company DynCorp Inc.
Where is the american part of that...perhaps the movie should focus on Britain rather than the U.S. since it seems most of the action is taking place against the BRITISH subsidiary.
Dyncorp Aerospace, a wholly owned division of Dyncorp International, a U.S. company headquartered in the U.S., as I said in my previous post.
Quote idiots. Believe idiots. Sound like? :lfao:
Neither you, nor Mr. Kochar have a point at all.
Firstly, he and you are aiming at "Liberal Hollywood," for making an "anti-American" movie. A movie based on her book. A book about events in her life: she found that employees of Dyncorp and other U.N. peacekeepers were engaged in sex-traffickiing in Bosnia, she reported it, and was demoted and fired for it.
Fired by an American corporation, although she worked and was paid (in U.S. $$$$) out of their British branch. (Please note, this is the fact of the situation-your apparent ignorance of overseas corporate structures is forgivable. It wasn't the "Brits" that did anything to her, it wasn't "the brits" she worked for, it was an American corporation that happens to have a branch in Great Britain....)
She sued, in British court, and won.
That's what the movies about-that an American corporation did not respond properly to a whistleblower's reports, and treated said whistleblower unfairly, in violation of British and American law-and she won. Dyncorp, btw, fired those men in her report, even as they were firing her, though none of them has ever been prosecuted because they have immunity from prosecution in Bosnia.
So, to recap-an American woman reports malfeasance to her American employers, is unfairly demoted and fired-takes her former employers to court, and wins.
Sounds like a pretty pro American story to me. :lfao:
In any case, if one wants to allege an element of anti-Americanism, then put the blame strictly where it lies-with the woman who wrote the book.
Well you have got your facts mixed up there, she is not suing the company, she's making a claim to an Employment Tribunal as it says for wrongful dismissal and sexual discrimination which the Tribunal can decide on, it can't decide on anything else. She could well lose though and end up paying costs.
An Employment Tribunal's findings are legally binding but are considered mediation rather than judgements, they will only look at the reason the company gave for dismissing her and they will only look at her claim on discrimination, they won't look at anything else because that's out of their remit.
Btw the new Public Disclosure Act? it came in force in 1999.
The reviews of Captain America are beginning to come out, here is a look at one of them by John Nolte...
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/07/20/hollywood-reporter-captain-america-sticks-to-simplistic-patriotic-origins/
From the article:
Why does the Hollywood Reporter say this as though it’s a bad thing…?
Yesterday in the comments, someone quoted someone who said something the effect of “angst is much easier to write than nobility.” And this is very, very true. The same is true with sincerity over irony and inspirational over nihilism...
t’s just a fact that not coming off as corny when you want to inspire and appeal to the better nature of the human spirit through sincerity, is extremely difficult and requires real skill in the departments of writing, acting and directing. All this angsty brooding, however, requires little skill and no courage of any kind to attempt.
The same goes for patriotism. You can certainly overdo love of country in a way that makes your audience cringe. But to pull it off in a way that inspires and works takes no small amount of talent. On the other hand, irreverence towards the flag requires no skill whatsoever.
As an actor or writer, which do you think would be most difficult to pull off successfully: A moment where your character throws out a mocking salute towards the American flag or a moment where your character stops and salutes the flag with complete sincerity.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/07/20/hollywood-reporter-captain-america-sticks-to-simplistic-patriotic-origins/
From the article:
Why does the Hollywood Reporter say this as though it’s a bad thing…?
Sticking to its simplistic, patriotic origins, where a muscular red, white and blue GI slugging Adolf Hitler in the jaw is all that’s required, Captain America trafficks in red-blooded heroes, dastardly villains, classy dames and war-weary military officers.
With the MSM , patriotism is always “simplistic” and/or “jingoistic.” You never read reviews that say, “simplistically angsty” or “simplistically brooding” or “simplistically dark.”
Yesterday in the comments, someone quoted someone who said something the effect of “angst is much easier to write than nobility.” And this is very, very true. The same is true with sincerity over irony and inspirational over nihilism...
t’s just a fact that not coming off as corny when you want to inspire and appeal to the better nature of the human spirit through sincerity, is extremely difficult and requires real skill in the departments of writing, acting and directing. All this angsty brooding, however, requires little skill and no courage of any kind to attempt.
The same goes for patriotism. You can certainly overdo love of country in a way that makes your audience cringe. But to pull it off in a way that inspires and works takes no small amount of talent. On the other hand, irreverence towards the flag requires no skill whatsoever.
As an actor or writer, which do you think would be most difficult to pull off successfully: A moment where your character throws out a mocking salute towards the American flag or a moment where your character stops and salutes the flag with complete sincerity.
From the hollywood reporter review of Captain America I have to wonder, has enough time passed that even the fight against Nazi Germany is becomming the target of P.C. doubt and confusion. Here is the specific part from the review...
-------------------------------------
Sticking to its simplistic, patriotic origins, where a muscular red, white and blue GI sluggingAdolf Hitler in the jaw is all thatĀs required, Captain America trafficks in red-blooded heroes, dastardly villains, classy dames and war-weary military officers. There is no ambiguity here. Nor does any superhero question his powers. No, sir, not in this war and not with these determined heroes.
------------------------
I don't know, was there ambiguity to the fight against the nazis? Perhaps the WW2 generation were wrong about the nazis. Perhaps the nazis were misunderstood and should have been examined as to their troubled youths and difficult upbringing. I just began watching WW2 in color on netflix. At the beginning of the documentary they show the murder of civillians by the nazis. The actual execution by firing squad and the hanging of random civillians grabbed off of the street. I think that the reviewer of the film might want to review their history a little more in detail. I have seen the beginning of the P.C. examination of the war in the Pacific through the comments of Tom Hanks during his press tour for the HBO series about the pacific theater. Who would have thought that silliness might actually be aplied to the nazis. I know, some out there will say, you are taking it too seriously. No, not really. This is where the whole thing starts. In another 10-20 years the nazis will probably get their first sympathetic movie and then the whole thing will take off. The P.C. view of history needs to be countered.
-------------------------------------
Sticking to its simplistic, patriotic origins, where a muscular red, white and blue GI sluggingAdolf Hitler in the jaw is all thatĀs required, Captain America trafficks in red-blooded heroes, dastardly villains, classy dames and war-weary military officers. There is no ambiguity here. Nor does any superhero question his powers. No, sir, not in this war and not with these determined heroes.
------------------------
I don't know, was there ambiguity to the fight against the nazis? Perhaps the WW2 generation were wrong about the nazis. Perhaps the nazis were misunderstood and should have been examined as to their troubled youths and difficult upbringing. I just began watching WW2 in color on netflix. At the beginning of the documentary they show the murder of civillians by the nazis. The actual execution by firing squad and the hanging of random civillians grabbed off of the street. I think that the reviewer of the film might want to review their history a little more in detail. I have seen the beginning of the P.C. examination of the war in the Pacific through the comments of Tom Hanks during his press tour for the HBO series about the pacific theater. Who would have thought that silliness might actually be aplied to the nazis. I know, some out there will say, you are taking it too seriously. No, not really. This is where the whole thing starts. In another 10-20 years the nazis will probably get their first sympathetic movie and then the whole thing will take off. The P.C. view of history needs to be countered.
I think the Germans have gotten few sympathetic movies, as have anti-Hitler Nazis, but the point that I really want to make is that perhaps you're reading far too much into the review. Isn't it possible that this:
should be taken at face value? That there is no ambiguity, and none is needed.
