Is this a TRUE STORY?
Is this a TRUE STORY?
shareI am wondering the same thing although I can not find anything relating to a "national security advisor william Sokal" but im still looking Does anyone else know IS THIS A TRUE STORY
shareBelieve me, you'd have heard about it if it were true! You really think that National Security Advisors have been forced to resign after having utterly destroyed exculpatory videotapes? Nope. That was the real incredible thing in this movie.
Certainly there have been questions raised from all conflicts about "civilian" casualties. The usual situations are: i) the non-combatants got themselves into the line of fire, or ii) they weren't non-combatants but participating in some way (by signaling others, by carrying ammunition or guns or with hidden weapons they might fire) in hostile activity. In either of these cases, the soldiers are acquitted of any crime.
Similarly, in this movie, even having seen the videotape and what Samuel Jackson saw on that roof, I'm open to believe that there were a few in that crowd who non-combatants - some who neither intended nor committed violence - but they mixed themselves into the midst of an attack by the Yemenis on the American Embassy and the response killed them.
It's only when soldiers mean to kill someone who could not have appeared to be combatants, that the soldiers should be convicted of crimes for their actions.
What i dont then understand is the end where it mentions that he retired and lives where ever now,so that must mean he was at least a real guy in life.
But obviously if this had really happened it would be every where,when ever some one mentions american involvement in the middel east etc.
So just wondered why they added the bit about what he did and is doing now,if the whole thing is a made up story?
The end where it shows what happened to the characters after the story is just that. following up on the "CHARACTERS"
This is Decidedly NOT a true story.
Our Embassy in Yemen evacuated...
USMC Opening fire on a Hostile/Non-hostile? crowd...
Arab world Outrage at the women/Children killed in the fight...
BELIEVE me.. you would have heard of it. it would be plastered all over the news.
The Filmakers did a great job keeping it realistic and up-to-date
The Plot is like something that could very well be right out of todays headlines (Can you say Haditha)
That, and the blurb at the end of the movie is why this movie seems to be based on a true story. but it's not.
Sir, Put the mouse down slowly and step away from the keyboard!
Ok cheers for that,still seems weird telling us what happened in later life to made up characters.
And yes im sure if 80+ people had been shot down we would never hear the end of it,from the oh so innocent arab world.
And yes im sure if 80+ people had been shot down we would never hear the end of it,from the oh so innocent arab worldVery true. look what happened in April of '88 in The Gulf. USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down Iran Air Flight 655 and we are still getting crap from that.
Sir, Put the mouse down slowly and step away from the keyboard!
share
The filmmakers let you know what happened to the characters at the end so as not to leave you hanging. The conclusion to the movie left a lot of loose ends that needed to be tied up somehow. I agree that it's kind of confusing, but if you're patient you can always wait around for the fictional characters/situations disclaimer at the end of the movie in situations like these.
shareAre you kidding me? When was the USS Vincennes shootdown of the Iranian ever brought up? Besides the fact when it returned to the US, its captain William C. Rogers was awarded the Legion of Honors medal. And VP Bush quoted:
"I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are."
Compare that with the Lockerbie case, where Libya was framed and the country strangulated for 10+ years until they agreed to hand over billions in ransom along with the 2 countrymen that were scapegoated by the US. And with the exact same frameup evidence, one was convicted and the other acquitted by the same judge. Now the wrongly convicted and jailed suspect's appeal was about to reach its course, a secret deal was made so that he would drop his appeal for his release on compassionate ground. And you get this fake outrage by the US Administration, echoed by the whole US media. These ignorant media should do a little investigative research instead of regurgitating the government's propaganda.
Now the prosecution is thinking of re-opening the case, not because of all the evidence that would have proved a frame-up, but they are saying it is impossible for the one person to carry out the operation, so there must be other people involved. Of couse there were other people involved, other people that has no relationship with the scapegoat, other people the US ignored when it decided it wanted to scapegoat a whole country that didn't heed to our demands.
[deleted]
"You CANNOT compare the two..."
But Good Golly Miss Molly you KNOW the other poster WILL try to do so...
NM
LOL nickm2,
And that little terrorist wannabe better not get me started on the Vincennes incident, I know quite a bit about the details of that incident firsthand from my time in service and my 2 deployments to the Persian Gulf.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Sailor just stick a JDAM on his butt & be done with him.
NM
"I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are."
If he did, he's wrong. You have to look at the facts. If our country kills innocents either deliberately or accidentally, we have to take responsibility for it. To not do so is to not only anger the enemy, but to lose all credibility in the region.
He did and it is statements like that which make the US hated in much of the world. It's a fact of life that no one remembers the good stuff but only the bad.
In any other country, The Capt of the Vincennes would have been severely censured if not court martialled for a total failure of his command. RoE was about an officer ordering his troops to return fire when under attack. What excuse did the Capt of the Vincennes have? He THOUGHT he was under attack - from an aircraft on a scheduled flight sticking to its flight path and transmitting on its transponder.
Consider the s**t the Soviets got for taking down a Korean aircraft 300 miles off its flight path, flying in restricted are space and refusing to comply with instructions from intercepting fighters. Different strokes for different folks.
Well a major reason is that the US is extremely big as painting itself as a pillar of virtue and the greatest democracy and all that *beep* All the good the US actually does pales against the actual war crimes that it actually commits with surprising regularity and the fact that the United States as expressly promised to attack the Netherlands if the International Warcrimes Tribunal at Hague ever tries to bring a process against an american citizen.
Take the 2007 Apache attack on the Reuters reporters. The Geneva Convention is crystal clear on that armed forces are never under any circumstances whatsoever allowed to open fire in a predominantly civilian area(such as all of Baghdad), they are allowed to return fire when fired upon or to protect civilians being fired upon but even then they must take any reasonable precautions to avoid harming civilians(even if that should include putting themselves at greater risk).
Thus it is completely irrelevant whether the reporters seemed to be wearing RPG's/AK's or not, they had not opened fire against anyone and was thus not an acceptable target and neither was the truck who tried to help them. And neither the pilots, the operator permitting them to open fire or their commanding officer has been brought to court martial much less sentenced.
So until the US actually measures up to all that it claims to be the hatred is justified and expect it to go on.
[deleted]
"It's only when soldiers mean to kill someone who could not have appeared to be combatants, that the soldiers should be convicted of crimes for their actions. "
Uhm no, it is the exact opposite in fact, the soldiers are only allowed to return fire upon someone who is visibly armed, if they took part in such an obvious act of mass murder every single one should be tried convicted and not see freedom again for a considerable time if ever.
In such a situation the Geneva convention CLEARLY states that while yes the Marines may fire back they may NOT do so in a manner that unnecessarily risks civilians(such as indiscriminately opening fire full auto into the crowd) and a civilian per definition is anyone who is not OBVIOUSLY armed(molotvs counts, as does AKs, stones however does not). If this happened in real life the commanding officer should be punished to the full extent of the law and reasonably recieve the harshest punishment the court is authorized to dispense. Further any officers who did not refuse said order should also be punished harshly with long sentences at hard labour, any soldiers who did not refuse that order should be sentenced to hard labour for several years and a dishonorable discharge.
It is the duty of every single member of an armed service to not participate in any action that intentionally targets civilians, they are allowed to return fire if fired upon but only in such a manner as to minimize civilian casualties even if that puts greater danger upon themselves, which in the situation of the movie they would be allowed to use precision small arms fire to take out any armed individuals with minimal loss of civilian lives. This duty applies to even the lowliest soldier, it is his duty to know this and claiming he was unaware has not been a permissible defence ever since WWII.