MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > The most racist movie of all time toward...

The most racist movie of all time towards Arabs

posted 15 years ago by nabbe87
72 replies | jump to latest

The film was written by former secretary of the Navy, James Webb.

The action takes place in Yemen, a real country in the middle east.
There are violent demonstrations that the American imbecile and the marines lead by Samuel L Jackson, they're called in to evacuate the American employees. And as they try to do so, the marines open fire on the crowd and kills scores of the enemy, including women and children.

And in the investigation that follows Tommy Lee Jones, the lawyer that represents the Samuel L Jackson character goes to Yemen to investigate.
The movie leads us to believe what seems honest. That the Marines committed the massacre.

During his investigation Tommy Lee Jones character sees a little girl, with only one leg. He follows her, comes upon a hospital ward full of civilian victims.
He finds an audio tape, by the bed of one of the victims. And when the tape get translated in court, we immediately beginning changing our mind of who is responsibly for this massacre.

We discover that the Yemen's civilians aren't so innocent after all. It turns out they fire on the Marines first.

And in a moment that will live in Hollywood goofeny, we suddenly learn that the little girl and sympathizing with, the very girl who's humanity and innocence may have broken down our stereo types, well, she's no better than those other Yemeni terrorists.

As a result, Samuel L Jackson delivers the key-line: "Waste the mother *beep* , are now on his side.

Why does this matter? Because in the enemy, the massacre of even women and children has been justified, and applauded. It's a slaughter yes, but it's a righteous slaughter.

The humanity is not there. And if we cannot see the Arab humanity, what's left?
If we feel nothing, if we feel that Arabs are not like us, or not like anyone else, then let's kill them all? Then they deserve to die, right?

What's the outcome? What do Arabs think of us that sees these movies? Because these type of movies are rendered all the time. Movies showing us killing them. What do they walk away with? Does this bring us closer together? This is advance peace? Or does this separate us?

Islamophobia now is a part of our psyche. Words such as Arab's and Muslim are proceeded as threatening words. And if the words are threatening, what about the images we see in the cinema and on our television screens? We are at war with Iraq. Once a war in march 2003. But didn't our entrance to the war, wasn't that made a lot easier primary because for more of a century that we have been vilifies all things Arabs. And now, given what happened at 9/11, the tragic events that took place on that day where 19 Arab/Muslim terrorists were responsibly for the deaths of nearly 3000 people. Now instead of saying that's the lunatic fringe, we say "no, no, no", the actions reflect the actions of 1,3 billion people. Now that's dangerous. We don't say that the actions of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members, who are Christians represents Christianity do we? Look at Oklahoma city, Timothy McVeigh, good Irish catholic boy. Do we say all Irish Catholics are terrorists? No one knew McVeigh's religious believes as part of the story. Yet of course have that been an American with Arab roots or an American Muslim, it would have been a part of the story. Remember when the news of the bombing took? Reporters and politicians, nearly everybody rushed to judgment. Without any proof whatsoever. Because the bombing was so destructive they believed that it must have had middle-eastern roots all over it.

The stereo type has become so widespread, that it has become invisible to some people. And the reason being is that we've all grown up with these images. Just take a look at the series "24" and many, many other films/series.

Dr. Jack Shaheen quote

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

Nothing in the movie made the shooting righteous or even right, just that Childers didn't open fire on an un-armed crowd. Friedkin in the commentary goes to great lengths to explain that he doesn't feel Childers was right to open fire and would have found Childers guilty on all counts. He also believes (he says its a fact) that terroists do operate out of Yemen but they represent a minority.

Hollywood depicts Arabs as the bad guys alot of the time yes but look at the amount of times when the news release pictures of people suspected of terroism and they're Arab or have an Arab back ground or are from the region. Its the vast majority of the time and statistics don't lie. That's not me being racist, I'm just pointing out a fact and this has nothing to do with Hollywoood. This is does not mean all Arabs are terroists and that only Arabs are terroists. Problem is Hollywood does not make the distinction, they see a general rule and run with it. People have allowed themselves to believe what they see in the movie and apply the same generalisation.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

It is not about an ethical dilemma it is about demonising all arabs and justifying their slaughter.

I strongly doubt Friedkin went out to make a movie out to vilify Arabs. If he did, I can think of dozens of storylines that would do a far better job in doing that.

The "news" IS propaganda. Statistics ARE NOT facts.

Wow and I thought I was paranoid. So who in your opinion who carried out 9/11, the London bombings of 7th July, Madrid and dozens of other bombings around the world?

America is the world's biggest terrorist. That is why they can label anyone who complains about America terrorising the world as a terrorist.

So you think the world would be better with Saddam Hussain in power? Last time I checked the US (and British as they usually co-operate) don't target civilian structures with the aim of killing civilians. So what did you expect the US to do after 9/11? Sit back and say "oh well never mind?" That's right up there with "ignore them and maybe they'll go away" I recommend listening to the commentary with Ridley Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer of Black Hawk Down, just remember Scott is English. Yes I believe they were right to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to get out asap but we were right to go in.

Politics and conspiracies aside, this movie to me was about whether Childers was right to open fire on the crowd. The enemy does not matter to me. Now why he chose Yemen I don't think he goes into in the commentary. Besides this movie was made in 2000 BEFORE 9/11 and the US and British going into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

In any war, there are civilian casualties. No matter how you try to avoid them, there always will be. If someone wants to protest military presence then target the military. Why plant a bomb on a bus, train, plane and deliberately target civilians who have nothing to do with the military? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the 40's. I don't blame the US today for that anymore than I blame the current german for Hitler. It was wrong yes but to blame the current generation for a past generations mistakes is un-fair. I'm not pro-war but I do agree military action is sometimes necessary and regards to Iraq and Afghanistan it was necessary in my view. Going into Iraq and removing Saddam Hussain was the right thing to do. There have been mistakes made during the campaign and the sooner we are out the better because of those mistakes but I completely agree going in in the first place was right. As for Afghanistan, again I ask what were you expecting the US to do after 9/11 when they discovered who was behind it (assuming you don't believe the conspiracies regarding government involvement which is a whole other argument)

In this movie, the enemy is not important to the story. It could have been chinese, russian, anyone because it wasn't about who the enemy was. The director (or the writers) chose to set it in Yemen possibly because it made sense to them or because of the political climate at the time I don't know. I'll re-listen to the commentary see if Friedkin mentions any reasons. But I'll keep stating this, I don't see this as propaganda against Arabs. There are scenes in the movie that give the Arab p.o.v (1 being the doctors testimony) and its not until about half way through the movie that you see that some of the crowd were armed. Even after we discover that, the emphasis of the movie is on whether Childers should have opened fire.

You're anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-religion. Do the ends always justify the means for you? Do you agree with the terroists actions then? London gets anti-capitalist demonstrations occasionally but mostly they're people using it an excuse to cause damage and simply use the ideal as a cover. Similarly with religion, it has been used an excuse by people to cause trouble or worse. You can take away capitalism and religion and I'm sure people will find new excuses to destroy things and each other.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

Korea followed Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were followed by S.E. Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Caribbean, the Balkans and the Middle East so it wasn't just one generation's mistake it has been a continuation of American policy since the 18th. century.

So in your world, what do we do next? Do you really believe if the US pulled out of every foreign country and apologised and whatever else, the terroists would simply stop?

I do not agree with "terrorism" but i understand why people do it

As per above, we should sit back and let everyone kill themselves? We should let Saddam Hussain gas his own people - unless you're about to suggest that is all media spin aswell

I'd say it was because Afghanistan was defenceless as well as the chosen route for an oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to the Indian Ocean.

Taliban declares war on the US and they think that's where Bin Laden was hiding. Sees pretty justified to me. Oil was a factor I do not deny but dealing with Hussain and others like him was right in my view. It will take a better argument than you have to persuade me otherwise

You are still rattling on about the movie as if it was an ethical debate instead of a piece of anti-arab propaganda

Quite possibly because I don't view it as a piece of anti-arab propaganda. I view it as a movie looking at whether shooting a crowd is ever justified among other things.

Dismissing anti-capitalist demonstrations as an excuse to cause damage is again a media driven image that lets jokers like you live in denial.

I didn't dismiss the demonstrations, merely the damage that people cause in the name of being anti-capitalist. How is setting cars on fire, throwing bottles and other objects at the police justified? The vast majority of people were rowdy but peaceful, there were an element that used it as an excuse to cause damage. There is a difference. I'm all for people demonstrating things even if I don't agree with their opinion but they can do it without destruction. Its ironic that it's the freedom that has been provided by those fought against people like Hitler that allows people to demonstrate. Hitler started small, was considered a no one to begin with. We all know what happened next

You sound as if you would think that the assassination of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King was a good thing.

Not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion

Those who write; Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize after their posts, appear to be able to do a fair bit of criticism themselves.

If you knew the context in which that was meant, it would make more sense to you.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

So I didn't see people destroying cars, setting fire to things during the May demonstrations in London? I haven't heard Bin Laden and other extremists say that US people should be killed? Hitler didn't start as a no one in the german political world, he just appeared? Hussain did not invade Kuwait in 1991? People didn't hijack planes and fly them into the Twin Towers? There were no explosions in London on 7th July? It's all media spin and government propaganda right?

My signature is aimed at movie critics and them telling directors how a movie should be made even though very few of them have actually made a movie themselves.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

Help me with what exactly? Please teach me since you clearly think I'm missing your point but all I've seen so far is someone who thinks that either a) the US are responsible for everything or b) people like Hitler appeared out of nowhere or c) there are no terroists and there is nothing to fear.

I'm being serious, I like hearing the other side

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

The US, in cahoots with The World Bank, The WTO, The IMF, The UN and The CIA is responsible for everything

Now that I can get on board with. They have power, they use it and will do whatever it takes to keep it

Hitler came out of the the economic depression of the 1930's

Yes he did. He was low level and used the economic depression to his advantage. Manipulative, insane but a clever man

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

No I'm being serious. The conspiracies surrounding governments are vast and mostly preposterous but some have merit. I like conspiracy theories, they're interesting to me. As for Hitler, I have my own views on him and its not all bad.

I'm on IMDb alot, I like to debate. This is nothing. Shall we get back to the movie?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

The movie is racist propaganda.

Not to me. There is nothing in this movie that gives that indication to me. As I said, it could have been chinese or russians or british or americans demonstrating, the enemy is not the point of the movie. The movie is very explicit in that. If it was set in the US the military would not have got involved (though the British SAS did in the Iranian Embassy Siege) Did the military presence inflame the situation? Probably did but that's one of the issues the movie raises

If someone threatens you; you are entitled to retaliate

Exactly. That is one of the possible conclusions of the movie. Childers and his team were being threatened. They opened fire. You could say the same about the protesters

You are not debating you are saying might is right.

You put your point of view, I put mine, you counter, I respond.......that's debating. I don't want the military to exist, it's a sorry state of affairs that they have to and they have to be used. I'm all for every possible measure being used to resolve a conflict or a situation. But when diplomacy fails, the only option left is force. Going into Afghanistan was in response to 9/11, giving rise to the theory that the US government was involved for the reasons you've stated. But the Taliban were not overly friendly to the US and Hussain had a long history of run ins with the US.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

I will need to read Kennedy's and Kings comments in full before making a comment (don't want to be removing the context now do I?) but I still think you should listen to Ridley Scotts commentary of Black Hawk Down (speaking of which, you don't think that's racist propaganda?)

As for the rest, if you really believe I have blood on my hands for viewing this movie as a movie then you're the one who has lost touch with reality and your assertion is out right offensive. This is a movie, depicting a scenario. Does it depict Arabs in favourable light? Not all of them. Does it suggest all Arabs are like this? No, the character of the doctor being one example of both points. Does it suggest the US military kills randomly and with impunity? The sheer fact Childers is on trial says not. Also, the 2nd in command questioned the order to begin with.

My dad used to be in the british army, based mostly in Germany. I had to grow up watching regular news feeds about the IRA and the whole Ireland issue. I wasn't allowed to travel anywhere without an identity card, the military would regular search our bus and every personnel had to check the car to make sure there were no bombs under it before they got in. I had to be evacuated from my flat at 2am because they thought someone had planted a bomb outside it (turned out to be a packet of sandwhiches) This was in the 80's into early 90's. This is why I have the views I do and why I will always back the military and see a need for them doing what they do (they are bound by rules when engaging in operations, something that is the basis of the movie - terrorists have no rules) I just wish there wasn't a need for them.

Edit - taken from a write up about the Iranian Embassy Siege:

The feeling grew over the years that if there were an incident in the UK, a line would be drawn in the sand to say: "So far and no farther."

Can't really disagree with this. But it can apply to both sides. Defending your country from "invaders" is understandable, so why not take on the military in their country?

But all of it is pretty irrelevant to the point of the thread. I don't view this as propaganda or racist. If this movie is racist, every single movie that portrays arabs as the bad guys is racist. I view this as a movie that asks whether Childers was right to open fire even if he was being shot at. Should he have returned fire in the manner he did? I watch the movie in that context, not as a documentary.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

In this case yes I am because I do not see this as propaganda. Childers is on trial for what he did, hardly saying "its good to kill indiscriminately" Childers was under fire, he returned fire as the movie proved but up until that point, Childers killed those people and is on trial. If being shot at and seeing people you are in charge of being killed is not sufficient grounds to open fire to protect those people then what is?

"The British Army uses child soldiers, women soldiers, plainclothes soldiers and they hide behind civilians" - Women are allowed to serve in the army. Plainclothes are usually special forces. Hiding behind civilians and use child soldiers? You got evidence of that? Or you just continuing your attack on the military?

Sean Bean wasn't in Black Hawk Down and by your own admittance, you haven't seen it so it hardly puts you in a position to comment on the movie. The writer of the book was very happy with how the movie turned out. You have a problem with the military being portrayed in a positive light?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

Re: 9/11 coverage. Yes, based on that argument that can be considered propaganda and I can see your reasoning. Just don't see how that applies to the movie. Childers killed that crowd. They showed an american soldier opening fire on a crowd and him facing the potential consequences of that.

Disbanding the military in this current climate would be idiotic. One day, maybe there won't be a need for them and I really hope that happens but that time isn't now. Maybe I do struggle to dis-associate myself because my dad was in the military. But whilst the military continue to carry out operations I will support them.

Hitler started out as a relative no-one in the german political arena. But slowly he began to get people in place but struggled to get support from the german people. Whilst the economic depression was a stroke of luck, his manipulation and manouverings during this time were, frankly, genius. He got key people in place and whilst fell short of overall majority in 1933, support from a key party for one of his acts effectively sealed his supreme power (after some more manouverings where he assumed sole control of the armed voices) The guy was evil, insane and wanted to take over the world. But he turned Germany from a crippled country to one of the worlds power houses that took a world wide campaign to stop.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

"Support" means I won't be abusing or insulting them when they get back or whilst they are serving.

Hitler wanted Russia then the world for lebensraum unless you're saying historians are wrong. Hitlers maneuverings in the political world of the time fascinates me in particular the level of success he had. A country pretty much on its knees turns to someone who knows what he wants and will stop at nothing to get it. Not saying he was right or good, just purely looking at how he got to power and then took Germany to be being one of the most feared countries in the world. Democracy ceased to exist, Hitler created a new position and filled it by appointing himself then wanted everyone to blonde haired & blue haired. If Hitler hadn't stopped at Dunkirk, we'd be probably typing and speaking in German right now.

You saying you disband the military and people who hate the US and Britain (who do exist by your own admission) won't take advantage?

I posted that because I liked Willis's delivery of it. Its got nothing to do with the that they're looking for Arabs. They could have been looking for anyone, much like Rules Of Engagement. A movie is not a documentary, I dis-associate myself in that regard. I don't take what I see in a movie and base my life on it.

I don't read comics.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

Branding them murderers is insulting to them in my opinion.

Porn is about the instant self gratification of the viewer but I don't watch porn anyway. As for comics, comics tell a story mostly aimed at 8-16 year olds. Graphic novels like V For Vendetta are aimed at more mature pepole (18+ bracket) but that doesn't stop other people from enjoying them. What's your point?

There are no phantoms in my mind. So Saddam Hussain was a good person? Al-Quaeda didn't hijack planes and fly them into civilian buildings? People didn't detonate explosives in London on 7th July? These things happened and that is why the military are in Afghanistan and Iraq (that and to secure Oil) There's a different between feeling threatened and simply being aware of what's gone on.

If Hitler hadn't stopped at Dunkirk, he would have marched right into London and taken over the country. The Allies at this point were getting hammered (which makes Japans decision to attack Pearl Harbor all the more puzzling) there was no one to stop Hitler. My statement of "if Hitler hadn't stopped at Dunkirk, we'd be speaking German" is based on this. It's not an affirmation of respect or admiring him, it's just looking at the facts and making a conclusion. You're twisting everything I say to fit your impression of me purely because I don't see things the way you do.

I have no idea why top level officers are resigning, I haven't asked them. Have you? Or are you about to come out with a broad generalization that fits your political views?

The military was sent in, removed Saddam Hussain from power (which I still maintain was right) and will be pulling out to allow the Iraqi government to rule themselves. Hardly the definition of setting up a dictatorship.

I take no pleasure in seeing people killed. I wish we could have peace but take US out of it and look at Israel and Palestine. People will always find an excuse to kill each other.

Britain did invent the concept of a concentration camp. As for The Siege, the character came across as he doesn't care who the enemy is. He is tasked with finding them before they kill anyone else. Based on the whole situation, its an interesting speech to come out with and an interesting way to deliver it.

You attack me because of my views but don't seem to be coming up with alternatives except for saying I'm paranoid. Lets start at the beginning. 1991: Hussain invade Kuwait, UN tell him if he doesn't leave he will be removed. He declines so the UN go in and get him out. In your view, how would you have dealt with that?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

How were the bombings on 7th July dubious?

Would you agree? - yes I agree

I love your vision, I really do. Unfortunately it's extremely idealist and requires all parties to co-operate. I'd love it to happen, just don't see it happening at the moment. If we could get everyone to lay down arms it would be a monumental achievement of unprecedented proportions.

As for the rest, we're going round in circles. I'd like to just agree to disagree at the moment.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

Theories surrounding Government involvement in "terrorist" attacks are nothing new. The official report on 9/11 has so many holes in it, it's laughable. There are suggestions Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen. The fact that people think the government had a hand in the London attacks doesn't really surprise me.

The fact Childers is on trial for murder suggests that Muslims (or anyone for that matter) can't be killed with impunity and that there are consequences for actions. It's not until over half way through the movie do we discover that they were under fire and even then, questions are raised over whether they should have opened fire. Should he have been found not guilty? That's the movies conclusion but Friedkin says he would have found Childers guilty if he was on the jury.

I don't base my life or views on what I see in a movie and I'm not about to start now.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

You seem to have mis-understood my statement on the 7/7 bombings. I was not mocking the theories. Merely pointing out that they are nothing new and highlighted other events where the government have rumoured to have been involved. I have not studied the 7/7 evidence in depth and I will try and dig out my notes on the 9/11 attack to give you specifics. I will look at the DVD's & other evidence on 7/7 and draw my conclusions as I usually do. Based on what I can recall, the attack was just too well planned and too well executed for no one to know nothing about it. There was something in the report about intelligence being received about a possible attack but I can't remember the specific conclusion.

Movies can draw attention to things but actually basing your life on a movie is totally different.

Complete denial of what? RoE not being propaganda? You're going to need a stronger argument than "it shows arabs being killed" to sway me on this one.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

I'm no troll. I state what I think. I don't put something just to provoke a reaction or be deliberately inflammatory (though some of my views are not held by a majority but frankly, I don't care)

Rules of Engagement whilst not portraying all arabs in a positive light, is far different to saying its propaganda. There are characters that do portray the arabs in positive light. The movie is not about what arabs are like, nothing in the movie gives me the impression that its even about who the enemy is but more the reaction to them. Was Childers right to open fire. That is the whole point of the movie and I think its explicitly clear in that.

There is looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion and getting the evidence to fit your already pre-held conclusion. You fit, to me, very firmly in the latter. I have no doubt you will say the same about me.

Regarding your 7/7 statement, its a very similar story to the one told about the Pentagon. The workers under go a test evacuation just before the plane hits. May have some merit but I will delay making a conclusion until I've seen the DVD's for myself.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nine-Darter 15 years ago

You're having to resort to insults to make a point, yet I'm the one that is sad??

Your whole argument is based on the fact it shows Arabs shooting at the Americans. You've ignored everything that follows this and focused on this one event. An event that we don't know was actually the case until over half way through the movie. Up until that point, Childers shot an un-armed crowd. Hardly puts the American Military in favorable or noble light. The doctor is an example of the arabs being portrayed in a positive light but even that is irrelevant since the movie is about was Childers right to open fire even in the face of attack (once we knew it was an attack) The doctors character is there to essentially defend the crowd who were protesting by claiming they were not armed and Childers opened fire on an un-armed crowd. The government covering it up to get Childers to take the full blame, again hardly puts the americans on the high ground.

I have put many things and you've twisted all of them to fit your pre-held conclusion of me which has been arrived by 1 small fact; I don't view this movie the same way you do. Your entire attack on me stems from this. This is just a movie. If you want to take some grander meaning than that, fine but its a movie that depicts a scenario. I will not be influenced by what I see in a movie.

You have put your argument across but it is not strong enough for the reasons I have put. You can keep stating the same thing over and over, doesn't mean you're right and doesn't mean it will convince me. It has however, got me looking at other movies that don't depict arabs (or anyone of ethnic background) in a favorable light and seeing if it does portray the message you claim this movie does. I stand by everything I have put regarding Rules Of Engagement, I view the movie the way I do.

I stand by my views on the other topics that have been raised during our "discussion" I don't take any pleasure in anyone being killed. I agree with your stance on what should happen with the military and disbandment etc I just don't see it happening.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kausix777 14 years ago

How was going into Iraq right?
Removing SH? Why? What did he do except hurt the ego of the Bushes?

Why doesn't the US go into other dictatorships which are much more violent - like saudi and the other gulf countries? Like pakistan which is the cause behind most of the terrorism in the world, especially when US knows that pakistan is two-timing them?

The reason is simple - oil and money.
With saudi resources and their contracts with the US in jeopardy, they wanted to access Iraqi oil (second largest reserve after saudi). Saddam wanted to do things his way. THAT was the real cause of the war. Of course, Saddam was not liked by the other dictators around him because he was not muslim enough. In fact, from what I've heard, in Saddam's regime, other than the excesses, people were happy and all unislamic things like alcohol flowed freely. So, the other dictators were happy to help topple him.

[–] dattele2 14 years ago

"Last time I checked the US (and British as they usually co-operate) don't target civilian structures with the aim of killing civilians."

Kindly remove your head from your ***. Does Kissinger+Nixon+Cambodia come to mind?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2815881561030958784#

[–] kausix777 14 years ago

Agreed with everything else you're saying but you were not right in going into Iraq. That was merely a false case made out for the express purpose of war.

[–] jeff5102 14 years ago

So what you are saying is that Friedkin's movie portrays all Arabs as terrorists, and that it is justified when you are shooting the brains out of women and children. However, if you buy the DVD, you can hear him saying that he doesn't believe that is true?

WTF?

What is next? Will Friedkin direct a great escape-movie, which portrays hero Josef Mengele during his escape to safety? And then you have to buy the DVD to hear Friedkin state in the commentary that "he doesn't feel that Mengele was a hero after all"?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShotsWereFired 15 years ago

Is that you Dr. Jack Shaheen? Because you quoted him word for word (Reel Bad Arabs).

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShotsWereFired 15 years ago

The post was directed towards nabbe87

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J71kNlZiDc&feature=related (Shaheen's overview begins around 5:15)

Enjoy your debate.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20thCentury 15 years ago

"We discover that the Yemen's civilians aren't so innocent after all. It turns out they fire on the Marines first.

And in a moment that will live in Hollywood goofeny, we suddenly learn that the little girl and sympathizing with, the very girl who's humanity and innocence may have broken down our stereo types, well, she's no better than those other Yemeni terrorists.

As a result, Samuel L Jackson delivers the key-line: "Waste the mother *beep* , are now on his side.

Why does this matter? Because in the enemy, the massacre of even women and children has been justified, and applauded. It's a slaughter yes, but it's a righteous slaughter. "

The way jones found all that unimpeachable evidence was mighty convenient for this far fetched drama, wasn't it?
The plot was flawed because of how much evidence the producers were witholding from the audience - or just ignorant about - or purposely ignorant to manufacture a drama. They had to blind themselves to way too many facts to do that though.

If that were ever a real incident then the troops had absolutely nothing to fret about from a trial. The ambassador's testimony would have been a slam dunk to impeach. I'm not a lawyerr but bet this movie really stunk to them because of the wanton ignorance of what kind of evidence a court like that will examine - everything that would show this would never have made it past a preliminary inquiry, to a courtroom.

As far as righteousness goes, is it possible that theres still alot of americans that aren't yet aware of how some cultures occupied by us have resorted to strategies of placing their civillians in front to shield their gunmen, as well as allowing children to risk their lives to kill us, all for the greater good of combating the unwanted crusader army? Or, as in webb's time, how the vietnamese culture resorted to using children to deliver hand grenade surprises to the troops. It happens, so demands we know why.

Theres really no excuse for anyone to not be aware of that possibility today, given all the historical evidence at hand. I mean, no excuse for legal aged voters who share a unique responsibility for voting in politicians that believe theres an easy victory wherever they deploy our forces in the globe. President cheney and bush took advantage of a very ignorant electorate, who's support enabled some very ill-thought out policies. Everything that went wrong was predicted well in advance, but the masses only heard the dumb patriotic music they were playing instead. (LIke, how in the hell is it possible to ever win a war against a friggin word?? -- America first has to win the war on ignorance before it can tackle a war on terror.)

The word "righteousness" can only be appropriate to the wannabe muslim haters who follow their fantasies from the safety of their living rooms. I seriously doubt even the most racist trooper witnessing it would think it righteous - and who wouldn't come away impressed at the sacrifice some people are ready to make, because thats the only kind of weaponry they have available. What they have to do to protect themselves will ensure high levels of PTSD in their future and will cost alot in medical bills. The voters are responsible for the health of the troops because they were ordered to deploy there by proxy of the dumb officials the voters elected into office. They need to have unlimited access to the best health care the military enjoys today, which is government run.

And we shouldn't jump to believe americans wouldn't resort to tactics as dire as what islamists do, if we we are ever in the same position, with only small arms to use against overwhelming firepower by the occupiers. Most might disagree and use the examples of somali women shielding their gunmen by standing between them and our troops. No, we wont be like them as long as we have cruise missiles, B-2's, predator drones, etc.etc etc. They'll have to do the nasty to survive. Should it be their fault they did that, or ours? Islamists are not exactly that different either - somalis wouldn't dare use the same tactics against their local enemies, as they do with us, because they know those opponents have no reservations about shooting innocents. Sacrifice is only a weapon for them when the voter base of a western occupier is ignorant of the facts behind the policies of their govt. Similarly, a well informed voter will support what they determined should be done, when the carefully examined facts support a 30+ year occupation - or else they clearly dont support it. That honest examination of the facts has never happened!

The policy now dictates a cruel reality if the troops need to keep from being killed. What has to happen, from the little vietnamese grenadier child, from webb's war to the unarmed somali women shielding their gunmen today - all of which are killing the troops is firepower will need to take out those willing distractions to silence the guns behind them. That is the nature of "resolve" these days, just for survivability's sake. It really sucked to see cobra gunships mowing down unarmed somali women to hit the gunmen behind them - doubly so, because recordings of it are small victories for those gunmen. The military brass knows well how that publicity is as potent a weapon in their hands as a modern tank army because it screws with public image and public support necessary to sustain the standard 20+ year occupations those policies have committed the country to.

Scenarios like that are something the bushies had no idea might be a possibility in the lands they committed the troops to. thats why the electorate are the ones responsible to vote in intelligent leadership, if the democracy is to survive. (Partisans spreading falsehoods to bamboozle the voters need to be exposed for that.) There WERE many who did know these possibilities existed though, but the administrations were too self righteous and arrogant to consider their fact driven analysis, because it only served to discourage doing their ideas, which were ill thought out and plain wrong. See, what they believe is true is all you need for victory is a good show of military force - with that, everything submits and falls neatly into place. That same ignorance infected the know-nothing neocons in the 60's too. They never learn from history because they believe they're immune to it - because god blesses them.

Anyone believe americans would never stoop to having their women shield the menfolk with the guns, who are defending their hoods? I would expect the 95% raising their hands never saw the harlan county war documentary (in kentucky). That tactic was done as a very last resort and was credited for winning their long war. We also revere anyone who dies for our country, and does that against great odds with little at hand. Everyone should keep that in mind.
[Theres also too many so-called "patriots" who believe the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of innocents - the more blood, the better - as long as it isn't them or Their families blood, because that would be a waste. They'll see their roles as the survivors who will write the righteous history. no?]

[–] sawyertom 15 years ago

Dude, let me expalin it this way, the biggest killer of Arabs (Muslims) is fellow Muslims, not the US. Explain that one genius.

[–] Nizzemancer-1 15 years ago

Wow, I've never seen so much *beep* in one post.

You asswipes need to stop thinking you are superior to non-muslims and that everyone is out to get you, I've seen your social structure, your moral duality, hell, I've seen you people fondle goats, and I was not impressed...

Until you prove you can play nice I would wall you in someplace away from civilized society (Let's just repurpose afghanistan - been there saw some of the worlds most corrupt, lazy and psychofantic people ever, it could use a good wall-in), if someone paints something you don't like or writes a song pertaining to your favorite work of fiction you all form a mob and start throwing rocks and burning flags then you threaten people and plan to kill them, so yeah prove the stereotype wrong once in a while and people won't seem racist towards arabs, if you're tolerant then I will be too.

Light travels faster than sound,
that's why people seem bright,
until you hear them.

[–] Hecatr 14 years ago

Every day Muslims old and young, male and female, gather to commit or promote violence against non-Muslims. This movie was by no means a stretch of the imagination.

THE BIGGER THE GOVERNMENT, THE SMALLER THE CITIZEN.

[–] jeff5102 14 years ago

Yeah... that is why in the first half of the 20th century, they had taken control of half of Africa, India... o wait, that was Great Britain.

Well, let me start again: at that time, the OTHER half of Africa was conquered by a cruel desert force called the "Foreign legion" which was er,... French?

Ok, the SECOND half of the 20th century, the world was divided in the American-led part, and the Communist part, and in both parts, the role of the Muslims was... eh...

Please, Hecatr, help me...

[–] kausix777 14 years ago

Ok, let's step into the modern century, please. :-)

[–] kausix777 14 years ago

I think you're overreacting.
Going by your own logic, how many movies are made with this kind of a story? Don't you realise you're also generalising?

About your catholic boy, how many such incidents have taken place?
In fact, when I visited USA, I failed to see a single church in the limited region that I travelled in. I don't think americans are religious, as was proved by my conversations with them.

By the way, muslim arabs are not supposed to watch movies, so don't worry about what they think.

[–] rjmhhk 14 years ago

1.) The character with one of the most moral fibre and the only one who makes a tough choice is the arab doctor. he honestly translates the tapes even though it is painful for him. That's actually kind of noble

2.) The Directors commentary confirmed that the "shooting" scene with the little girl was originally supposed to be ambiguous (whether it was real or if he was deluding himself) but the test audience wanted a more "literal" approach.

3.) Samuel L Jackson flat out states that innocents died; what's more, in the heat of battle you have to make a decision on the fly. even if there were people not shooting, there were enough to make it a threat.

4.) Samuel L Jackson confirmed that no, they were not trying to demonize arabs as a whole.

5.) One of the cowriters went on to write Syrianna, a film that has a pretty positive depiction of arabs.

6.) Everyone has used child soldiers at some point (the boers used them in the war with the british, african militias use them today).

7.) The few arabs not in the mob are shown positively.

[–] kausix777 14 years ago

1.) The character with one of the most moral fibre and the only one who makes a tough choice is the arab doctor. he honestly translates the tapes even though it is painful for him. That's actually kind of noble

Agreed.

2.) The Directors commentary confirmed that the "shooting" scene with the little girl was originally supposed to be ambiguous (whether it was real or if he was deluding himself) but the test audience wanted a more "literal" approach.

I also thought he was imagining that at first.

3.) Samuel L Jackson flat out states that innocents died; what's more, in the heat of battle you have to make a decision on the fly. even if there were people not shooting, there were enough to make it a threat.

Agreed.

4.) Samuel L Jackson confirmed that no, they were not trying to demonize arabs as a whole.

Agreed.

5.) One of the cowriters went on to write Syrianna, a film that has a pretty positive depiction of arabs.

Ok, but that may not be about this film. Syrianna is a very complex piece of work, most of which I did not understand at first. However, that film very firmly shows Americans as corrupt and defending corruption. Not that they showed ALL ababs positively, either. Possibly, you want to say that they showed Iranians in a more positive light (Iran <> Arabia).

6.) Everyone has used child soldiers at some point (the boers used them in the war with the british, african militias use them today).

True.

7.) The few arabs not in the mob are shown positively.

Agreed.

I agreed to just about everything you said. :-)
So, what exactly were we arguing about?

Sorry, but with so many comments deleted, I have lost track of this discussion.