The depection of the terrorist in this movie seemed to me a little to kind. The hatred that motivates them was missing. The movie only focused on their religious motives, and that too was light.
This was most likely done because of the fear of backlash from the Muslim community, and the negative publicity it would cause.
No fear from hollywood to offend the oil companies in a negative light however.
Evil corporations will always be favourite target of Hollywood
The movie was not about terrorism. They could have left all of those scenes out. But, I guess that had to show what happened to the missile Bob lost track of. "No fear from hollywood to offend the oil companies in a negative light however." That's what the film was about. The West's need to have continued access to the middle eastern oil fields.
shareEvil corporations will always be favourite target of HollywoodYou appear to have succumbed to a simplistic interpretation of the film. Syriana's political leanings are much more ambiguous than that - the film doesn't really take sides.
Marylyn Richards character (and most likely the viewers of this movie)probably never heard of Adam Smith and the power of the 'invisible hand'.
I really had to laugh at Danny Daltons diatribe defending corruption. What a complete load of crap. I feel sorry for anyone who bought that statement.
Transparency.org annually cites a 'corruption index' list of 180 countries on how corrupt they are.
Top of the list 2008 (least corrupt) 1) Denmark 2) New Zealand 3) Sweden 4)Sinapore
Bottom of the list 2008 (most corrupt) 177) Haiti 178) Iraq 179) Myanmar 180) Somalia
Stick these facts up Danny Daltons ass and ask him if he would like to be deported to Haiti.
And if this statement by Dalton was an attempt to convice that viewer that the US government is overly corrupt. The US finished 18th of least corrupt states (out of 180) by the way, one behind Japan (17th) , but several slots ahead of France.
Not all corruption is equal. In many poor nations, lots of low-level government officials require a bribe to do anything for anyone. This is well known.
It is a different matter entirely when a powerful nation uses its military might, spy network, corporate dominance and economic clout to pursue a self-serving agenda - e.g., the overthrow of the elected government of Iran in 1954, the 2003 invasion and devastation of Iraq, the ecological carnage wrought by Texaco in the country of Ecuador from 1964 until 1992, etc.
Do thousands of small acts of corruption equal one large act?
The U.S. is a great country and a world leader that produces a lot of good, but it is also 5% of the world's population consuming 25% of the world's resources, and the ongoing maintenance of that ratio has been a major driver, and is the question of the day...
As for "Adam Smith and the power of the 'invisible hand'" see my post on your other thread.
The hatred that motivates them was missing. The movie only focused on their religious motives, and that too was light.
This was most likely done because of the fear of backlash from the Muslim community, and the negative publicity it would cause.
No fear from hollywood to offend the oil companies in a negative light however.
Evil corporations will always be favourite target of Hollywood
I also thought it was missing but
1. that was not the main plot of the movie.
2. there is a possibility that they were "recruited", meaning that they would get money for their jobs. So, religious indoctrination may not be the only cause here.
And I suppose you've met a lot of terrorists...
I don't think it was light, or done because of the fear of backlash. It highlighted the difference between the professional terrorists (Mussawi, Mohd Shiekh) and the poor, ignorant suicide bomber.
This movie was not focusing on terrorism, of course, as has been mentioned several times. However, "hate" is not a prime motivator for suicide. As was depicted in the film, the recruits were jobless, far from home, and felt that the best way for them to make a difference for their families was to do this one thing. Faith and religious motivations were definitely part of it, and sometimes "hate" is a motivator; but hate would generally lead to people bombing and shooting from afar. While I can't claim to know many suicide bombers, I do know one whose bomb failed. While he is still Muslim, he no longer supports such violence and is very outspoken. He was not motivated by hate and his explanations offer primarily religious and familial motivations.
what the movie is trying to show is that the suicide bombers/terrorists, the ones who get to blow them self up, are just peons, young people being used by organized religious extremists ( like the blue eyed arab). poor, uneducated, unemployed, their future is uncertain and they were told that they dont have any choice and this will bring them to heaven and stuff,
its happening all over the world from palestine to indonesia, and the us bombing some muslim countries with drones isnt going to help anyone
I think that's somewhat true. The Muslim world, for whatever reason, produces lots of these young guys. And the handlers who know how to appeal to the anomie. If the rulers had the slightest concern for anyone but their own selfish interest, maybe the guys would have some small hope in THIS world. But, then, I think we have produced deliberately that kind of ruling class. They serve our "interests" so well. Interesting that they brought up Mossadegh. He, too, thought he could help his people. He too was toppled by the CIA. And bad as Saddam Hussein, when he threatened oil money, he became doomed. Even the "democracy" of America couldn't stop oil interests from removing an uppity Arab dictator. When up against the moneyed classes of the world, democracy is a string to push on.
shareMARYLYN RICHARDS, Deputy National Security Advisor (to Deputy CIA chief Terry George, in deleted scene 29): “Imagine gasoline $10 at the pump. Or heating oil that costs $2,500 a month for a two-bedroom apartment. If oil goes to $100 a barrel, the U.S. turns into a third-world country. That is a fact.”
[deleted]