Can someone tell where are the antisemitism or anti-American for that matter?
Is it really that hard for people to look at christian fundamentalism and deny it's existence? Former American Military leaders said there were corruption within the soldiers in Iraq and said that easy access to money and resources is the reason.
This movie is against both American war machine and Terrorism.
So the antagonists are Americans, is this really offending?
I saw this movie with an open mind, and tried to view it as just a low budget Turkish version of an 80's Chuck Norris film with stereotype vilains... in this case the stereotype villains being the Americans. So in that regard, I wasn't all that offended by the ridiculous negative stereotype.
However, if you say you didn't see antisemitism, you must have been watching a different movie.
Gary Busey plays an evil Jewish doctor running a prison where he oversees the deliberate false imprisonment of innocent people to harvest their organs to send to Israel. If you see a movie about a Jewish doctor stealing organs from innocent Iraqis to send back to Israel and can't find anything antisemitic, you must have very different standards for what defines "antisemitism."
As to the anti-American point... yes, the film portrays the Americans as bloodthirsty goons and their leaders as evil crusaders... this would be laughable, except for one problem. The film makers promoted this movie as being based on actual events. That's where it stops being just negative stereotypes to create villains for an action movie and becomes dangerous propaganda.
As to this statement you made:
Former American Military leaders said there were corruption within the soldiers in Iraq and said that easy access to money and resources is the reason.There is no truth to this. Individual soldiers committing crimes is very different from corruption within the ranks. share
it is very well know that some jewish doctors had participated in that crime.
Israel has been famous for it argan mafias, havent you ever heard it dear?
No of course, you didnt. You live in States and watch cnn , fox and u only read nysun , worldpress etc..
Yes yes sorry.
Corrucption in the ranks ha snot coccoured.
Media has not encountered with torture vidoes and pictures of lietunant of usa military.
that happened in mars, right?
For the God sake, make some research my friend.
You have access to internet !
thanks
[deleted]
Ah the classic "everyone knows" and "well known facts" without links to reputable news sources response.
BTW I also love how these people think Fox News and CNN have the same type of journalistic standards. CNN is far closer to the BBC than Fox News and yes the BBC is still the gold standard not Al Jazeera ... dear.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You have made a few false statements.
You wrote:
Umm .. actually, it IS well documented that there are gangs of jews running around operating organ donor gangs, mostly in eastern europe. They also are very prevalent in arms smuggling to third world countries and passport fraudThere is no truth to this. This is completely made up.
BTW, the Columbine killers were jewishNow that is so wrong that it's almost funny. Not only were both killers (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold) Christians and not Jewish... but they were slightly fascinated with Nazi memoribilia and commited the massacre on April 20th, Hitler's birthday. Klebold was a religious Lutheran who attended church every Sunday. Yes, his grandfather on his mother's side was Jewish... but so what?
P.S. Jut because someone says something anti-Israeli, IT DOES NOT MAKE THEM ANTI-SEMITIC. The Semitic lands also cover arabia, so Israel and The US actions against the Palestineans make them both the most anti-semitic countries on earth. Right?Wrong.
Oh, and if you 'don't care what some antisemetic blogger writes on the internet', why did you respond in the first place?It's called a discussion.
[deleted]
In this case... yes.
I notice you are focusing on one response and ignoring everything else I wrote.
So instead of responding and explaining why you disagree with the rest of what I wrote, you chose to insult me because of a one word response I gave in part of a broader more wordy comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
do your research
arabs are semites.
I never said they weren't.
shareSo if Gary Busey's character was buddhist it would be anti-buddhism? What if he was a Muslim? It would be anti-Islamic? because if so I watched 6 seasons of "24" and 3 of them had an Arab villain.
The only reason the film makers made him jewish is because they wanted to show the main antagonist's fundamentalist views, in the discussion between them.
So if Gary Busey's character was buddhist it would be anti-buddhism? What if he was a Muslim? It would be anti-Islamic? because if so I watched 6 seasons of "24" and 3 of them had an Arab villain.
You see, I saw it differently, maybe because I actually watched the movie. Yes, Busey's character harvests kidneys without consent. Doing so may be unethical, but it saves the lives and it causes no lasting harm. He's also the single most compassionate character amongst the Americans. He treats the prisoners very well, much better than he has to, because he doesn't want them to suffer. He gives the prisoners top-notch medical treatment. And he actually goes out of his way to oppose the abuse going on. Those are not the actions of an evil person. Those are the actions of a good person trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Billy Zane's character, likewise, gets several great dialogs and monologues perfectly demonstrating that he is a good person who truly wants to do what is best for the Iraqi people. He may be misguided, and a little bit insane, but he certainly isn't ill intentioned and never actually does anything wrong, personally.
All of the abuse incidents in the movie are based on things that actually happened (and have been confirmed) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, occasionally a soldier will go overboard and others will go along with it due to peer pressure (it happens with any close-knit group in a high-stress environment). There is no sense ignoring that it does happen. And yes, in the confusion war, mistakes do happen and innocent people do get killed. In the case of the real wedding massacre, excessive reliance on aerial and satellite photography for intelligence led to a tragic mistake in which a wedding party was mistaken for an insurgent gathering. In the movie, they knew that it was a wedding, but they didn't want to hurt anyone and the shooting started by accident. Once the first shot was fired, the chain-reaction was uncontrollable. It happens. Nobody is perfect.
You see, I saw it differently, maybe because I actually watched the movie.As did I.
He's also the single most compassionate character amongst the Americans. He treats the prisoners very well, much better than he has to, because he doesn't want them to suffer.Perhaps you should have paid better attention when you watched it.
All of the abuse incidents in the movie are based on things that actually happened (and have been confirmed) in Iraq and Afghanistan.No they aren't and no they haven't.
In the case of the real wedding massacre, excessive reliance on aerial and satellite photography for intelligence led to a tragic mistake in which a wedding party was mistaken for an insurgent gathering. In the movie, they knew that it was a wedding, but they didn't want to hurt anyone and the shooting started by accident.Incorrect.
He clearly stated that he did not want the prisoners abused or killed because he didn't want their organs damaged, not because he had any compassion for them.
Incorrect.
While there have been incidents where celebratory gunfire has been confused for hostile fire, the infamous attack on a wedding was an air attack in Afghanistan.
It had nothing to do with reliance on sattelite or aerial photography.
The cause of the mistaken attack was false information from an allied Afghani warlord working with the US.
He deliberately gave false information of a Taliban meeting in order to eliminate a rival tribal leader.
No they aren't and no they haven't.
Name one.The burden of proof is on you.
Neither the organ harvesting nor the use of children to prevent a bombing rises to the level of abuse. The former is certainly unsettling due to the lack of consent, but a person can live a perfectly normal life with only a single kidney; live organ donation is something that happens every day in hospitals across the globe. The kids, however, that was just a stroke of brilliance. Sam Marshall knew that Polat Alemdar wouldn't have harmed the kids, that much was obvious by his evacuation of the hotel. Filling the hotel with children thus neutralized his bombs and diffused a very dangerous situation without any bloodshed or violence. It was, quite simply, the best and most morally correct solution.
The making of air holes in a sealed container truck, however, happened in Afghanistan. It was perpetrated by the Northern Alliance, rather than by Americans, but not without American knowledge.
[deleted]
Look, if you want to make a point, make sure that you do it in a correct fashion. That includes proper grammar.
sharethere is no point discussing what your people did in ıraq or any place else.
you believe what you wanna believe.
none can put the facts in your mind unless you wanna see it.
this is just a movie, and it tells a story.
it does not have to be true, and it really sucks in action scenes.
but the story is good
( i really dont want to get into this trouble, but for those who said there is no proof of things in the movie, just one thing: have you not heard Abu Garib)
It's not just abu ghuraib, everything America has done in Iraq from day one has been a mistake. This movies clearly and let me repeat clearly shows that. The reason why the American troops are meant to look villains is because thats how the Iraqi population sees them; as oppressors and criminals. The only criticism Americans draw from this movies are these technical details, choosing to be blind to their symbolic and spiritual meaning.
shareFunny. That's not how the Kurds see the coalition forces. Of course, if the Turks had their way, every last Kurd in both Turkey and Iraq would be exterminated.
Disgraceful things happened at Abu Ghraib under the coalition forces. And those people were court-martialed. That's nothing compared to what it was under Saddam. But, then again, this is a movie coming from a culture that sees being dressed up in ladies underwear and same-sex genital contact as much worse than being tortured and disembowled. Go figure. I'm personally waiting for the sequel where the evil villain is gay.
Saying that the majority of Iraqis preferred life under Saddam to the coalition presence is a lie of the most disgusting degree. Tell that to the parents who had to applaud as their children were executed in front of them by Baathist thugs.
"Of course, if the Turks had their way, every last Kurd in both Turkey and Iraq would be exterminated."
What the...? That's like saying "If Americans had their way every last Arab in USA and Middle East would be exterminated" because of Al Qaeda.
From where does this "information" come from? Or are you trying to find another scapegoat for American sins?
Saddam may have been bad, but it was the US government's decisions that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, which exceeded 600,000 when I last checked.
For comparison, Japanese civilian deaths during WW2, which was the site of the much condenmned atomic bombs, is listed to be 580,000, 220,000 of which are the direct result of the atomic bombs. Oops, my bad. The atomic bomb was American doing, too.
By contrast, casualties of the fight against separatist terrorism in Turkey, included in which are the Turkish causalties which are the direct result of PKK activities and the atrocities committed by PKK in the region to strike fear on and to gain dominion over Kurds, is listed to be 30,000.
So, before giving hasty judgements on others, remember what your country did outside its own borders and give your vote accordingly, will you? Refraining from slandering others to make your country look good would be a good point, too.
"Saddam may have been bad, but it was the US government's decisions that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, which exceeded 600,000 when I last checked."
http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
http://www.slate.com/id/2151607/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/
Cue "Evil Neocon/Zionist/Freemason NWO Conspiracy" cry...
"For comparison, Japanese civilian deaths during WW2, which was the site of the much condenmned atomic bombs, is listed to be 580,000, 220,000 of which are the direct result of the atomic bombs. Oops, my bad. The atomic bomb was American doing, too."
Which came first, Pearl Harbor or dropping the bomb?
"Refraining from slandering others to make your country look good would be a good point, too."
I'm trying to find a post of yours where you DON'T slander others. Let me know if there is one.
I'm still wondering what the heck Americans were doing so far away from their own land.
*sigh* Whatever they are doing in Middle East right now, I guess.
As I have been reading this thread, my opinion of the islamic world has just decreased by about 10 points. As things are and what i have noticed from several community sites, I find very little validity in such propaganda.
As for the movie itself, I am more saddened that an American istitution would bleed on the American flag. The problem with America is that there is no patriotism, its all globalization. Many will question this statement arguing, "What's wrong with globalization? Don't you want to be open-minded to other cultures?" Of course yes, but its like the whore who puts herself out for $10. She makes a lot of friends fast, but gets every STD known to man. Plus, you can be patriotic and cultured at the same time. Basicly, in the end, I just watched American brothers and sisters slaughtered for entertainment, developed and marketed under an American institution. :( It only goes to show with such D list actors as Gary Busey and Billy Zane.
As for anti-semitism and the muslim thought on Jews, its ridiculous. I've heard so many outlandish comments and youtube, myspace, digg, and other such communities where you can witness actual muslim speech, and their ignorance and misinformation is outlandish. There is a reason why the Jewish Sacha Baron Cohen makes fun of Jewish perception in the area between the middle east and eastern Europe in Borat. Its because its true. If you have any real idea of their mentality and outlook upon Jewish people, you would not find that funny (I don't. It's one of those cases where its not funny because its true). Just to let you known I'm not some sort of American shut-in, I was paying attention to BBC where they showed a mosque being shut down. It was shut down because the leaders were asking the followers to attack Jews, Americans, and basicly commit jihad in London because England is a Western State of Government where religion is tolerated. Muslims oppress people, so it makes sense they would create lies (especially against Jews because the Qur'an speciciclly mentions them as being evil and must be attacked). I was watching Al-Jazeer, and they had a man who was claiming Jews are evil and invented the atom bomb to control the middle east. He was basing this on the fact Albert Einstein was born Jewish (even though most sources and quotes relate Einstein to being either atheist or agnostic). This man was getting world-wide coverage to spread his lies, and the worst part is that people will believe him for the sake that they must or be condemned by others.
Maybe I rant too much, but don't take a movie like this lightly, especially if thousands of young and fragile minds expose themselves to this propaganda and understand this material as truth (because the film claims to be). It would be one thing if the film claimed it was fictious, but this is aweful.
[deleted]
"For comparison, Japanese civilian deaths during WW2, which was the site of the much condenmned atomic bombs, is listed to be 580,000, 220,000 of which are the direct result of the atomic bombs. Oops, my bad. The atomic bomb was American doing, too. "
Yeah, it's obviously MUCH worse than the systematic torture and slaughter of nearly one million Chinese, wherein Japanese officers would partake in such delightful activities as cutting open pregnant women's bellies and torching entire swaths of countryside.
At this point this type of garbage is more sad and annoying than particularly infuriating. I've seen creationists talk more truth than these people.
Like the user above you said. What the Japanese did in China doesn't make what the US did to Japan right.
A reasonable person would find the power to condemn both.
The atomic bombing of Japan, as horrible as it was, saved countless lives.
The Japanese deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just a fraction of the amount of Japanese who would have died had the war not ended and the Americans and British been forced to invade.
"forced to invade"?
Uh-huh. Nice. Like being "forced to invade" Iraq? Maybe America should have thrown atomic bombs to two biggest Iraqi cities and "save" lives?
I'm afraid we are wading deeper into fantasy land.
Yes. Forced to invade.
Your Iraq comparison shows your lack of understanding history.
Imperial Japan began its war with the US by attacking our forces in Hawaii and the Philipines.
Imperial Japan invaded Manchuria, Korea, China, The Philipines, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, etceteras.
they were brutal to the surrendered population. slaughtering civilians and prisoners of war, and forcing thousands of women into comfort camps were they were raped by Japanse soldiers.
When the allies finally closed in on mainland Japan, the Japanese refused to surrender.
An invasion of Japan would have dragged the war into 1946 and cost an estimated one million allied casualtiess and countless more Japanese casualtis.
The Japanese population was preparing to fight to the death.
Japan refused to surrender and the invasion was being prepared when the atomic bomb was invented.
Yes. Forced to invade.
Fortunately the atomic bomb forced a surrender.
Do you think we should not have forced a surrender?
Do you think we should have left Imperial Japan alone to make war again?
In Europe, were we wrong to invade Germany?
Once driven back to their borders, should we have left Germany alone with the Nazis in charge?
Comparing Japan to Iraq is absurd.
I am not comparing, I am finding a point of intersection. And that point is USA being "forced to invade" places where it has no right meddling in.
I wish, while at it, USA feels "forced to invade" its best buddy Saudi Arabia and free the 50% of the population (the women) from suppression and slavery.
I am not comparing, I am finding a point of intersection. And that point is USA being "forced to invade" places where it has no right meddling in.Actually, you were comparing Japan directly to Iraq.
Where did poor Saddam try to conquer? As far as I know you had already driven him away from Kuwait! Oh wait... weapons of mass dectruction, right? The ones that couldn't be found.
Your guys couldn't find the weapons, but luckily you have found all the oil wells and the Kurds you have "saved" are selling them to US oil companies in expense of the rest of the Iraqi population. How convenient.
I'm still waiting for you guys to save Saudi women, you know. They have oil, too. Or do Saudi women don't count because USA already owns Saudi oil?
I am not justifying the invasion of Iraq.
It was wrong.
TotallyBlunt, you seem to be missing the whole point. Nearly all Americans and Westerners don't agree with Bush, you obviously have no idea how unpopular the war is in the US.
You're clutching at straws, trying to link Atomic Bombing of Japan (hell, most of WWII) to the war in the middle east, yet fail to realise that they're completely independent and shouldn't be brought up as arguments for the other. The USA was brought UNWILLINGLY into the war after Pearl Harbor, forcing Americans to defend themselves from likely invasion of a worldwide scale. The War On Terrorism (which has, so far, been rather unsuccessful) was also initiated as a defensive instinct after the events of 9/11 (any sane American will also admit that the war in Iraq is deceitfully linked to Al-Quaeda). You seem to ignore the fact that the A-bomb was a necessary evil. Yes, it's terrible that thousands died, but it prevented perhaps millions more deaths of both Allied and Japanese in a continuing war.
*beep* happens in war. You push a fresh-faced 19 year old kid into a warzone and *beep* will happen. Abu Ghraib and all those other war crimes weren't ethical, any person of ANY faith will demonise them. And they have. Abu Ghraib blew up internationally from a handful of photos and video, earning universal disgust from every country. Can you imagine what the reaction would be like if the events of this movie were true? And don't say "Everyone knows" or "It's well documented", bring up verifiable facts that prove these things happened WHEN and WHERE they were portrayed in the film. It seems that the few factual events in the film were actually referencing other ones in other countries, but all portrayed in the same movie-length film for a one-two punch of how evil Americans/Jews are.
The outrage that most Americans and Westerners feel for this movie isn't because it portrays Americans as sadistic thugs. After all, Hollywood has portrayed generic Middle-Eastern extremists as evil terrorists for decades. The problem is that it CLAIMS it's based on true events. And that's where the danger is. If a child watched a Steven Seagal movie, it's just that, a movie. It's fictitious and children will just treat it as entertainment. If you disguise your antisemitic, anti-american trash as fact, then how will a generation of Turkish children growing up feel?
Politics aside, I don't understand how someone can claim this movie to be antisemitic just because one of the many comically evil villains is Jewish. I've seen black villains in movies and no one shouted racism. I've seen evil atheists and no one called out discrimination there. Oh, but once the villain is Jewish, all hell breaks loose. There were evil Jews in Waltz with Bashir, but that was an Israeli film so its all good.
shareBecause the libel of Jews harvesting organs is much older and much bigger than this film.
shareLibel? Next you'll be claiming that we don't kill Christian babies to make our delicious Challah. Ridiculous, Sir (or Madam). Now hush before we foreclose on every house in the world through our fictitious giant banking monopoly.
share