Reply With Quote
Because you don't support American murderers and rapist you're obviously of the Cindy Sheehan camp.
If you don't support the President's agenda on Iraq, or utter so much as one syllable against the actions of American troops, even if said actions are in fact contrary to the UCMJ, much less common human decency, obviously you are on the side of al-Qaeda. Plus, it's your duty to silence anyone who would offer up any criticism.
That's it, folks, in plain black and white. If you allow people to speak freely on political matters, you are an enemy of cherished freedoms like freedom of speech on political matters, for which our brave fighting men have died at Iwo Jima.
True Patriots know that George W. Bush is inspired by God to lead America, and that his policy choices should be considered second only to the Bible in inerrancy. If you don't support Bush, you are doomed to everlasting fire. If we hadn't gotten rid of prayer in schools, America would not be undermining our President by disagreeing with him and thereby encouraging the insurgents in Iraq, because everybody knows that the insurgents watch the polls in America before deciding whether to plant IED's, and that if American schoolchildren prayed in class, their parents would know President Bush is infallible and would give him high approval ratings, and also kids wouldn't have sex before marriage or look at porn on the internets.
So there. Mark Cuban is pro-al-Qaeda, anti-God, and corrupts children through porn. Not only should we boycott the Mavericks, I think we should have him burned as a witch.
Because you don't support American murderers and rapist you're obviously of the Cindy Sheehan camp.
the point of the movie is to portray the american military as a bunch of murdering rapist. Why shouldn't people protest?
The difference between a republican and a liberal is that the republican will boycott and protest while the liberal will demand the government shut it down.
when you make blanket generalizations, yes.
The entire military? All of them?the point of the movie is to portray the american military as a bunch of murdering rapist.
Since you've obviously seen the movie in its entirety enough to tell us that the entire U.S. military is portrayed as murderers and rapists rather than a fictional account of a select few soldiers based on true events, I was wondering if you could answer some of the questions I have about the movie.
How does the HD look?
From people who've actually seen the movie:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wvenice131.xml
Venice Film Festival: Brian de Palma's Redacted shocks Venice
By David Gritten, at the Venice Film Festival
Last Updated: 2:05am BST 04/09/2007
# Venice Film Festival 2007
# David Gritten's Venice Film Festival blog
A wave of new American films about the Iraq war are due to arrive in cinemas over the next few months. Yet it's safe to say few could be more shocking or harrowing than the low-budget Redacted by veteran director Brian de Palma (Scarface, The Untouchables), which had its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival yesterday.
Shot with a cast of unknown actors on high-definition video cameras, it is about a small group of bored, restless US soldiers stationed at a checkpoint in Samarra.
They are impatient with the war's progress, distrustful of all Iraqis (even the children) and eager to go home. Two of them concoct a plot for the group to revisit a household recently raided in a search for insurgents, and to rape the family's 15-year-old daughter. In a chilling finale they do the deed, but their mission also ends in multiple murder.
Intriguingly, one of the group (who harbours ambitions to go to film school) is compiling a video diary of life at the checkpoint. He takes his camera along on the raid and simply keeps shooting during the terrible events. Only later does he realize that this implicated him in the crimes.
To tell the story, de Palma boldly uses a variety of forms: blogs, YouTube posts, videologs on the internet and the video diary the soldier is shooting. There are several references to the shortcomings of the mainstream media in reporting the real horrors of the Iraq war; de Palma makes a telling point with these alternative narrative devices.
'Redacted' means 'edited' or 'blacked out,' and the film's first image is a written disclaimer on the screen, with more and more words gradually being deleted. The director calls the film 'a fictional story inspired by true events,' and insists everything depicted has really happened.
Whatever the truth of those claims, there's no doubt Redacted packs an extraordinary emotional punch. It ends with shocking still photos of Iraqis, dead, disfigured or in extreme distress because of the war. This montage left the audience at a Venice press screening stunned, silent and in a few cases tearful. The combination of De Palma's visceral style and the horrifying subject matter left me reeling.
Controversy will clearly rage around Redacted, especially when it opens in America. But for those who have seen it, the images of that awful appointment in Samarra will linger joltingly in the memory.
-------------------
And when did people lose the ability to judge things for themselves rather than jumping on partisan bandwagons?
here's the point. The biggest political debate right now is to be for or against the war. This movie argues against the war because of murders and rapes as a consequence.
now use the analogy when integration was at the forefront of politics. Would using murders and rapes as a consequence of integration be acceptable?
I see it very much the same and thank goodness have the right to voice my disgust of Mark Cuban. Neverthless, I wouldn't try to get the movie banned as hate speech or anything.
I can't parse this at all.
I have to ask why this wasn't your point in the first place?
I'm definitely not a writer, but here's another try.
Would you be upset if someone argued against the integration of blacks because blacks rape and murder?
I see arguing against war because of the few examples of rapes and murders as the very same thing.
If you're allowing your thoughts on the war to be swayed by a fictional film, your thoughts weren't that solid to begin with.
it's the influencing of the masses that I'm concerned with, but don't think this movie will make much of a dent. I'm just giving my 2cents.
I meant "you're" in the general sense. It's pretty obvious where you stand.
So let me ask you this. Which crimes by those individuals in the military can be portrayed in a fictional account and which cannot?
Can some of these crimes by individuals in the military be portrayed in a fictional account?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...09-04-06-49-27
Hollywood has the freedom to do whatever they want. To me it's a matter of bad timing. People are so riled up about the war and a movie like this seems like it just wants to throw more nonsensical crap into the fire. Rapes and Murders happen within any group or population. Pointing fingers at the military is ridiculous to me.
So when a movie shows people dying and things getting destroyed in a war, it's automatically an antiwar movie.
Except it isn't nonsense that some individuals pleaded guilty and some were convicted of those crimes being portrayed in a fictional film.
NOOOOO! Absolutely valid arguments against war.
You still haven't answered my question.
Which crimes by individuals in the military can be portrayed in a fictional film and which cannot?
Speeding? Failure to make a correct turn? Assault? Murder?
Uh, I'm going to need a full sentence. I don't quite get your meaning.
And BTW, what about that whole Fallen Patriot Fund established by Cuban?
any and at any time. I've gotta run, but I do want to pick this up with you later.
Will do.
more trolling I see. Find someone else.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
