Slashdot Mirror


Collateral Damage

The post-9/11 action/terrorism movie is now a genre all of its own. If this movie is interesting at all, it's through the prism of September 11, a day that changed culture as much as it did politics. Our perceptions of Black Hawk Down, Behind Enemy Lines, and now, Arnold Schwarzenegger's Collateral Damage are shaped - nearly haunted - by the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the subsequent military operations in Afghanistan. Some movies - Black Hawk Down - are greatly enhanced by 9/11. Because it was true and well done, it hits us between the eyes. But for poor aging action-pioneer Schwarzenegger, whose movie was postponed for three months by his nervous studio, the opposite is true. This movie comes from another time, not enlivened by reality but diminished by it. Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending.

The plot is vintage Arnold. He plays firefighter Gordon Brewer, who is drawn into international terrorism when his wife and son are blown up in a bombing carried out by Claudio ("The Wolf") Perrini. In pre-9/11 movies, the U.S. is nearly as evil as the terrorists, as the perennial bumbling evil C.I.A./NSA secret agents do absolutely anything at all costs by any means to get their way -- just like the terrorists. At the moment, that plot line seems a dubious one. When Brewer figures out that the ever politically squishy U.S. government isn't going to catch the Wolf (to avoid ruffling the feathers of the Columbian government), he decides to do it himself, tracking the Wolf through Panama to the dense jungles of Columbia, where he spends as much time dodging evil U.S. agents as he does hiding from evil Columbian guerrillas.

The movie is full of the now vintage Schwarzeneggerian repertoire of narrow-eyed stares and clunky one liners and explosion after explosion. And let's face it, Arnold is no action adventure spring chicken. His face is lined, his visage distinctly middle-aged. We see him in relatively few action sequences, and he is undoubtedly keeping platoons of stunt men working, judging from the credits.

Watching the film, you can't help but identify with the helplessness of a man who sees his family blown to bits for no particular reason by murderous fanatics who use high-blown rhetoric to justify their butchery. I suppose there are lots of people who wish they could get their hands on Osama Bin Laden's throat.

What makes Black Hawk Down so jarring and effective a film is that it's about a real story. U.S. soldiers really did find themselves in a horrific shoot-out in Somalia, and really did behave heroically under awful pressure. These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful. That movie is thus a terrific salute to ordinary people who have to take a deep measure of themselves in extraordinary situations.

But Schwarzenegger's clunky ham-handedness is diminished, not enhanced by reality. The movie is too long, the ending loopy. What was once an entertaining Hollywood cartoon figure now just seems a dinosaur, his sensibility outdated and irrelevant. Schwarzenegger has made some first-rate action stuff. His Terminator series was great (he's making another). He ought to ride off into the sunset while he still has his dignity and pride, and acknowledge that while he had a great ride, the reality of the world has finally overtaken him.

417 comments

  1. Cartiac Damage? by totallygeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hasn't Arnold about had it with these types of movies? I mean, can his heart take much more?

    1. Re:Cartiac Damage? by decaying · · Score: 1

      ...or even Cardiac.

      --
      ----- One piece short of Legoland
    2. Re:Cartiac Damage? by vreeker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He enjoys these movies for the same reason programmers enjoy reusing code from earlier projects... less work and *generally* equal result. If you got millions of dollars to say the same lines over and over again from movie to movie wouldn't you continue?

    3. Re:Cartiac Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jon Katz has a 5 inch clit

    4. Re:Cartiac Damage? by totallygeek · · Score: 2
      Cardiac


      ooops!

    5. Re:Cartiac Damage? by ArnoldYabenson · · Score: 0
      Hasn't Arnold about had it with these types of movies?

      Of course he has, as his box office over the past several years shows. Collateral Damage is the last nail in the coffin of his dubious charisma.

      Typical of Katz, he now moves in to kick the corpse. Herd instinct, I suppose.

      FSTFUKP.

    6. Re:Cartiac Damage? by aka-ed · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Congratulations, Arnold (Yabenson, not Schwarzenegger). You are on topic and to the point, if I could I would mod you to infinity.

      Katz does seem always to be anticipating his audience, gauging what they wish to hear from him, apparently still with some success. All the bitterness seems to be from people who once took his word as sincere.

      As much as we appreciate the "news alert" that Schwarzenegger's career is over, we need to know what happened to Katz's plans to present a Q & A with Junis. Failure to "follow-up" his most notorious story is the nail in Katz's coffin as a "real" journalist.

      The Times story linked above says, in part, that "Junis had agreed to take part in a public question-and- answer session on Slashdot.org soon, once things settle down a bit in Afghanistan." Haven't things settled down yet?

      "He's already made his way to some sex sites, and wishes he had a printer. Ah, the indomitable human spirit." -- Check out this j-school weblog to see how Katz measures up to other reporters on the liberation of Kabul.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
  2. I reckon by G-funk · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you read the last 2 paragraphs, replace Arnold Schwarzenegger with John Katz it makes a bit more sense.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    1. Re:I reckon by EggplantMan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why is it that every Slashdotter who hates Jon Katz' opinion thinks that everyone else cares to hear his?

      --

      ?-|||-----x<*))))><
    2. Re:I reckon by DickPhallus · · Score: 1

      Because they are midly amusing at this time of the morning.

      --

      --
      Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
    3. Re:I reckon by justinstreufert · · Score: 1

      'Cuz the last 15 anti-Katz posts have been moderated up to 3 or 5. ;)

      (The post you were replying to is currently at 3, Funny)

      Justin

      --
      "Why would God give us a waist if we wasn't supposed to rest our pants on it?" - Rev. Roy McDaniels
    4. Re:I reckon by MaxVlast · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      This time of the morning? What time zone are you in?

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    5. Re:I reckon by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Posts pointing out flaws in the articles and making fun of the authors are about all that's worth reading slashdot for any more.

    6. Re:I reckon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not him, but I'd say basically anywhere in the USA or the Pacific east of the International Date Line seeing as it's not even noon (11:48am) here in Boston (Eastern Standard Time).

    7. Re:I reckon by EggplantMan · · Score: 1

      Frankly I find them boring, repetetive and somewhat trollish. Sadly I think that's the same argument people use against Katz himself. :)

      --

      ?-|||-----x<*))))><
    8. Re:I reckon by Spazntwich · · Score: 1

      John Katz has made some first-rate action stuff.

      What action stuff has Jon Katz been involved in besides the occasional "Jerk off to Pr0n", "Lift food to mouth" and "scratch itchy butt" routine?

    9. Re:I reckon by Morgahastu · · Score: 1

      I thought the news posts about slinkies were the reason to read slashdot? Or posts about someone asking what what degree he should get? Or the fact that slashdot ignores anything remotely important?

    10. Re:I reckon by The+Pi-Guy · · Score: 1

      Ehm, and replace "movie" with "book."

      --pi

      *ducks*

  3. 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like "9/11" has usurped "Columbine" as Katz's phrase of choice to prepend to "post-".

    1. Re:9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      postpend?

    2. Re:9/11 by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      Append.

    3. Re:9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      append, you mean.

    4. Re:9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or is that ass end?

    5. Re:9/11 by psamuels · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Looks like "9/11" has usurped "Columbine" as Katz's phrase of choice to prepend to "post-".

      So that's why he kept misspelling Colombia as "Columbia". He's still thinking "Columbine".

      (Actually, I read a local review of Collateral whose reviewer did the same thing - I guess it's just a common mistake by the semi-literate.)

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    6. Re:9/11 by Grab · · Score: 3

      Or maybe this is actually the British Columbia Freedom Fighters Front for the Liberation of the Trees? "Blame Canada"... ;-)

      Grab.

  4. For once, Jon is like Arnold by Brento · · Score: 4, Funny

    He ought to ride off into the sunset while he still has his dignity and pride, and acknowledge that while he had a great ride, the reality of the world has finally overtaken him.

    Psst - hey Jon - I think right here is where I say something about the pot calling the kettle black.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
  5. so? by DickPhallus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Schwarzeneggerian repertoire of narrow-eyed stares and clunky one liners and explosion after explosion


    This is exactly what I want to see when I go to a movie like this. A lot of testosterone based action! Anyone looking for some sort of deep statement regarding the "post-9/11" world is looking in the wrong place.

    Ever hear of the difference between "film" and "movie" katz?

    --

    --
    Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
    1. Re:so? by Spuggy · · Score: 1

      Good point, it is far too quick to expect any deep and meaningful releases based on the 9/11 attacks (both psychologically--would be offensive to victims this quick, and pyhsically--if someone is working on something that is going to be that great, it's going to take longer than 5 months to do).

      If you're looking for non-action and more of a documentary isn't looking for it in the movie theater, but on CNN, A&E, or The History Channel (The Special on the World Trade Center released in the weeks after 9/11 on The History Channel was an excellent documentary--it was made before 9/11, but had added commentary where the commercials would normally go)

      And yeah, right now any US Military Movie is going to do fantastic considering the Patriotism/Natoinalism abundant in the US right now--the same reason Bush has an 85% approval rating right now; you think he would even be over 60% or even 50% at this point in his term without the 9/11 disasters, when even the most popular presidents in our history were lucky to have 55% after their first year? (This is not an attack or support of him, that's for another discussion altogether)

      The same has been true after any successful military campaign. Fickle to say, but it'll die off--it might take a few more years, but soon enough there will be another government scandal or more Enron fiascos to bring to light the negatives of the country once again. And then the normal military movies' popularity will die down and a 9/11 movie will be worthwhile and popular--if nothing else to remember and mourn.

      [OT] This was and is the defining moment of the 15-30 year old generation. It is the first truly remarkable event that impacted so many that has happened in years (aside from various government scandals of course). And yes, we had the Gulf War, but for the most part, that was a campaign in which we measured American casualties in the 100's, not thousands.
      [/OT]

    2. Re:so? by October_30th · · Score: 0
      will be another government scandal or more Enron fiascos to bring to light the negatives of the country once again.

      I really hope that at that point the public will see the folly of pouring billions of dollars into the corporate welfare for the military-industrial complex at the same time as public services, schooling and roads and railways are deteriorating.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope that at that point the public will see the folly of pouring billions of dollars into the corporate welfare for the military-industrial complex at the same time as public services, schooling and roads and railways are deteriorating.

      Ask people if they give a shit about good roads if they have no job to drive to.

    4. Re:so? by pinkj · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I want to see when I go to a movie like this. A lot of testosterone based action! Anyone looking for some sort of deep statement regarding the "post-9/11" world is looking in the wrong place.

      The sad thing is that there are many people who feel the same way. So many infact that movies like Collateral Damage and Snow Dogs hit #1 at the box office. That's a lot of people who need to be entertained instead of enlightened.

    5. Re:so? by October_30th · · Score: 0

      So "national security" at any cost, eh?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    6. Re:so? by boobookitty · · Score: 1

      no difference between "film" and "movie". or "art" for that matter. movies are art, and there's all sorts of art, and no accounting for taste

    7. Re:so? by Niomosy · · Score: 1

      Is there really a problem with that? Let's face it. We get enough crap thrown at us every day (if we bothered to pay attention). There's crap going on throughought the world. It's enough to make people go insane.

      Given that, why can't we just go out for some mindless entertainment once in a while? It's really nothing more than us sitting at home and playing Quake or Wolfenstein.

      I, for one, am quite happy to have entertainment for entertainment's sake. I don't need to be enlightened about things everywhere I go.

  6. Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending. by Typingsux · · Score: 2, Funny
    This is a big coincidence? Arnie made a movie with a plot?

    That spoils it for me on its own.

    --
    The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
  7. arnold didnt direct or write this movie by voudras · · Score: 2, Informative

    he's just in it - making a buck.

    this article at salon.com sheds some like on arnolds perspective, and his relationship to the movie.

    im no huge arnold fan - but katz shouldnt dump on arnold for being *in* a movie

    whats the directors name katz? who did the casting? did you know harrison ford was supposed to play the part?

    1. Re:arnold didnt direct or write this movie by DickPhallus · · Score: 1

      Exactly... and I wouldn't feel bad for paying $4.50 on tuesday night to go see this movie, because it would probably entertain me for a couple of hours.

      Would you expect Katz to know any of the stuff you mentioned? No, because that would require all of 5 minutes of research! Shessh... don't ask too much of the man!

      --

      --
      Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
    2. Re:arnold didnt direct or write this movie by eniacpx · · Score: 1

      You do realize that actors have a choice about what movies they are in dont you? They aren't being sotred in some warehouse waiting for their agents to call. Do you think Arnold hasn't made enough money to live from Preditor or Terminator series? He picks bad roles, and for the most part it is his fault that picks these roles.

    3. Re:arnold didnt direct or write this movie by $0+31337 · · Score: 0

      I think you should keep your comments sotred in your head instead of posting them.

  8. Article in The Sun Newspaper Online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Sun Newspaper Onliune has a very good review about this movie.

  9. er? by prizzznecious · · Score: 1

    Was I the only person who saw previews for this movie before September 11? It's easy to say retrospectively that this had its roots in September 11, but movies take a long time to write, film, and edit- unless you're suggesting that Hollywood was in on the plot.

    --

    visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
    1. Re:er? by dougmc · · Score: 2
      No, you're not the only one.

      If I recall correctly, the movie was set to be released not very long after September 11th -- meaning it was very nearly done, if not completely done. Then September 11th came, and they decided to delay it. I don't know if it changed very much in that period ...

    2. Re:er? by peachboy · · Score: 1

      i do remember seeing some trailers on tv several weeks before 9/11, and i thought it was kind of strange how after 9/11, the movie seemingly dropped off the face of the earth. no on even mentioned that it was being pushed back that i ever heard. this movie was made without any influence of 9/11.

      i've also noticed several people pointing out that 'gee, aren't there a lot of war movies coming out right now? it's all because of september 11th'. no it's not! i don't think some people know how long it takes to make a movie. you could easily spend weeks making a 5 minute short, so how long do you think a 2 hour movie takes?

      oy ve

      --
      "I just want to thank my coach Eric a.k.a. Disco for shattering my reality..."
    3. Re:er? by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      "I don't know if it changed very much in that period..."

      amazingly enough, it did not change at all. not one second (supposedly).

    4. Re:er? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is because of September 11th that all the war movies came out in a big bunch. They all had their release dates moved up. Don't you realise that movies can have their postproduction work speeded up? Oy ve.

  10. Commando Two: The Quickening by DavidBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I remember watching his movie Commando, where he rips a seat out of a small convertible so he can hide while this woman drives the car. Then, she gets run off the road and plants the car right into a telephone pole. Arnold gets up, asks her if she's OK, and she is. Cheesy to the extreme.

    There's also a scene where he kills a terrorist by throwing a circular saw blade into his head, like a frisbee. Cheesy.

    Arnold movies (the best was still Conan, or maybe Kindergarten Cop) were always most watchable to those persons with very powerful disbelief suspensors. Mine are getting worn out, so I'm going to pass on this movie. That's the reason I won't watch it - not September 11th.

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
  11. Another Katz Drama by coolcast · · Score: 2, Funny

    Another diaapointing story from the greatest nerd of them all.. 'Stuff from JonKatz, It doesn't matter'

    --

    Don't click here. BT will enforce intellectual rights and sue for eac
  12. Enemy of the State by JohnBE · · Score: 1

    Anyone seen this since September 11th?

    --
    e4 e5
    1. Re:Enemy of the State by sparkyz · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I heard that. Great reference and entirely appropriate. Even more so would be "The Siege". Denzel, as relatively few others, can really make you forget he's Denzel and in the context of the film leave you well acquainted with the character rather than the actor.

      I don't think the makers of "The Siege" or "Enemy of the State" were uniquely prescient exactly; but a couple films that were written off by some as paranoid, almost counter-culture phenomenon are truly high art after the fact.

      --
      Oops
    2. Re:Enemy of the State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other day, Gene Hackman came into the RadioShack I work at part-time. That was a good movie.

  13. re: Cardiac Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question in all this is:
    Has America suffered enough?

  14. True? by Snow_Bonobo · · Score: 1

    "Because it was true and well done, it hits us between the eyes."

    True? Hmmm... 'Inspired by a real events' or 'based on a true story' would be more accurate. It's not exactly a documentary, is it?

    Sometimes JonKatz articles resemble an advanced form of trolling. Damn, fell for it.

    1. Re:True? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the entire movie was made under the suggestions of the actual people who where there. In a way, it was a documentry, but some of the things (Such as when the guy got his finger shot off, and when the guy died in the truck who was standing up at the gun) were backwards timewise, they happens before they got to the building, not after .. History channel had a full documentry on the actual event and had many interviews with the soldiers who were there, including dozens of the Somalians who were there also. They all claimed Black Hawk Down was very true to what happened.

    2. Re:True? by Snow_Bonobo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Did the History Channel documentary mention the massacre of 54 people in Somalia by US troops while they were at a peace conference? Or the claims that the US soldiers took Somalian women and children as hostages? Any sympathetic shots of dying africans? How much screen time do the brave Malaysians get?

      You can't wrap tragic events into entertainment without losing the truth.

    3. Re:True? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't wrap tragic events into entertainment without losing the truth.

      Just like you can't warp the truth into your own entertainment.

    4. Re:True? by issachar · · Score: 1

      anything with Ridley Scott anywhere near the helm isn't going to be accurate. Don't get me wrong... I definately enjoy his movies, but I enjoy them the way I enjoy movies like T2. For instance, I enoyed Gladiator, but it had the historical accuracy of The Patriot.

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    5. Re:True? by praedor · · Score: 2

      Go ahead and make sh*t up to make your unreasoning hate fit. Reality isn't supportive of your fanaticism so you need to create a new reality with "evil" 'Merikan soldiers.


      You poor little sissy. You don't have any clue at all do you?

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  15. Black Hawk Down by SmileyBen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Black Hawk Down 'true and well done'? Well, yes, September 11th does seem to have changed people's views of films! Before then, we might have dreamed that Americans would notice that THE REST OF THE WORLD realises that Black Hawk Down was ridiculous, fake, American-enhancing crap, glorifying effectively the fallout of an American massacre - now we realise that everyone else's perspective will be ignored...

    1. Re:Black Hawk Down by BobSoros · · Score: 4, Informative

      uhm, back up a second .. are you implying that Blackhawk Down was based on fictional events ? Thats what its sure sounds like, if not you seem to be making the suggestion the events were grossly exaggerated. Well Smiley Ben, why dont you send an email or two to the soldiers (yes they are available) that were involved in that political debacle. There were two interviews with the soldiers before the movie was made and the contents of the movie clearly reflect what they gave witness to.

      --
      Contain my voice. Place my user into your foe list.
    2. Re:Black Hawk Down by Jennifer+Ever · · Score: 1

      Minus, of course, the one who anally raped his 12 year old daughter and is serving 30 years in jail.

    3. Re:Black Hawk Down by Snow_Bonobo · · Score: 1, Troll

      The accounts of Somalian people also "involved" should also be read. And maybe the accounts of historians, UN investigators and journalists?

      "Black Hawk Down" is a propaganda film, based on real events in which real people died for stupid reasons. A real tragedy occurred, but the film only shows a distorted view of what actually happened, and a very distorted view of why it happened.

      How much time does the film give to the massacre of 54 people by US forces during a peace discussion? Or the firing of missiles into civilian areas by the US?

      Maybe you should read what the rest of the world can read, in articles like this:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273 ,4 344998,00.html

      and rely less on semi-official propaganda. Do you think "Zulu" and cowboy movies are accurate? They're based on true events too, you know.

    4. Re:Black Hawk Down by ralian · · Score: 1

      Please read this, as well as this. Besides the fact that you're completely offtopic (and if I hadn't used my moderator points yesterday, you'd be going _down_), AND the fact that you should have been spouting your anti-US hate when Katz reviewed BHD, your arguments are wrong, wrong, wrong. Cheers.

      --

      -raph

    5. Re:Black Hawk Down by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      No, he is implying that Blackhawk Down was based on how Americans (esp. the military) want to see the facts. At least that's what it sounds like to me - but then I'm not American, and we know that Americans want to see things the way they would like them to be, so that's probably why you read his post that way.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    6. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and if I hadn't used my moderator points yesterday, you'd be going _down_

      Whoooo hooooo!

      You fucking lamer! Are you going to set the world right with your mod points today?

    7. Re:Black Hawk Down by ralian · · Score: 1

      Idiot.
      "-1, Offtopic" MEANS something. Specifically, it means the post is OFFTOPIC. Speculation about whether or not Somalia was right or wrong (in the middle of a story about Schwartzenegger) is, in my book, Offtopic.

      Cheers.

      --

      -raph

    8. Re:Black Hawk Down by lblack · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The United States was repeatedly cautioned by other nations to not involve themselves in Somali affairs, as they were a mish-mash of various warlords each having armed forces and all being about as sane as a bucket of loons on a Sunday.

      The United States, however, being pricked repeatedly by one particular of these warlords, decided that they, being smarter and stronger than the nations who warned them, would take care of this pesky warlord.

      Their execution of this plan was fatally flawed. The soldiers were not familiar with the methods of fighting employed by the locals. They did not know how to act effectively when a crowd of civilians acted as shields for the militants. Basically, the entire effort receded into a "Cover each other and back the hell up" scenario, which just barely managed to get the bulk of US Soldiers out alive.

      Heroism? Where? What was heroic? Bad orders came down based on bad policy, executed by ill-prepared soldiers. Is it heroic to survive?

      I would gladly send an e-mail to the soldiers involved. Particuarly John Stebbins (name changed to John Grimes for the movie). Ewan MacGregor's character -- You know him? The one who failed in attempting to join the regular forces three times during the Gulf War, before somehow being permitted to join the Rangers? Unfortunately, he probably isn't too easy to get ahold of these days.

      The movie was grossly exaggerated and removed from any meaningful context. As a result, it cannot be called "truth". It is entertainment, not a historical document.

      -l

    9. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On behalf of the United States Army and the soldiers who made it out of Mogadishu (and those who didn't):

      FUCK YOU.

    10. Re:Black Hawk Down by Kwantus · · Score: 1

      must either be a newbie (doesn't know /. talk often goes waay off topic), a gov't/industry operative (they always want to keep discussion `focused'), or illiterate (Katz brought BHD into the topic in his article his own self).

    11. Re:Black Hawk Down by Lwood_at_COG · · Score: 1

      _loosely_ based on historical events. BlackHawk Down is entertainment, not history.

      --
      "Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes." --Henry David Thoreau
    12. Re:Black Hawk Down by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Don't overgeneralize. There are plenty of Americans who know how the world works, and are as frustrated as the rest of the world over the actions of our government.

    13. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would gladly send an e-mail to the soldiers involved.

      What an unabashed coward. An email? How about laying down your life in an all out struggle to get home alive to see your loved ones. What a pussy, what a wimp, what a disgrace to the human race.

      Try laying down a line of fire to cover your buddy's ass as he scrambles for refuge. Try firing at everything that moves in an atempt to keep your own ass alive. Try listening to the lead ping off of everything around you while you pray to god you make it out in one piece.

      Heroism? You want fucking heroism? Put yourself in the gunsights of the enemy then tell me about heroism.

    14. Re:Black Hawk Down by ralian · · Score: 1

      Please, don't be abusive. In case you didn't know, SLashdot recently added a general debate forum.

      Your ad hominem attacks only illustrate your own lack of intelligence.

      --

      -raph

    15. Re:Black Hawk Down by lblack · · Score: 2

      On behalf of the United States Army and the soldiers who made it out of Mogadishu (and those who didn't):

      FUCK YOU.


      On behalf of the tribal elders massacred by United States military hardware whilst in the midst of attempting to convince their more fiery counterparts of the benefits of peace, a massacre that brought about a declaration of war from Aidid that led to the Mogadishu disaster...

      Um, fuck US Foreign/Military policy?

      Because, really, if you care about those men who died and those who lived through something awful, then that's who you should be directing your vitriol towards.

      Did it hurt much when they washed out your brain?

      -l

    16. Re:Black Hawk Down by ralian · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, and if you'd read the text of my post, you'd have noticed that the point of it was not the offtopic bit but the arguments used.

      Think before you flame.

      --

      -raph

    17. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. My vitriol is also firmly directed in the direction of the Clinton administration who at core was at fault in what happened in Somalia.

    18. Re:Black Hawk Down by Snow_Bonobo · · Score: 1

      I've read both comments.

      I responded to a statement in Katz's article. I do not consider that to be off-topic.

      My American friends and in-laws will be quite amazed to hear about my "anti-US hate". Thanks for letting me know. I hadn't realised that expressing a critical opinion of a film's accuracy is the same thing as "hate".

      In a conflict, people on both sides can do terrible things, and then make biased films. I don't hate the people of Somalia or the US, but I am disturbed by people confusing a movie with real life.

      Please feel free to mod me down in future.

    19. Re:Black Hawk Down by lblack · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      What an unabashed coward. An email? How about laying down your life in an all out struggle to get home alive to see your loved ones. What a pussy, what a wimp, what a disgrace to the human race.

      Try laying down a line of fire to cover your buddy's ass as he scrambles for refuge. Try firing at everything that moves in an atempt to keep your own ass alive. Try listening to the lead ping off of everything around you while you pray to god you make it out in one piece.

      Heroism? You want fucking heroism? Put yourself in the gunsights of the enemy then tell me about heroism.


      Oh look, it's one of those 14 year olds who likes to pretend he was a Navy SEAL, and does so by referencing descriptions at-home in pulp-fiction war books and Soldier of Fortune.

      Is that heroism, or is that war? If you would like to define heroism as being under enemy fire, I have no argument to offer against your viewpoint. I would note, however, that many Taliban members had exactly those thoughts flitting through their heads as bombs exploded all around them.

      "Try firing at everything that moves", though, I must take issue with. Is it heroic to fire at everything that moves, mauling civilians and combatants alike? That strikes me more as being "panicked" than "heroic".

      You missed, unsurprisingly, the point of my post -- which was that I could hardly send an e-mail, or really any other form of communication, to "Stebby". He's currently serving 30 years for anally raping a 12-year-old girl.

      Regards,
      l

    20. Re:Black Hawk Down by Kwantus · · Score: 1

      (watch out for that space in the Guardian URI)

      this was the article tha came back to my mind:

      http://www.nypress.com/15/3/news%26columns/wildj us tice.cfm

      I can't quote the releveant bit because /. chokes if I do. *weeps* WHY is it so f'ing hard to post to /. with konqi?????

    21. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, it's one of those 14 year olds who likes to pretend he was a Navy SEAL

      Try Vietnam you sorry piece of shit.

      Is that heroism, or is that war?

      It is both. I have as much respect for those faces I saw in my sight as I do for my buddies who died beside me. We all did what we had to do. To think otherwise means you haven't a clue.

      You have obviously not been in a heavy firefight if you think you could possibly keep a cool head. You have no idea what gutwrenching survival is all about.

      Frankly, I couldn't give a rats ass what some one did after the war. Civil law will take care of that. The only thing I cared about was my trust in the person beside me in battle, and my hope that I could live up to that trust myself.

    22. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Black Hawk down was loosely based on historical events, but a lot of people who see the movie are not going to realize that. They won't know that the "Somalians" in the movie were played by Africans who live on the opposite side of the continent, have a very different culture, and look entirely different. I guess that Hollywood just thinks all black people look alike.

    23. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen the movie or read the book it is based on, but just how "loosely based" are we talking here? The discussion around here makes it sound as if, aside from taking place in Somalia, the film and the real event have nothing in common. As far as the casting of the "Somalians", I would venture to guess that a large number of Somalian extras are hard to come by outside of Somalia. And I'd be suprised if the movie were shot on location.

    24. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad it wasn't you, slut.

    25. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, Americans are the most censorious bastards on Earth.

    26. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God how I hate America. There's just too many fucking shit stains like you in that country.

    27. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your fucking problem?

    28. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why dont you send an email or two to the soldiers ...

      I'd send an email to the heroes involved, only I don't speak Malaysian. Obviously there were US troops involved, but they weren't the only ones, nor were they responsible for getting the American soldiers out of trouble (the Malaysians were).

      How exactly is it heroic for the most advanced and well funded military in the world to attack 3rd world warlords and get shot down with aging soviet technology. How is this not a total **** up on the part of the Americans?

      If you want to make films about heroic GI Joe, there's got to be a genuine story out there, why steal from your allies?

    29. Re:Black Hawk Down by praedor · · Score: 2

      THINK for a second. A bird is capable of bringing down some of the most modern jets. A helicoptor is among the most vulnerable of military aircraft because small arms damage to a blade could cause it to fragment, bringing the whole thing down.


      You and your super-high-tech nerdy computer are easily taken out with a tossed rock. What a shithead YOU are because you can be taken down with a mere ROCK!


      Our modern military does not mean our soldiers are invulnerable. Quit watching Star Trek and crap and think about the REAL world for a moment. There is no invulnerability.


      As for your other nonsense...are you DEFENDING murderous looney warlords? Ahhh, poor widdle warlord got taken out. He was such a cute widdle cuddly pookie. You, candyass, are a freak.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    30. Re:Black Hawk Down by utdpenguin · · Score: 1
      Damn straight. Im one of them. While Im at it, STUPID OLYMPICS!!!


      Ok, lemme breathe. Proabyl too late, but I hope we dont win any medals this year. Serve us right.

      --
      In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
    31. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should have just leveled that fleabag nation... and you while we are at it, Mr. Aidid-sympathizer

    32. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that we needed to learn was that the appropriate response to a bunch of skinnies rioting was to simply level their pathetic country and city with fuel air explosives.

    33. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I suppose these *two* interviewees are going to sit there and say "Hell, yes, we massacred innocent civilians"? Get real.

    34. Re:Black Hawk Down by raitiovaunu · · Score: 1
      Our modern military does not mean our soldiers are invulnerable. Quit watching Star Trek and crap and think about the REAL world for a moment. There is no invulnerability.


      But flying helicopters full of soldiers directly into line of fire from literally hundreds of RPGs - that is plain stupid and arrogant.

      CNN made a pretty good document named "Blackhawk down". It showed what kind of blunder the whole operation was, starting from the marine landing in front of the. US forces did not have any experience in peace keeping/enforcement then. Several US soldiers were interviewed in the document.

      The trapped US soldiers in Mogadishu fought valiantly, but in my opinion the only reason why a movie like Black Hawk Down is successfull, is 11.9.2001 "afterglow"
    35. Re:Black Hawk Down by James1006 · · Score: 1

      You missed most of the point of the movie.

      The point wasn't that American actions in Somalia were altruistic and perfect and "Hooray for America!"

      It was the point of the brotherhood and courage among American forces when they were surrounded.

      Take the two Delta snipers who !!volunteered!! to be dropped into the second crash site to protect and recover any survivors.

      These guys knew almost for certain it was a death trap. Worse, noone might be alive and their deaths would be for nothing. They could have been captured and tortured.

      These guys did it for the love of their fellow man. Thats what this movie is about. It is not supposed to be an ultra-realistic, politically correct documentary*.

      If all you see is "Hooray for America!", than you are so blinded by bias, it is sad.

      * I believe the book has a lot more stuff on noncombatant women and children being killed. I only read a small part of someone else's copy.

      --

      - Nothing is true, everything is permitted
    36. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heroism? Where? What was heroic? Bad orders came down based on bad policy, executed by ill-prepared soldiers. Is it heroic to survive?

      Unbelievable. Agree or disagree with the policy of being there, or the fact that a daylight raid in the market district was insanity, how anyone can say the Rangers and Delta units involved were not heroic is truly baffling to me.

      I have a suggestion, go meet the wives and families of the two delta members who VOLUNTEERED to drop in and help Durant knowing they would be overrun and most likely killed. Yes it was in the movie and yes it seems Hollywood-ish, but the fact remains that in real life, two US soliders did just that, and paid with their lives doing it, in an attempt to save one man.

      I think their wives and families would disagree with you. And hopefully in the end you would achieve a better understanding of heroism truly is.

    37. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear 14 year old,

      I'm old enough to remember (and not be distorted by the propaganda shown on the BHD prelude), that it was Chief Bush (senior) who really got us in this mess. Clinton the shit in his hands when he assumed office. See the relevant time.

      Thank you.

      Please do not distort history.

    38. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 28 years old and lived through the Clinton administration just as you have. Clinton was a disgrace.

    39. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're right - although personally, I just think it's Ridley Scott pissed because he didn't get to do Aliens.

      Look at the plot lines and guess which film I'm describing:

      A bunch of American marines are inserted into a hostile environment, their transport gets shot up, they get stuck there - get their asses kicked and are heavily outnumbered, there is no backup, eventually they get the hell out of there minus a few.

      Aliens or Blackhawk?

      What really pisses me off is the way in which 90% of Hollywood fact-based movies are doctored/altered/gutted to make them more palettable to a US public. U571, Saving Private Ryan, Titanic, Braveheart, The Patriot. They are all studio manufactured crap, which is great to watch, but not true. And why the fek bad guys always have English accents I'll never know - even in flippin' Star Wars! Cheers George...

    40. Re:Black Hawk Down by Refrag · · Score: 2

      Dammit. I wish foreign directors would quit making movies that are "ridiculous, fake, American-enhancing crap" so that everyone would get off our back!

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    41. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bloody hell, the truth is now 'anti-US hate'?

      I suggest you stop thinking that the truth revolves around what you think. Start feeding that brain of yours, air would be a good place to start.

    42. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you take some of your own advice. The truth doesn't revolve around what you think either.

    43. Re:Black Hawk Down by nexthec · · Score: 1

      heroic, to him, is traveling through a dingy seattle street to get a finely brewed cup of starbucks coffee. he has no grip on reallity. I offer this one. Any man that carrys a weapon to defind my rights and lively hoop(inluding police, military, even secret service) are heros, not to mention firefighters, doctors, EMS, and millions of other people every day

    44. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh so instead you suggest we read left wing propaganda by a bunch of british twits.
      fuck those assholes, like they do any "real" research of their own. fuck off

    45. Re:Black Hawk Down by RoninM · · Score: 2
      Considering you began a post with, "Idiot," and continue to assert that a thread re a disputed statement (about Black Hawk Down) which appears in the text of the parent article, you might want to tone down your derogatory, sneering messages a tad. You're probably not the best person to be rallying against Ad Hominem attacks in this thread, after all.

      [...] you'd have noticed that the point of it was not the offtopic bit [...]

      So what? Are people no longer able to take issue with disagreeable statements simply because they were not the overall point of the message? If we hold this as the standard for logic, the moon is fuchsia. And good luck disputing that claim in this thread, bud.

      --
      If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
    46. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree.

      I don't know if I would at that moment of truth, jump from a helicopter to my probable death, in the hopes of saving one solider. And for someone to make that choice and sacrifice (and don't give me "it's their job" crap - they volunteered to step off that helicopter) I tip my hat to them and the word respect doesn't do them justice.

      And the same goes to those folks that will take a bullet, run into a burning home, pull someone from a car wreck, save a life or defend our country, even if they don't agree with it. We take that for granted BECAUSE they are doing their job (which pays poorly I might ad). And absolutely, I consider that heroic.

    47. Re:Black Hawk Down by monkaetim · · Score: 1

      Does the movie mention the 10000 Somalians killed during this episode? Or the large deposits of oil of the Somalian coast? These hired thugs got what was coming.

      --
      All men are bores. Soren Kierkegaard
    48. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it seems rather obvious to me. . .

    49. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those Somalians deserved to die. They were nothing more than thugs working for Aidid --- the equivalent of Mafia personnel with automatic weapons. The fact that there wa oil changes nothing.

      And it did mention how many Somalians died.

    50. Re:Black Hawk Down by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd agree with a lot of what Jon is saying, aside from the fact that BHD blew as a movie. The reason the US soldiers got caught in Mogadishu was not because they didn't know how to fight in the environment (the U.S. military MOUT schools and trainers are excellent), it was not becuase they "didn't know what to do when civilians were used as shields" (they did: try not to deliberately kill civilians but defend yourself and your unit first - a complicated and contradictory task that they by & large performed admirably). Mogadishu was a perfect example of peaceime soldiering on so many levels:
      1)first and foremost, the responsibility of ANY commander is to recognize that in any operation there is a potential for disaster. Like Gordon at Khartoum, the general in charge utterly failed this first-order responsibility, and *should* have been court-martialled for not having the proper assets available for extrication (i.e. armored troops on hand, warmed up and ready to go).
      2) excessive high-level interference. Some sources speculate that the REASON insufficient rescue forces were available was because the Clinton administration was not willing for such heavy forces to be committed in theater, and simultaneously was not trusting enough of our allies to let them know to be ready (altho, according to my personal contacts, this lack of trust was entirely justified as regards the Italians, for example)
      3) No commander refuses intelligence, even crappy intel. The fact that the local CIA station was not allowed (again, by White House order according to the the BHD book) to communicate directly with the armed forces commander is a sad commentary on the armchair-soldiering going on in Washington. The idea that the local assets 'value' was going to be estimated several thousand miles away and THEN distributed for force-consumption is ludicrously patronizing at best, criminally irresponsible at worst.
      BHD *could* have been a great movie, because there were a lot of subtleties of colonialism, politics, diplomacy, and militray policy that could have played out like a greek tragedy: like a Sophoclean hero, everyone (except the lowest grunts, and even some of them) KNEW what their fatal flaw was, and yet soldiered on knowing that therein lay their doom. Could have been great, that is, except for Mr. Bruckheimer who never saw a scene that could use 'a few more explosions, and how about some more bullets? Can we get more bullets?'. Bah, BHD-Movie had about as much to do with what happened in Mogadishu as Pearl Harbor-movie had to do with what happened 12/7/41.

      --
      -Styopa
    51. Re:Black Hawk Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is with you people and oil? So what if there's oil there -- that doesn't mean that was the reason for the whole mess. And besides, unless you don't drive a car, use plastics, or, hell, use electricity, you have no business whining about oil.

    52. Re:Black Hawk Down by kleecc · · Score: 1

      The movie started with a caption "Based On The True Story" but that doesn't mean it have to be the whole truth. That's by Hollywood standard for telling the truth in "Based on The True Story" movies.

      My brother's friend was in the Malaysian army reservists and served the Malaysian Battalion (MALBAT) peacekeeping forces in Mogadishu, Somalia during the crisis. He mentioned that it was the MALBAT forces APCs who went in with a Rangers company and a troop of Pakistani tanks that took the Rangers out. The bullets and RPGs were wheezing around like what was potrayed in the movie. Looks like the bullets and RPGs wheezing around is the most true thing in the movie. Their APC got dented by a RPG. There was not much mentioned how other forces were involved in rescuing the Rangers from their SNAFUed mission.

      I found a letter posted by the Defense Attache of Malaysian Embassy that shed some light of what really happened. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/417pgs.p df

      According to Mark Bowden's book, the Rangers were greeted by MALBAT forces in the stadium with drinking water in mess tin. So, why did the producers made the Pakistani forces looks like they are a bunch of servants serving their "sahib" in trays of drinking water in airline cups? I didn't read the book, this was told by my colleague who read the book.

      It is tragic for the Rangers to lost their brothers in arms. But that is one of the affect of war. I hats off to those forces; be it MALBAT, Pakistani or Rangers; involved in dangerous situation like in Somalia, for they brave their life for someone else's life.

    53. Re:Black Hawk Down by Kwantus · · Score: 1

      I read the post. The meat was ``Speculation about whether or not Somalia was right or wrong (in the middle of a story about Schwartzenegger) is, in my book, Offtopic.'' Well good for your book, I hope it sells well. I'll try to read what you meant to say, not what you actually wrote.

    54. Re:Black Hawk Down by Kwantus · · Score: 1
      And going back to your first post, I notice you don't balk at referencing flaming adhominem (`Please read this [slashdot.org]') when it suits your purpose. I bet you'd be all over me if I labelled someone (esp. toi) a `bigoted pro-American punk,' but that's perfectly ok in Merca's defense, yup.

      And I love the vague threats and/or guilt in `it's okay to be anti-American just remember the soldiers willing to die to protect that right for you' lines, as if all anti-Americans are defended by Mercan soldiers. I'm sure all of us that have been invaded by the US through history (Canada included; and don't try splitting hairs that Canada didn't exist yet, what you invaded was called Upper Canada) are grateful for it. (Nor try invoking the bodies you left in Europe, we left more.)

      Finally, don't remind me those weren't your words; I know it. But you took them in without qualifications for their inflammatory, rabidly pro-US biases.

  16. Disgusting term by shaunak · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else feel the term 'Collateral Damage' is quite disgusting regardless of who uses it? Human life is human life.

    --
    -Shaunak.
    1. Re:Disgusting term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone else feel the term 'Collateral Damage' is quite disgusting regardless of who uses it? Human life is human life.

      Nope. it is a military term. It is a fact of life and death. As long as someone out there is determined to take my life away, I am just as determined to make sure he dies first, no matter what I have to do to accomplish it. If I have to kill his family to kill him, so be it.

    2. Re:Disgusting term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. it is a military term. It is a fact of life and death.

      Exactly! This is why it is perfectly defensible to be disappointed over the fact that too few Americans were collaterally damaged on Sept 11. The numbers could have, should have have been much higher. What's even 1,000,000 Americans in the grand scheme of things? A good start.

    3. Re:Disgusting term by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      That's supposed to be the idea. The terrorists called the deaths of Schwarzenegger's character's family "collateral damage", and it disgusts him.

    4. Re:Disgusting term by lukesl · · Score: 1

      Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's supposed to be partially in reference to an interview with Timothy McVeigh, when he called the kids he blew up collateral damage.

  17. Yeah, write off a multimillion dolar movie.. by The+Original+Bobski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...just because Katz can't figure out it was made before 9/11. Yes, it may seem lame after the event but it was made before the event while we all slumbered peacefully in our false sense of security. Including you, Katz.

    To hold a pre 9/11 movie to post 9/11 standards is just plain stupid.

    Should it have been released? That's up to the viewer to decide. As far as the studio's concerned it was a business decision. "Do we not release it and lose our investment, or release it and, maybe, recoup some of our money?" Business, plain and simple.

    I haven't seen the movie, and I probably won't. The whole premise is as lame a Katz presents it. It's not because the movie is out of touch for it's time, but because we are the ones who are no longer in touch with that genre.

    --
    satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
    1. Re:Yeah, write off a multimillion dolar movie.. by Negadecimal · · Score: 1

      just because Katz can't figure out it was made before 9/11.

      Reread what Katz wrote. He acknowledges that the movie was delayed three months, so I doubt he thinks the movie was put together in a matter of a couple weeks. And he notes that the movie uses the pre-9/11 characterization of the government: bumbling and ineffective.

      To hold a pre 9/11 movie to post 9/11 standards is just plain stupid.

      This is a post 9/11 movie. It debuted after 9/11, and addresses the relationship between our government and terrorism. Who cares when it was written? Blackhawk Down is set in the late 90's. If it had been produced before 9/11, it's plot probably would have been the same -- and yet, we have no problem calling it a "post-9/11 genre" film.

    2. Re:Yeah, write off a multimillion dolar movie.. by prizzznecious · · Score: 1

      And he notes that the movie uses the pre-9/11 characterization of the government: bumbling and ineffective.

      This has changed recently? You must not read /. very often.

      --

      visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
  18. plot?? by BigBir3d · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "the plot is vintage Arnold..."

    uh, he is a firefighter this time, not a cop or android thing...

  19. Black Hawk Down was fiction by andaru · · Score: 0, Insightful
    I can't really speak from my own opinion, since I have not seen the movie and am not up on the actual historical event, but from what I gather, the consensus among historians is that Black Hawk Down takes a great deal of liberties with the truth.

    The heroism you mention portrayed in the movie was apparently totally fabricated.

    Also, your pseudo-patriotic military bias does not belong here. Comments like: "These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful," are off topic, and do not belong in a review of a dumb Arnie movie.

    Warmongering should not be confused with patriotism. The real patriots are those who are questioning the actions of our gov't and the likes of Ashcroft, etc., in order to keep our country free of the constant threat of facism from within. The soldiers in Afghanistan have been duped into participating in a sham which at this point has killed more civilians than were killed in the US on 9/11. (Also, notice the lack of mention of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden when people talk about their outrage at the concept of the killing of civillians - a total of 140,000 unarmed, innocent civilians were wiped out in order to influence the gov'ts of Japan and Germany through the terror of their citizens).

    I guess I really wonder what this review is doing here on slashdot at all.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      (Also, notice the lack of mention of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden when people talk about their outrage at the concept of the killing of civillians - a total of 140,000 unarmed, innocent civilians were wiped out in order to influence the gov'ts of Japan and Germany through the terror of their citizens).

      all is fair in love and war, my friend. and to cite the excuse of 4 year old children the world over "they started it."

    2. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't really speak from my own opinion, since I have not seen the movie and am not up on the actual historical event

      Then I guess your opinion belongs in /dev/null

      The heroism you mention portrayed in the movie was apparently totally fabricated.

      Fighting for your life, no matter for what reason, is not heroic? I suggest you start reading up on your history.

      The real patriots are those who are questioning the actions of our gov't and the likes of Ashcroft, etc., in order to keep our country free of the constant threat of facism from within

      I suggest you volunteer to step into the confines of camp X-Ray and comiserate. I'm sure there will be someone there who will take your bleeding heart literally and oblige you.

    3. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Phil+Hands · · Score: 1

      all is fair in love and war, my friend.

      What about the Geneva convention?

      Oh, silly me, I was forgetting, that's not something that USA feels compelled to comply with any more, is it?

      --

      Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
    4. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you are talking about the terrorist CRIMINALS we have in custody in Cuba. They are CRIMINALS, not soldiers. No Geneva convention for them, because then it would be harder to interrorgate them for the vital information they possess. And we'd have to repatriate them, which is as silly as emptying a prison full of murderers. The Taliban fighters, if you have been paying attention to the news lately, are going to be afforded Geneva convention rights. Why is it that Europeans (I'm assuming you are one based on your opinion) are so against the United States? Perhaps Europe should keep its eye on the ball -- a lot of these terrorist cells are based there.

    5. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the Geneva convention?

      Oh, silly me, I was forgetting, that's not something that USA feels compelled to comply with any more, is it?


      Wow, what hole have you had you head in lately? Are you really that stupid?

    6. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The soldiers in Afghanistan have been duped into participating in a sham which at this point has killed more civilians than were killed in the US on 9/11.

      How far did you need to reach up your ass to pull out that statement??

    7. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The heroism you mention portrayed in the movie was apparently totally fabricated.

      There was a lot of things left out out of the movie(like a presidential administration that wouldn't let us have armor support), but there was almost no fabrication in the movie (and that in the movie is mostly limited to liberties taken with storytelling).

      a total of 140,000 unarmed, innocent civilians were wiped out

      Actually, the number of "unarmed" civilians and "innocent" civilians was quite less. Hiroshima was a military industrial city; where nearly every occupant was directly involved in the war effort. Given the alternatives, I can't think of a better Japanese target on which to drop Little Boy that would have both achieved the objective of ending the war and resulted in fewer "innocent" casualties.

    8. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by BigBir3d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      unofficialy, nobody ever did.

      the people who start a world war deserve to die.

    9. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Fighting for your life, no matter for what reason, is not heroic?

      Of course not - fighting for your life is _instinct_.

      Fighting for someone else's life is heroic.

    10. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not - fighting for your life is _instinct_.

      Fighting for someone else's life is heroic.


      And, of course, you speak from experience.

    11. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by zhensel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "...to cite the excuse of 4 year old children the world over 'they started it.'"

      Excuse me sir, who is this ambiguous 'they'? From what I can see, we've already killed at least 3700 people (see UNH report) who had nothing at all to do with the attacks on September 11th. Furthermore, we have pledged to continue our holy quest until terrorism is erradicated. Now, I might be in the minority in all of this, but I don't see any possible way that terrorism can be wiped from the face of the earth. Whether you like it or not, it's the single most effective way for marginal groups to get the world's attention. Who knew how to pronounce Tajikistan before September 11th? Would anyone care about the catholic/protestant struggle in Ireland if they weren't blowing up busses and harassing schoolgirls and whatnot? I'm not condoning terrorism; I'm simply acknowledging its inevitability in our current global climate. The only way to end terrorism, to wipe it from the face of the earth, is to stop it at its roots. Any effort to try for greater equality and efficacy in the world will be beneficial to this end. Let us examine whether the United States is truely trying to stop terrorism. First, we recommend that developing nations sell their soles to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The policies of these organizations may seem somewhat noble, but it doesn't take much to recognize the rapidly accelerating gap in economic equality in the world over the period that they've reigned over the finances of developing nations. There are a few instances of success with their plans, especially in southeast asia, but I would argue that this success could've come without their intervention. Furthermore, one only needs to look towards Argentina to see disasterous failure of their plans. And what more, the policies of these organizations promote sweatshop labor and corporate control in these nations. It will certainly be interesting to see the state of Afghanistan in 15 years after it fully succumbs to the IMF. Also, despite championing the struggle for democracy as our reason for upsetting the Taliban, Bush continues (and to be fair, Clinton before him) to support dictatorships (pakistan et al) and monarchies (Saudi Arabia et al). Our goals in this war on terrorism are not noble. The war, thusfar, has led to a loss of rights at home, and genocide abroad (see the Time report on the Afghan school slaughter for proof of this). I can guarantee you that in 5 years, US interests will profit greatly off of Afghan labor and property in Afghan soil (eg: gas/oil pipeline through the country) just as they did after the noble affair in Yugoslavia. The real tragedy in all of this, however, is the use of the "Bush Doctrine" by other countries to stamp out rebel groups in the name of anti-terrorism. Clearly, Israel is the best example of this, but there are others. Our country was founded on the idea that those suffering the burden of an oppressive government have an obligation to humanity to overthrow it and create a more just government. In this new bush order, revolution is impossible unless sanctioned by The United States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. This makes a perfectly stable, bland, and corrupt world. Wonderful for profit, horrible for humanity.

    12. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      well said.

      I might add that destroying terrorism means destroying freedom fighters, the 2 terms are synonomous - just depends on your ( conditioned ) point of view. I'm British and hate the IRA , but accept that for some of them they are in fact fighting for what they see as freedom from british rule, and that many irish see them as such. Does that make them terrorists - yes , freedom fighters - yes.

      Islamic / taliban / al qu..whateber , they are terrorists - but for many it is fight against American/IMF etc oppression, they are freedom fighters ( AND they are prepared to die for freedom ).

      Diplomacy with the USA is pointless, if Bush don't like it he takes no notice ( even if the rest of the world likes it - Kyoto ), formal miltiary action by these nations / groups against the USA is pointless , and they can hardly fight economically either. That only really leaves one avenue left for obtaining what they want , the result is sept 11 , omagh , lockerbie etc , etc.

      The USA needs to learn to respect others peoples opinion and live with it. Do what you want to muslims in tour own country but don't impose your culture/economics/way of life on them in their own countries ( when in ?? do as the ?? do ).

      For an example of what talking and engaging in diplomacy ( look it up in the dictionary - it means more than saying "do as i say or else.." )can do check out the IRA good friday etc. OK it is not perfect but moving from troops on the streets / checkpoints at every junction etc to the current situation appears to be going the right way.

    13. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by zhensel · · Score: 2

      Sorry, by soles I meant souls and there were probably a bunch of other errors in that hastily typed response. I suppose soles is a steller unintentional pun though given the prevelence of shoe-building-sweatshops in a few of these nations. Have a nice day.

    14. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by zhensel · · Score: 2

      Certainly a live and let live attitude could be somewhat more effective than current practices, but I'd argue that we need to go to great lengths to restrain American and international corporations from exploiting developing nations if we aim to stem further terrorism. "Terrorism" will always be the means of revolution - few are peaceful. The Boston Tea Party today, if, say, workers in Bangladesh torched a textile factory, would be viewed as economic terror. It is this shift in our view of dramatic revolutionary action that is so dangerous and will be the most far reaching impact of September 11th. I predict that 100 years from now, the Bush doctrine will be looked at with disdain in its role in acting as the catalyst for a century of oppression. I can only hope that it won't take a century for people to realize this and rebel. Alas, folks are too happy tuning in the telly and turning off their minds to see the marginalization of their lives.

    15. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Kupek · · Score: 1

      It's heartening to see someone else on slashdot with some of these views. But I gotta say paragraph breaks really do make things easier to read.

    16. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont forget the millions that stalin killed, or hitler

      or the chinese that hirohito killed.

      or how many mao killed

      and youre beyaching about how we were trying to influence the germans or the japs at the time?

      btw, if it wasnt for the attack on the U.S we should not be in any of these countries , somalia rwanda, afghanistan

      they do a damn good fucking job of killing themselves.

    17. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah silly me, let hitler go on taking over europe.
      in retrospect maybe pat buchanan was right, shouldnt have even helped those european clowns.

    18. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      IIRC according to Geneva convention it's not up to the US to decidce who is a prisoner of war or not - they should be treated as POW until proven else in court.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    19. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      It's pretty much something we got in our genes - you can't really argue with that - OK, the 2 snipers who volunteered to be dropped in a death trap in order to save their mate's lifes - now that more heroic, but fighting for your own is pretty much instinct - unless you're a tad bit suicidal or sumtink

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    20. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by zhensel · · Score: 2

      Yeah. I concur but I was in a bit of a hurry. If I'm just writing straight without pausing I don't like to corrupt my writing (if you'll allow me to say that) by inserting things that aren't intended in the flow of speech. It was meant as a from-the-cuff rant and I think an unbroken paragraph enhances that. It also keeps such an unresearched comment from getting undue respect. I believe in what I say, but if I really wanted to say it eloquently I'd've taken more time.

    21. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by The+Original+Bobski · · Score: 2

      It's pretty much something we got in our genes - you can't really argue with that - OK, the 2 snipers who volunteered to be dropped in a death trap in order to save their mate's lifes - now that more heroic, but fighting for your own is pretty much instinct - unless you're a tad bit suicidal or sumtink

      Not entirely true. Ever hear of "fight or flight?" It is the one mysteries of human response leaders of armed forces have wanted to unravel since the beginning of time.

      The fact is that some of us can overcome our fears, stand up to death and face it eye-to-eye, while others run for they're lives.

      --
      satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
    22. Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you got a point there.
      Mind you, these guys really didn't have anywhere to run - the only other option than fighting would have been death.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
  20. ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    If this movie is interesting at all, it's through the prism of September 11, a day that changed culture as much as it did politics.

    + the rest of the Afganistan / Osama stuff.


    It's funny... I'm not hard core christian or even believe in God, but I know the bible, and it says something like this: You can see the small splinter in your neighbours eye, you can't spot the log in your own.

    The reason I comment on this is that posting such patriotic narrow minded text on an international channel (yes, I believe /. is read outside the US too) may lead to similar situation if you had spoken racist opinions about the black people in your national television. It's just that the people which has different point of views about the subject may get pissed off. I did.
  21. hollywood vs the truth by syusuf · · Score: 1, Informative

    According to the myth, the Somalia operation of 1993 was a humanitarian mission, and a shining example of New World Order morality and altruism. In fact, US and UN troops waged an undeclared war against an Islamic African populace that was hostile to foreign interests.

    Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a "Clinton foreign policy bungle." In fact, the incoming Clinton administration inherited an operation that was already in full swing -- planned and begun by outgoing President George Herbert Walker Bush, spearheaded by deputy national security adviser Jonathan Howe (who remained in charge of the UN operation after Clinton took office), and approved by Colin Powell, then head of the Joint Chiefs.

    The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves. The companies had secured billion-dollar concessions to explore and drill large portions of the Somali countryside during the reign of pro-US President Mohamed Siad Barre. (In fact, Conoco's Mogadishu office housed the US embassy and military headquarters.) A "secure" Somalia also provided the West with strategic location on the coast of Arabian Sea.

    UN military became necessary when Barre was overthrown by warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid, suddenly rendering Somalia inhospitable to US corporate interests.

    Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food, the true UN goal was to remove Aidid from the political equation, and form a pro-Western coalition government out of the nation's warring clans. The US operation was met with "surprisingly fierce resistance" -- surprising to US officials who underestimated Somalian resolve, and even more surprising to US troops who were victims and pawns of UN policy makers.

    The highly documented series by Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer on which the film is based , focuses on the participants, and the "untenable" situation in which troops were placed. But even Bowden's gung-ho account makes no bones about provocative American attacks that ultimately led to the decisive defeat in Mogadishu.

    Bowden writes: "Task Force Ranger was not in Mogadishu to feed the hungry. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted six missions, raiding locations where either Aidid or his lieutenants were believed to be meeting. The mission that resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu came less than three months after a surprise missile attack by U.S. helicopters (acting on behalf of the UN) on a meeting of Aidid clansmen. Prompted by a Somalian ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations. After that July 12 helicopter attack, Aidid's clan was officially at war with America -- a fact many Americans never realized."

    Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Somalis were killed in the course of US incursions that took place over three months. In his book The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky cites other under-reported facts. "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes. "The official estimate was 6-10,000 Somali casualties in the summer of 1993 alone, two-thirds women and children. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the operation, informed the press that 'I'm not counting bodies . . . I'm not interested.' Specific war crimes of US forces included direct military attacks on a hospital and on civilian gatherings. Other Western armies were implicated in serious crimes as well. Some of these were revealed at an official Canadian inquiry, not duplicated by the US or other governments."

    Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in this regard:

    "Official U.S. estimates of Somalian casualties at the time numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Somalian clan leaders made claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The United Nations placed the number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and intellectuals in Mogadishu not aligned with the feuding clans say that 500 dead is probably accurate.

    The attack on Mogadishu was particularly vicious. Quoting Bowden: "The Task Force Ranger commander, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, testifying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any more ammunition into the city 'we would have sunk it.' Most soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they fired on crowds and eventually at anyone and anything they saw."

    After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens filled with the scene of a dead US soldier being dragged through the streets by jubilant Somalis. Clinton immediately called off the operation. US forces left Somalia in disgrace. Some 19,000 UN troops remained for a short period, but eventually left in futility.

    The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal" Clinton administration.

    The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.

    Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House, surrounded by his father's operatives, and many of the architects of the original raid, military fanaticism is all the rage. A global war "without end" has just begun.

    What a perfect opportunity to "clean up" the past.

    1. Re:hollywood vs the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a "Clinton foreign policy bungle."

      Yes it was. Bush (Sr.) sent in troops for a limited humanitarian mission (feeding people, a mission that was actually achieved). It was Clinton, acting with UN support, who changed the nature and scope of the role to "nation building".

      Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food

      I'm amazed at how short peoples' memories are with respect to Clinton. When US troops were first deployed under Bush, there was MASS STARVATION in Somalia. The actions of the Bush administration stopped that. It was only after that "success" (and a change in the office of President), that the United Nations approved a resolution shifting the mission from feeding the hungry to "nation building". Clinton was warned that it wouldn't work (by Colin Powell and others) but he refused to heed their warnings.

      "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes

      And this was after the change in focus mandated by Clinton. If there were "corporate interests" involved (as Chomsky claims, and he may be correct), then they were cronies of Clinton, not the Bush administration.

    2. Re:hollywood vs the truth by DodgyGeezer · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like the US needs an open investigation into what happened in Somalia, just like what the Canadians did. Yes, it will be painful bringing the truth out in public. The American military won't like and it will surely tarnish their image and honour. However, they are their to serve and represent the people, and so the people have a right to know what they're doing, and that they act in an appropriate manner that doesn't dishonour America. The Canadian military was serverly embarrased and humbled by their Somalia investigation, but real measures have been put inplace to ensure they repeat themselves - can the same be said for the US?

    3. Re:hollywood vs the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.

      It didn't seem to stop him from using the military in more deployments than any other President before him...

      Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House

      George W. Bush is neither "right-wing" nor extremist. Any American before 1930 would have called him a socialist for his unquestioning support of nearly all government programs and bail-out of the US airline industry. And as far as "extremist" goes, the man is so much in the center of the road that it is a wonder there isn't a yellow stripe down his back.

    4. Re:hollywood vs the truth by citroidSD · · Score: 1

      Wow, this is a new definition of Karma-Whore.

      I had a sense of deja-vu when I read this reply. Then I realized it was just a cut and paste of what Bedouin posted in regards to the review of Blackhawk Down.

      Message in Question

      Good job mods! Does this mean I can cut and paste some anti-MS rhetoric posted by others, and score some points too?

    5. Re:hollywood vs the truth by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

      What the hell is wrong with you. Can't you read? Go to the library, pull out your history books, and you'll see that America, like every powerful country in the history of man, has never acted out of humanitarian intersts. Theres a quick way of proving this, since this (America) is the land of the Almighty Dollar: the recent defense budget up, at what, 48 billion or something, is equal to the entire foreign aid of europe. Meaning, what we give in humanitarian assistance to other people is effectively zero. It only seems like alot because you're thinking with your ass, which has a little propaganda-laced newpaper probally stuck up it. Don't believe what you read in the newspapers kid. Well, at least don't believe American newspapers will tell you the truth about America. If you read foreign news you'll see this quite rapidly, and I'm not even talking China'a People Daily. The damn Brits even have better coverage of what we do and they're obviously part of the whole System.

    6. Re:hollywood vs the truth by ripaway · · Score: 1

      Jeez, what are the mods thinking? As above, this guy just cut and pasted! I guess all the mods are left leaning chomsky lovers right now :P

    7. Re:hollywood vs the truth by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1
      The 48 billion is the recent rise, which puts us at 370 billion total or something, which means what we spend on our military is roughly equivilant to what half or more of the world spends on everything (water, eelectricity, dear o dear central plumbing and malaria pills).

      Oh, and BTW, that little Balkan war, that was of course not over humanitarian issues either. This is proved quite easily by the fact that theres not been a shred of evidence that there were mass butcherings going on before we went over there--in other words, they (politicians, newspapers, military) lied to us.

    8. Re:hollywood vs the truth by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1
      LOL. 'George W not a extremist.' HAHAHAHA. Good one. I like. Where are you from, the Fed or something?

      On a more reasonable note, the guys too fucking dumb to be anything but a pawn, you know. Since he can't even conjugate verbs correctly, his cabinet and daddy's friends keep him on a tight leash.

    9. Re:hollywood vs the truth by Shelled · · Score: 1
      The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves. The companies had secured billion-dollar concessions to explore and drill large portions of the Somali countryside during the reign of pro-US President Mohamed Siad Barre.

      The last time time this was discussed on this forum, I searched the Web for information on Somalia's oils reserves. The only information I found listed Somalia's reserves as close to the lowest in the world. The country today has a total of 15 km of oil pipeline. Once again, a decade after the fact, does anyone have any hard technical data (not newspaper references) to justify this allegation?

    10. Re:hollywood vs the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check out
      http://www.hiiraan.com/May/oil_in_somalia.htm

    11. Re:hollywood vs the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you through whining, yet?

      "There's no trash like Euro-trash.."

      Why don't you go smoke something smelly, eat something slimy, or neglect to shower and shave for a few more months?

    12. Re:hollywood vs the truth by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      That's about as rational an argument as claiming that clearly, you're a moron for failure to use apostrophes correctly.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    13. Re:hollywood vs the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by his service record, the stripe is across his belly.

  22. CIA by October_30th · · Score: 0
    as the perennial bumbling evil C.I.A./NSA secret agents do absolutely anything at all costs by any means to get their way -- just like the terrorists.

    And what's wrong with that. It's becoming even more true now that the commander-in-chief has authorized CIA to use lethal force and is pouring billions of dollars into the machine the history of which is filled with atrocious acts of terror and morally dubious publications.

    Yeah, these are the good guys.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
  23. it's a good movie by WildBeast · · Score: 2

    At least this movie didn't really make it look like it was a good vs evil battle. That's what I liked about it, it wasn't as simple as the usual Arnold movies are.

  24. Re:god damn slashdot is a bunch of assholes by nycdewd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well you haven't quit... you just posted on the dotster, bub.

    That small point aside, you are substantially correct that slashdot is loaded with assholes... opinions and assholes, everyone's got 'em.

    I do not come here to be informed by the majority of posters who have about ZILCH to say of any intellectual value, I do come here for laughs and to let off some steam occasionally... And the links provided to the offsite info can be informative. Slashdot itself, as a website and as a forum for insightful commentary? As is the case with *most* everything, it is not what it used to be even a few years ago. Oh well... "When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around."

  25. Not as traumatic.... by The-Bus · · Score: 2
    I went to see Collateral Damage over the weekend and it was not that bad of a movie... A decent plot, and Arnold has some amazing one-liners like "I'll show you collateral damage!"

    But it's not as chilling as Enemy of the State, the Will Smith movie where his character, lawyer Robert Dean, is thrown into a whirlwind of coverup and espionage by rogue NSA agents.

    The movie argues that privacy has been invaded too much, that we need more freedom. The NSA agents say that we need more surveillance because America has many enemies and the American people don't realize it. At the time I first saw it, it sounded like alarmist propaganda. When I saw it last night, it shut me up.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Not as traumatic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Arnold has some amazing one-liners like "I'll show you collateral damage!"

      Please do the human race a favor and kill yourself immediately. Your intellect is driving down the national IQ average by 50 points...

  26. Real Reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I can't decide whether to condemn or thank JonKatz for making this review so short. Anyhow, here are some links to "real" reviews.
    Or find your own!

    Also, insert obligatory "why is slashdot reviewing an AOL/TW movie when the RIAA is so evil" comment here.
  27. Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... by rjw57 · · Score: 2, Funny
    The post-9/11 action/terrorism movie is now a genre all of its own.

    Hey, did I miss something? What happened on the 9th of Novemeber?

    --
    Rich
    1. Re:Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh?.............
      umm...wait a sec...yeah....uh....
      yeah....uh...ok:

      Haaaahahahaahahahahahahahaha......
      Buwhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

      fuckin' funny.

    2. Re:Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      geez, get with the program and use US mm/dd form when reading posts by people from the US....

    3. Re:Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 2

      Hey, did I miss something? What happened on the 9th of Novemeber?

      Gunpowder, treason, and plot.

      Wait, that's not right.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    4. Re:Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Berlin Wall came down.
      1989.

    5. Re:Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... by uspsguy · · Score: 1

      Its been discussed higher in the thread but you are reading and posting in a U S forum. There are lots of international users but the servers and administration are in the U S. I really think a halfway astute reader would be able to know and understand the context where he is posting. In case you really didn't know, our standard date format is mm/dd/yy. When I deal with your side of the pond, I accept you guys think that a "," is the decimal separator, not the correct ".".

      --
      Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.
    6. Re:Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... by rjw57 · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah.. US forum I forgot. I'll remember to surround things with tags for those of us lacking in a sense of humour (and yes it _is_ 'humour').
      Disclaimer: The bracketted statement above was intended purely as a troll. The author disclaims all liability for offence caused by the reader's total lack of a sense of humour. This comment was provided in the hope that it was funny but the author cannot be held to any Warrenty, implied of explicit, nor can he gurantee fitness of the comment for a particular purpose.

      Hey, if you are still reading this far, I bet you are the sorta guy who gets past 'I AGREE' in click-throught license agreements!

      --
      Rich
  28. Odd. The Somalis thought it was accurate. by glrotate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was an article somewhere that discussed a pirate version of BHD making it into MOG. The opinion of the Somalis was that it accurately protrayed the events of those 2 days. If anything the movie minimized the extent that the millitia was using women and childeren as shields, ( ie laying prone on the ground with a wife on eiter side and two kids sitting on your back.

    1. Re:Odd. The Somalis thought it was accurate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was accurate in what it showed. But it was guilty of lying by omission. In a CNN documentary, the rangers readily admit that they had to shoot at women and children and then, they tried to rationalize it saying that it was the civilians' fault because they came to the war zone instead of running away. Of course, the only time that the movie shows women and children face to face with a soldier he lovingly waves them to stay silent.

  29. And thats exactly why they used it for the title. by Raistlin99 · · Score: 1

    To the terrorists in this movie anything that got destroyed that was not a specific target is collateral damage. However, to the hero it wasn't collateral damage, it was his family.

    I think it actually a fairly good title. It has a subtle subtext that some people might not catch.

    --
    I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
  30. Anal Bum Cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And a 5 foot anus.

    1. Re:Anal Bum Cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats "An Album Cover"

  31. Ultra-condensed review of "Collateral Damage". by mrsam · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In the spirit of Book-A-Minute Classics, here's an alternative review of Collateral Damage. There's no need to plow through another Katz-ian monologue, when an ultra-condensed review will suffice. Here we go:


    Yes, this movie sucks. It's mostly predictable, there's nothing new here. If you came to the theater expecting something on the order of "Die Hard", or "Indiana Jones", you'd be disappointed.

    However it doesn't suck that much. It could've sucked much, much worse than it did. It was clear to me, when I sat down, that the flick is going to blow. With my expectations already lowered, the movie didn't really turn out to be that bad.

    Yes, it's the typical output of the paint-by-numbers Hollywood screenplay mill. Still, I think the movie did make a couple of valiant attempts at being original. Ahnold's, uhhh.... impression of Mike Tyson was completely unexpected. And it was funny. And it did seem, at first, that Ahnold was going to end up bedding down whatsherface. The way that character actually turned out to be was also unexpected.

    So, go and see the movie on a bargain matinee, and check your brain at the door. Or wait for it to come up on video. You could do worse. There's plenty of crap out there that's even worse than "Collateral Damage".

    1. Re:Ultra-condensed review of "Collateral Damage". by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      I apologize for reposting this material (from below and with minor changes). I realized after-the-fact that this is the post I was responding to. (Actually, I'm respondiNg to both posts.)

      After reading Ebert's review, I agree that Ebert's analysis is a bit more thoughtful than Katz's. Ebert attends to the historical context in which Collateral Damage was produced and faults those critics who judge that movie using post-9/11 cinematic morals. To be fair to Katz, he's not trained as a movie critic (he's someone who cares) and his review seems to be an emotional reaction to what some of us find incredibly repugnant, especially after the destruction of the World Trade Center.

      What I find interesting, though, is this knot of temporal displacement

      Despite that Collateral Damage was released after the fact of 9/11, some (e.g. Rev. Brian Jordan mentioned in Ebert's review) interpret the movie as an insult to our present sensibilities in light of knowledge we only now possess. This is paradoxical thinking, but by no means does it invalidate the response.

      Movies like Collateral Damage, Patriot Games, The Siege, Pearl Harbor, and Die Hard are Hollywood fantasies precisely because no one really believed at the time of their production that the U.S. would fall victim so spectacular a defeat on its own soil. We U.S. citizens, and the rest of the world with us, had almost come to believe we were invicible. All we needed to protect us were the comic-book heroes Hollywood showed to us on the silver screen

      9/11 has given the lie to those Hollywood heroes

      Emotionally and politcally reactionary responses like Katz's don't disturb me one bit. At least he has feelings and he's amenable to argument. What does disturb me are the slack-ass self-proclaimed nerds and geeks who have nothing better to say than that "with [their] expectations already lowered, the movie didn't really turn out to be that bad."

      When obviously intelligent people proclaim their absolute political apathy as a virtue because it allows them to continue without thinking, they have relinquished an opportunity to use their intelligence responsibly.

      Such people are fat with self-satisfaction, and very likely enjoying another Hollywood blockbuster is the last thing they should do.

      --
      blog
    2. Re:Ultra-condensed review of "Collateral Damage". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it's a fucking movie.

    3. Re:Ultra-condensed review of "Collateral Damage". by mrsam · · Score: 1

      What does disturb me are the slack-ass self-proclaimed nerds and geeks who have nothing better to say than that "with [their] expectations already lowered, the movie didn't really turn out to be that bad."

      And there's a reason why I have nothing better to say: the movie sucks. Why is it my fault that the story blows chunks, and I can't find anything better to say about it? Go bitch to whoever wrote this joke of a screenplay. And take your self-righteous and sanctimonious attitude with you.

  32. getting old? by digitalsushi · · Score: 1


    i'm getting sick of hearing arnold getting dumped on. sure hes getting older, but we have the term "middle aged" not only to point out that they arent young anymore, but also that they arent old. and so i propose this- let's just assume you're "young", 20 to 30 years old: if you can say that arnold is getting old and loosing what he's got AND THEN you yourself can honestly say you're in better shape as the 20 to 30 year old you are then he is at his age, then maybe its ok for you to dump on him. i bet not many of us would earn that right!

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    1. Re:getting old? by jbloggs · · Score: 0

      he's also an extreme right-wing homophobic twat.

    2. Re:getting old? by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

      I Agree!
      Sure, in Real Life he's a rich, card-carrying Republican asshole, but on screen, he's damn fun to watch.

    3. Re:getting old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and youre a left wing propaganda freak . go fuck yourself comrade

  33. No, the Somali opinion was negative by andaru · · Score: 1
    I read a BBC article which described two thing in particular:

    One was that the Somali's thought that the movie was total BS and glorified acts which were, at the very least, unheroic, and at most, constituted a massacre.

    The other was the reaction of the Somali's to the action in the movie. Every time a US soldier was killed, or US equipment blown up, the audience cheered wildly. Why would they do that if they agreed with the classification of these soldiers as heroes?

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:No, the Somali opinion was negative by glrotate · · Score: 0

      I didn't say that the Somalis considered the Americans to be hero's only that it was accurate. The Somalis won that battle, I would expect them to cheer.

    2. Re:No, the Somali opinion was negative by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      They cheered because, for them, it was a successful action. 'sides, neither their nor our viewpoints determine the facts. They can cheer all they want, but it does not change the fact that a) Aidid openly attacked the UN troops, after merely robbing the food shipments (which the UN could tolerate more) and b) they were, apparently, up against incompetent military planners.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:No, the Somali opinion was negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and b) they were, apparently, up against incompetent military planners.

      Come now, call a spade a spade. They were up against Clinton.

    4. Re:No, the Somali opinion was negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yeah, CLinton did plan the all the military plans and actions *all*by*himself* - really, it's true!

  34. One right point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did Katz become so credulous, unskeptical and unquestioning? It doesn't strike me as valuable, skilled or even interesting journalism.

    He blindly accepts the premise behind Black Hawk Down, Bush, and everyone on the bandwagon -- the US is good and those other guys are evil. I'm shocked that any mature, thinking person would even consider it -- I mean, is that Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful Evil? It would be so much easier to simplify hard decisions, but isn't Katz, and hopefully any mature, thinking person, far beyond that adolescent fantasy world?

    Katz says, "In pre-9/11 movies, the U.S. is nearly as evil as the terrorists, as the perennial bumbling evil C.I.A./NSA secret agents do absolutely anything at all costs by any means to get their way -- just like the terrorists."

    Did the CIA or NSA do anything on or since 9/11 to improve their reputation?

    Most dangerous of all, where did Katz get the idea that the US can't be evil? There's nothing in the water here that makes us saints. We need to show some mature humility and realism and understand that we have just as much propensity toward evil as anyone else.

    If we don't accept that, then our attitude is no different than Bin Laden's -- our side is good, the other guy is evil, and that justifies everything (like ignoring their human rights) -- and our actions will be no better than his. That's what he wants to provoke: Then he'll be right, the US will become a repressive, world-dominating empire, supporting brutal dictators to accomplish our aims.

    Just telling ourselves, over and over, that we're the good guys, accomplishes nothing more than some hearty masterbation. We will only be 'good' to the exact extent that we act 'good'. We'll be just exactly to the extent we act justly. We'll be democratic and free exactly to the extent that we act democratic and free. To the extent the CIA supports anti-democratic dictators, whatever the justification, the USA is anti-democratic.

    The test of freedom and democracy is not when we're the richest, most prosperous, most secure nation in the history of the world (which we are even now). That's like Michael Jordan keeping his composure in a game with high school kids -- big deal.

    The test is now, when we face some sort of challenge. Do we have the courage of our convictions, or do we just throw out everything all those Americans, from 1776 until today, gave everything for, and just kick ass like yet another dumb, hopeless nation repeating the same cyles of history that have been repeating for 1000's of years.

    And this isn't even much of a challenge. How pathetic.

  35. Re:Commando Two: The Quickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember watching his movie Commando, where he rips a seat out of a small convertible

    The director wanted to cut that scene as "unrealistic", until Arnie went over and actually did it to the car on the set.

  36. pablum by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 2

    Like any journalist hack worth his ego, Katz manages to tie any major socio-political event to the most trivial of topics.

    Next week: Anthrax as a new P2P platform in the wake of Columbine. First in a series.

  37. Katz plagiarism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Katz wrote:
    "This movie comes from another time, not enlivened by reality but diminished by it."

    from IMDb.com's Studio Update on 8 Feb 2002:

    Movie Reviews: Collateral Damage

    Not a single reviewer fails to compare the plot of Collateral Damage to the events of Sept. 11, with many suggesting that the real terrorist deeds on that day overshadow anything the moviemakers dreamed up. In the words of Jack Mathews in the New York Daily News: "Though Warner Bros.' ad campaign hints that we should take CD as a liberating metaphor for the hunt for Osama bin Laden, its parallels to that pursuit merely show how puny and ridiculous Hollywood's imagination can be in the face of real events." Stephen Hunter begins his review in the Washington Post this way: "Collateral Damage ... seems like a telegram from a dead world. It hails from the America that no longer exists, a world that ended in fire." Noting that the film was delayed following the Sept. 11 attacks, Joe Morgenstern writes in the Wall Street Journal, "While the world would not be a poorer place if it had never been released, the movie's unearned significance makes it hard to ignore, though impossible to enjoy with a whole heart or an unrattled mind." On ABC's Good Morning America, Joel Siegel made the case that the film indeed should not have been taken off the shelf. "Watching Arnold's Hollywood heroics demeans and belittles the real life heroics of so many," Siegel said. "It wasn't enough to postpone the movie. The studio should have canceled it."

    is plagiarism cause for Katz' employment to be terminated immediately? the /. community can only hope.

  38. They can't even identify these "CRIMINALS" by andaru · · Score: 1
    If the guys in Camp X-Ray are truly the "worst of the worst," then how come the US can't even figure out who they are, or which group (if any) they belong to? (BBC article.

    It sure sounds like the US is making blanket declarations of guilt without first establishing the truth.

    Also, the US simply does not have the authority to classify these people as non-POW's. That can only be done by a competent international tribunal (I am surprised one has not been set up in disregard of the US's wishes).

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:They can't even identify these "CRIMINALS" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plain truth is that these guys aren't cooperating. The article you link to says they're lying at every chance they get. How will an international tribunal solve that problem?

    2. Re:They can't even identify these "CRIMINALS" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. has all the authority in the world to do whatever we want to with them. Why? Ever hear "possession is nine-tenths of the law"?

      What has happened/is happening is something that international law is very murky on. Things like the Geneva Convention were designed to address countries at war, not internal radical organizations making undeclared war on civilians. If Afghanistan had declared war on the U.S. this would be easy: the Taliban could be tried as war criminals and that'd be that. But a "state" did not declare war on the U.S., a group of individuals did (no matter how many there are of them). The law has no prior application in this area, and it is clearly wanting.

      It also sounds like you're making blanket declarations of guilt (on the U.S.) without first establishing the "truth", whatever that may be. You would do well to heed your own words and reserve judgement until you have all the facts. Instead, since it serves your agenda, you would rather jump to conclusions and condemn. Pity for you.

    3. Re:They can't even identify these "CRIMINALS" by Not+The+Real+Me · · Score: 1

      In order to be considered a POW, the Geneva Convention requires that the person in question wear a uniform, and represent a recognized government. The Taliban do not fit this profile, however the U.S. is willing to give them POW status. Al queda members absolutely do not fit either criteria. Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, which you vaguely reference, competent tribunal, only applies if Article 4 is in doubt. Also, Article 5 does not say "competent international tribunal". It says "competent tribunal". The tribunal could be an all U.S. tribune and still fall within the letter of the Geneva Convention. So the U.S. does have the authority to classify these people as non-POW's. Here's Article 4 and Article 5 of the Geneva Convention: Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. Article 5 The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

  39. Re: Cardiac Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question in all this is:
    Has America suffered enough?

    For what? It most certainly suffered enough to beat the unmitigated shit out of it's opponents, as it has so demonstratively illustrated.

    Care to try your hand?

  40. Dear Mr. Katz by lblack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear Mr. Katz,

    While I realize that your intellectual credibility has cemented itself somewhere around "Nil", I feel obliged to note that wrapping yourself up in a flag will neither increase it nor add any other sort of credibility to your ranting.

    Please read Mr. Ebert's review, which tackles the same issues as yours does (Pre/Post 9/11), but does so in a clear, concise, and intelligent manner. Do not be so eager to put on 9/11-tinted glasses in the same manner that you did Columbine-tinted glasses prior to the terrorist attack.

    Your references to Black Hawk Down betray your complete lack of familiarity with the history surrounding that mission. Please do some research before using Mogadishu in your writings. It's actually getting to be very worrisome, since so many people have on so many occasions pointed out how absolutely narrow your focus is regarding that event.

    You have managed to write a movie review without providing a review. This is a noteworthy feat but, alas, does not enrich any of your readers. Try to do better, next time.

    Re-evaluate yourself, immediately.

    Regards,
    l

    1. Re:Dear Mr. Katz by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      After reading Ebert's review, I agree that Ebert's analysis is a bit more thoughtful than Katz's. Ebert attends to the historical context in which Collateral Damage was produced and faults those critics who judge that movie using post-9/11 cinematic morals. To be fair to Katz, he's not trained as a movie critic (he's someone who cares) and his review seems to be an emotional reaction to what some of us find incredibly repugnant, especially after the destruction of the World Trade Center.

      What I find interesting, though, is this knot of temporal displacement

      Despite that Collateral Damage was released after the fact of 9/11, some (e.g. Rev. Brian Jordan mentioned in Ebert's review) interpret the movie as an insult to our present sensibilities in light of knowledge we only now possess. This is paradoxical thinking, but by no means does it invalidate the response.

      Movies like Collateral Damage, Patriot Games, The Siege, Pearl Harbor, and Die Hard are Hollywood fantasies precisely because no one really believed at the time of their production that the U.S. would fall victim so spetacular a defeat on its own soil. We U.S. citizens, and the rest of the world with us, had almost come to believe we were invicible. All we needed to protect us were the comic-book heroes Hollywood showed to us on the silver screen

      9/11 has given the lie to those Hollywood heroes

      Emotionally and politcally reactionary responses like Katz's don't disturbe me one bit. At least he has feelings and he's amenable to argument. What does disturb me are the slack-ass self-proclaimed nerds and geeks who have nothing better to say than that they "enjoyed this movie because [their] expectations were low."

      When obviously intelligent people proclaim their absolute political apathy as a virtue because it allows them to continue without thinking about politics, they have relinquished an opportunity to use their intelligence responsibly.

      Such people are fat with self-satisfaction, and very likely enjoying another Hollywood blockbuster is the last thing they should do.

      --
      blog
    2. Re:Dear Mr. Katz by Scoria · · Score: 1

      You should remove Pearl Harbor from that list; after all, as atrocious as that film was, it is obviously still based (albeit loosely) on events that actually occured. :p

      "I'm gonna give Danny (or is it Rafe?) my whole heart, but I'll never look at another sunset without thinkin' of you." - Pearl Harbor

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    3. Re:Dear Mr. Katz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! Well said!

    4. Re:Dear Mr. Katz by SilentChris · · Score: 1
      Dear LBlack,

      Mr. Katz is not a luminary, nor a movie conduit. He is not a nationally-read critic or in touch with the media's big wigs. He's just a normal guy, like you and me, who wished to express his opinion about something.

      Apparently, you don't like that. For some reason or another, your ego prevents you from allowing another person equal to yourself in the realm of critiquing, a chance to have a review on the front page. Perhaps it's a size-related issue.

      The fact remains, however, that Katz-bashing is not only past-tense, but also an extremely childish Slashdot-affair. It's like beating up on someone who doesn't care (or is too intelligent) to bother fighting back. Just because YOU don't have your opinions on the front page, doesn't mean you have to go against his.

      And the fact still remains, as always, that you can turn his reviews off. Simply going into your preferences will suffice.

      Mr. L, please re-evaluate YOURSELF immediately. You need to mature a great deal.


      Regards,
      SC

  41. Numbers of civilians killed by andaru · · Score: 1
    No, it's true. Something on the order of 4000 Afghani civilians have been killed since the US's "anti-terrorist" actions have begun. About 3000 US civilians were killed on 9/11.

    And, interestingly enough, NONE OF THE HIJACKERS WERE AFGHANI! So, we wiped out 4000 innocents whose only crime was that they were born in the wrong country in order to prove the point that we will not tolerate the killing of innocent civilians!

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Numbers of civilians killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is tragic that so many more innocent people have died. But you disregard a critical point: the mission of the US military was NOT to kill innocent civilians. In fact, part of the mission was the exact opposite: to minimize the "collateral damage" (I hate that term) done while pursuing the military objectives of (a) destroying the terrorist infrastructure in Afganistan and (b) removing the Taliban. That the highjackers were not Afghans is not lost on the US. Most were Saudi, but they (and a vast number of other men who are still out in the world with similar missions) were trained in Afghanistan. The goal wasn't to punish the Afghanis. It was to punish the Taliban and remove the terrorist camps from the country.

    2. Re:Numbers of civilians killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we wiped out 4000 innocents whose only crime was that they were born in the wrong country

      No, it wasn't a crime, it was sheer stupidity for continuing to live near military targets when it was more than obvious that was what was being bombed.

      Live like a fool, die like a fool.
      You can't save idiots from themselves.

    3. Re:Numbers of civilians killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      An AC wrote:
      No, it wasn't a crime, it was sheer stupidity for continuing to live near military targets when it was more than obvious that was what was being bombed.


      I seem to remember hearing about a previous bombing of the World Trade Center. A van filled with explosives and containers of cyanide (which was destroyed by the heat of the explosion rather than spreading through the building was blown up in the parking garage. That pretty clearly labeled the World Trade Center as a target. So, by your reasoning, the people who died on September the 11th 2001 in the plane attacks deserved it as well. So do people who live in flood plains and die in floods. Or the people who live in earthquake prone regions and die in earthquakes, or the people who live in crime-ridden cites and die in robberies. Sorry, I don't buy it.
    4. Re:Numbers of civilians killed by The+Original+Bobski · · Score: 2

      I seem to remember hearing about a previous bombing of the World Trade Center. A van filled with explosives and containers of cyanide (which was destroyed by the heat of the explosion rather than spreading through the building was blown up in the parking garage. That pretty clearly labeled the World Trade Center as a target. So, by your reasoning, the people who died on September the 11th 2001 in the plane attacks deserved it as well. So do people who live in flood plains and die in floods. Or the people who live in earthquake prone regions and die in earthquakes, or the people who live in crime-ridden cites and die in robberies. Sorry, I don't buy it.

      You're response is so innane it doesn't ever deserve a reply, but here goes anyway:

      The WTC was not an obvious military target except to those who chose to make it, so nullfies that argument right off. As far as the rest of your argument, yes of course anyone who chooses to live in dangerous areas deserves his fate.

      Really, think about it for a moment:
      "Ohhh, looky, a live volcano! I think I'll build my house on it's side!"

      Now if that isn't spot on intelligence.

      --
      satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
  42. Mod this up by dopolon · · Score: 1

    cool, this guy just summed up everything I think about Katz' "reviews"

    --
    "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  43. Not Patriotic Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main reason many people liked Black Hawk Down was not so much that it was a true story but that it glamorized war. Sure, they showed us lots of graphic scenes of the "horrors of war" but they showed them to us with the cinematography befitting a shower sex scene. The directors wanted to show how wonderful these soldier and that situation were. Unfortunately, that whole situation stemmed from a U.S. blunder...but they don't burden you with that.

    Collateral Damage is of course in the same vein of glamorizing violence, its an action film. However, by having the U.S. government be the bad guy (as was normal in pre 9/11 days) it accidentally bypasses the whole line of bullshit patriotic films that try to make it look like the U.S. is god and that the soldier's life beats being a rich plastic surgeon any day. If nothing else, collateral damage should be praised for, by accident, being a black sheep in these dark days of fabricated patriotism.

    It is of my opinion that since Katz is after all a product of the bullshit media machine that he wanted a bullshit patriotic movie to make his bullshit brain go jumping up and down "Way, more propaganda!". So therefore, one can easily see why he favors Black Hawk Down, war-porn, over Collateral Damage, bumbling action-film without patriotism.

    -mugwamp

  44. right on by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Let's see the average slashdotter take on Arnie on in any physical arena.

  45. Suspects don't always cooperate by andaru · · Score: 1
    Whether or not they are cooperating, you can't just assume someone's guilt when you don't even know who they are.

    Establishing someone's guilt usually involves collecting evidence, etc..

    This seems more like:

    US: "You guilty?"

    Prisoner: "No."

    US: "How are we ever going to establish your guilt if you keep lying like this?"

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Suspects don't always cooperate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Suspects don't alway's cooperate": That's exactly the point. Of course they're not cooperating -- why would they? Now, I'm no expert in what the US is doing to question these men and figure out who they are, etc. I doubt that you are, either. But I must disagree if you think that there is no evidence that any if not all of these guys are who the US thinks they are. A lot of material has been found in Afghanistan, much of which I doubt we'll see anytime soon. Not to mention the fact that these guys _were_ caught for a reason. I don't know if they were in terrorist facilites that were raided or what. But they weren't just picked up off the streets of Kabul.

  46. Re:Bowden and Chomsky by SeverianDragon · · Score: 1

    Nifty blurbs. I'd like to know what Bowden has to say in support of his claims, especially:

    "the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations."

    It seems a little strange that with all of the United State's vast control of a corner of the World's Intelligence Market that we wouldn't know about this meeting. September 11th aside, since the CIA and FBI both claim that they didn't know, or that they weren't aware that it was a real threat. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say, unless they got disbanded or some such.

    On the flip side of things, this claim that the Somali war was based on US oil intrests (what isn't?) has merit in that there *are* useful oil possibilities in that area, but that's a speculation based on geography and the export products of nations surrounding Somalia.

    Can I have an electric car that I charge from a nuklear power plant? *sarc*

    --
    Once more into the birch deer fiends!
  47. uh by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The post-9/11 action/terrorism movie is now a genre all of its own.

    No it's not. There's one movie involving terrorism. And it was made well before 9/11. How is that a genre?

  48. They failed. by andaru · · Score: 1
    Well, the US failed to minimize the killing of civilians.

    In fact, one of the reasons that the US has lost so much int'l support is that so many civilians have been killed in these operations.

    Also, since many of the targeted assasinations (remember when it was uncool for Israel? now it's OK for everybody) are based solely on the word of a warring faction which claims, "these people (our enemies) are Taleban - kill them for us."

    The US is not establishing the guilt of those it targets for assasination before assasinating them. Why not capture them if you don't really know if they are guilty of anything? Better than blowing up a convoy of innocent tribal elders based on the word of their detractors.

    How would you like to be assasinated on the basis that one of your enemies said something untrue about you? Wouldn't you rather have the chance to establish your innocence before being wiped out?

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:They failed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that more people have been killed than there should have been. That's the result of the decision to rely on air power rather than ground forces, which, in pracctical terms was simply the best option. Support for a larger commitment of ground forces to meet the same objectives of removing the Taliban and the terrorists would have eroded quickly. There would have been far greater loss of life on both sides and the progress would have been much slower. As far as the "targeted asassinations", all I can say is that it was one (perhaps two) incidents where intelligence sources basically lied in order to meet their own objectives. To be sure, its an indication that even our "allies" in Afghanistan can't be trusted completely. I'd even go so far as to say it's a sure sign that now is the time to be more careful in our operations and to commit more ground forces (which is being done, I think). I don't consider it an indictment of the US mishandling of the Afghanistan war.

    2. Re:They failed. by andaru · · Score: 1

      No, it's more than that. The problem is not that the US got bad intelligence and used it innocently. The problem is that they relied on that bad intelligence to carry out assasinations. Even if the information was correct, the policy of assasinating people based on hearsay with no evidence and no legal process is unethical.

      --

      Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    3. Re:They failed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well how far do you want to take that? What's the difference between a military attack based on intelligence and a death sentence carried out based on some notion of due process. You can't forget that the situation is a battlefield one. A would-be target isn't going to sit around and wait for you to collect evidence, hold a hearing, and prove beyond reasonable doubt. Soldiers in the field and elsewhere have to make decisions under the pressure of limited time and information. If they didn't, nothing would get done. Sure, we'd avoid unfortunate incidents where the wrong people die. But we also let the bad guys get away. The battlefield isn't an ethical place, and it isn't a courtroom.

    4. Re:They failed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh well, as they say: To bad, so sad.
      (The tiny violins now start to play)

      If everyone played by our rules we wouldn't have to kick the crap out of them ;)

    5. Re:They failed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where you get 4000? from al Jareeza or whatever the fuck it is? or is it from the wise and "unbias" sages of the guardian?

  49. It's entertainment! by DodgyGeezer · · Score: 1

    I don't see how you can compare an Arnie to Black Hawk Down. Arnie doesn't go for realism. Most of his action films are refreshing tongue-in-cheek. A lot of them don't certainly don't take themselves too seriously like so many bad boneheaded Hollywood action films. Arnie movies have never required a brain, but they have allowed suspension of reality for a while, which is a form of entertainment. Although his films are getting a bit less unoriginal, I can't think of anybody else who does films quite like him, and so the [sub-]genre isn't completely overswamped like others with floods of unimaginative Hollywood formula crap.

  50. I need directions... by loconet · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone wants to tell me where "Columbia" is and who these Columbians are?. I only know of COLOMBIA and COLOMBIANS.

    --
    [alk]
    1. Re:I need directions... by curunir · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure "Columbians" refers to employees of Columbia Pictures.

      It's probably just a "studio rival thing" since "Colateral Damage" is a Warner Bros. project...

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
  51. Come on... by motox · · Score: 1

    It's a fictional movie. And it's sad that Jon Katz aknowledges that reality superceeds fiction just when they hit his golden home and his two precious skyscrapers or his precious Black Hawk, in the last sixty years we had an holocaust and 2 atomic bombs released on civilians, and it requires a very high level of ignorance of egoism to say what Jon Katz just said. If Slashdot has to publish cinematographic critics at least hire a critic not an idiot with no clue about movies and just political opinions.

  52. just collateral damage by carlosh · · Score: 1

    Hollywood relentlessly release incredible stories about the world where Americans are heroes (Both in reality and fantasy) and everybody else is after them for no reason whatsoever. Sometimes I wonder if Americans actually believe it!

    Those soldiers that are now in Afghanistan, in a clear and powerful cause, are, to the eyes of many nothing more that thirsty murderers that do not know the difference between an enemy, a friend, a woman and a child. I guess they look blurry on their infrared googles.

    Anyway, who cares if it's just collateral damage.

  53. Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

    Hey, you know, America doesn't own or control the entire Internet. So comments like how wonderful and brave our (I'm american) soldiers are, who are running around killing and butchering people the world over, is a little fucking inappropriate considering some of the readers of /. are probally being fucked by America right now. Almost all of the people in the world hate those soldiers and the people who pay their taxes to support it. Something to think about.

    1. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by Zed2K · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Hey if you don't like it here then leave. We don't want you here either. Go find a nice little cave to live in in some 3rd world country. And while your starving and thirsty because you can't drink the water because its all contaminated we'll be sure to tape your name to the next cruise missle we send over.

      Tired of people pissing on this country. You don't like it then get out. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Oh wait...you won't leave because you like to have certain freedoms that you just wouldn't get if you lived in a cave. So maybe we should just call you a hypocrite?

    2. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1
      Ha you prick. I vote, I pay my taxes. I probally paid for some of this damn war. Its called freedom of speech. I'll say whatever i damn well please. You got a problem with that?

      Cruise missile? Jesus. No wonder this country is heading down the shitter. People don't even want to fight with their fists, they want some 20 year old pimply faced kid dropping bombs from 30k feet for them instead, while they sit on their fat ass and watch TV.

    3. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by Zed2K · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes I got a problem with people like you. People live here because they like the freedoms the government gives them yet at every opportunity they piss on that very same government. You can't have it both ways.

      Would you rather we go back to riding horseback and hurling rocks at each other in a war? Fucking hypocrites...I say we start strapping some of these people to the missles.

    4. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Who's more intelligent? The chap who uses a JDAM to knock out a target from a safe distance, or the untrained "soldier" who leans on his AK-47 and believes his (either completely utterly out-of-touch-with-reality, or one HELL of a liar) Supreme Leader about how Allah will strike down the infidels and guarantee victory?

      There's no point in using wasteful WWI tactics anymore.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    5. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't have it both ways.

      Tasty little sound bite, but anyone who believes you can't have it both ways is full of shit up to his ears. Bush's claims of protecting the American way, while trampling on privacy rights and civil liberties, is the perfect example of having it both ways.

    6. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

      Well assuming you dropped the bomb, sure. But last I checked, people pay to have people fight for them. In that case its not about whose smart and whose not, since you didn't just create the bomb out of your own genius, targeted it to maximum efficiency, etc. You're just along for the ride, like everyone else. The fist reference was to the chap who wanted to kick me out of this fine American country of ours, since he wanted to show his smarts by dropping a bomb on me, rather than using the age-old addage of "man, i'll fuck you up".

    7. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1
      Check out my other post, re: using bombs.

      Otherwise, you need to grow up. Take a look around you. People aren't here (America) for freedom. They're here for security. There's a big difference. Your freedoms will disapear in an instant when security becomes a problem. The reason we have security is because we kill very very effectively. Theres no other way to do it.

      You have freedoms because we're the richest, most powerful empire the world has ever seen, and we can kill people faster, quicker, and cheaper. Freedoms aren't created out of thin air, you know, just like energy can't be. It has to come from somewhere and it comes off the backs of about 4 billion+ people, probally more, elsehwere in the world, who we fuck on a daily basis so they don't fuck us. So don't give me this moralist hypocrite shit. Everyones got plenty of blood on their hands.

      Oh, and by the way, America isn't all nice and pretty. Theres plenty of poor, fucked people in this country who feed your freedoms as well. Plenty of immigrants, plenty of sweatshops. In fact, last I checked, your pretty Department of Defense ran a few massive sweat shops in Appalachia. They're doing such a wonderful job of helping protect those freedoms, huh?

      Then again, if you read the news, or the occassional book, you'd know this.

    8. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

      P.S. You know one of those freedoms is called freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. I'm exercising it now. The government gave me that unconditionally, and they're in no way immune from any sort of comment or criticism now that the gun is pointed the other way.

    9. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo! I now count one enlightened American.. only about a quarter of a billion left to go.
      I find it quite sad that most Yanks don't realize how much their country is looked down upon in other parts of the world ("What?? Other parts? Where would those be?") because of
      1) obnoxious American behaviour
      2) obnoxious American military behaviour
      3) zero understanding of things not American
      4) zombie-like trust in dis-honest leaders (ie, Shrub)

    10. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by broohaha · · Score: 0

      No. If you don't like it here. First see if you can change it. If it's a hopeless cause, then leave.

      And if you do manage to get your way, suggest to people like Zed2K to consider applying their logic to their new plight.

    11. Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Americans these days don't care much for cowardly, petulant, snobbish Europeans either, so that makes us just about even.

  54. Anybody cares about SAYIN' IT RIGHT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't mean to be a troll but...how come nobody has noticed 'Columbia' is not the name of a country, it's the name of a damn state or city or hellhole in the US. COLOMBIA, on the other hand, is a country located in the northern part of SouthAmerica.

    My 2 cents worth...

  55. Some choice words by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 2, Funny
    I always love to read CNN's Paul Clinton when he's slamming a movie. Some words from his evisceration of Collateral Damage:
    • stinks
    • embarrassing
    • painfully, wantonly and hauntingly horrific
    • cliche-riddled
    • absurdities
    • sappy, prefabricated, paint-by-numbers script
    Ahhhhh .... that's entertainment!
  56. stupid moderaters by Mofo_abc123 · · Score: 1

    I mean how could you mod that as a troll? Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a troll. The same thing has happened to me, you post anything remotly contervitial about the USA recently and the "patriot" moderaters mod you down. Lucky there are 5 serious moderators to 1 moron... ;/

    1. Re:stupid moderaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's because speech around here is free as in beer.

    2. Re:stupid moderaters by jareds · · Score: 1

      At the very least, it's an off-topic duplicate of this. Posting something off-topic and likely to incite people is trolling.

    3. Re:stupid moderaters by jareds · · Score: 1

      Er, I guess it's not totally off-topic. Sorry, I didn't actually read Katz's review, I just skimmed through the comments. But still, copying and pasting from an earlier post pretty much deserves to be modded down.

  57. Falsifying History by mysty · · Score: 1, Troll

    Black Hawk Down a 'true story'? Come on, nothing in that movie really happened that way. The film is completely propaganda, and paid for by the US army.

    The US troops commited many war crimes in that country, not to mention their pullback triggered the Rwanda genocides.

    But I guess if I critize the US foreign policies I'll be dubbed a terrorist, right?

    The US crimes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and their widespread disregard and destruction of the natural environment have everything to do with the fact that almost every people on Earth hold a grudge against the USA (including europeans).

    The suffering that has resulted is the feeding ground and root cause for terrorism against the US.

    Everyone is shocked and horrified by 9-11 for sure, nobody feels the US people deserved it, but in broader perspective, the US have only themselves to blame for it.

    --
    -------------------------------------------------- ------
    UNIX isn't dead, it just sme
    1. Re:Falsifying History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What war crimes did they commit? Ok, so you don't like what the Army was doing there. Then you criticize the US for pulling out by blaming the Rwanda genocides on them?
      I agree that US policy then was fucked up. Blame it on the Clinton administration. He snowed us for 8 years with economic prosperity that he had little to do with (but, as is alwasy the case with presidents adn the economy, got the credit for). All the while he let our military and intelligence go down the shitter and let our enemies walk all over us withou us knowing it.

    2. Re:Falsifying History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all due respect, which isn't much, I think it's safe to say that most political, environmental, and humanitarian disasters that involve the US can be placed into two categories: good intentions gone sour when mixed with the agendas of a handful of greedy and power hungry bastards in the world, and international US business interests mixed with the agendas of a handful of greedy and power hunger bastards in the world. Some are American citizens, most aren't. The world is much bigger than the US.

      Awww, hell, your post isn't even worth continuing my response. You're just lost in the bright lights, that's all. Blaming a foreign country or company for attrocities carried out to benefit the leadership (or those vying for power) in another is really really dumb.

      People use the energy stored in the US in terrible ways all of the time. Blaming "the US" is absurd.

    3. Re:Falsifying History by mysty · · Score: 1

      > With all due respect (...) Some are American citizens, most aren't.

      Of course I could have been more nuanced, but that makes the message more convoluted. True, most of the bad guys are not american. I'm not saying the USA are singlehandedly messing up the world.

      I'm not saying the american people as such are to blame. That is what a terrorist would think, and then act on.

      The problem is that the USA is constantly supporting regimes that they should not have been supporting. Notably, until recently the USA supported the Taliban. And for an economic incentive: a very important oil-pipeline was going to be laid through Afghanistan. No criticism or action against their horrible regime at that time.

      The USA only decided that the Taliban had to go, until after they refused, for religious/fundamentalist reason to cooperate with the US.

      Then, quite independantly from this all, some terrorists, possibly supported by OBL, commited the 9-11 attacks.

      > You're just lost in the bright lights, that's all.

      You are taking this personally.

      Discussing with people who only have the same opinion as you is a wast of time.

      I'm saying, the USA have a foreign policy, covert or not, to support only regimes that will economically/militarily benefit them. Regardless if these regimes are oppressive or not. Regardless of anything.

      And no, they are not the only ones doing this. Europe, China, former Soviet Union and other do it too.
      But the USA are the only superpower left, and they have got to chance this behaviour to set an example for the rest.

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- ------
      UNIX isn't dead, it just sme
    4. Re:Falsifying History by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Notably, until recently, we considered the Taliban as an illegitimate government, which is why we didn't even offer to recognize them diplomatically until *after* 9/11, during which we basically treated them as rulers and gave them a chance to back down. However, until then, we didn't have any excuse to go in and remove them. There are an awful lot of people who would not have appreciated our removing a government simply due to its illegitmacy or repression of the people...

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    5. Re:Falsifying History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so you in your "objective" fashion were actually THERE to see this supposed atrocities? Nope, didn't think so. You just hate the US and its government so much that ANYTHING it does from feeding MOST of the world's hungry, etc, must also involve horrendous atrocities just...well, just because.


      Sorry, no atrocities here. Join the military to develop a sense of honor, a clue, some discipline, and some courage coward.

    6. Re:Falsifying History by praedor · · Score: 2

      Whoa nelly. You can't just lay that at the doorstep of the US, China, etc...the BIG guys. ALL countries do exactly the same thing, NO EXCEPTIONS. There are NO truly altruistic countries anywhere. None. They wouldn't be doing their job, for one thing, if they weren't looking out in some fashion for the best interests of their people (such regimes are the first to go). It is when such activity comes at cross-purposes of another that you get the fighting conflicts.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    7. Re:Falsifying History by vandan · · Score: 2

      I see by the posts replying to you that most Slashdot readers are Yankees. Actually, considering the Slashdot tribe's values (freedom, love & harmony, etc) it is interesting to view their attitudes towards such things as the September 11 warning. I have tuned into various news broadcasts on shortwave radio from around the world, and it is surprising and VERY shocking the strong 'slant' that the American news has towards the US being the innocent hero and the rest of the world being profit potential or security risk. I am certainly glad the US doesn't control the international media, put it like that...

  58. Let's see some shred of evidence by andaru · · Score: 1
    First of all, neither you or I have seen any of this evidence, so you can't assume it actually exists.

    You say, there is evidence that "these guys are who the US thinks they are," but that is the whole point. The US does not even think that they know who these guys are. There is no such evidence.

    The US absolutely has not established the identity of many of the prisoners and does not know which group, if any, they belong to; therefore, the insinuation that I should trust them to already have made such identification is totally illogical. That is like saying, "Person A has no idea what they are talking about. Why don't you trust person A to know what they are talking about."

    In no way will I put blind faith in the motives of the US gov't. I'm sorry, but history will show that they are simply not trustworthy enough to take their actions and words at face value.

    Assuming that the gov't must have some good reason for its most questionable actions is not the way to maintain constant vigilance.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Let's see some shred of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. So what do you think is going on here? Some conspiracy? Just a fuck-up? What would you have the US government do?

    2. Re:Let's see some shred of evidence by andaru · · Score: 1
      Adhere to the Geneva convention.

      Release the names of the prisoners to the world.

      Stop acting like they are pulling some sneaky, illegal stunt if they aren't.

      --

      Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    3. Re:Let's see some shred of evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How will those actions help determine who these people are. Remember that these guys aren't even giving the same name twice in their questioning. As far as the Geneva convention, goes, I'm sick of hearing about it. The prisoner's are not being mistreated: I'm willing to bet their care and "accommodations" are within the standards set by the Geneva convention. It's the legal implications that the US balks at, not becasue its doing anything sneaky, but because adhereing to those legal implications in good faith would be counter to the goal. Do you at least see the concern the US has: these guys are potentially very dangerous and aren't going to stop being dangerous just because no more bombs are being dropped in Afhganistan. If we let these guys go, some if not all will continue on their course as terrorists.
      In any case, the biggest reason this situation seems so "sneaky" is that the European press keeps making such a stink about it.

  59. Too many war movies... by Mofo_abc123 · · Score: 1

    I know this movie was started before 9/11 but I mean in quick sucession (basically as fast as you could make a movie) war movies are poping up. I mean Black Hawk down, next is Harts War. Is this just Propaganda because the USA is at war?

  60. Black Hawk by Coyote67 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Good call in the blackhawk down reference, ignoring the fact that the real leader of the group is in jail for raping a 12 year old girl during this campaign. OOps, there goes a troll mod for me.

    1. Re:Black Hawk by praedor · · Score: 2

      And that means what in regards to the actual heroic events in Somalia? Or the other men who did NOT rape their child/daughters?


      The military asked and got that particular character's name changed in the movie because they didn't think it appropriate (either) to glorify THAT particular individual's actions given his later, disgraceful behavior.


      That mission in Somalia was a success too, forget not. They DID get the warlord and his close advisors...

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  61. Movie Reviews on /. by Innominate+Recreant · · Score: 1

    Why is that more than half (at a quick glance) of the replies to the review (ignoring replies to replies) are about Jon Katz, and not the movie or the subject of the movie?

    I'm guessing that /. publishes his reviews to prompt discussion of topics unrelated to the usual "News for Nerds/Stuff that Matters" fare. Fine. But the reviews prompt mostly "bash Jon Katz" discussions (which are rarely moderated as "off-topic").

    That being the case (and it's a big assumption on my part) I wonder what /.'s motive is in continuing to publish his reviews. Has it become a running gag with the editors, like the "Cowboy Neal" options in polls (Hey! Let's publish another Katz review - I could use a good laugh). Are they hoping, each time they publish a Katz review, that the signal/noise ratio will actually *increase*?

    I can't figure it out. I welcome any suggestions.
    --
    Inominate Recreant - 22 years in the codin' business.

  62. Nothing to do with 9/11 by rowne · · Score: 1

    What wasn't mentioned, is that the movie was scheduled to be released in 2001, not 2002. Like so many movies that had a theme of terrorism, or had anything to do with NY, they were pushed back or re-written. I can't speak for the quality of the movie, but it wasn't inspired by 9/11 in any way.

    1. Re:Nothing to do with 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the events of 9/11 actually hurt the movies bottom line quite a bit. MILLIONS of dollars of prmotinoal material / press junkits / tours and such like had to be postponed / cancelled / redone... {I should know... My cousin works for the production company...}

  63. Yeesh, Katz.... by DwarfGoanna · · Score: 3, Funny

    What makes Black Hawk Down so jarring and effective a film is that it's about a real story. U.S. soldiers really did find themselves in a horrific shoot-out in Somalia, and really did behave heroically under awful pressure. These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful. That movie is thus a terrific salute to ordinary people who have to take a deep measure of themselves in extraordinary situations.


    Zip up your fly, Jon...your jingo is hanging out.

    --

    "You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo

  64. Why does Katz review such dreck by xX_sticky_Xx · · Score: 1

    Is Collateral Damage even worthy of a review? Would anyone going to see it not expect YASBEU(yet another stupid blow-em-up)?

    How about a review of a GOOD movie? Katz seems to enjoy putting even the most mindless drivel in a social and political context; how about a review of Kandahar, a widely acclaimed movie that offers some real insight into life under the Taliban? Is Jon afraid that writing a review for an intelligent movie will challenge his ability (or lack thereof) to actually think about more in the theatre than whether or not he should wait until the lineups at the snack bar die down before he buys popcorn?

    Come on Katz, I challenge you to write a review for a movie that actually has some substance. Then you can show the world how really lacking in ability you are. (Errm...did I just say that?)

    --

    ---

    I didn't want to leave this space blank.
  65. Oh Please. by clump · · Score: 1, Troll

    You will complain that Katz is off-topic while you probably didn't even see Collateral Damage? Just be sure to paint yourself with that same hypocritical brush for using this as a forum for expelling your anti-war views, which (I may add) are a little too much based on speculation.

  66. Shipbuilding by andaru · · Score: 1
    Sorry, but claiming that civilians' support of the war effort makes them somehow not civilians anymore is BS.

    How many American families saved up their peach pits for the USO so the military could make cyanide from them? Were those peach pit savers somehow waiving their status as civilians?

    Also, condoning such mass murder under any circumstance, especially when a simple demonstration of the bomb would have sufficed, seems pretty low.

    The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima after the Japanese had already surrendered, so the BS about saving lives through this despicable act does not fly with the thinking man.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Shipbuilding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug 6 and Aug 9, 1945 (respectively). Japan announced its surrender on August 14, 1945. Do you have different information?

    2. Re:Shipbuilding by andaru · · Score: 1

      Sorry, got my info wrong, but the forthcoming surrender was already known about, and even had it not been, a non-murderous demonstration of the bomb would have been much more ethical. There is no good reason that those people were murdered in the US terror attack (by the US's definition)

      --

      Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    3. Re:Shipbuilding by BarefootClown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...especially when a simple demonstration of the bomb would have sufficed...

      ...a non-murderous demonstration of the bomb...

      Hmm. Let's look at that for a moment. Perhaps, if we had vaporized a small island, to show them what the bomb could do to a city, they would have surrendered without us having to use it.

      I'm sure that's why we had to use it TWICE , even though we asked for a surrender after the first one--because they realized how bad it could be, and immediately decided not to pursue things further, in light of the destruction they were facing. Yeah, sure, an island demo would have worked.

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    4. Re:Shipbuilding by praedor · · Score: 2

      A "demonstration" of the bomb would not have done it. It needed to be FELT. Proof: The annihilation of Hiroshima wasn't in itself enough. It was only AFTER Nagasaki was eliminated that Japan surrendered. So, the elimination of a city wasn't enough and you think a mere "look at what WE can do!" would be? You. Are. Fantasizing. Rewrite history in YOUR mind - it doesn't change the facts.


      In any case, better several thousand of them than hundreds of thousands of their soldiers and ours. Less lives were lost by NOT invading than were lost to the wee little bombs.


      Put that in you waterpipe and smoke it hippy.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    5. Re:Shipbuilding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, it's a great pity that you weren't about twenty years old in 1944, of prime draft age. Then you could have a little perspective on what you're saying. It's very easy for you to sit there in your comfortable room on your comfortable keypad, basking in the liberties of those who fought before you, and denounce what was done. You weren't there, and you didn't (and still don't) know what circumstances were prevailing at the time.

      An invasion of the Japanese home islands projected Allied losses of over 1 million casualties. You don't care about Allied losses? Well, that wouldn't surprise me, but what about Japanese losses? It was expected that Japanese losses would be 5 to 10 times that number before the fighting stopped. Women and children were being armed with bamboo spears and told that their duty was to kill at least one American before they died. You don't believe me? Japanese leaflets printed during that time are still in museums with the Imperial chysanthemum on them.

      Hindsight is always most wonderous to those who think they know it all already. I have a very funny feeling that your so-called principles would be somewhat different if YOUR skin was on the line for a Japanese invasion. Of course, you'd have probably been one of those "conscientious objectors" who didn't believe in fighting. I wonder how the Japanese would've treated YOU if they'd won? And let's not forget the Bataan death march, the ruthless killings of POW's (in violation of the Geneva convention), and Japan's own suppression of internal dissenters.

      But sure, go ahead, condemn dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. Ironically, it gave the Japanese high command the one thing they wanted most: an honorable reason to stop the war by showing them an unstoppable, hideous weapon. A simple demonstration in a barren area would not have sufficed because the psychological shock effect would not have been the same. This idea was considered and turned down for that very reason. Do a little history homework and you'll find that out.

    6. Re:Shipbuilding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The forthcoming surrender was known about? By whom? When? Instigated by who in the Japanese government? When was the surrender to take place? Who was going to negotiate it? Where?

      I am sure you have ALL this information, since you're so damn sure a surrender was forthcoming. That is, unless your just full of shit. I can produce a great deal of proof, documented proof, that a surrender was not forthcoming. This documentation comes from the Japanese by way of documents unearthed after the war. Where is your proof?

  67. Jon Katz Articles by Morgahastu · · Score: 1

    Do people even bother reading his articles anymore? I know I shouldn't but I always feel tempted to read them hoping that he will apologize for not being qualified or unbiased enough to write anything. OR he could write a good article. Yeah. Right. FYI: Black Hawk down was loosely based on a real event and it was a crock of shit if you are not american. And not all your readers are americans, so you should change your style. Thanks.

  68. Get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    COLOMBIA

    Not the broadcasting company.

  69. Excuse me... by thunker · · Score: 0

    ...while I go puke! Can people stop relating eveything to Sept. 11? These are simply far fetched action films. Thats all. Nothing more. So keep your patriotic bull shit to yourself!

    1. Re:Excuse me... by Julian+Plamann · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Anyone who fails to differentiate between a _movie_ and a real life situation (regardless of whether the movie is based on real-life events) sickens me.
      I'm getting awfully tired of this "patriotism". Mindlessly spouting "God Bless America" isn't helping anybody. 95% of these people were affected in no way by the September 11th attacks. By affected, I don't mean a 3 percent drop in your paycheck due to economical issues. I mean directly affected, as in had a close friend die, lost a home, things of that nature.
      I enjoy living in America, I don't take for granted the priveledges the constitution gives me. So, I'm not saying this as an ignorant "anti American". I'm saying this as an American, who's gotten awfully sick of all the media hype surrounding this event.

  70. BZZT wrong jack-ass by glrotate · · Score: 0

    The Clinton Administration made the decision not to allow the AC-130 on the mission. Thats the big 4 engine turboprop transport thats fitted with a bunch of computer controlled howitzers and gatling guns. Had that plane been in the air, American soldiers wouldn't have been drug naked through the streets.

  71. propaganda by Tom · · Score: 1, Troll

    What makes Black Hawk Down so jarring and effective a film is that it's about a real story. U.S. soldiers really did find themselves in a horrific shoot-out in Somalia, and really did behave heroically under awful pressure.


    I guess you've seen the movie once too often. It's interesting to compare US and international reviews of Black Hawk Down. All US reviews I've seen go roughly along those lines, while the vast majority of international reviews points out that the actual events (to the best of our knowledge) where quite different - and much less heroic.
    Almost all non-US reviews point out that Black Hawk Down is such an obvious piece of war propaganda that it almost hurts. So while we're at it with pointing out the heroism (perceived or real), let's not forget what then-president Bill Clinton said about the Mogadischu disaster, calling it "one of the darkest hours" of his presidency.
    Maybe he just wasn't as much a war-monger as the current one.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:propaganda by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Nah. Mogadishu was a wonderful display of bad planning -- an operation that required excellent intelligence, timing, and support... and ran into friction. You'd think that trying to capture a whole mess of leaders of Aidid's militia, in the middle of a city dominated by hostiles with AK-47s and RPGs, that you'd either have a far more subtle plan (thank just sending out the Blackhawks -- the Somalis knew the minute the Blackhawks took off), or bring along a HELL Of a lot more firepower (AFVs for protection, artillery strikes as need be, massed firepower to maintain control of streets and cover windows, et al). One might suspect that the planners figured that Rangers were just [i]so good[/i] that they didn't [i]need[/i] caution, or a more robust plan.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    2. Re:propaganda by Tom · · Score: 2

      I put my bets on arrogance - they really did (still do) believe they're the lords of the world and can do anything. Obviously, they've been mistaken.

      On the other option: According to various sources, 300-500 or over 1000 africans, most of them innocent civilians, were killed. Is that not enough or why are you talking about artillery strikes into a city ???

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Maybe he just wasn't as much a war-monger as the current one.

      hmm clinton he sent more bombs than than reagon or bush's 1 annd 2 !

      dont let that fact get in the way

  72. Nein - Arnold called it off by rosewood · · Score: 2

    Arnold Schwarzenegger's studio was not the contributing factor. The first time Leno was back on the air, Arnold was the guest, and he said he called into the studio. In tons of promo material for this movie I have heard him say the same thing.

    Please - get it right

  73. I live in "British" Columbia... by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2

    ...and now I'm sure glad that "British" was tacked on...maybe it'll keep the yanks from bombing us...or am I asking too much?

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

    1. Re:I live in "British" Columbia... by JPRelph · · Score: 1

      It didn't work in the Gulf when we had Union Jacks on the top of our tanks. They even came round for a second pass :-(

    2. Re:I live in "British" Columbia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To paraphrase a noble and glorious world leader, 'anybody not out actively bombing civilians in third-world countries is actually a terrorist' or some such rubbish.
      Don't feel too safe because there're only two places on American maps now - "Land of the Free, Home of Braves" and "Terrorist Land of Iniquity."
      I wish those nuts down south would wake up and impeach their loony leader.

    3. Re:I live in "British" Columbia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comments like yours prove how right he is.

  74. So you must watch the movie before posting? by andaru · · Score: 1
    I would not be compelled to present my views about my disagreement with the article if the article had not been printed.

    If someone posts an innapropriate article containing empty pro-war rhetoric, then I feel entitled to respond with my views about that rhetoric.

    BTW, there is nothing "anti-war" in my posts whatsoever. I simply do not start with the assumption that my gov't is correct and infallable. That does not make me anti-war, just a little bit vigilant.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

  75. why such offtopic movie reviews? by LiquidPC · · Score: 1

    Does Katz not read the whole "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." motto? Since when does his latest idiotic postings of offtopic genres appeal to nerds or have anything to do with slashdot?

    1. Re:why such offtopic movie reviews? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the latest trend to post things that don't matter. Microsoft could release windows as open source and slashdot would still post things about slinkies and questions on what kind of degree we have.

    2. Re:why such offtopic movie reviews? by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
      I agree, this isn't really a subject that is anyway related /.. There are films that are definitely in our territory because of the subject matter, i.e., LOTR or others that used high-tech to make, such as Shrek.

      I don't care for this movie anyway, but even had it been one that I liked such as "Shipping News", I would say "Read The Fine Motto Katz". It ain't news for nerds and it definietly "doesn't matter"!

      Oh, for moderation on articles!!!!!!

  76. You're watching too much TV yourself. by 955301 · · Score: 1

    uh no. The CIA are almost always bad guys. Corps are all bad. Most US movies are about our own inner demons. A little self-absorbed yes. But less so now than ever. Besides, everyone in the US knows LA is full of weirdos with bad perceptions of reality, trying to make a buck. (Sorry Cali)

    There is usually only one person or a handful that are heroes. Who are the heroes in your country's stories? Are they from your country usually?

    BHD, which you are clearly eluding to, was about a massive disaster. Most Americans understand that. The one's that don't don't usually get out of the country so they don't concern you anyway. Probably have a few of those where you live as well, hmmm?

    Too much media. You are clearly taking in too much media. I tossed my TV about a year ago, and have been feeling great ever since! Try it!

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  77. Have you ever noticed that Katz is a pompus ass? by taskiss · · Score: 2, Funny

    I read the post and thought to myself (before looking at the authors name) "God, what a pompus ass"! Lo and behold...

    --
    - real hackers don't have sigs -
  78. Circumventation is Sneaky by andaru · · Score: 1
    You may have the same concern about a suspected murderer, but that is not an excuse to violate that person's rights and rewrite the nation's laws just to get a conviction.

    I am not talking about letting them go. I am talking about going through the proper channels to get the desired convictions, without stepping on the prisoners' rights and without giving the world community more of an excuse to accuse us of cavalierly disregarding international standards and the will and opinion of the int'l community.

    Also, when you say, "counter to the goal," remember that the goal of keeping them in Cuba in the first place is so that they do not need to be granted the rights of prisoners on US soil. That is sneaky. They might as well circumvent the need to treat the prisoners humanely by keeping them in a country which didn't sign the convention and has no human rights protection. Then we can simply torture and execute them legally.

    When a prison is set up on foreign soil for the sole purpose of circumventing US law, that is sneaky.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Circumventation is Sneaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what rights are being violated here? These Afghans are not U.S. citizens and are not protected under The Constitution. Whether they are protected under the Geneva Convention is something else, but the GC doesn't make much noise about prisoner's rights other than you can't torture them, have to allow Red Cross inspections, yada yada yada. I don't see "fair and impartial trial" anywhere in there.

      Cavalier disregard of the international community's will? So? Who cares? Since when does the international community give two damns about what happens here in the U.S.? They're the ones who are constantly bitching about us anyway, all the while beating their own people, denying them freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many other things that we have right here in the U.S.

      Methinks you've got your anti-U.S. colored glasses on again, and it's interfering with that little rational thought capabilities you might be in possession of.

  79. Ask /.: What kind of degree do you have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone join in!

  80. Second time more criminal by andaru · · Score: 1
    What do you mean "had to use it twice"? There was no "had to". They wanted to run another test of a nuclear bomb, so they tested it on Hiroshima.

    That's like saying, "I had to stab him twice because he hadn't succeeded in giving me his wallet by the time I was done stabbing him the first time."

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Second time more criminal by BarefootClown · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ummm...given that you've already blown some key facts (i.e. the date of the surrender v. the date we dropped the bombs, etc.), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this, but Hiroshima was the first city we nuked, on August 6th. We bombed Nagasaki on the 9th.

      Incidentally, just so you know the rest of the story, here you go:

      1. We dropped tens of thousands of leaflets on Tokyo warning that we had a new weapon of incredible destructive power, and would use it if Japan did not surrender. This was several days before August 6th (though I don't recall the exact date). We gave them fair warning.
      2. August 6th: we nuke Hiroshima, using a uranium-235 device known as "Little Boy." The bomb hits very close to the target (within 500 feet, if memory serves--extremely good, for the time).
      3. August 7 and 8: we drop tens of thousands of leaflets on the Japanese, reminding them of the bomb we just dropped (which, by the way, decimated a large portion of your city, with one bomb, and you couldn't stop it), and that we would do it again if they didn't surrender. We called Emperor Hirohito and asked for a surrender, warning him personally that we'd drop another one if he didn't surrender. He didn't. The fact that he didn't surrender after an actual use, on his people, is probably pretty good evidence that he would not have surrendered to a mere demonstration.
      4. August 9th: we drop a plutonium-239 implosion-type device, known as "Fat Man," on Nagasaki. This bomb misses the target by over half a mile, but still obliterates the primary target--a pleasant side effect of having that much power is that you don't necessarily need the accuracy afforded by modern Precision Guided Munitions (PGM), though it is still nice to have.
      5. We drop more leaflets, and call Hirohito again for a surrender. This time, he decides it might just be a good idea.

      Before we dropped the first one, military strategists, generals, advisors, and the President (Harry Truman, in case you didn't know) gathered for many long discussions, to look at all of the available options. One option examined was a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland; it was ruled out, in favor of the bomb, because the enemy casualties were expected to be similar between the two options, and the American casualties would have been tremendous--remember, this was a culture that believed firmly in the nobility of suicide attacks (see also: Kamikaze), death before dishonor (and failing to fight to the death was considered dishonorable), etc. I'm not bashing that concept--to be completely honest, I see a lot of nobility in their attitude. The point is, they would not have yielded reasonably, so strong measures were required. When all options were considered, nuclear weapons were the least costly in terms of human life, based on all available intelligence. Incidentally, the Manhattan Project was started not by Truman, but by FDR, who tried mightily to keep us out of the war for as long as he could--he was not a war hawk.

      To answer the charges you make in your reply:

      1. Had to, in the sense I just discussed. Best option of a sorry lot--unfortunately, war is like that sometimes.
      2. Just wanted to test it again? We conducted dozens upon dozens of tests of nuclear weapons, in our desert, on islands, underground, and possibly even upper-atmosphere. We didn't need Hiroshima as a testing grounds. Did we study the effects? Hell, yes! But we still study the effects of simple 500lb "dumb bombs," looking for ways to improve them, and seeing their effects against different types of targets, so we can optimize for different types of targets. Not availing ourselves of a research opportunity would just be foolish.
      3. Your example of mugging is a complete non-sequitor. A better example would be "I had to shoot him twice because he hadn't succeeded in not continuing to attack me by the time I was done shooting him the first time." This was not a random mugging of an uninvolved individual--this was an attempt to end a war, a war which was started by the other side (perhaps you remember a little sneak attack on Pearl Harbor), a war which was likely to drag on for some time, with many more lives lost, if it wasn't ended decisively.

      Hope this little recollection of the facts helps clear things up a little.

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    2. Re:Second time more criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scientists who worked on the atomic bomb project were asked to recommend if and how the bomb should be used. They did not come down hard on one side or the other, but recommended that the bomb be used against military targets. The powers that be used this as a justification for destroying two Japanese cities that were of such small military significance that they had hardly been bombed at all during the preceding months -- so little, in fact, that it is suggested that they were left untouched to provide pristine targets on which to test the bomb. But there was a very small amount of military activity in the cities bombed, eg a POW camp where Americans were nuked. It's just another example of how terrible acts can be justified. Cremation of living civilians in cities A and B is in no way justified by the refusal of a religiously insane dictator in city C who thinks he's a god to surrender.

    3. Re:Second time more criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a total dumbass, and nothing will ever change that. You can be smacked in the face with facts forever, and you'll never wake up. I pity you.

  81. criticizing the gov't.. by Mike+Hicks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I haven't seen Collateral Damage, and I suppose I probably won't, but I really think you may be coming to a harsher view of it than you should. The United States has made many mistakes in the past. It's entirely inappropriate to paint the US as a white knight, always battling for good in the face of evil because it's untrue. I wish that was the case, but it's not.

    Theodore Roosevelt once stated that he believed it was treasonous to not criticize the actions of the President. The public should be trying to hold the government to the highest standards right now. It's a really uphill battle, though..

    It's amazing, looking back at the creations our TV and movie industries have come up with in the last decade. Terrorism has been a major theme. Even The Lone Gunmen on Fox had an episode involving diverting a plane that would have crashed into one of the WTC towers. Many movies that would have come out last fall have been delayed or canned.

    I worry a lot about the restrictions that may be put on TV and movies in the future, both in written laws and in unspoken agreements. I understand that Back to the Future was edited by TBS, TNT, and NBC to reduce the role of the Libyan terrorists that `Doc' Brown stole plutonium from. I think it's ludicrous! What's going to be edited next?

    Looking at Black Hawk Down, I think the real tragedy comes from putting people in a situation they shouldn't have been in in the first place. To me, a member of the public, the action in Somalia was billed as a humanitarian mission. The reality is apparently different, though I don't know if even the troops involved knew anything about that.

    I think it's another example of how open and truthful communication is important. When true motives are hidden, good people get themselves into bad situations.

    I've seen a lot of things get hidden in the post-9/11 world, so it's been hard for me to believe anything anymore. I avoid the news coverage of our little `war'.. At the moment, I'm taking time to work on figuring out my own life. The people near me have much less incentive to lie to me than the figureheads in government..

    I hope that I'll soon find some energy to try and help out in society. I think the community of Linux and other open source developers have seen the value of open communication, even if it occasionally degenerates into silly bickering. It's probably a good idea to get involved in the political process this year, even if it's just at a low level..

    1. Re:criticizing the gov't.. by thogard · · Score: 1

      They are't hiding anything from you, honest!

      Having access to news outside of the US as well as Foxnews and CNN, I can say there is quite a bit hidden. Things like the French news papers reporting that the CIA station chief meet with Osama in the hostpital in June. Things like the bin Laden family and the Bush family doing deals in the middle east. The Elron connection to midle east bansk that were explicitly excluded by presidental order from the anit-terrorism money hunt. None of this gets the slightest mention in the US press.

      Maybe the best thing for the world right now would be for hte US to become isolationist but it can't because it needs too much oil.

    2. Re:criticizing the gov't.. by HongPong · · Score: 2
      Theodore Roosevelt once stated that he believed it was treasonous to not criticize the actions of the President.

      Oh good! you read your Sunday morning Doonesbury! Bonus points if you know what the Boondocks' Huey said today about the 15th amendment.

      Was the Lone Gunmen episode the one where they hacked the cookies? :-D

    3. Re:criticizing the gov't.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought the bin laden family disowned Osama ( they have 50 rich siblings, the odds of a politician talking to any of them is pretty good, and that includes europena politicians, shiznit)

      or was it convenient to leave that out. so much for getting the "truth" out of you.

  82. Ooh, the big hero roars on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Try Vietnam you sorry piece of shit.


    Funny, I dont remember any anonymous cowards in viet nam.


    The only thing I cared about was my trust in the person beside me in battle


    Which disqualifies you, tit. No way, no how is some fucking loser posting drivel on slashdot going to inspire anyone's confidence. In fact, if I was going into a battle situation with you, I'd shoot you first.

    1. Re:Ooh, the big hero roars on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice one trooll. Keep at it, you sorry shit stain! :)

    2. Re:Ooh, the big hero roars on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I don't remember anyone born after '54 in Vietnam either.

      Heh, you'd been fragged as you stepped off the plane.

    3. Re:Ooh, the big hero roars on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haaaaaaaaahahahahaha...

      Right or wrong of the argument aside. You've just got my co-workers wondering what I was laughing at.

      Nice.

  83. Directions by martissimo · · Score: 1

    It must be an evil school to attract this much attention from Arnie, but here's directions to Columbia University

  84. Re: Cardiac Damage? by Julian+Plamann · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm alone in this opinion. But honestly, all this talk about "America suffering" doesn't make much sense. I agree that anybody directly involved in the attacks or family members, friends, etc of the victims have been affacted a great deal. But do the remaining 95% of Americans really stay up crying over it night after night?
    I'm just trying to be honest here. I don't view movies in a different light than I did before 9-11. I don't relate my daily experiences to 9-11. I have yet to feel the urge to go around spouting "God Bless America". "We're all heros".

    Go ahead, mod this down. Turn it into a flame war, whatever you wish.

  85. Coming Soon! by Nickovsky · · Score: 1

    The Handicapinator!

    "Owww, my back!!"

  86. Snow Bonobo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I thought your were dead... Oh, wait that was Sonny Bono.

    Well, you're ideas are just as dead.

  87. Re: Cardiac Damage? by issachar · · Score: 1

    you're not alone, but I would *guess* that you're in a minority in the US. 9-11 was one of those "community" moments in which people feel emotionally connected to events and people that they never had direct contact with.

    for a weaker version of this, you need only look at how sad some people got with Princess Di died.

    --
    . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
  88. Question by jchawk · · Score: 1

    Why is Jon Katz the only slashdotter to review movies? I would be interested to hear a review from one of the other guys. CowboyNeal? Michael? Hemos? Anyone. Please you guys could do a better job then Katz I'm sure. Please spare us from his rambling, round-about, never reaching a real conclusion hippy crap!

    - I'll bash you in the face.

  89. A few things of note. by r00st3r · · Score: 1

    I did notice a couple of things in Collateral Damage that set it apart from previous Arnold action movies. Not once did I see him pick up a gun or any other traditional weapon. The closest he came was a fire axe and a grenade and even then it was after using a bit of "MacGyver" trickery. Also, I think this is the first movie where Arnold has openly acknowledged his Austrian (German) ethnicity. Not terribly exciting revelations, but I found them interesting nonetheless.

    - r00st3r

    --
    "Me mule wouldn't work in the mud. So I had to put seventeen bullets in 'er!" - Willy
  90. Re: Cardiac Damage? by Stonehand · · Score: 1

    *shrug*

    Advertisers seem to think that patriotism sells. Or they did for a while, anyway, especially the auto manufacturers. There's probably also a peer-pressure / societal-pressure factor, since some folks may be concerned about not seeming patriotic if they don't hoist up the flag.

    Some may have been unduly alarmed, since it hadn't recently occurred to them that a) foreign policy matters, b) that people can be taught to hate due to religion, c) that airlines cared a lot more about throughput than security, since the insurance companies didn't care that much, either.

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  91. We pay attention to this jingoistic crap, while.. by Axe · · Score: 1
    ..while such nice real geek movies as "Brotherhood of the Wolf" (rocks!!) are being forgotten.

    Seriously - forget Arnold - check "Brotherhood" out..

    --
    <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
  92. Arnold knows what's up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When Arnold was on The Tonight Show one of them (he or Leno) made a joke about how the delay of the release of this movie would leave Arnold out of contention for an Oscar. Arnold further joked that "They've passed me over 25 times already."

    This is the tone for Arnold's movies. Nobody in their right mind would go see an Arnold movie and expect anything more than, well, an Arnold movie. If ever you walk out of one having expected something else, you just don't know Arnold movies.

    In this case, though I have not seen it (yet), I'm guessing that Arnold catches the terrorist, and that while he doesn't bring back his murdered family members, he does exact revenge in much the same way alot of the audience would like to for attacks here in the US. Arnold movies are escapist, entertaining (for some), and delivery what they promise, and that isn't so bad.

  93. Back to the movie guys by rnicey · · Score: 1

    This really has nothing to do with 9/11, current wars, the state of Northern Ireland etc. It's a movie, it's fiction. Treat it as such. There are so many references to blowing things up in movies I just don't see why people always have to join the dots. There has to be some separation.

    Mild spoilage:
    Anyway to the movie itself. Arnold is his usual corny self and his supporting cast do a pretty good job of the acting. The action scenes are plentiful but that's not why this movies sucks.
    It sucks because of the awful script. Not awful because it has corny lines and such, awful because Arnold spends half the movie getting beaten up and he doesn't once pick up a gun. His entire arsenal is a black river pass, a grenade, and exploding lightbulb and an axe. Boring. There's lots of running around in confusion getting nowhere, boring. What people wanted to see in this movie was a f&%%in huge Austrian bloke land in Columbia in army camo and with the biggest gun you could rip off a helicopter. He should have then proceeded to march up the river machine-gunning everything in sight taking out trees and jeeps that got in the way (popcorn gobbling stuff). Instead he hides in a truck all the way and gets his ass kicked when he's finally discovered. Boring boring boring.

  94. "True and Well Done"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They used real names for characters, except for the hero, because he was convicted as a sex offender after his return stateside. Oh, and they left out the part where the US forces took women and children as hostages to try to save their own lives.

  95. The question we need to be asking ourselves is.... by ainsoph · · Score: 2

    Why so many *pro* war movies since 9/11??? After years of anit-war movies, we are now being bludgeoned with propaganda peice after propaganda peice.

    Can they make movies of this scale in just 4 months?

    Is it a little odd the timing of all this?

    Just asking.. Cos I think its *wacky*

  96. The many "truths" by bjelkeman · · Score: 1

    Some movies - Black Hawk Down - are greatly enhanced by 9/11. Because it was true and well done

    There are many "truths" out there, you only have to go across the Atlantic to the UK to find a radically different "truth":

    The Guardian (a UK broadsheet newspaper) says:

    Black Hawk Down looks set to become one of the bestselling movies of all time. Like all the films the British-born director Ridley Scott has made, it is gripping, intense and beautifully shot. It is also a stunning misrepresentation of what happened in Somalia.

    Read more at...

    --
    Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation
    1. Re:The many "truths" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you are saying i should get my truth from a british left wing propaganda site ?

      next thing you know youll say only the americans ever had slaves, the british and french slave trade never existed in all those centuries. or they never colonized and messed up all of Africa a century ago . america did it.

    2. Re:The many "truths" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guardian is hardly left-wing propaganda.

      It's mainstream, middle class and pseudo-intellectual. The kind of paper that goes on about education and suchlike in a well meaning but not particularly practical way.

      Oh yeah, FYI, us Brits fucked up many countries. The key difference is:

      a) We admit it.
      b) We stopped doing it, because we realised it was wrong.

      Think about that the next time the US has a go at screwing the climate or exploiting someone else's national resources or ignoring UN resolutions or supporting opressive regimes.

    3. Re:The many "truths" by bjelkeman · · Score: 1

      The trick is to call any version of events which doesn't agree with yours: "lying f***ing commies". ;)

      --
      Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation
  97. Oops! by andaru · · Score: 1
    In my frenzy, I typed the name of the wrong city.

    Which does not change the fact that nuking any city in any circumstance is totally immoral.

    The Japanese knew they had lost the war and were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. I really doubt that Truman actually believed that an invasion would be necessary in lieu of the bombs.

    In response to the Pearl Harbor comment, there is a fair amount of speculation that FDR knew it was coming and used it as a way to garner public support for entering the war.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Oops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese were ready to surrender? Really? I guess that's why they'd rebuffed the three prior attempts that the State Department had made to open negotiations about a surrender. Gosh, they really did want to surrender...just in their own sweet time, right?

      Wake up and smell what you're shoveling. I don't know what revisionist history you've been taught, but it's lacking one thing: truth.

  98. Say no to Katz, kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My complaint about Jon Katz:

    May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind,
    but with Katz's latest barrage of
    malodorous notions, I can't resist the urge to make a
    few cynical comments. To get right
    down to it, some of the facts I'm about
    to present may seem shocking. This
    they certainly are. However, it's time that a few
    facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype.
    What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it
    in the form of a question: Where are the people
    who are willing to stand up and acknowledge
    that Katz, in his infinite wisdom, has decided
    to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests?
    On the surface, it would seem to have something to do
    with the way that his whole approach is repugnant.
    But upon further investigation, one will find that
    by allowing Katz to put mephitic thoughts in our
    children's minds, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
    As for the lies and exaggerations, Katz's
    epigrams are rife with contradictions
    and difficulties; they're entirely maladroit,
    meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited
    for a supposedly educated population.
    And as if that weren't enough, if Katz is going to
    obstruct important things, then he should at least have
    the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, a
    true enemy is better than a false friend. And
    second, many people respond to his debauched vituperations
    in much the same way that they respond to television
    dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but
    they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything
    about them. That's why I insist we pronounce the truth
    and renounce the lies.

    Even people who consider themselves scornful
    foolhardy-types generally agree that Katz's slurs
    symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion
    -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us
    lose more than a little freedom. One might conclude
    that Katz is incapable of writing a letter without using
    such phrases as "crapulous pop psychologists", "loquacious
    exhibitionists", "oppressive personae non gratae", or
    some combination thereof. Alternatively, one might conclude
    that Katz has a different view of reality from the rest of us.
    In either case, if you're not part of the solution,
    then you're part of the problem. His historical record of
    fickle pleas is clearer than the muddled pronouncements
    of his apple-polishers for a variety of reasons. For
    instance, the worst sorts of inconsiderate Neanderthals there
    are must be treated with political justice, not with
    civil justice, as they are sincerely not real citizens. Let me
    rephrase that: I wonder if he really believes the
    things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he?
    A complete answer to that question would
    take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give
    you a simplified answer. For starters, if
    we let him cause riots in the streets, then greed,
    corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government.
    Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens.
    And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the
    media and educational institutions.

    Even Katz's bedfellows couldn't deal with the full impact of
    Katz's refrains. That's why they created "Katz-ism," which is
    just a garrulous excuse to force square
    pegs into round holes. He plans to drag everything
    that is truly great into the gutter. He has instructed
    his votaries not to discuss this or even admit to his
    plan's existence. Obviously, Katz knows he has
    something to hide. Most of you reading this letter
    have your hearts in the right place. Now
    follow your hearts with actions. I have traveled the length and
    breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can
    therefore assure you that Katz's artifices cannot stand on
    their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate
    artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Katz's
    warnings can give us deeper insights into the nature of
    reality. We can and we must protect ourselves by any means
    necessary against the unrestrained bestiality
    of stupid, quasi-macabre paper-pushers. And that's the honest truth.

  99. Re:Falsifying History - a fact check by Infonaut · · Score: 2
    1) "nothing in that movie really happened that way" - Tell us how it actually went down. You were obviously either there or have access to carefully researched information, right? The author of Black Hawk Down spent thousands of hours researching his book, most of which was originally serialized in the Philadelphia Enquirer.

    2) "paid for by the US Army" - Interesting theory, but false. The US Army cooperated with Ridley Scott in filming the movie, but they don't bankroll the studios.

    3) "The US troops committed many war crimes in that country" - A sensational claim, but where are your facts?. I was in Somalia, from December, 1992 and March, 1993 with the 10th Mountain Division. The only war crimes I saw were the butchered bodies of dozens of people slaughtered by the clansmen of Omar Jess, left to rot half-buried outside of Kismayo.

    4) "pullback triggered Rwanda genocides". - This is totally outside the spectrum of discussion about Somalia, but think about what you write. The pullback of American forces somehow compelled hundreds of thousands of Rwandans to slaughter each other? No, the ethnic hatred in Rwanda led to the slaughter. Your explanation is even more absurd than saying that because Germany was humiliated in World War One, it was the fault of the Allies that Hitler killed millions of innocents.

    5) "US crimes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and their widespread disregard of the natural environment... feeding ground and root cause for terrorism against the US." - I agree with you that the United States has not always played fair, particularly with Central America and East Asia. But I would argue that the reason the US is a target for frustration and hate is not so much that it has committed crimes (because on balance, many people around the world, in spite of your view, see that the United States has done many good things), but that the US is the sole dominant power economically, culturally, and militarily.

    Being that powerful makes the US a target - plain and simple. Interestingly, the very demand for political, economic, and cultural freedom that the US has helped to generate is now creating such a strong backlash.

    Do you really think that Osama bin Laden is primarily motivated by a desire to punish the United States for its behavior in Guatemala, or for its immense appetite for fossil fuels (which led to the staggering wealth of the Saud family and thereby bin Laden's own family)? No, he's motivated by a very narrow, fanatical view of Islam, and by a lust for power. He isn't being inclusive. He doesn't want a happier world for you and me. He's not seeking balance. He wants a world dominated by his militant view of Islam.

    Is the United States to blame for this man? Certainly the desire of many people around the world to find some sort of spiritual clarity in a time of overwhelming materialsm can be traced back to US hegemony.

    But before we simplify it down to "the US brought this on itself," and start spreading around a "rest of the world vs. the US" mentality, imagine for a moment some of the other options.

    The UN is not an effective world government yet, and likely won't be for some time to come. Given that power abhors a vaccum, who would you have lead the world?

    Would it be Russia? China? Perhaps the UK? France? Italy? South Africa? Chile? Brazil? Which nations would advocate freedom of speech and religion? Which would rebuild Europe and Japan after fighting to save the world from fascism? Which would defend the rest of the world from an ideology antithetical to individual freedom?

    See, the great thing is, we could find lots of things to fault any one of these nations on. Give them immense power and see how well they wield it. In truth, no matter what nation is dominant, it will always be a handy scapegoat. Any number of ills can be easily heaped upon them.

    After all, it's a lot easier to blame someone else than it is to look in the mirror.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  100. Too long?? by Crixus · · Score: 2
    The movie is too long

    The movie is 109 minutes long. That's a LONG movie????

    I like the films I see to be about 120 minutes long, else I don't feel I'm getting what I paid for.

    Perhaps John Katz did not see Titanic.

    Rich...

    --
    Ignore Alien Orders
  101. More circumstantial evidence. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There are what? Now three war films all shot just before 9-11.

    Since Hollywood is the pumping heart of mind-control media production for the West, is it any wonder they had films already in the bag designed to keep the embers of war-mongering public hate and nationalistic pride burning brightly?

    What blows me away is that they would be so blatent! You'd think they would at least wait until after the 9-11 display, just to keep the books clean, so to speak. The fact that can get away with this sort of thing demonstrates just how little work there is left to do in terms of programming the public.

    Oh. And here's an interesting tid-bit: In Toronto, there is a fellow claiming to be a U.S. Navy spy claiming that he had foreknowledge of 9-11. The interesting part is that he was locked up in a Canadian jail back in August. He was screaming and yelling about the impending September attacks, to the point where he signed a document to this effect, had it witnessed and court sealed, several weeks before they happened.

    You can read the article here


    -Fantastic Lad

    Death camps in America filled to capacity before this decade is out. They are empty and waiting already. . .

    1. Re:More circumstantial evidence. . . by Y-Crate · · Score: 1
      "Oh. And here's an interesting tid-bit: In Toronto, there is a fellow claiming to be a U.S. Navy spy claiming that he had foreknowledge of 9-11. The interesting part is that he was locked up in a Canadian jail back in August. He was screaming and yelling about the impending September attacks, to the point where he signed a document to this effect, had it witnessed and court sealed, several weeks before they happened."


      And the funny thing is, even with the remarkable.....simply STUNNING evidence (which is a matter of the public record) the U.S government doesn't seem to care if this guy lives or dies. He's demanding to be given a new identity and put in the Witness Protection Program if the U.S manages to extradite him for what appears to be a thurougly BS charge. But the U.S just wants to dump him into Gen Pop in prison.

      Quite an odd place to put someone who obviously appears to know something.

      Gen Pop is ridiculously unsecure, and legendary for being a place where people with information are silenced. I find it disturbing that the U.S government wants to put this man in the most unsafe place possible.

      I'm not a conspiracy buff, but this sort of thing really bothers me. There is not a bunch of hearsay and twisted accounts making up the basis of this story. Just a lot of notarized affidavits from before the attacks even happened. And the fact no one seems to care is quite upsetting.

      You can see something he wrote back in mid-August. It's now part of the court record in Canada. here

      A note he wrote back in August contains the following quote:
      "Let one happen, stop the rest!!!
      An apparent aknowledgement that he would not be believed until after things started to happen, but a desperate plea to consider his claims once the attacks began.

      No one listened.
    2. Re:More circumstantial evidence. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like bullshit to me. How come the first I hear of this is on /. And don't feed me this media bias/conspiracy bullshit.

    3. Re:More circumstantial evidence. . . by Y-Crate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, did you read the article, look at the evidence that has been presented - and the statements regarding its accuracy, or simply look at the claim and then say "It can't be true"?

      Do you have any idea of the amount of extremely important news that is simply ignored, completely and uttterly by the mass media? You can try to excuse it all you want as "Bullshit", but the fact remains, the media fails to report an overwhelming majority of what happens out there. It simply doesn't bring in veiwiers. Which leads to the beleif that things aren't true, that they didn't happen, if the nightly entertainment known as "The News" didn't bother to report them. It is having a catastrophic effect on our nation, one that I fear, will cause us HUGE problems in the future. Why? Because without a proper idea of what is going on, or what has been done in the past, people believe only the bits and peices they are spoon-fed by those with the power to "make" the news. And they are left incapable of holding their leaders accountable, and as a result their nation. And their country becomes a rouge state that serves the interests of their leaders and those in power. While the context of any actions are presented through the filter of the condensed, 99.999% truth free reality that most of the country exists in. It's already happening now. And you can use the old "media bias/conspiracy" smear to discredit anything that isn't convient. But you will only be doing yourself a disservice. Stop ignoring what isn't nice, and start paying attention to it. Open your eyes, shut off CNN and actually LOOK at what is happening out there and don't require CNN, FoxNews or ABC to give the truth their stamp of approval. The notion that such a thing is needed, bodes ill for our world.

      Here is a link to a story on the issue by The Tronto Star.

      Perhaps it is now reported enough to be true, for you, but maybe for you it won't be true unless it becomes more popular? Popularity = Truth? A scary concept indeed.

    4. Re:More circumstantial evidence. . . by vortigern00 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you hear stuff first on slashdot all the time. Like when Stephen King died.

      I heard that first on slashdot every time it happenned.

    5. Re:More circumstantial evidence. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2
      Oh, you hear stuff first on slashdot all the time. Like when Stephen King died.

      Try reading the links before you make your smart remarks.

      More than half of the significant advances in science and general human knowledge which have gone on to form important foundation stones in our current society, were ridiculed and disbelieved by the supposedly 'educated' masses.

      When I look back upon how much energy and effort was put into disbelieving guys like Graham Bell, (Front pagees on newspapers and scoffing articles in respected science journals of the day!), the disbelievers always seemed like such over-stuffed cartoon characters. --Hobbits and Muggles of the first order, who didn't deserve the gifts being offered.

      Even as a kid, the lesson here seemed more than obvious.

      And yet, I remain baffled that so few people are aware of this endless parade of irony!

      Ignorance may be funny, but hobbits en masse are dangerous little fuckers! Women burned alive, and all that. Why would anybody want to number themselves among the willfully ignorant?

      Grow a damned spine.


      -Fantastic Lad

    6. Re:More circumstantial evidence. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading the note, it seems clear that he is a crackpot. He did not predict the date of the events, nor did he even predict correctly the targets. He simply rattled off the names of several high profile buildings, most not inside the U.S., several in Canada.

      There is no evidence that this guy knew anything but his own paranoid delusions. You might as well give credence to the x-tian pamphleteer who wrote that New York would be ablaze with God's wrath several weeks before 9-11.

      This case is prima facie one of an insane person whose rantings closely resembled actual events.

      Have you ever watched a psychic work? They will rattle off a million things and get 99% of them wrong. It isn't the 99% wrong that you remember but the 1% that hit the nail on the head. Same thing with this wacko. Don't give him any more audience than you would give any other bum.

    7. Re:More circumstantial evidence. . . by balthan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, believing every nutjob that comes along is alot better than being "ignorant."

  102. Where Katz lost me by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

    "Some movies - Black Hawk Down - are greatly enhanced by 9/11. Because it was true and well done...

    I hate to resort to Americanisms, but... puh-LEASE. Is this the "Black Hawk Down" that's being panned worldwide as a shallow piece of historically-inaccurate propaganda, or are we talking about different films?

  103. Re:True? F*ck your war. by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 1

    American glorification has killed a lot of good movies, and Americans have killed a great number of innocent people. Dear Redneck, why don't you explain to the rest of the world why the Great United States has to carpet bomb an entire country to hurt one evil man?? While you're at it, please tell me why a perfectly good Red Cross installation (including inhabitants) was demolished for your war effort; I'm sure you can think up a quasi- logical justification for that massacre too.
    Have you seen "Pearl Harbour?" It's another typical piece of turd-munching American propaganda that only the weakest of mind would confuse with the actual factual events as they occurred .. members of my family died in the Second World War and even off the Hawaiian coast (defending your sorry country) after that incident, and their accounts differ in many distinct ways from the rendition that came out Hollywood's poop chute.
    You probably have the gall to wonder why the rest of the world doesn't give more than a superficial shit about your precious land and its heard-earned terrorist damage. If you were a world citizen, the answer would be obvious.
    I think you should put the pig down, pull your pants up and take a sober look around. Your government rarely tells you the truth, and you fall for it every time. George Shrub is a fear-mongering attention whore and September 11 hasn't changed that: you people are dazzled by bigger guns and more missiles, allowing you to overlook that the little man pushing the buttons is slightly mad. Say goodbye to civil liberties, and Hello! to your new police state. "Yes, Black Hawk Down IS based on largely fictional events. There is not more than a small grain of truth in it."
    Goodbye.

  104. Re:Bowden and Chomsky by broohaha · · Score: 0

    It seems a little strange that with all of the United State's [sic] vast control of a corner of the World's Intelligence Market that we wouldn't know about this meeting.

    There are limits to US intelligence in other countries, particularly Somalia. One need only see the blunders made by the U.S. military in afghanistan. Like the recent raid that appears to have killed "friendly" Afghan forces.

  105. Re:hollywood vs the truth - MOD THIS UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bravo somebody finally did some homework.

  106. US Government post 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In pre-9/11 movies, the U.S. is nearly as evil as the terrorists, as the perennial bumbling evil C.I.A./NSA secret agents do absolutely anything at all costs by any means to get their way -- just like the terrorists.


    Yes, one of the casualties of 9/11 was the end of realistic portrails of the US government and it's agencies.
  107. blackhawk down by kpeerless · · Score: 1

    What WASN'T discussed inthe movie was the reason for the Somalis to go berserk... and the reason was... shortly before the helicopters were shot down the same helicopters had rocketed and machine gunned a house where Habib's tribal elders plus servants plus wives plus children plus grandchildren had assembled to discuss the US peace plan, resulting in the deaths of 90 unarmed civilians. Deliberate murder.

    Were I a Somali you may be sure that I would have been in the streets that day to avenge my relatives.

    US propaganda again spins an act of US murder into an heroic defense of demacracy.

  108. Afraid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    What is it you're hiding you are so afraid of being found out?

    My name is William Golub, I live in Paris Texas, and I will assasinate your leaders. Is that better, Mr. Amerkaan Genius? I wouldnt want to fool you.

  109. IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9 NO by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't know if something noteworthy happened on the ninth of November, but if your talking about the day when a bunch of Islamic terrorists crashed a couple of planes in NY it reads 11/9!

    --

    "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

  110. Re: Cardiac Damage? by thogard · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Last reports were Al-quada is at 70% strength.
    Talban will be back home and back in positions of power inside 6 weeks.
    17 out of the 22 top Al-quada are missing and haven't been found in the dead. There are reports that most of them are alive.
    The economy of the US is messed up as bad as its been in decades.
    bin Laden is no where to be found

    Result: bin Laden won this round. The us beat the shit out of bunch of rocks and harrased a bunch of young guys but failed to deal with the leadership it blamed for the problem. Looks like the same result as the Gulf war -- no problems solved but lots of problems are made worse.

  111. if you americans want to see collateral damage.. by pinkj · · Score: 1

    ..just watch the international coverage of the war in afghanistan. SICK OF AMERICA

  112. Great modding! (+1 innaccurate) by Seemlar · · Score: 1

    Modded informative when he doesn't know what he's talking about?

    For shame mods, for shame.

    The man in jail for rape was actually the company clerk. I may not be an expert in the US military heirarchy, but I wouldn't have thought that the clerk was "the real leader".

    But of course, facts rarely get in the way of a person trying to put as negative a swing as possible on something.

  113. Re:IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9 by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

    Unless you live in America where we put the month before the date, then its 9/11. Now, you can argue all you want that its more logical to have day/month/year but personally, i prefer month/day/year.

    --

    "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
  114. Re:IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but we Americans do it month/date. I know most other countries do it day/month, but that doesn't make us "wrong". Don't be such a little bitch about it.

  115. Re: Cardiac Damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do you get this stuff from?

  116. Re:IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9 by passion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know if something noteworthy happened on the ninth of November, but if your talking about the day when a bunch of Islamic terrorists crashed a couple of planes in NY it reads 11/9!

    Flamebait, -1 (where's your moderator points when you need them)

    We all have our own cultural interpretations. In Mexico, they celebrate "Cinco de Mayo". We don't correct it and tell them that it's "Mayo de Cinco"...

    The attack happened in America, on primarily American people - where we use the month/day convention. The other reason that it's sometimes referred to as "nine-eleven" is the similarity it has with the emergency telephone number "9-1-1".

    Perhaps the terrorists chose this day on purpose to strike fear into the hearts of Americans by using our own culture against us. Perhaps they wanted us to forever remember that day as the "day of emergency". They failed, for the heroism of the emergency personnel (who happen to respond when you dial 9-1-1) turned out to be the great shining light of the day.

    In summary, I feel it fitting to refer back to one of this nation's most important events in history as "September 11th", or "nine-eleven", or even "nine-one-one".

    If, or when someone invades Europe from another continent and smashes 2,000+ people - perhaps your press will report it as 2.000 people, and you can refer to that date in infamy as "day/month". But until that time, get used to us Americans using "month/day". It's our culture. We tried to jetison the English measurement system for metric, it didn't happen.

    --
    - passion
  117. ... Kyoto (snorts) by havblue · · Score: 1
    There's a big difference between what the world would "like" and what the world is actually able to achieve. The consensus has been that Kyoto is an unattainable goal, and there's no reason to debate about something that's going to fail in the end anyway. The fact is European nations have not as of yet adopted Kyoto so Bush's backing out of it is a moot point so far. The difference is you are willing to pretend that you'll go along with it and we are not.

    That being said I will definitely admit America has not done nearly enough to control our own pollution levels including the emissions of our silly SUV's.

  118. saw the sneak peek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and that was 2 hours of my life I'll never have back.

    what a piss poor effort, arnold AS ALWAYS, can't act his way out of a wet paper bag.

    At one point he throws a damn axe into a guys chest and it sticks.

    wait I know! I'll make a call on my cell phone and when i hit the send button something will blow up.

    or better yet, its like they wrote the movie and then thought, how can this guy do all these things? I know, since he needs to open an broken elevator and deal with explosions and stuff he can be a fire man.

    this whole contrived pos rang hollow, dont see it, masturbate instead.

  119. What post 9/11 standards? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

    After Oklahoma City there were still action movies and way before O.C. we all said they stunk. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  120. Re:IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9 by psamuels · · Score: 1
    The other reason that it's sometimes referred to as "nine-eleven" is the similarity it has with the emergency telephone number "9-1-1".

    This is a rhetorical question, but ... can we please stop with the pseudo-dramatic little "9/11 == 9-1-1" congealing spoonful of chicken soup for the soul? It's a country song waiting to be written, if not already recorded.

    Tell me, if Al'Quaeda's day of judgment had happened to be the 4th of October, would we be making much of the fact that it was "10-4 day, get it? The police use that call on their CB radios. So appropriate!"?

    In summary, I feel it fitting to refer back to one of this nation's most important events in history as "September 11th", or "nine-eleven", or even "nine-one-one".

    And I find it exceedingly cheesy. There. Glad to have got that off my chest. Please continue, pay me no mind.[*]

    [*] Though on second thought I could use a new mind - this one doesn't always perform to spec.
    --
    "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
  121. Re:Bowden and Chomsky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they didn't see Saddam heading for Kuwait

  122. it amazes me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It amazes me that no one as of yet has even bothered to correct katz' gross misspelling of the word Colombian. Id say less than 10 percent of americans spell the name of my country correctly on the first try.

  123. too bad aidid isnt still alive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then we can send you there to him.
    hell probably would have cut your head off and used you as a hood ornament.

    of course you could be lucky and he would do what south americans due to "gringos". maybe somebody will pay your ransom.

    hmm, maybe not.

    dick

  124. Black Hawk Down "True?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You reckon BHD is true?

    I call it revisionist history. Just rewrite a complete mistake and human tragedy as "trying to do the Right Thing (TM)". And miss out all those sordid details less you "Lessen the Memory"

    Heh. Somalia. Arn't we great! Excuse me while I vomit, America.

  125. kill the savages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like ive told someone else ,try going to a third world country. bet you would get kidnspped within minutes.
    if american have treated countries badly, id fuckin bet you its fucking miniscule compared to what these animals ( thats right ANIMALS) do to themsevles.

    pat buchanan says we shouldnt be any of these countries.

    i say we should and slaughter these fuckin savages

    you and chomsky should fuckin deal with it

  126. Re:IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Unless you live in America where we put the
    > month before the date, then its 9/11. Now, you
    > can argue all you want that its more logical to
    > have day/month/year but personally, i prefer
    > month/day/year.

    Translate: The smarter Americans can see exactly why it makes sense to put the day before the month, but we're so ingrained in our current thinking that we're not even interested in change. So much so that, in fact, we claim to like the illogical version. Besides that, it would probably be communistic to follow an idea that didn't come from inside the USA.

    Same situation as the metric system.

    I understand that you're all used to doing things backwards (not meant to be a flame), but when you claim to do so at the expense of switching to a less confusing and more suitable standard, you're just sticking your heads in the sand.

  127. Re:IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez people. It's just the goddamn date! Write it however you want. The sad thing is that I'm not surprised by how petty the discussions on this site can be. But it's annoying nonetheless.

  128. "Black hawk down" != real by choke · · Score: 1

    >What makes Black Hawk Down so jarring and effective a film is that it's about a real story. U.S. soldiers really did find themselves in a horrific shoot-out in Somalia, and really did behave heroically under awful pressure

    This movie was a piece of patriotic revisionist crap, that painted a failed military mission which included the deaths of several hundred somalis as a heroic accomplishment.

    In the real world, the us military is very carefully scrutinizing the policy errors which led to the carnage in somalia - not the least of which is institutionalized racism and cultural elitism amongst our top military teams.

    Before some other bullethead starts calling me any names, I am the least PC person around. I am conservative and a gun-owner. That doesn't prevent me from making informed decisions, even when my beloved country is at war. I've done my service in the military, and I vote.

    Now, all this being said, don't be stupid. This is a movie, and it was fiction. Saying it's 'real' is a romanticized insult and a dangerous glossing over of a stark failure of us military doctrine and the resulting deaths of somali men, women and children.

    We've learned a lot since then. That's what we need to remember, not to pretend we always knew it.

    --
    "No good deed goes unpunished"
    1. Re:"Black hawk down" != real by FireMarshallBill · · Score: 1

      hey asshole, those somali women and children took shots at US soldiers, so fuck you for trying to justify them

  129. Re: Cardiac Damage? by Not+The+Real+Me · · Score: 1

    Bin Laden didn't win anything. The people in power in Afghanistan are the same corrupt people that the Taliban originally replaced. The US economy is messed up because of the cyclical nature of business. The economy could not expand or be bullish forever. It didn't matter if Gore or Bush got elected the recession was going to happen. I predicted the recession when the dot bombs started to contract in May'2000. The California (especially Los Angeles) economy was far worse off in '90 than it is today. 9.5% unemployment then versus 6% today. If the U.S. can't catch Eric Robert Rudolph, the Atlanta bomber and on the FBI's Most Wanted List since 1998, in our own backyard, how in the world are we going to go halfway around the world and nab a truckload of terrorists?! The Gulf War failed because of Bush Sr.'s staff, and especially Gen. Colin Powell, who was the one determined not to send U.S. troops into Bagdad. Powell didn't mind desert warfare over flat sandy terrain, but urban war was something he did not want to face.

  130. Re:IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9 by Not+The+Real+Me · · Score: 1

    ....however, when I was in the U.S. military, we dated things DD MMM YY. My Dad was also in the miltary and he still writes the date in the DD MMM YY format.

  131. Re: Cardiac Damage? by thogard · · Score: 2

    Its called research

    BBC says warlords are filling the power vaccum. The Taliban that ran those areas are being released. I give them 6 months to find they way back to the top in many rural areas.

    As for the most wanted, you'll have to dig through
    this and this and this. Find other reports with more details and you'll find the quote about the 70% strength from a high ranking US offical (If I remembered which one, I would have a link for you) and the numbers (which change every week)

    I assume you can find details about the US economy and the fact that Osama hasn't been found.

    The US didn't win the gulf war (Sadam is still in power) and it looks like they they aren't going to win this one either since most of the boogie men will be alive when its done. The real question is will the people of Afganastan win this time?

  132. What is going on here? by hashashin · · Score: 1

    OK, I have never wanted to jump on the Katz-callers' bandwagon before, but this is too much.

    Jon, you've worked for Rolling Stone, the New York Times, and Wired, and you must know that none of them would accept a movie review like this. It hardly criticizes the movie, instead vaguely trying to position it within the social milieu of early 2002.

    I even admit thinking your "Hellmouth" stuff was brave and relevant at the time, but lately you've been writing reviews of pop-culture movies that lack fact checking, grammar checking, and often even spell checking. In this article, for example, you consistently use "Columbia" in place of "Colombia," which is humorous to some readers and embarrassing to others.

    Also recently, some of your articles have been seriously criticized for missing the facts (Commodores in Kabul, Ewan McGregor in Mogadishu), yet you haven't bothered to respond. If I'm mistaken here, I'd love to see the rebuttals.

    So in closing, please make a little more effort. You shouldn't churn out mediocre material just because it's Slashdot.

  133. Re:IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol, personally i think it would be best if the date was y/m/d because it allows you to think on a grander scale first. Unfortunately, the year in the date format is not exactly the most significant portion of the date, hence m/d/y. It allows the most significant portion of the date (the month) to be at the front, and the least significant number to be located at the end. Now, you can eaisly argue that the day is much more important then the month, but thats probably just cultural differences. I try to live my life month to month, not day to day.

  134. Once again, Katz gives us "The Outside Scoop" by Artifice_Eternity · · Score: 2

    Schwarzenegger has made some first-rate action stuff. His Terminator series was great (he's making another).

    Gee whiz, thanks for the news flash, Jon! The rest of the world has known for the last year or so that Terminator 3 is in development and production.

    I used to think the Katz-bashing was overreaction, but I've come to realize his columns really are so much hot air, with no original insights.

    He reminds me of Jackie Harvey, the Onion's Hollywood columnist...

  135. It was a bad movie before 9/11, too by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

    The Motorcycle accident scene at the end was best example. They were too cheap to even crash a real bike; so, they threw a few parts in a pile! The budget on this one must have been 99% Arnold's salary. They didn't even show the mines going of when he dragged the pick over them: Only canned sound effects!

    --
    An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
  136. Re:criticizing the gov't(and a bit on movie edits) by Damned · · Score: 1

    Governments should always be fair game for criticizm. I find it amazing that I've heard none but myself and a few friends thinking of the possiblity that the whole Sept. deal was an inside job constructed to solidify political positions. Not saying it definately was, but to ignore that possibility just doesn't sit well. I've digressed, but the point is this question: Just because there is a war going on or something tragic has happened and the government has proclaimed a desire to eradicate the cause, should the members of that government no longer be held accountable for their actions? I should say that the answer is obvious.

    On the subject of editing movies, which dumb ass executive came up with that one? "We're editing the towers out of movies to be sensitive to the people effected by the Sept. 11 attacks." Aside from the utter silliness of such an idea, Escape from New York w/o the towers, how is this in any way sensitive to the situation? It smacks somewhat of an effort to rewrite history. "What tradecenter towers? They obviously weren't there b/c this movie was filmed in lower Manhattan and there are no towers there." Would it not be more sensitive to leave these building in the movies? Give the people something they can look at and remember things the way they used to be. This used to be something prized, wonder what happened to this sentiment.

    Don't know if I've made much sense, but at least I attempted.

    --
    "I swear I won't break you if you let me take you where the willows never weep" -- Switchblade Symphony
  137. I hate niggers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate niggers, spics, and muslims.

  138. Bloody hypocrites by bpdlr · · Score: 1

    "you can't help but identify with the helplessness of a man who sees his family blown to bits for no particular reason by murderous fanatics who use high-blown rhetoric to justify their butchery. I suppose there are lots of people who wish they could get their hands on Osama Bin Laden's throat"

    And for the same reason there are plenty of people in the world who want to get their hands around George W. Bush's throat.

    --

    --
    Barry de la Rosa,
    public[at]bpdlr.org
    My /. ID is lower than Bruce Perens'!

  139. 2001-09-11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use the Japanese system, it's much more logical and sorts correctly.

  140. Arnold lived in London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they showed an interview with the old couple he was lodging with (they said he was "very popular with the girls") but that phase of his life doesn't seem to get mentioned much any more...

  141. KATZ MIA by justanetgod · · Score: 1

    Yet again, Katz doesn't get it. Who in hell looks for relevance in a Schwartzenegger movie? Just blow things up, have great sound (the "tink" of brass hitting the concrete...) and it's a go. And to think /. features this idiot.

  142. Oh please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here we go again. A bunch of fools getting on the bandwagon, bashing whatever is "in style" to bash at the time. I still watch the Terminator and Total recall after sept. 11th so a new movie in that style is no different to me. I saw it and enjoyed it for what it was. It was a bit goofy, but so what. By the way, it was also the number one movie this weekend so maybe this isn't about the movie but another excuse for a bunch of fools to get on a soap box and moan. If it was the movie about a black man commiting terrorist acts to save his son the critics would all say what a masterpiece it was. FOOLS! FOOOOOOLLLLS!!!!

  143. Inaccurate Thesis Jon... by Scarpux · · Score: 1

    Jon Katz wrote: "The post-9/11 action/terrorism movie is now a genre all of its own. If this movie is interesting at all, it's through the prism of September 11, a day that changed culture as much as it did politics." The problem with your thesis concerning post-9/11 movies is that these are all Pre-9/11 movies. It takes more than a couple of months to make and release a movie.

    --
    -- This is not a sig
  144. A good counter tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did not know how to act effectively when a crowd of civilians acted as shields for the militants.

    Why not just mow down the civilians? They were just going to starve anyhow... the coolest part of BHD was watching a bunch of third world dirtbags getting ripped apart by chainguns.. USA USA USA

  145. Some interesting quotes by andaru · · Score: 1
    "Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." -General Eisenhower.

    "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." -Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff

    "A surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." -Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff

    "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." -UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill

    "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." -US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946

    I may be an idiot, but I am not full of shit.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Some interesting quotes by QuadGoatBoy · · Score: 1
      Quote number one, General Eisenhower.

      Eisenhower was involved in a different theater of war with a much different crowd of people. Quite frankly, he didn't understand the situation Halsey, MacArthur and the Pacific fleet were facing.

      Quotes number two and three, Admiral William D. Leahy.

      That there were opponents to the bombs then, as there definitely are now, is not under dispute, neither will anything that is said on Slashdot change your opinion. You are steadfast in your decision, and I applaud you for holding your ground in what you believe in.

      As you well know, anyone on the other side of the argument can present various quotes of other opinions that go against your stances, but what does that really accomplish? By all accounts, especially his own, Truman was very troubled with dropping such a terrible device on a nation that simply refused to admit they were beaten.

      Quote number 4, Winston Churchill.

      I believe you have actually taken this out of context. The quote, which his feelings about the bomb he explains in his memoirs, was his way of saying that the bombs didn't defeat Japan. Japan already had no chance at winning the war, but they just had too much pride, and their type of warfare required an honorable end to the war.

      The last quote I'm not quite sure of. I'll have to look more into that. Many modern authors have noted that the atomic bombs were more than likely dropped as soon as they were to prevent the Soviet Union from having a powerful claim to the Japanese islands. As would become quite clear in the coming Cold War, the United States needed the Japanese islands as a naval and air launching base to check the Soviet power in the East Asian theater of operations. If the Soviet Union had repulsed the Japanese from Manchuria and successfully invaded any of the Japanese islands, the U.S.'s claims to the Japanese islands as a major Asian naval base would have been greatly diminished. What's really not helpful about the quote is the '...' which could really be anything. If the quote you mentioned indeed backs up the general feeling that you are saying, then the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey team must have grossly overestimated the effects of the sea blockade on Japan's morale and underestimated their fighting resolve. If you could provide the whole quote, or even better yet, if you could point me to the source of the quote, I would be very appreciative.

      To conclude, you're not an idiot, and I don't believe you're full of shit. You might be misinformed, but then again, all of us are in some if not all areas. Although you may have strong moral convictions about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Emperor Hirohito was not of the same opinions as his staff, and especially that of Admiral Yamamoto. An unconditional surrender, at the time before the bombings, was completely unacceptable to him (Hirohito) and he readied the Japanese homeland for an all-out repulsion of any invasion force (and rightfully so. This was their homeland.) Women and children were armed, and as has been brought up earlier, Emperor Hirohito ordered everyone in the country to take at least one American with them and never surrender. Those are very strong orders, and the Japanese nation would have followed those orders until either their Emperor were found and proven dead or they were dead.

    2. Re:Some interesting quotes by andaru · · Score: 1
      First of all, let me say that you come across as a very reasonable person.

      Here is a link to a copy of the 1946 report. You can just search for the string there. It is the very last line before the "conclusion" section.

      --

      Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

  146. Re: Cardiac Damage? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    That's debatable. Removing Saddam would completely destablize that whole area. You'd see all its neighbors (claiming reperations for past mis-deeds) carving out a chunk of Iraq for themselves.

    America won in that it protected its interests in the region (oil!) and slowed the creation of another SANAN (Small And Nuclear Armed Nation).

    What I didn't like was our willingness to accept Saddam's excuses whenever we went to inspect his weapons facilities.

    The guy has a history of using his weapons on his own people (read the Kurds(sp?))

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  147. Oooh...the Guardian! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now there's an unbiased source. NOT.

  148. One Liners by zmalone · · Score: 1

    Bah, the movie didn't even have any decent one liners, we were forced to create our own at a screening, while only partially accurate "Now thats how you smoke a cuban" took the crown.

  149. evidence please by gruntvald · · Score: 1

    Or are you just a whiner?

  150. Re:True? F*ck your war. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

    Your government rarely tells you the truth, and you fall for it every time.

    I plan to continue falling for the truth every time the government tells it, however often or rare that might be.

    ...carpet bomb an entire country...

    If that were true, Afghan civilian deaths would be in the millions, not dozens or hundreds.

    You might have had a point here, but your grotesque exaggeration undermines all your credibility as a critic of the U.S.

    Have you seen "Pearl Harbour?" It's another typical piece of turd-munching American propaganda...

    I don't recall seeing one review of Pearl Harbor that did not criticize it for being incredibly inaccurate to the point of stupidity, or anything other than 90 minutes of total crap wrapped around 30 minutes of great special effects. The general reaction in the press was (sarcastically) "Until I saw 'Pearl Harbor', I never knew the U.S. won that battle."

    While you're at it, please tell me why a perfectly good Red Cross installation (including inhabitants) was demolished for your war effort;

    Maybe in the process of delivering millions of pounds of ordnance some mistakes, however few were made. At least we weren't targeting civilians on purpose, and every time I hear hand-wringing over civilian deaths in Afghanistan, the numbers are rarely more than a dozen or two. All the Taliban had to do was cooperate with us when we asked them to turn over Al-Qaeda members and we made it very clear what we would do if they didn't. By defying us, they declared their allegiance with the terrorist organization in no uncertain terms. Regardless of what you think of the U.S. and its motives, I'm sure most citizens of Afghanistan, especially women, will be musch better off in the long run for our actions, and that's not even why we did it.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  151. great by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Compare a movie made pre 9/11 and compare it to the post 9/11 world.
    I pretty burned out on Arnold, so i wasn't going to go see it, but if you like Arnold, you'll like this movie.
    The fact the he's getting older, for me, makes his roles more enjoyable. I like seeing some human withstanding huge odds, insteady of some unshakable mountain.
    Probably why I like Bruce Willis.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  152. Re:Commando Two: The Quickening by geekoid · · Score: 2

    oh, like if you got hit in the head by a saw blade it wouldn't kill you?

    ;)

    Conan still his best, Hercules still his worst.
    He would have made a great Luke Skywalker!
    Joke, its a joke, relaxe.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  153. the key by geekoid · · Score: 2

    to a good review is keeping it in context.
    We all know Arnold isn't going to be doing anything on the level of Castaway, so you have to compare it to other Arnold Movies.

    You know, I joke about my spelling, but if I was publishing a review in a widely read web site, I'd make the effort to spell the country name correctly.

    I want to see Arnold play a system admin.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  154. Fuck you Jon Katz! by clone304 · · Score: 1


    Are you really stupid enough to review THIS stupid fucking movie on Slashdot. Any idiot could tell that this is a worthless movie that was copy-pasted into the cultural mind by some asshole money-grubber. Not that that's different from anything else, but shit. This movie isn't worth my time to watch the previews. You actually sat down and "attempted" to write a serious article about it? Fuck you. I didn't read your review, nor will I. Fuck you again. I'd rather see you review Debbie Does Dallas as a retrospective. Not that you'd say anything interesting, but, through your inevitable idiocy, would find some way, yet again, to start a mobus strip argument between the trolls and the karma whores. Suck on my dick, Jon Katz! I wish I could blame your infinite stupidity on yourself, but, alas, it's not your fault.

    .

  155. Be careful. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2
    Fast to write off. . .

    This case is prima facie one of an insane person whose rantings closely resembled actual events.


    I considered this too, except then I went back and looked more closely, and tried to think about how the event would have gone down in the context of what was happening during his incarceration. . .

    "There are going to be attacks on these places!"

    "We don't believe you."

    "There will be! It's going to happen very soon!"

    "Bullshit."

    "Okay. I'll write down the targets. We'll have the document court sealed. Then after one of the targets is hit, you'll see I'm not full of shit. Their plan has multiple stages designed to unfold over several years. So let one of them happen, but after you see I'm right, work to prevent the rest!" (Look again at the document.)

    And so the list was created, signed & sealed.


    The point you're missing is that the document wasn't meant to be a clearly written, self-contained essay designed to pass mustard with flag waving skeptics on Slashdot. (And even if it had been, I somehow doubt it would be enough to convince most twits unless CNN gave it their approval.)

    What it is, is a list which was created in the heat of the moment which has no value outside of the conversation during which it was made. It's designed to prove himself to the people who were there for the whole conversation. Now, obviously, the bailiff and judge remember him making noise about this, and they remember the context under which it was written. Nobody is disputing this aspect of his claim. Just because the handwriting looks messy to you, doesn't mean the guy is crazy.

    And what about the actions of the U.S. Navy? --A 2000 page document, with a number of dates they actually overlooked and failed to fudge in their rush to disprove Vreeland's claim that he has been working for them for the last fifteen years. What do you make of that? Why would the Navy lie unless he was part of covert activity?

    Be careful. I'm not saying that this is hard proof, but you are not using well thought arguments to discount anything. Some people are very prone to sticking your heads back in the sand at the first semi-plausible explanation, ("he's just crazy"). Once they find a simple, half-assed explanation, all other questions are immediately disregarded. That's just sloppy.

    Now, I recognize that people must be allowed to make their own choices; it's a violation of free will to force people to open their eyes when all they want to do is roll over and go back to sleep. That's fine.

    But it's also a powerful choice which leads to other things. . .

    Be careful.


    -Fantastic Lad

    1. Re:Be careful. . . by balthan · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring the section under the targets (with "brown recluse" and "Dr. Kaider".) Near world trade center he wrote down "cell" and "bio." Funny, I don't remember the WTC being hit by a biological attack. But maybe that's part of the coverup, too.

      If he did know anything about the pending attack (and that's a pretty frelling HUGE if) he didn't give enough information to be useful. Much like, as the previous poster pointed out, a psychic. If I say "someone with the last name of 'Smith' will die tragically tomorrow", it does no bit of good and doesn't prove that I actually had any knowledge of what was going to happen. Likewise, picking major targets and saying they will be hit by terrorists sometime doesn't prove that Mr. Vreeland had any forewarning of Sept. 11.

  156. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like chr1s survived.

  157. Re:True? F*ck your war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and every time I hear hand-wringing over civilian deaths in Afghanistan, the numbers are rarely more than a dozen or two. "

    Recent reports are suggesting the numbers are more likely to be in the thousands. This is mainly due to people still digging bodies out of town we blew off the map.

  158. Re:w00t by j0nkatz · · Score: 0

    Ya he da man!
    Just wish g'ville could get /.'ed! w00t!

    --
    Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
  159. not knowing by choke · · Score: 1

    So, I take it you actually know nothing about this engagement.

    --
    "No good deed goes unpunished"
  160. Re:The question we need to be asking ourselves is. by Guru1 · · Score: 1

    Why so many *pro* war movies since 9/11??? After years of anit-war movies, we are now being bludgeoned with propaganda peice after propaganda peice.

    What about two of the biggest movies to come out in the last few years? The Patriot & Braveheart? I don't see positive war movies being an odd thing at all.. it seems to be pretty consistant, audiences enjoy seeing "their people" win against all odds. And since the majority of movie profits comes from the US, the US is going to be the main stars. If someday China becomes the leading movie watcher, I'm quite sure that many movies will come up with brave Chinese people doing all sorts of neat things.