Slashdot Mirror
Collateral Damage
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 What was once an entertaining Hollywood cartoon figure now just seems a dinosaur, his sensibility outdated and irrelevant.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.
Hasn't Arnold about had it with these types of movies? I mean, can his heart take much more?
Click here or here.
If you read the last 2 paragraphs, replace Arnold Schwarzenegger with John Katz it makes a bit more sense.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Looks like "9/11" has usurped "Columbine" as Katz's phrase of choice to prepend to "post-".
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?
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.
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
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?
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!
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
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 ...
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...
...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.
"the plot is vintage Arnold..."
uh, he is a firefighter this time, not a cop or android thing...
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.
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.
Hey, did I miss something? What happened on the 9th of Novemeber?
Rich
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.
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.
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.
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
unofficialy, nobody ever did.
the people who start a world war deserve to die.
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?
Anyone wants to tell me where "Columbia" is and who these Columbians are?. I only know of COLOMBIA and COLOMBIANS.
[alk]
- stinks
- embarrassing
- painfully, wantonly and hauntingly horrific
- cliche-riddled
- absurdities
- sappy, prefabricated, paint-by-numbers script
AhhhhhOne simple rule for its versus it's
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
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
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
...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!
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
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 -
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..
"...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.
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.
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:
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's supposed to be the idea. The terrorists called the deaths of Schwarzenegger's character's family "collateral damage", and it disgusts him.
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*
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
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
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. .
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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...
Your government rarely tells you the truth, and you fall for it every time.
...carpet bomb an entire country...
I plan to continue falling for the truth every time the government tells it, however often or rare that might be.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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...