Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCHLUSSEL: "Kingdom of Heaven," Bin Laden's Slanted Crusade Movie
DebbieSchlussel.com ^ | May 5, 2005 | Debbie Schlussel

Posted on 05/06/2005 10:24:23 AM PDT by Cool Chick

“Kingdom of Heaven”: Bin Laden’s Slanted Crusade Movie May 5, 2005 By Debbie Schlussel

Mark Twain said, “History tells us that the truth is not hard to kill, but a lie told well is immortal.”

“Kingdom of Heaven,” Ridley Scott’s extremely boring movie version of the Crusades, is Twain’s words in action. Scott is serial killer of truth—giving immortality to 1,000 lies—in this propaganda film.

The wannabe-epic is being panned for its lack of accuracy by a host of Islam experts, like Robert Spencer. Crusades expert Jonathan Riley-Smith says it’s basically “Osama bin Laden’s version of History.”

But the folks at HAMAS-front group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and ADC (American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) just love “Kingdom.” That speaks volumes, since both groups never met an Islamic terrorist group they didn’t like.

Perhaps Scott is doing penance for having the chutzpah to make “Black Hawk Down,” about which they still whine incessantly.

But one needn’t be versed in the history of the Crusades to see that this Riefenstahl-esque drama is agenda-laden fiction.

Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version:

Christian Crusaders are crass, violent murderers. They lie, sleep around with multiple women, and father multiple illegitimate, abandoned children. They are stupid, foolish, power-hungry, and vengeful. They are boors warring for land, not principles, and kill fellow Christians—even priests—over nothing.

Muslims, especially Saladin, are honorable, devout, decent, peaceful people. They just want to be left alone and only attack when attacked upon. They are wise, honest, kind, generous, and even offer Christians safe passage.

(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: almohad; almuwahideen; balian; christians; crusaders; crusades; debbieschlussel; godfrey; hollywood; imadeddin; islam; israel; jerusalem; jews; kingdomofheaven; liamneeson; maimonides; matzaballcritique; mohads; moviereview; muslim; muslimcrusades; muslims; muwahideen; orlandobloom; propaganda; robertspencer; saladin; schlussel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last

1 posted on 05/06/2005 10:24:31 AM PDT by Cool Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick
But the folks at HAMAS-front group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and ADC (American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) just love “Kingdom.” That speaks volumes,

Boy doesn't it!? The epics of today really suck. (Troy, Alexander)

2 posted on 05/06/2005 10:26:46 AM PDT by Semper Paratus (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

Darn. I would have liked to go to see a balanced movie about that era.


3 posted on 05/06/2005 10:29:57 AM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick
I don't see the full article. Rule #1: NEVER post an excerpt! Sometimes, its not there and helps to read the entire piece.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
4 posted on 05/06/2005 10:31:09 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

Since Gladiator was one of my favorite movies of all time, I really have wanted to see this film. If it is as bad as some say, it will be hard to watch. However, I have sometimes seen movies that had caused a similar uproar which I went on to enjoy. Hopefully this movie will be like that. Or maybe I can go see it as if I was watching pure fiction, like a sci-fi movie..


5 posted on 05/06/2005 10:32:00 AM PDT by Paradox ("It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."- Robert E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick
The real deal:

Here’s a “Kingdom” reality check. The “chivalrous” Saladin was as intolerant and sadistic as they come. His principal secretary and historian, Imad ad-Din (who was gay) describes their view that “while several circles of hell prepared to receive Christians . . . the several ranks of heaven joyously anticipated the Muslim dead.”

Unlike his portrayal in “Kingdom,” Saladin:

Personally beheaded many of the Crusaders living in and around Jerusalem, and watched while his soldiers cut the bodies to pieces to satisfy their lust for revenge;

Sent poisoned wine and flour to a Greek leader to distribute to Crusaders;

Fought violently with rival Shi’ite Muslims, dissecting one of their leaders, and keeping his hands and head as trophies (Saladin, a Kurd, was a Sunni);

Persecuted Jews and Christians, denying them even the basic dignity of riding on horses or mules, requiring they ride in humiliation on donkeys and painful pack saddles. “Kingdom” shows Saladin allowing them to ride on horses. But even his own physician, the scholar Maimonides (a Jew forcibly converted to Islam) was forced to ride a donkey to and from Saladin’s palace. (Saladin stoned and blinded a Jewish doctor for daring to ride a horse, according to “Saladin and the Jews,” by E. Ashtor-Strauss.)

Sowed the seeds for Muslim Crusades, resulting in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians. That’s the other interesting point “Kingdom” conveniently omits. At the time of Saladin, the 12th Century, there were Muslim Crusades in Spain and North Africa. This century-long massacre of Jews and Christians by the Berber al-Mohad Muslims (or al-Muwahideen), which began in 1113 AD, doesn’t exist in “Kingdom.” Yet it was so bad that “Sephardim” (Oriental Jews, primarily from Arab countries), who were once the majority of the Jews, were almost wiped out and remain a small minority, today. By the end, there were no churches or synagogues (or open Christians or Jews) anywhere in Western Islam.

Where is Ridley Scott’s epic about that?

It was so horrific that Saladin’s physician, Maimonides, wrote, “We were dishonored beyond human endurance. . . . This people, the Arabs . . . never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they. . . . No matter how much we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them, they stir up strife and sedition.”

“Kingdom’s” phony quote about Christian enthusiastically killing infidels? Here’s a real one from Saladin’s time, uttered by a Muslim historian: “It is permitted to kill the unfaithful or reduce them to slavery for opposing themselves to the true faith. . . . There were no Christians to be seen.”


6 posted on 05/06/2005 10:32:31 AM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

Movies & TV are the propaganda tools targeted at the masses. I know of a church group planning to go to this movie and I'm going to try to stop them from PAYING to be lied to, with this article. Thanks for the post.


7 posted on 05/06/2005 10:32:37 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

Why are you making the generalization? While all muslims weren't peace loving, Salaudin surely was. And he was a great ruler.

And its a historical fact that he allowed the christians safe passage. Was it becuase the city defences forced him to, or his kindness we shall never know. But none the less, he did.


8 posted on 05/06/2005 10:33:41 AM PDT by Srirangan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick
This comes as no surprise whatsoever. After the success of the Passion of the Christ I just knew Hollywood would attempt to try to ride on what they perceive as a untapped "religious" market...the problem is, they haven't a clue about religion nor do they have any concept of the value of truth. Combine these two traits and you get movies that try to shape Alexander as a homosexual, 11th century Islam as peaceful and TV miniseries such as Revelations that can't even spell the title of the last book in the Bible correctly.
9 posted on 05/06/2005 10:33:59 AM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick
the folks at HAMAS-front group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations)

That disclaimer always seems to be missing when a CAIR mouthpiece shows up to whine on the news channels.
10 posted on 05/06/2005 10:34:44 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

Whatever. Still going to see it. :-)


11 posted on 05/06/2005 10:35:09 AM PDT by k2blader (Immorality bites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

You're referring to the gay conqueror, Alexander the Fabulous?


12 posted on 05/06/2005 10:35:16 AM PDT by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

This really ticks me off. When Hollywood is so bereft of ideas that it's remaking movies that were dogs decades ago, and there's so much riveting history to choose from, why do they do this? Why do both fact and fiction have to be distorted and butchered with all of this political spin? I guess I'll just stay home and watch Lawrence of Arabia...again.


13 posted on 05/06/2005 10:36:29 AM PDT by Spok (Everything I know about intolerance I learned from a liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
A politically correct historical whitewash. Of course liberals today view Western civilization as evil and all the others as the epitome of progress and justice. If you agree with this view, you'll adore the "Kingdom Of Heaven."

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
14 posted on 05/06/2005 10:37:19 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Srirangan
While all muslims weren't peace loving, Salaudin surely was. And he was a great ruler.

did you read the article? you are kidding, I hope. Saladin was ruthless and sadistic.

15 posted on 05/06/2005 10:38:15 AM PDT by liberty2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
The History channel had a piece on "Hollywood vs History" on this movie. According to them the movie is part HELLywood, part History and part truth...YEAH RIGHT! If you do go see this flick, be ready to take with a grain of salt! When the evil lib establishments start raving about a Christian vs Muslim movie, WATCH OUT!
16 posted on 05/06/2005 10:38:38 AM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick
Saw scoot being interviewed on a talk show last night, his comment was at least Saladin didn't kill all the crusaders.

He didn't the ones that couldn't pay a ransom, where put into slavery.

Of course his decedents are still doing it, can't pay a ransom we will enslaver you.

17 posted on 05/06/2005 10:39:32 AM PDT by dts32041 (Two words that shouldn't be used in the same sentence Grizzly bear and violate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana; goldstategop

That's part of the rest of Schlussel's column, but not the whole thing. The reason I haven't posted her whole column is that I've e-mailed and asked her, and she said she wants to drive traffic to her website: debbieschlussel.com. It's not that difficult to go to the link and read the rest. This is a really good column, and one of Schlussel's most important, in my view.


18 posted on 05/06/2005 10:40:19 AM PDT by Cool Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger; Cool Chick

I really enjoy it these days when I'm arguing with the liberals about Christianity, and they bring up the Crusades, expecting me to hang my head and start apologizing, and I look 'em in the eye and say "don't believe everything you read in the revisionist history books."


19 posted on 05/06/2005 10:41:14 AM PDT by johnb838 (Free Republicans... To Arms!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

One of the greatest sins against civilization is the twisting, warping, and revision of history, particularly for some social or political agenda. Accurate history, because of the lessons we can learn from it, is akin to truth in its purest sense. The accuracy of historical events should be protected as nearly sacred. Hollywood, however, either to push an agenda, or to make a buck, constantly perverts history in the movies it produces. Ridley Scott didn't produce a movie here; he apparently produced a lying abomination.


20 posted on 05/06/2005 10:42:06 AM PDT by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

Because they CAN'T do so much history because it's opposed to their agenda. About the fall of Soviet Communism? Not interesting, I guess, because there hasn't been so much as a miniseries about it. The Gulags? Ha! Never!


21 posted on 05/06/2005 10:42:46 AM PDT by johnb838 (Free Republicans... To Arms!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
I have sometimes seen movies that had caused a similar uproar which I went on to enjoy.

Me, too. We're going to see it tomorrow night.

22 posted on 05/06/2005 10:43:41 AM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas
"The History channel had a piece on "Hollywood vs History" on this movie. According to them the movie is part HELLywood, part History and part truth...YEAH RIGHT! If you do go see this flick, be ready to take with a grain of salt! When the evil lib establishments start raving about a Christian vs Muslim movie, WATCH OUT!"

Most entertainment is hellywood. I'm going to go see it this weekend. From the little I've heard, it is, as entertainment, awesome, but that there is dissension from both sides of the religious aisle. There was similar dissension about "Passion of the Christ." I usually prefer to decide for myself.

23 posted on 05/06/2005 10:45:21 AM PDT by sageb1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
"did you read the article? you are kidding, I hope. Saladin was ruthless and sadistic."

He prolly was just as ruthless as the other warriors of that time. You cannot judge him by modern day 'Geneva' standards. And still him giving passage to the christians in Jerusalem is fact. All I'm saying, don't make a generalization or invalid assumption.
24 posted on 05/06/2005 10:45:29 AM PDT by Srirangan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

A little off top, I don't get Orlando Bloom. they want him to be a star so much, but I think he's just SOOOO boring.


25 posted on 05/06/2005 10:46:10 AM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

Saddam Hussein liked to refer to himself as the 2nd coming of Saladin. That should tell you something.

I wouldn't watch this movie if they sent it to me free of charge, anything that cair says is alright has to be a lie.


26 posted on 05/06/2005 10:48:30 AM PDT by federal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
Accurate history, because of the lessons we can learn from it, is akin to truth in its purest sense. The accuracy of historical events should be protected as nearly sacred

that is so true. I agree completely. The left however, is pure evil. They will lie and distort in order to attack the U.S. and Capitalism. I will NEVER view this film. It is pure garbage and pure fiction.

27 posted on 05/06/2005 10:48:39 AM PDT by liberty2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: federal
I wouldn't watch this movie if they sent it to me free of charge, anything that cair says is alright has to be a lie.

National Review Online gave it a positive review today.

I'll bet money that FReepers who actually see it will like it and not see what the fuss and angst was about, and the usual crowd of people who don't see it will bash it based on the usual cast of clown reviewers who bash movies to get attention.

28 posted on 05/06/2005 10:49:55 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Srirangan; johnb838

You (Srirangan) need to read Schlussel's complete article and Robert Spencer's (linked in Schlussel's). Not only is the movie one-sided, making him look way more peaceful than the Christians, but as Spencer wrote, he had no choice but to give them passage b/c he knew they would kill him and his men in Jerusalem. And the movie, as Schlussel said, shows him allowing them to leave on horses, but Saladin never allowed Christians to ride horses or mules.


29 posted on 05/06/2005 10:50:46 AM PDT by Cool Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick
I went there and the column up is April 22. That's why I asked since I don't see it up.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
30 posted on 05/06/2005 10:50:53 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

The Maimonides was Saladin's physician?


31 posted on 05/06/2005 10:51:55 AM PDT by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
the usual crowd of people who don't see it will bash it based on the usual cast of clown reviewers

You mean like the experts on the history of Islam and the Crusades?

32 posted on 05/06/2005 10:52:31 AM PDT by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Srirangan
don't make a generalization or invalid assumption

I remember reading somewhere that this so called passage wasn't out of compassion or any goodness. Just look at the whole of his acts. Any rational person would conclude he was ruthless and he was sadistic. And, no I do not compare him by today's standards. How naive. In any time, his actions would be ruthless and sadistic.

33 posted on 05/06/2005 10:52:50 AM PDT by liberty2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: liberty2004

"Saladin was ruthless and sadistic."


No moreso than the phony "Christian" leaders who used religion as a disguise for their real desire for wealth and land. I'm not referring to the common soldiers who were motivated by a defense of their faith, but the holier-than-thou hypocrites who led them or called the Crusades in the first place.


For instance, from an above post:

"Saladin:

Personally beheaded many of the Crusaders living in and around Jerusalem, and watched while his soldiers cut the bodies to pieces to satisfy their lust for revenge;"


Well, what made them have a 'lust for revenge'? Was it seeing an invading Christian army slaughter their wives and children?


Both Muslims and Christians are equally guilty of horrible atrocities during the Crusades.


34 posted on 05/06/2005 10:52:54 AM PDT by Blzbba (Let them hate us as long as they fear us - Caligula)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick
"Accurate history, because of the lessons we can learn from it, is akin to truth in its purest sense. The accuracy of historical events should be protected as nearly sacred"

Agreed...There are so many points in history that weren't fine points in Christian history. You could do a movie on any one of those instead of just making one up.
35 posted on 05/06/2005 10:53:34 AM PDT by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier than working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

Please report back after you do. I, too, would like to see it. If it does have so much of a blatant agenda that it ruins the entertainment value I'll probably turn it down.


36 posted on 05/06/2005 10:54:23 AM PDT by loreldan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

I didn't think Troy was that bad.


37 posted on 05/06/2005 10:54:58 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: liberty2004

"How naive. In any time, his actions would be ruthless and sadistic."

What an absurd statement. The current society define ruthless and sadistic. In fact the current society defines everything.

Not even 100 years ago it wasn't uncommon to see a 14, 15, or 16 year old girl get married to a 30 year old man. Very acceptable back then, today you go to jail for it.


38 posted on 05/06/2005 10:57:24 AM PDT by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier than working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Try the refresh button. I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, but because I've noticed that her site doesn't automatically refresh (which I hate), so you always have to refresh, yourself.


39 posted on 05/06/2005 10:57:42 AM PDT by Cool Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cool Chick

I expected as much when I first saw the movie pre-views. The movies sole purpose is to make me feel guilty and feel I should apologies for being what I am.


40 posted on 05/06/2005 10:58:18 AM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

National Review is not the gospel, but are you calling Schlussel and Robert Spencer "clown reviewers"? Roger Ebert loved it, like he loves all liberal movies. Maybe he is a "serious" reviewer and all conservatives are clowns. That's what it sounds like you are saying. Robert Spencer is only a respected expert on Islam (author of many best-selling books on it), and he pointed out what a piece of crap this "film" is. He's a clown?! Come on.


41 posted on 05/06/2005 11:01:20 AM PDT by Cool Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

According to many Muslims, they see the film as being anti-Muslim.

Then we have people saying it is anti-Christian.

Frankly, I don't know this woman, so I will wait for Medved or somebody else to review it.

Here is one take:

"Saladin and most of the Muslims are presented as essentially good guys. They don't provoke war, but they don't run away from it, and they repeatedly agree to "terms" that spare lives. Saladin's final decision in the story is a truly noble one.

The Christians, though, are a mixed bag. Further, the more religious they are, the more fanatical they are likely to be. Balian complains he can't connect with God in Jerusalem, and the Hospitaler (David Thewlis) is a decidedly irreverent "spiritual adviser." These are our heroes. Meanwhile, the clerics are depicted as thieves and fanatics, and the true believers among the Christians are the most violent.

Then there's Balian's odd speech about how Jerusalem is just a lot of stones, and he'd rather burn it all down if it would save lives. Given the present war in Iraq and the hot-button issue of Jerusalem in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, "Kingdom of Heaven" seems ready to anger everyone but the atheists and the action crowd. A little more thought and a little less blood might have made for a better movie."

This review indicates some things were left out to make the Christians look better.....and he later says the same happened to the Muslims:

"Balian held Saladin’s forces at bay, ultimately threatening to destroy the entire city (and, in a detail omitted from the film, kill all the Muslims in the city) rather than let the Christian population fall into Saladin’s hands."

Who knows. I will have to read some more before I decide whether to see it or not.


42 posted on 05/06/2005 11:02:15 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

My daughter, who is 18, is a big fan of his. Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.
However, this movie is shaping up to be a big disappointment even for her because of its apparent anti-Catholic revisionism.


43 posted on 05/06/2005 11:02:45 AM PDT by visualops (Leftists are lunatics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Hey go see what you want, I know enough about the crusades and Saladin in particular to know he was a not as they say he is portrayed in this movie. He massacred many thousands of Christians and burned and looted many Christian towns and tribes.

On top of the fact that while he faced a army which was greatly out numbered and was hundreds of miles from its home, when travel of tens of miles was a major chore. He never really defeated the Christian army.

Saladin is a hero in the middle east although if he were alive today, being a Kurd he would have zero rights except in Iraq. So I really don't care if you or thousands of people like this re-write of history.

Its still just a re-write and from the sound a poor one at that.


44 posted on 05/06/2005 11:05:47 AM PDT by federal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

Agreed, Troy was very well done in parts. At least Brad Pitt surprizingly (to me) showed he could carry a film, even though his character, Achilles, was odd for a modern day audience to identify with.

Alexander, on the other hand, was one of the most horrid bits of bad casting, lack of charisma and poor blonde dying I ever hope to see. A whining gloomy world conqueror!


45 posted on 05/06/2005 11:06:37 AM PDT by Charlesj (I'd gladly fire Drier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

He played a good elf in LOTR but he didn't have to talk much and he looks like a fairy anyway.

I heard he was an atheist so why play a crusader?


46 posted on 05/06/2005 11:07:38 AM PDT by One Proud Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Well, what made them have a 'lust for revenge'? Was it seeing an invading Christian army slaughter their wives and children? Both Muslims and Christians are equally guilty of horrible atrocities during the Crusades.

there was violent and ruthlessness on both sides, no doubt. You can get into an endless argument "what side" did what. I think her main point is this movie is fiction and will only cause more rankling on both sides. She's right, the Crusades are over. lol

47 posted on 05/06/2005 11:08:01 AM PDT by liberty2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Medved? You mean the friend of lobbyist Jack Abramoff (guy who is now responsible for getting DeLay in to all the hot water he's in)? If you read his review, you are reading a repeat of Schlussel's review, just like what he did on "Million Dollar Baby" -- lifted her review. Why read the copy, when you can read the original. Schlussel wrote that CAIR and ADC love the movie. Which Muslims didn't like it? I saw some Muslim Arabs on MSNBC and FOX News and they all loved it.


48 posted on 05/06/2005 11:08:12 AM PDT by Cool Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Unfortunately this type of propaganda is very effective at turning the rest of the world against us. The reason is purely economic. Hollywood makes only 30% of its money from the US. Therefore it seeks to be as anti-American as possible as the rest of the world is that way.

I hate censorship, but there is something very wrong with a country producing propaganda for its own destruction. It seems like almost every war movie made after Vietnam is an anti-American propaganda movie.


49 posted on 05/06/2005 11:10:50 AM PDT by winner3000 (part)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Charlesj

I read enough about Alexander to not waste my money. Comments like yours reminds not to even rent it. Thanks.


50 posted on 05/06/2005 11:11:26 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson