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 ...
To Michael Medved.
Thank you. :)
do I see more "reparations" coming?
Oops, I shouldn't give them any ideas.....
And I've learned to see a movie before passing judgement on it, and not letting a writer do it for me.
I wasn't asking if Ridley Scot went into it. I'm asking about Sir Steven Runciman. The Turks got their hands on Constantinople in 1453, well after the era of the Crusaders.
I think he didn't like it.
To continue: "It white washes the Muslim side. A complete distortion of history. Orlando Bloom's character has a 'Fellowship of Muslims, Jews, and Christians.' There was no such thing."
no, they would just claim it was mostly lies and boycott it...
2. There were Turks and then there were Turks.
In the 11th century a new force appeared in the Near East - the Seljuk Turks, who had migrated from the steppes of Central Asia. In 1071 they smashed the Byzantine army at Manzikert in Armenia, and within the next two decades had overrun virtually all of the Asian provinces of the Byzantine Empire. This included all of the ancient Christian churches of Asia Minor mentioned in the New Testament.
This, plus the rough way they treated Christians in their new lands (brutal even by Muslim standards)- including Western Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land - gave the impetus to the Emperor to ask for help fromt he Latin West.
The Ottoman Turks were anothr Turkish dynasty that appeared later int he 14th century - and it was indeed they who captured Constantinople.
"The most hilariously idiotic of the film’s many historically stupid moments comes at the climax of the battle for Jerusalem in 1187 when Balian of Ibelin (Orlando Bloom), the commander of the city’s Christian defenders, has a parley with the leader of its Muslim besiegers, Saladin, here invariably given his more authentic moniker, Salah al-Din (Ghassan Massoud). Nice that they insist on accuracy in something. Balian tells his adversary that he will surrender the city if the Muslim army will give its Christian inhabitants a safe-conduct to the sea, where they may take ship to return to Europe. The terrible alternative, Balian tells him, is that he will give the order for all the religious sites in the city to be destroyed: "Your holy places, ours — everything that drives men mad." It’s hard to imagine a more perfect example of Hollywood’s view of religion — or of a thought that would have been more unthinkable to the person supposedly uttering it. Such words would have been sheer gibberish — evidence of madness themselves — in an age in which "religion" was inseparable from the culture."
"no, they would just claim it was mostly lies and boycott it..."
Not to mention cut the guy's throat who made the movie.
well, of course, THAT goes without saying...
Why why why does Hollywood keep doing this? Why can't they just make historically accurate films instead of left wing agenda driven silly nonsense? Just wondering.
That is what I was trying to get "Virginia Ridgerunner" to examine, by asking some of the questions I asked. I'm sure the work is impressive & seems to be quite scholarly, but I think it needs to be held up against a bit of the light of day.
2. There were Turks and then there were Turks.
In the 11th century a new force appeared in the Near East - the Seljuk Turks, who had migrated from the steppes of Central Asia. In 1071 they smashed the Byzantine army at Manzikert in Armenia, and within the next two decades had overrun virtually all of the Asian provinces of the Byzantine Empire. This included all of the ancient Christian churches of Asia Minor mentioned in the New Testament.
Is that when the Armenian massacre happened or was that the responsibility of a later group? I find it amazing that there are the number of Assyrians that still hold out, to this day.
This, plus the rough way they treated Christians in their new lands (brutal even by Muslim standards)- including Western Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land - gave the impetus to the Emperor to ask for help from he Latin West.
They don't sound so very enlightened to me, as I've been told they were...
The Ottoman Turks were another Turkish dynasty that appeared later int he 14th century - and it was indeed they who captured Constantinople.
And thus, the era of the "Sick man of Europe" began. I have to admire the impressive domed masque that they have deep in the heart of their Capitol. Too bad all of those nasty pictures inside of it had to go though...
They really hold the movie-going public in contempt! Don't allow yourself to be treated as morons, vote with your wallet!
I think a movie review thread in chat would be a good idea. I'd rather read FReeper reviews than "established critic" reviews. :-)
I didn't think Troy was that bad, either. But then we watched it at home on DVD, with adult beverages in hand. That usually helps.
You are probably referring to the Armenian Genocide of 1915-16, when up to 2 million Armenian Christians in Eastern Asia Minor were killed by the Turks because some assisted the invading Russian Army.
But there were were periodic massacres before that...
They don't sound so very enlightened to me, as I've been told they were...
If Islam had an intellectual Golden Age, it was likely the 9th century during the early Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad, and perhaps a little later than that in Cordoba (Spain).
And there was some interest in Greek learning, which they inherited since they had overrun the richest and most advanced part of the old Roman Empire. Thus figures like Averroes and Avicenna (Ibn Sina).
But their attempts to incorporate Aristotelianism into Islam were looked upon with grave disfavor, and by the time of the Crusades, Turkic dynasties had taken control of most of the Muslim world, and they discouraged intellectual pursuits of this kind. The Islamic world of the Levant and the Middle East in the 11th century was in some respects more advanced than Western Europe (but not Christian Byzantium) but also static, and quite warlike. They were by then already living on borrowed cultural and intellectual capital.
And thus, the era of the "Sick man of Europe" began. I have to admire the impressive domed masque that they have deep in the heart of their Capitol. Too bad all of those nasty pictures inside of it had to go though...
They weren't so sick back then.
The rot set in after Suleiman the Magnificent died.
Not sure which dome you're referring to. The Hagia Sophia is the former cathedral church of the see of Constantinople, built by Justinian in the 6th century. The Turks converted it into a Mosque after they took the city.
Best to spare you the details of what they did to the refugees hiding inside when they finally smashed down the doors.
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.