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 ...
"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."
That was during WWI. The ottoman empire lasted until the beginning of the last century and it was muslim. It was an ally of germany.
He is not Jewish. His father was not Harry Bloom, as his whoring mother had told him. He later found out that his mother cheated on her husband Bloom with a neighbor, who is Bloom's real father.
That's lifted straight from Robert Spencer's column, word for word. Doesn't Medved ever get any of his own original ideas? No. See my previous post on him and his connections to sleazy lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Did he discuss that on his show?
I googled. There's plenty of stuff suggesting he did convert.
Debbie Schlussel Bump!!
Actually, Bloom's biological father was named Colin Stone, I believe. Stone seems to me to be a Jewish name. So what if KoH is crap. That doesn't mean Bloom's a bad person, IMHO.
Please post those plenty of sources you found saying that Maimonides converted to Islam. Rambam is one of the most important commentators in Judaism and I think we'd all know if he'd actually converted to Islam.
Michael Medved has been a movie reviewer for a few decades. Why would you think that he needs to "lift" someone else's material? Do you think only one person who has seen the film can identify the problems with it? Why do you have issues with Medved?
You're right. That was the one I was thinking about. I couldn't remember the details about it, because I came across it while I was trying to catch up on some of the history of the area during the run up to our going into Iraq. I was covering a whole range of territory at that time, including early Christian history from the perspective of the descendants of the church that began there & spread itself east, into China & India.
But there were were periodic massacres before that...
You're not trying to tell me that those eastern peoples were doing that kind of thing before there was all of the nasty western influence on them, are you?
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).
Glad you didn't mention any of the power struggles that went on during that, cuz that kind of thing was only a European flaw anyway. What is well recognized as looting when the early Europeans did it, is seen as expanding the wealth of knowledge when it was done by worthy non-westerners.
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).
Add a touch of Persian... Those Arabs are gaining some of the oldest wisdom in the "known" world.
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.
Turks weren't too fond of the Greeks & visa versa. From what I have observed, that is still true.
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.
Western Europe started out centuries behind. Took that looter Charlemagne for Christianity to drag Europe out of it's pagan stupor. Christian Byzantium was given a good head start, because Christianity didn't leave & then come back to that area. Like the Arabs, they learned from the Persians & those farther east.
From my previous post: 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.
You're right, they weren't. The empire was founded by mighty powerful warriors.
The rot set in after Suleiman the Magnificent died.
You keep naming names & I'm finding more good links to help me to learn this stuff. LOL Looks like he created the strategy that the CIA used to get rid of the socialist government the Iranian people elected. I wonder why the west doesn't blame him for all of the Christian deaths he caused with his support of that big ugly rift in the western Catholic Church. I used to blame it on Gutenberg, but now I know better.
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.
That's the one. It's mosaics were covered over with plaster. The Turks are now allowing some of the more inaccessible ones to be uncovered, but the ones that could be seen from the main floor of the Mosque remain plastered over. Maybe after another 500 years, they'll let people see what they've been hiding. Course, an earthquake might knock the place completely down by then.
Best to spare you the details of what they did to the refugees hiding inside when they finally smashed down the doors.
I'm sure they were not near as bad as the things that those nasty Crusaders carried out in Jerusalem years earlier.
bttt
Just a point of fact, the so-called "Arabic numbers" and the number zero are imports from India.
I saw it today and nearly thoroughly enjoyed it.
As a Christian, I appreciated the way the film differentiated between Christians and those calling themselves the same but who were in fact devoted to man-devised rules of religion and politics rather than to Christ. It is true that the film portrayed Muslims were in a positive light, but Muslims were not the heroes in this movie. The Christians were quite clearly the heroes.
I'm not sure to what extent (if at all) the movie was historically accurate. Then again, I believe it is likely unwise to go to any movie expecting such accuracy.
The film was superbly cast and well acted. The themes of courage, honor, integrity, and redemption were thought-inspiring as well as artfully presented.
I think anyone who understands the importance of doing right in the Lord's eyes, even when one may face unjust consequences for doing so, will enjoy this film.
Having seen the movie, I submit the author of this piece is a nutbar. :-)
Don't ask me. Ask him. That's word for word, exactly, as Robert Spencer said. And he knows way more about Islam than the arrogant Medved, who knows a lot about . . . Medved. Medved wouldn't have a clue whether there was a multi-regional group in the crusades. He got that from Robert Spencer who knows a little something about that time. Medved lifted his work. Sorry, but you need to face facts about him. He lift's other people's words. BTW, while you're asking him why he lifted Robert Spencer's words, ask him about his close connections with the sleazy lobbyist Jack Abramoff who dragged Tom Delay down. Finally, where are his movie reviews carried? So he's a "movie reviewer"--BFD. He's also a Robert-Spencer's-ideas-and-words stealer.
I'm sure I don't need to give you instructions on how to use google, do I? Maybe Michael Medved can give you those instructions (if someone else wrote them first). There is plenty of literature on it, and I doubt "you'd all know." Because it's well known that he likely did, and you don't know that. Your precious Medved must not have said it for you to then regurgitate.
You must be on crack. Or incredibly naive.
I saw the movie, too. And Schlussel's right on. Confirmed: You are definitely on crack. You submit, all right, to Islam (which, by chance, means submission).
And NO, I don't think Medved LIFTED material from anyone. Even I could tell you that a "Christian, Jewish, Muslim Fellowship" in Jerusalem during the crusades is absolute nonsense.
In other words, NO, you have no sources for the fallacy that Rambam converted to islam. Nice try, though.
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.