The suicide bombings that took place in Algeria on 6 and 9 September, one of which targeted the motorcade of President Abdul-Aziz Bouteflika, renewed talk of a hidden struggle within the Algerian regime, known for having multiple centres of decision-making. There is the possibility that the bombings are connected with President Bouteflika's policies and ambitions to secure a third presidential term, which would require amending the Algerian constitution, which currently allows only two terms. The Algerian people approved this constitutional formulation in 1996, three years before Bouteflika assumed office.
Interpretations have gone as far as considering the terrorist bombings a clear message from the Algerian authorities and the army leadership. This message is read as a rejection of the president's policies of widening the scope of national reconciliation that he commenced. A civil harmony law was issued in 1999, which offered amnesty to members of the Islamic Salvation Army. The militia is affiliated with the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which won the 1991 parliamentary elections before the election process was halted and the country entered a spiral of violence. This was followed by the national reconciliation and harmony law of 2005, which allowed many members of different militias located in the Algerian mountains to descend from their highland posts. The law granted them presidential amnesty for the crimes they had committed, except for those proved to have been involved in the massacres that took place in Algeria in 1995-97.
The suicide bombings took place at the beginning of September, directly following a campaign of rumours about the health of President Bouteflika. No one doubts that he is suffering from health problems, and everyone knows that he was rushed to Val-de-Grace Hospital in Paris last year, where he underwent surgery. The office of the Algerian presidency said at the time that the operation was related to a stomach ulcer, while unofficial sources indicated that it was related to the removal of a cancerous tumor.
Rumours concerning the health status and even death of Bouteflika were repeated throughout August. The president was forced to send his prime minister, Abdul-Aziz Belkhadem, to confront the media in a press conference that was almost entirely devoted to the topic of the president's health, during which Belkhadem denied claims that the health of the republic's president was deteriorating. This was followed by an official television appearance by Bouteflika during his visit to the family of Major General Ismail Al-Amari, head of the counter-intelligence agency.
As a response to these rumours, Bouteflika scheduled field visits to five governorates in eastern Algeria. In his last stop, a suicide bombing took place only 10 minutes prior to the scheduled arrival of his motorcade. While crowds were awaiting his arrival, 22 were killed and 100 injured. This bombing was followed by another with a mined vehicle that targeted a coast guard barracks which killed 35 coast guards and injured 60.
If indeed this is an internal struggle, the only centres that are obvious are the republic's presidential office, which has taken on a more personal character since Bouteflika assumed the post of president, and the centre of the hard core of the army leadership, which opposes Bouteflika's ideas and regrets that it brought him to power in 1999.
Although the Al-Qaeda organisation in Islamic North Africa has claimed responsibility for the two suicide bombings, the interpretation of a struggle taking place between wings within the ruling power remains strong. There is no support for the statements made by the top official in the Algerian security agencies, Colonel Ali Tunisi, in a private interview with three Algerian newspapers last Sunday. He denied the presence of Al-Qaeda in Algeria and said that there is no basis of truth for the claim of the Algerian terrorist Salafi Organisation for Preaching and Fighting (SOPF) that it falls under the banner of Al-Qaeda. On the contrary, he introduced a new factor to the analysis by mentioning that the security agencies were not sure who was behind the suicide bombings. This casts doubt on the SOPF's claim that it perpetrated the bombings on behalf of Bin Laden's organisation.
In light of this observation and the conflicting analyses, the most important news regarding the consequences of the bombings earlier this month was not in Algerian newspapers but on an Internet website that appears to be related to a newspaper that the Algerian authorities suspended three months ago, and whose owner has been imprisoned for two years. The site provided news on the convening of a Supreme Security Council meeting for the first time since 1991, when it met following the first round of parliamentary elections that resulted in a major advance for the Islamic Salvation Front. At that time, the Supreme Security Council decided to halt the election process and dismiss the president, Chadli Bendjedid.
The sources of this website said the meeting included President Bouteflika and leader of the armed forces, Lieutenant General Qayid Saleh, chief of staff of the Algerian army, Lieutenant General Mohamed Madin, head of the Algerian intelligence agency, Prime Minister Belkhadem, and Minister of the Interior Yezid Zerhouni.
The convening of a Supreme Security Council meeting, a body provided for by the Algerian constitution but which is held only under exceptional circumstances, is considered an indication of a crisis at the highest levels of authority. The sources of this website state that the meeting was devoted to study the deteriorating security situation and ways of dealing with it, and yet analysis and guesswork soon led to the belief that the matter was in fact related to clarifying relations between the president of the republic and other decision-making centres in the Algerian regime. The meeting was also believed to have been held to seek an agreement on points of difference in order to prevent the repetition of the scenarios played out in the country in the past due to struggles within the regime. Such scenarios began with the cancellation of the 1991 elections and the consequences of that move, including violence that lasted more than 15 years, the assassination of president Mohamed Boudiaf in 1992, and president Liamine Zeroual having to resign in 1998.
It remains unclear what the outcome of this private meeting was, and whether President Bouteflika wants to increase his powers and secure the right to a third term -- the sore point between the president and the military. During an extended term, Bouteflika said he wants to prepare his successor to follow his approach, and this does not please some of the army leadership that have grown accustomed to direct interference in the selection of Algeria's presidents. These army leaders were prepared to work with Bouteflika until the end of his current term or the next one, or even until he was unable to continue his mission due to his health status, but they will not accept him choosing the person who will succeed him if that person does not agree with their views concerning the running of the country's affairs.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in North Africa
#1
ION, EINNEWS > IRAN ORDERED BOMBINGS IN THE AMERICAS.
Let us not forget how the agents of anti-terrorism have completely ignored Mary O'Hara's worthy address of this important issue in her newly released volume, "My Friend Bouteflika".
#2
I hope that someone sets up an ambush at a radical college. That is, when a conservative of high stature is coming to speak, bus in a dozen outsiders, each of whom is armed with a stun gun.
Then disperse them in the crowd, and when some agitator starts to spout off, they discreetly zap his ass. They don't struggle or fight him, just zap!, then walk away as he falls to the ground, twitching in agony.
One zap per agent, then they individually leave. On the way to the door, they palm their stun gun to another one of their number, so even if they are grabbed, there is no evidence that they did it.
The speaker has to be someone that nobody would suspect of complicity, and in truth has no idea what is going on.
But imagine the confusion of the distraught agitators when maybe six or ten of them get nailed, and nobody knows by who. The next time a conservative speaker visits their campus, there will be a lot fewer volunteers to agitate.
Receiving the runners-up trophy at the end of the T20 final at the Wanderers cricket ground in Johannesburg, South Africa, Pakistan captain Shoaib Malik said, "I want to thank you back home (in) Pakistan and where the Muslim lives all over the world". Forget the poor articulation the irony of the situation was stunning. The next person to walk up to Ravi Shastri, master of ceremonies, to receive the man of the match award for his crucial three wickets for India, was Irfan Pathan.
The Pakistani captain was perhaps projecting the defeat as demoralising for the entire umma, whereas Pathan, after the award, ran around the ground with the Indian flag.
Malik's flawed arti-culation points to a decline in the Pakistan team's ability to speak in English as well as Urdu. There is a considerable dip from the days of Imran Khan. By contrast, the Indian team comes across as sophisticated, on a par with some Sri Lankans and certainly better than the English team. Former pace bowler Javagal Srinath is almost profound on TV, while Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly are both fluent and intelligent in their observations.
Many members of the young Indian team were raw, untutored lads two years ago. Peer pressure in the dressing room and outside has transformed, say, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Pathan into articulate young men. Indian cricket has moved out of the metros to absorb players from smaller places, without losing its zip and cohesiveness. Religion has not contributed to this unity.
Contrast all this with Malik's remark. Why did he have to burden his shoulders with the weight of the Muslim world, in the face of a cricketing reversal? Which Muslim world was he talking about? Pathan is not only a Muslim; his father is a muezzin in a mosque and Irfan grew up saying his prayers five times a day.
My brother said of Pakistan that it is a nice place except that it is too full of Muslims. For an Indian Muslim it is a little tiring to be surrounded by Mohammad, Ahmad, Tahir, Salim, Salman. The society he has grown up in is more reflective of the Indian cricket team: Hindus, Christian, Sikh, Rajput, Brahmin, Muslim. Islamic credentials do not suffer for being situated in a multicultural mosaic.
This yen for wearing their Islam on their sleeves is a function of Pakistan's original insecurity about national identity. This insecurity was aggravated in 1971 when Islam proved a weak glue to keep linguistic identities together and Bangladesh was born.
In the early 70s when the skinheads embarked on racial attacks on Asians in the UK, the term used was Paki bashing'. This again was a result of the Pakistani desire to obtrude just in case they were mixed-up with the non-Muslims from across the border.
Pakistan as an entity first registered with the Englishmen when Fazal Mahmood won the Oval Test match in the 50s. Yet, the primary identities on the English mind were Indians and Sikhs until the rapid growth of halal meat shops, bachelor husbands with wives in Mirpur, and their persistent absence from the only adda of the Englishman the pub.
General Zia-ul-Haq introduced Nizam-e-Mustafa, the first Pakistani effort at a Shariah state. Thereafter, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the US combined to create a powerful Wahabi entity in Afghanistan with twin targets Soviet Union and Shia Iran.
Wahhabism tears Pakistani Islam away from the Sufi driven, tolerant Islam of the subcontinent. The project was to impart to Pakistan a more West Asian identity. This is bound to fail because the common languages of the region are Urdu, Punjabi, English, not Arabic. These twists and turns have created a confused Pakistani society. When Malik tries to speak for the Muslim world, he is only reflecting this confusion. Not so, Pathan.
The writer is a political commentator.
Posted by: john frum ||
09/28/2007 05:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Using atheletes as an example of a culture is certain to lead to letdown.
Methinks there is a similar opportunity here, and hopes someone in a position of responsibility in one of the government's spook agencies is taking advantage of it.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/28/2007 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
ION, RIAN > SOLAR WINDS WARMING UP THE EARTH. Top Russ scientists say earth's magnetic fields are flattening towards the equator. Terra Firma is either spinning faster due to weakening/
weaker fields, which has occurred before in Earth's past; andor Sun's emissions is getting stronger and overwhelming the Earth. TOO STRONG SOLAR EMISSIONS > INNER PLANETS INCLUDING EARTH CAN BE CRUSHED AND DESTROYED.
#3
What this article doesn't mention is that sending commandos that far downrange and retrieving them is a major accomplishment in itself.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
09/28/2007 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I assume the main reason Israel needed the Americans to sign off on the raid - to convince the Americans it was absolutely necessary to take out this target - was that the raid would reveal Syrian, and by extension Iranian, air defenses were effectively non-existent.
#5
Interesting. But I doubt Iran will implode from within in 60-90 days. 2-3 years of serious help from us for the unrest to grow into a full revolution, maybe.
We will see. The Iranians still have a lot more teeth than Syria if we do hit them because of their closeness to the gulf and the ability to seriously disrupt oil traffic. So hopefully that is part of military plans.
no word that the Syrian electronics were baked, IIUC, but "blacked out", which has to spin turbans even more than an explicable EMP blast. You can bet the (operable) phone lines to Moscow were burning up, though....heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/28/2007 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I wonder what kind of warranty the Rooskies give on these systems? Rooskie WO in your MiG or Sukhoi? Pilot if you bought the silver, entire flight crew if gold?
Frontpage Interviews guest today is Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network.
Excerpt:
FP: What evidence ties Iran to al Qaeda as early as 1990?
Joscelyn: According to Lawrence Wright in his book The Looming Tower, a top al Qaeda operative named Ali Mohamed told the FBI that Ayman al Zawahiri and the Iranians agreed to cooperate on a coup attempt in Egypt in 1990. The Iranians have long targeted Hosni Mubaraks regime and so they were very willing to assist Zawahiris Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) in a coup attempt. According to Mohamed, the Iranians gave Zawahiri $2 million and trained his EIJ operatives for the coup attempt, which was ultimately aborted.
Coming from Ali Mohamed, this is especially damning testimony. Mohamed was one of the U.S. Governments star witnesses during the trial of some of the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the August 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Mohamed himself admitted to his involvement in the embassy bombings he did the surveillance that was used to plan the operation. He also looms large in al Qaedas early history: he compiled al Qaedas first training manual, trained bin Ladens security guards, helped organize al Qaedas move from Afghanistan to the Sudan in the early 1990s, and was trusted by Zawahiri to penetrate Americas intelligence and military establishments (he even feigned cooperation with the CIA as an informant and went on to become a sergeant in the U.S. Army).
So, Mohameds testimony is good evidence that the Iranians and al Qaeda were cooperating all the way back in 1990.
FP: And the cooperation didnt end there, did it?
Joscelyn: No, it did not end there. There is evidence of cooperation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda from 1990 through the present. I go into more detail about this evidence in Irans Proxy War Against America, but let me provide some of the highlights here.
According to the 9/11 Commission, the Iranians and al Qaeda held discussions in the early 1990s. During the embassy bombings trial we learned that one of these meetings involved a sit down between Imad Mugniyah, who is Irans master terrorist as well as Hezbollahs chief of terrorist operations, and Osama bin Laden. As a result of these meetings, Iran and al Qaeda agreed to cooperate on attacks against America and Israel. Al Qaeda terrorists were then trained in Iranian and Hezbollah training camps in Lebanon, Sudan and Iran.
Mugniyah had a profound impact on al Qaedas transition from an Afghani-based insurgency group into an international terrorist empire. As a result of the cooperation between Mugniyah and bin Laden, al Qaeda consciously modeled itself after Hezbollah in many ways. As Lawrence Wright notes in The Looming Tower, there are good reasons to suspect that al Qaeda even adopted the use of suicide bombers because of Hezbollahs influence. I think that prior to 1993 (there may be an isolated incident or two prior to then), suicide attacks were an anathema to Sunni Islam. They were strictly prohibited. The Shiite Hezbollah, however, had used suicide bombers since as early 1983, when Mugniyahs suicide truck bombers destroyed the U.S. embassy and the U.S. Marine Barracks in Lebanon. Zawahiri and al Qaeda adopted suicide attacks as their modus operandi only in the early 1990s, after Hezbollah had shown them the utility of such operations.
According to Bob Baer in See No Evil, the CIA uncovered evidence that Mugniyah helped facilitate the travel of an al Qaeda terrorist en route to an attack on the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan in 1995. In June 1996, according to Gerald Posner in Why America Slept, the CIA obtained reports from a terrorist summit in Tehran. The reports indicated that al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah had agreed to step up their attacks on American targets throughout the Middle East. A few days later, on June 25, 1996, Hezbollah under direct orders from Tehran bombed the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia.
The 9/11 Commission found that in addition to strong evidence of Irans involvement, there were also signs that al Qaeda played a role in the Khobar Towers bombing. Al Qaeda had reportedly been planning a similar operation in the months prior to the attack and intelligence officials found that bin Laden was congratulated by senior al Qaeda members, such as Ayman al Zawahiri, shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous reports by the CIA and the State Department noted that Iran and al Qaeda were both suspects. Therefore, although we dont know for sure, there is, at the very least, a strong possibility that the Khobar Towers operation was a joint operation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
The 9/11 Commission found that the al Qaeda cell in Kenya, which was responsible for bombing the embassy there on August 7, 1998, was trained by Hezbollah for the operation. The 9/11 Commission also found that there is evidence that Iran and Hezbollah facilitated the travels of 8 to 10 of the hijackers responsible for the September 11 attacks.
There is strong evidence that Iran helped al Qaeda and Taliban members escape from Afghanistan in late 2001 and, therefore, evade American justice. Finally, Iran harbors senior al Qaeda leaders such as Saif al Adel (al Qaedas military chief) and Saad bin Laden (Osamas son and heir) to this day.
This is just some of the evidence of Irans involvement in al Qaedas terror.
FP: So in your opinion, what is the strongest evidence of Irans support for al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: The simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. As I explain in Irans Proxy War Against America, there is strong evidence that: (1) Bin Laden and al Qaeda deliberately modeled the attack after Hezbollahs simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and a headquarters for French paratroopers in Lebanon in 1983. (2) According to the 9/11 Commission, Iran and Hezbollah trained at least one of the cells responsible for the attack. They showed them how to execute this type of operation. (3) There is evidence that Iran supplied al Qaeda with a large amount of explosives used in the attack. (4) Iran gives safe haven to the senior al Qaeda terrorist wanted for his involvement in the bombings, Saif al Adel, to this day.
Therefore, we have Iran and Hezbollah inspiring, training, arming and giving safe haven to the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the embassy bombings. And this was al Qaedas most successful operation prior to 9/11. If this isnt support for al Qaeda, then I dont know what is.
Posted by: ed ||
09/28/2007 10:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I also think Zawahiri went to Iran for protection when he split with OBL some time ago. I think I read somewhere Mugniyeh may have helped McVay and Nichols out with OK City, having similarities to the Beirut barracks bombing. Why do we hear reports of meetings in Damascus and elsewhere but he has never been picked up? We should have nipped this in the bud decades ago.
#2
Again, ZAWI is loyal to Osama - I do not believe he would split/leave Osama save for Osama's serious health probs, but NOT for discord-strife between them.
#1
The Bush Administration, most likely through the CIA and DIA, has pulled off a fantastic maneuver to split the global Islamic jihad movement at its base. This is the kind of stuff we may not hear about in detail for another fifty years. Congratulations to our President and our brave soldiers and intelligence assets for making this happen.
#2
one has to wonder if secret plans are being drawn up to lure Usama bin Laden to Iraq where it will be much harder for him to hide.
BS flag is down, utter nonsense. If UBL were captured coming out of the Al Rasheed tomorrow morning after prayer, this fight would continue for at last another 10-15 years, maybe longer. Between famine, pestilence and draught (the good times), they've been murdering and hacking away at one another for 4 thousand years. We've just arrived at the party. This is the long match, make no doubt about it.
#4
I've been wondering this myself. Again, IMO the Spetzlamists will desire a tempor break to rebuild and rearm before waging a final "decisive battle/campaign" for Iraq, espec wid MOUD = IRAN indic it will NOT suspend nuclear enrichment activities and will ignore any and all UNO-International sanctions agz it. IMO Radical Islam is getting ready to shift its focii to the defense of Iran, including tertiary attacks agz Israel vv Terror groups in Lebanon. * GERMAN Jihadists > "ATTACK NOW" > doesn't bode well as per new 9-11's/Amer Hiroshima incidents inside the USA. AMERS MUST NOT UNDERESTIMATE
"AMER HIROSHIMA" [NK-Taiwan in Asia-Pacific]SCENARIOS AGZ AMERICA JUST BECUZ RADICAL ISLAM IS LOSING THE WOT AT THIS TIME. As did SADDAM, MOUD has all but formally "pre-justified" UNO-UNSC mil action agz Iran - IOW, MOUD > ONLY WAR = INVASION OF IRAN WILL STOP IRAN.
. . . Defenders of AJads address insisted that such core American principles as academic freedom and freedom of speech were being shown disrespect by critics, in the words of a Los Angeles Times editorial.
But heres the thing, whether you favored or opposed the teeny dictators lecture: Free speech had nothing to do with it.
You have to stay on your toes, like Ahmadinejad at a urinal, to grasp this point since its so often confused in our public discourse: Free-speech rights arent violated when private institutions deny speech in their name. My free-speech rights have not been denied by the fact that for years the Democratic National Committee has refused to invite me to speak at its confabs. Nor would it be censorship if this newspaper dropped my column. Freedom of speech also includes the right not to say something.
In other words, had Columbia denied Ahmadinejad a platform, it would have been exercising freedom of speech just as much as it was when it invited him to give his prison-house philosopher spiel. . . .
. . . Not every controversial decision or statement is a free-speech issue simply because you get flak for it.
Remember, shortly after 9/11, when then-Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney tried to sweet-talk blood money out of a Saudi Prince who wanted to blame the attacks on Americas Israel policy? When criticized, she immediately claimed that such criticism amounted to an attack on her right to speak. Well, criticism of speech is still, you know, speech.
Admittedly, McKinneys not sharp enough to slice warm Jell-O, but shes hardly alone in employing this tactic.
When Cindy Sheehan was still a darling of establishment liberals, they defended her increasingly batty statements by saying, in the words of Fox News Juan Williams, shes an American, she has the right to her opinion. Absolutely, and I have the right to my opinions, too. But somehow Im anti-free speech when I voice them.
This whole line of argumentation is a sign of intellectual weakness or cowardice. Take, for example, that mossy cliché I may disagree with what you have to say, but Ill defend to the death your right to say it!
The only reasonable response is, Who gives a rats patoot? If I deny the reality of the Holocaust, or insist that 2 plus 2 equals a duck, or that I can make ten-minute brownies in six minutes, responding that you may disagree with what I say but will defend my right to say it is a shabby way to sound courageous while actually taking a spineless dive. How brave of you to defend me from a threat that doesnt exist while lamely avoiding actually challenging my statements.
Similarly, theres been a lot of high-minded gasbaggery over this elusive idea of academic freedom. A more selectively invoked standard is hard to come by. Somehow, when former Harvard President Larry Summers, one of Americas most esteemed economists, told a group of academics that the distribution of high-level cognitive abilities may not be evenly spread out among men and women, activist feminist professors got the vapors and claimed, from the comfort of their fainting couches, that their hysteria could only be cured by Summers head on a platter. But Ward Churchill, a penny-ante buffoon who seems to have downloaded his Ph.D. from cheapdegrees.com, compares the victims of 9/11 to Holocaust planner Adolf Eichmann, and suddenly academic freedom demands Churchill keep his tenured job forever, at taxpayers expense.
More to the point, academic freedom wasnt at issue in the Columbia case. Unlike Summers and like Churchill, Ahmadinejad wasnt trying to explore the truth. Holocaust deniers arent truth-tellers, they are deliberate liars and hucksters. Ahmadinejad didnt want dialogue, he wanted propaganda points. He was there as the mouthpiece for a dangerous, oppressive regime. But many opponents of the Bush administration think the Iranian regime has been inappropriately demonized, and the Columbia crowd thought they could help defuse tensions. The irony is that Columbias decision backfired, and the university actually magnified that alleged demonization.
But lets not forget that Columbia didnt have the courage to say honestly that it wanted to dabble in foreign policy and controversy, not free inquiry. Saying it was all about free speech doesnt make it so.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/28/2007 12:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
TOPIX/LUCIANNE/OTHER > CHAVEZ, MOUD VOW TO CINTINUE FIGHT AGZ US WORLD DOMINATION. Iran joins Veenzuela, Bolivia?, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua IN WORLD LEFTIST REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, whose focii now must be to resist US world-global rule. * ANTIWAR.org > NO HOPE WITH THE DEMOCRATS. To end WOT or stop Dubya in Congress, with effect on 2008?, likely as per KUCINICH's rant agz Hillary, Obama, and Edwrads support for USA to keep troops in Iraq until circa 2013. KUCINICH > 2013 > means PERMANENT US OCCUPATION OF IRAQ [until further notice].
What has come over liberals? Suddenly they've turned bloodthirsty. And they're not just lobbing "Daily Show" coffee mugs or brandishing the rusty business end of their DEAN 2004 campaign pins. Liberals are locked, loaded and licensed to kill--at the movies.
The new Jodie Foster film, "The Brave One," is the latest in a string of left-wing Bush-era movies about violence. These films--which range from popcorn flicks (the "X-Men" series, "The Hills Have Eyes 2") to more ambitious works and Oscar nominees ("A History of Violence," "V for Vendetta," "Munich," "Blood Diamond")--so deeply entangle killing with liberal idealism, though, that at times their scripts are as muddled as EEOC directives or U.N. rules of engagement. For all of the critical acclaim that attended most of these films, few are as effective as "Dirty Harry" or "Death Wish." . . .
The makers of these films must be disappointed, though, that audiences remain more interested in crisp revenge than messy guilt. Steven Spielberg's "Munich," for instance, which chastises Israel for retaliating against the Palestinians involved in the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, was completely misread by a character in this summer's hit comedy "Knocked Up," who was cheered by audiences when he said: "That movie was [star] Eric Bana kicking f--ing ass! In every movie with Jews, we're the ones getting killed. 'Munich' flips it on its ear. We're capping motherf--ers!" Americans made it clear which film they thought missed the point: In the U.S., "Knocked Up" earned more than three times as much at the box office as "Munich."
Posted by: Mike ||
09/28/2007 06:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So they make their films to soothe their egos, and pity us poor fools for not buying tickets and making them more rich and even more famous. [wrings hands]
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/28/2007 6:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I haven't seen it, but you're telling me "The Hills Have Eyes 2" has a left-wing political message? Or is Smith over-stating the case?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/28/2007 7:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ironically, I think that Dirty Harry was originally intended to be highly critical of the police, but they picked the wrong, or right, guy to play the main character. They were actually surprised when audiences really liked Harry and were rooting for him.
#4
Itâs all so strange until you realize that Hollywerid is the epicenter of the greatest transdimensional interface between two universes. As a consequences beings from both plans of existence inhabit the same space time continuum, each interacting but only viewing or experiencing their part of their reality. This manifested physical condition is maintained by the large sucking sound of money made possible by politically engineered tax write offs and creative bookkeeping that would in their absence otherwise have collapsed the entity long ago. That, and the presence of some really hot babes.
#5
"A Few Good Men" -- an attempt to make us jarheads look like fanatics (we don't need hollyweed for that, haha), anyhow -- If anyone remembers Col Jessup aka Jack Nicholson's dialogue when he's on the stand at the end telling Cruise to get f*cked for questioning his methods -- prolly one of the most quoted monologues amongst Marines. Kind of a strange juxtaposition -- even though hollywood is trying to make Cruise look like the hero going after the bad Colonel, most jarheads identified w/Nicholson's character in spirit.
I think I've noticed wrt the public in general is that Nicholson's character has made a much larger impression than Cruise's. Just go out and ask random people on the street to quote some lines from the movie; they're going to be Nicholson's, not Cruise's.
This sort of thing has been happening a lot in popular culture, to the extent that the site http://tvtropes.org has an entry on the Anti-Villain.
#7
I'll second that among the general population, AS.
I couldn't tell you a single word that Cruise said in the entire movie, but everybody knows the "You can't handle the truth!" line.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/28/2007 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hannibal Lecter's character was also much more memorable than whats-her-name in Silence of the Lambs; memorability doesn't always indicate identification.
The easy way to figure out who Americans identify with, is to ask a simple question. Do you think Americans would rather support the ass-kicking Marine or the pretty boy lawyer that goes after the ass kicking Marine?
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/28/2007 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Hannibal Lecter's character was also much more memorable than whats-her-name in Silence of the Lambs; memorability doesn't always indicate identification.
#11
Anonymoose, what you say may be why the screenplay was greenlite but it was written by John Milus (Apocolypse Now, Red Dawn) and I think it was more a comment on the system not allowing the cops to do their job until the one good/effective cop tosses his badge at the end.
#12
Broadhead,
One thing I noticed when I saw AFGM - not only did everybody identify with Nicholson's character, they almost all saw him as a fundamentally decent officer who screwed up and was going to pay for it. (Not to mention that when the verdict was announced on the two Marines, you could tell who in the crowd had been military - they were all nodding while everybody else was asking, 'WTF?')
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/28/2007 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Any time liberals try to put their views and messages in pulp fiction movies, it bombs.
#14
Hannibal Lecter's character was also much more memorable than whats-her-name in Silence of the Lambs; memorability doesn't always indicate identification.
Hannibal's character was also more interesting and deep than agent Starkiss.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
