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 ...
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!
Me, too. We're going to see it tomorrow night.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The Maimonides was Saladin's physician?
You mean like the experts on the history of Islam and the Crusades?
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.
"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.
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.
I didn't think Troy was that bad.
"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.
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.
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.
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.