A Touch of Swarth

With all due respect, I think Andrew actually missed the worst part of Michael Fumento's complaints about Hollywood's alleged "war against anti-terrorism," namely the part where Fumento gets upset that in Live Free or Die Hard "one of the few good guys in the movie, the head of the FBI team that aids our hero John McCain, looks decidedly Arabic."

That's right. Portraying the head of an FBI team as aiding the hero of an action movie is now un-American if the team head in question "looks . . . Arabic." I suppose he was also upset about the friendly Arab boy in Transformers who helped the Special Operations guys find a phone -- I mean, a positive portrayal of an Arab character's got to be even worse than a positive portrayal of a merely Arabic looking individual, right?

UPDATE: Spencer suggests Fumento may want to read this.

Comments

MY wrote: "our hero John McCain". Was that typo on purpose?

Posted by Grogor | July 8, 2007 12:49 PM

No, 'McCain' is in the original. With Fumento, it's hard to tell whether he's doing it on purpose, or he's just being a moron.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 8, 2007 12:57 PM

Don't disagree with you, but the fact that the FBI G-man was Arabic did have a slightly boosterish, Hollywood PC feel to it. I suppose the Arab-American supporting good guy is just a trope we will have to live with.

Posted by otto | July 8, 2007 1:09 PM

Wouldn't it have been great if in WW2, Hollywood had put a few Japanese-Americans in roles as heroes and patriots, even as it acknowledged the genuinely heinous brutality and imperialism of the Japanese military and state? Of course, failure to show Japanese-Americans in a positive light isn't a particularly big deal compared to, say, internment, but I'm just saying that as a counterfactual, that wouldn't have been treasonous or unpatriotic of Hollywood in the least; quite the opposite, in fact.

I think it's pretty amusing that he calls the hero "John McCain" instead of "John McClane." I now have images of the senior senator from Arizona dodging explosions and such.

I also find it amusing how Fumento attributes Roosevelt's words ("nothing to fear but fear itself") to Hollywood's mentality as a criticism of their lack of patriotism compared to WW2 Hollywood.

Posted by Julian Elson | July 8, 2007 1:14 PM

Personally, I think Dr. Fumento should stick to his long-running radio show about novelty songs and go easy on the political commentary.

Posted by James Gary | July 8, 2007 1:33 PM

Am I the only one who was really freaked out by the disappearance of the Qatari boy and the way Transformers didn't even bother to show that the people in his village were alright after the Americans blew up the whole place? I would have expected them to show everyone a-ok, with the Americans bragging about how precision bombing means you can blow up a whole haji village without killing anyone at all!

Posted by Random dude | July 8, 2007 1:35 PM

I don't disagree with you either, JL, I just fear that every action film for the next decade is going to have this sort of character and that will be slightly tiresome. (Other than that, of course, action movies are rarely predictable...)

Posted by otto | July 8, 2007 1:35 PM

Not having yet seen the movie, is the guy in question actually IDed as Arabic - i.e., is he named something like "Special Agent al-Ahmad" - or does he merely, as quoted, *look* Arabic. Because I *look* like an Arab, if you're in the mindset to be looking for Arabs, despite presumably having no more Arabic blood in me than the average guy whose ancestry goes back to Spain and Portugal. (The same is true, of course, for lots of people, including actors.) Fumento's a fool either way, but I'm wondering if he's foreclosing the heroic possibility of any actors with dusky complexion, because someone *might* think they were Arab.

Posted by Quarterican | July 8, 2007 1:43 PM

Is he talking about Agent Johnson? The actor is Colombian.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0034733/

Posted by Grogor | July 8, 2007 1:53 PM

As far as I can tell from IMDB, he's talking about the character of "Special Agent Johnson", played by Yancey Arias, who is... a Latino from New York. Quarterican wins the prize. Stay classy, Fumento.

Posted by Steve | July 8, 2007 1:54 PM

The FBI guy is named "Bowman" in the movie. However, Fumento was probably confused because Bownan is played by Cliff Curtis, who has played many Middle Easterners in the past - though he is himself a native of New Zealand. IMDb.com gives this piece of trivia about Curtis:

Though he's Maori, he's only played a Maori in a couple of movies. He has been cast as nearly any other dark-skinned nationality having played, among others, Mexican-Americans, Colombians, Arabs and Chechens.

Here's his filmography.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 8, 2007 1:56 PM

"I just fear that every action film for the next decade is going to have this sort of character and that will be slightly tiresome."

Except it wasn't an explicitly Arab character like the character Tony Shahloub played in "The Siege." A black actor, a white actor, a Chinese actor, etc. could have been cast to the same effect. All this means is that it's going to be easier for minority actors to get work with generic roles that would otherwise always go to white actors. Minority actors tend to get tired of the fact that the only roles they will be considered for are for characters that are written as minorities.

Posted by Reality Man | July 8, 2007 2:01 PM

I also wonder how Fumento can reconcile this review with the decidedly un-PC comments McClain made about Maggie Q's character.

Posted by Reality Man | July 8, 2007 2:03 PM

Yes, Cliff Curtis.
The fact that he's Maori in fact doesn't rule out that he was in the movie to be 'Arab-looking'. But who knows?
http://imdb.com/name/nm0193295/

Posted by otto | July 8, 2007 2:03 PM

"Except it wasn't an explicitly Arab character like the character Tony Shahloub played in "The Siege." A black actor, a white actor, a Chinese actor, etc. could have been cast to the same effect."

Don't think so, think it could have been implicit version of the same thing as "The Siege", for which black/white/Chinese could not have substituted.

Posted by otto | July 8, 2007 2:07 PM

Don't disagree with you, but the fact that the FBI G-man was Arabic did have a slightly boosterish, Hollywood PC feel to it. I suppose the Arab-American supporting good guy is just a trope we will have to live with.

Yeah, sort of like about 200 mafia movies in which the Good Italian fed or police officer helps take down the Bad Italian mafiosi. And I know fratello Fumento was all over that case as well.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 8, 2007 2:10 PM

For pro-Bush hawks to bring up the lack of "hollywood support" in the War on Terror, and to contrast it unfavorably with WWII, is to engage in a kind of self-immolation.

Either we should mimic our war-time society like WWII or not. I'm game: lets bring back the draft, lets hike taxes (call it the "support our troops tax"). Then, if Hollywood is still not behind the war effort, then let us reprimand them. But something tells me - I think it is 'reason' - that were Bush to take any of these measures, he would essentially be dead politically, along with his war.

Posted by Neal Murray | July 8, 2007 2:23 PM

In Hollywood, Cliff Curtis always plays either Middle Easterners or Latin Americans. My dad and I got into an argument over whether his gang leader character in "Training Day" was Mexican or Armenian. He was the Colombian terrorist El Lobo in Schwarzenegger's "Collateral Damage," Pablo Escobar in "Blow," and the Iraqi rebel in "Three Kings". In reality, Curtis is (mostly) a Polynesian Maori from New Zealand.

There was a great inside joke about Curtis in "The Majestic." In the Jim Carrey-scripted B-movie within the movie, Curtis portrayed hammy Fifties actor "Ramon Jamon" who stars as "The Evil but Handsome Prince Khalid."

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 8, 2007 2:43 PM

I mean, a positive portrayal of an Arab character's got to be even worse than a positive portrayal of a merely Arabic looking individual, right?

The problem is that a swarthy-looking FBI agent undermines the public's belief in the inherent superiority and inevitable victory of the Scotch-Irish northern Europeans over the Asiatic hordes. The faith needs to instead be reinforced with a parade of blonde and freckled actors portraying FBI agents from Iowa. Breaking that faith could hurt the war effort.

/snark

Yeah, sort of like about 200 mafia movies in which the Good Italian fed or police officer helps take down the Bad Italian mafiosi. And I know fratello Fumento was all over that case as well.

What he said.

Posted by Constantine | July 8, 2007 2:56 PM

I assume Fumento spoke up 4 yrs ago yesterday then a decidedly Arabic looking man was put in charge of CENTCOM?

Posted by K | July 8, 2007 3:11 PM

Isn't Arabic a language? How do you 'look' Arabic?
There are non-'Arab' Arabic speakers scattered from Morocco to the Gulf. I've never heard an Egyptian identify himself as anything but an Egyptian, for example....

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 8, 2007 3:28 PM

I'm glad to see that Fumento approaches movie reviewing with the attention to detail that has made him such a by-word in science journalism.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | July 8, 2007 3:34 PM

The utter fatuous cluelesness of Fumento and his ilk is amusingly illustrated by his comment that the doctors suspected in the recent British terrorist plot was "a truly scary scenario that's right out of a movie like The Manchurian Candidate." As anyone with a functioning brain that has seen that classic film knows, the ultimate goal of the Chinese plot was to install James Gregory (playing a barely disguised version of Joe McCarthy controlled by his wife--Angela Lansbury as an icy Chicom mole) in the White House. In other words, the plotters were (correctly) aware that the best way to destroy the US was make sure it was led by a fear mongering arch-conservative. Of course, such people are incapable of detecting irony.

Posted by Marlowe | July 8, 2007 3:56 PM

Don't disagree with you, but the fact that the FBI G-man was Arabic did have a slightly boosterish, Hollywood PC feel to it. I suppose the Arab-American supporting good guy is just a trope we will have to live with.

Okay, I can understand that feeling. But surely you can distinguish that from the substance of what Fumento is saying here. Aesthetic concerns with tokenism and political correctness are a far shot from "the Arabs are our enemies."

Posted by Freddie | July 8, 2007 4:22 PM

I suppose the Arab-American supporting good guy is just a trope we will have to live with.

and

I just fear that every action film for the next decade is going to have this sort of character and that will be slightly tiresome.

Is anybody else weirded out by how unhappy Otto is at the idea of having to watch movies with Arab characters?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 8, 2007 4:33 PM

I tried to distinguish my mild concern from Fumento's nuttery by starting with "Don't disagree with [Matt Y.], ...".

Posted by otto | July 8, 2007 4:33 PM

Yeah, but what are you concerned with?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 8, 2007 4:34 PM

I'm concerned with the possibility of tiresome use of ethnicity in supporting good guys in action movies! Viz. Italian-American good cops in Mafia movies (per Dan K.) and, in this case, Arab-Americans as the supporting G-man in terrorism movies (which I have the premonition that we will be watching for the next decade or more).

(I'm not at all concerned about watching movies with Arab characters and nothing I have said suggests it. I'd be delighted with many more Arab/Arab-American characters in non-predictable roles).

Now you may say that I should have more pressing concerns than tiresome tropes in action movies, which I assure you I do ...

Posted by otto | July 8, 2007 4:43 PM

Aesthetic concerns with tokenism and political correctness are a far shot from "the Arabs are our enemies."

I'm not so sure. If you are watching a Baliwood movie anyone identifiably Muslim is without fail going to be a terrorist or an incredibly super-patriotic Indian cop or military guy engaged in counter-terrorism against Muslims. The only variation would maybe be a mother of the terrorist who was apolitical but in grief over the choice her son has made. Is the incredibly over-compensating Muslim Indian really a positive development or is it just ideological cover for the idea that Muslim's are The Enemy?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 8, 2007 5:26 PM

I don't understand how a darkish-skinned guy named "Bowman" can plausibly be assumed to be Arab, especially since the actor is, uh, not Arab. The character doesn't have an Arab name, there's nothing stated on screen to suggest he's Arab, and the actor isn't Arab. Presumably Bowman is a Native Hawaiian, or an American Indian or something.

Once again, the guy's name is "Bowman." That is one of the least Arab sounding names I can think of. There's nothing even vaguely Arabic sounding about it, and the actor isn't an Arab. What the fuck, people?

Posted by John | July 8, 2007 6:28 PM

What the fuck, people?

As alluded to in my prior comment, people see what they look for. This idiot is preoccupied with spotting Arabs, and thereby he spots Arabs wherever he plausibly can. The thing about (my) having a face that can be easily taken for a wide variety of ethnicities is that by and large the guesses are coming from people of the background in question - i.e., most of the people who've asked me if I was Arab were Arab, etc. for Persians, Indians, Latin Americans, and so on. It's not mysterious that people, particularly ethnic minorities in this country, are going to be prone to trying to find people of a similar background; the interesting and revealing thing is when European-Americans start making the same blind guesses, at which point you can learn a fair amount about a person's presumptions and preoccupations. (Random data point: more white people ask "Are you Hispanic?" when my head's shaved.) Michael Fumento is clearly afraid of not spotting the Arab in a crowd, afraid he might miss the bomber that kills him.

Posted by Quarterican | July 8, 2007 7:19 PM

I went to high school with a Jew-maican guy.

Posted by Freddie | July 8, 2007 7:40 PM

Lots of willful obtuseness on display here. The reality is that race matters a lot in movie casting (unlike in theatre casting). Everybody in Hollywood knows that Cliff Curtis's mostly Maori looks put him right on the knife edge where he can credibly play either a West Asian or a mestizo Latin American, so that's what he almost always plays. Indeed, there's an inside joke in "The Majestic" about how he always gets cast as one or the other.

In "Live Free or Die Hard," he's clearly supposed to play a totally assimilated patriotic Arab-American (or some other presumably Muslim ethnicity). He's a good actor but not so good an actor that he'd get this role in a big anti-terrorist movie unless the filmmakers wanted to make a political statement by casting an Arab-looking guy. But by giving him a WASP name, they maintained plausible deniability.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 8, 2007 7:41 PM

n "Live Free or Die Hard," he's clearly supposed to play a totally assimilated patriotic Arab-American (or some other presumably Muslim ethnicity). He's a good actor but not so good an actor that he'd get this role in a big anti-terrorist movie unless the filmmakers wanted to make a political statement by casting an Arab-looking guy. But by giving him a WASP name, they maintained plausible deniability.

You realize that saying something is obvious doesn't actually qualify as an argument, right?

Posted by Freddie | July 8, 2007 7:47 PM

I mean, look- it's not as if these summer action blockbusters are hotbeds of subtlety. If a movie like this is gonna make a message about race, it's gonna do it in the most heavy-handed way possible. Think the movie Volcano where "everyone just looks grey!" when covered by volcanic dust.

Posted by Freddie | July 8, 2007 7:50 PM

So, the argument is that even though the character's name is Johnson, and the character is played by a Maori, the people making the movie were trying to show him as an Arab, in a deniable sort of way? Man, that seems far-fetched . . .

Posted by rea | July 8, 2007 7:54 PM

He's a good actor but not so good an actor that he'd get this role in a big anti-terrorist movie unless the filmmakers wanted to make a political statement by casting an Arab-looking guy.

This is true - historically speaking, the supporting roles in the Die Hard films have only gone to exceptionally talented actors.

Posted by Gabriel | July 8, 2007 7:55 PM

C'mon, guys, this isn't anything esoteric. The head terrorists in the four Die Hard movies are always ultra-white elitists, like Alan Rickman and Jeremy Irons; and Bruce Willis always has a minority sidekick or two. Here, he's paired with a white computer hacker, so they made the chief FBI guy an Arab.

What, do you think Hollywood types are all high-minded idealists like you guys who never ever ever notice race?

It's marketing -- white audiences like to watch snottty evil white people who think they're better than everybody else get their come-uppances at the hands of white heroes who are aided by helpful minorities. In contrast, white audiences find non-white bad guys depressing and boring. Seventeen years ago, "Law & Order" started out fairly demographically realistic about who actually commits most murders in New York City, but mediocre ratings made Dick Wolf quickly switch over to endless stories about what Tom Wolfe calls Great White Defendants plotting their crimes in their Park Avenue lairs.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 8, 2007 8:13 PM

In "Live Free or Die Hard," he's clearly supposed to play a totally assimilated patriotic Arab-American (or some other presumably Muslim ethnicity).

I'd say 'quite possibly' rather than 'clearly'.

(BTW, it doesn't matter that Cliff C. is really Maori if he regularly plays Arabs on the big screen. In cinema, the whole thing is what the audience thinks you look like - or what the director thinks the audience thinks you look like - not what you are. (Cliff C. isn't a G-man in reality, either, BTW, but sometimes he plays one on the screen). I suppose the equivalent would be a film set in Australia with an arguably stereotypical Maori role appearing it it - played by an Arab-American who regularly took those roles...)

Anyway, like a lot of speculation about casting in movies, it's all conjecture! It could be wrong! Keep your cool.

Posted by otto | July 8, 2007 8:17 PM

Here are some of Curtis's roles:

Sheikh Fadlallah -- The Insider
Amir Abdullah -- Three Kings
Adam Kadyrov -- Chechen Terrorist in Traffic (TV)
The Evil But Handsome Prince Khalid -- The Majestic

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 8, 2007 8:26 PM

I'm just surprised that Fumento hasn't shown up yet in this comments section to tell Matt that he's an idiot who knows nothing about this topic compared to Fumento, and that he could kick Matt's ass without breaking a sweat. That's basically Fumento's standard operating procedure in situations when he's criticized.

For the record, I don't think Matt is an idiot who knows nothing about this topic compared to Fumento. The ass-kicking part, I'm agnostic on. Fumento is in good shape but Matt looks like he might have some moves.

Posted by Mark in Houston | July 8, 2007 8:37 PM

Otto, if some Hollywood writers or producers want to slip some socially edifying, ever-so-faintly liberal messages into mass market entertainments like Live Free or Die Hard - messages like like "not all Arab guys are bad" - then what's the problem? It's not like all the other moral and political messages in movies like that are typically couched in subtlety and presented with allusive aesthetic delicacy. The action movie genre is notorious for its bald messaging and unsubtle morality plays. The moviemakers frequently slip quiet little tolerant counterpoint themes in among the noisy, exploding, badass, red meat wingnuttery. Hooray for Hollywood.

In fact, it appears Fumento is irritated by what he takes to be precisely this kind of message message. I guess his preference would be that for the duration of the War on Terra, all the Muslim or Muslim-looking characters in Hollywood movies should be bad guys; or else if they are good guys, they should always be balanced by some Muslim terrorist baddies. He wants to bring back the good old Hollywood of WWII, when all the Japs were yellow devils.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 8, 2007 11:04 PM

I'd think it's bad in the same way that "Guess who's coming to dinner" was bad. I understand why on one level making the doctor character saintly was something the writers thought of as necessary to make damn sure that the only thing they could object to was his race. However there was another message you could read into it: The price of dating a white girl if you are black is that you have to be Superman.

Similarly if the only parts you ever see Arabs playing are either terrorists or super-cops you can play pretend you aren't scared of them racially, per se, you liked that guy in the movie who was waterboarding the other Arab. Just like if everyone black was a rich doctor who was fighting diseases in Africa you wouldn't have to have such negative opinions about blacks.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 8, 2007 11:38 PM

What, do you think Hollywood types are all high-minded idealists like you guys who never ever ever notice race?

I'd imagine that "Hollywood types" notice race about as often as the average American, and substantially less often than obsessives like Steve Sailer who rarely notice anything else.

I'd imagine that Hollywood usually casts Europeans as terrorists to avoid provoking the wrath of CAIR. While there is, I suppose, a certain reduction in the realism quotient of summer blockbusters as a result, this pales in comparison to the many, many other unrealistic aspects of a typical summer blockbuster. If your enjoyment of the movie is diminished by substandard swarthiness of the villains, this perhaps says more about your racial attitudes than Hollywood's.

I'd imagine that the fact Cliff Curtis "looks ethnic" didn't hurt him during casting. But the lack of any actual script reference to him being an Arab Muslim would seem to render the whole "political correctness" accusation moot.

Fumento is, alas, a wanker.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 9, 2007 12:15 AM

And here's the name of Cliff Curtis's character in his next movie "Crossing Over:"

Hamid Baraheri

"Crossing Over is a multi-character canvas about immigrants of different nationalities struggling to achieve legal status in Los Angeles."

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 9, 2007 12:18 AM

Steve -

And then after that he's playing what I believe is a currently unnamed character in a movie set 10,000 years B.C., right? He's truly a man of versatile appearance.

Fact is, he's played characters of Hispanic heritage about as often as characters of Arab heritage, and as best as I can tell he's never been in a movie as high profile as this, right? I mean, the biggest movie in the US in which he's played an Arab is Three Kings, which was at best a moderately successful film (in the commercial sense) about ten years ago.

Did the actor get cast because the casting directors think of him as a guy who looks vaguely Arab and the mandate was to get a guy who looked vaguely Arab? Maybe, sure, whatever. The idea that they might assume, though, that every or even most audience members would make the same assumption (and draw the proper conclusion) doesn't really make sense given that the audience is as likely to have seen the actor playing Latin Americans as Arabs, if they'd ever seen him at all, and oh, he's not a fucking Arab. Which is the real point: he doesn't have any clearly obvious Arab features, because he's not an Arab and he can convincingly play any number of ethnicities. The fact is that a very great many people in the world aren't obviously whatever ethnicity they are, and in particular when you slice out Teutons, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans, looks get mighty fungible, and people's assumptions are often drawn from cues that have nothing to do with someone's actual (physical) appearance.

Posted by Quarterican | July 9, 2007 12:44 AM

In Sailer's first post in this racially-tinged (surprise!) thread, he wrote: "Cliff Curtis always plays either Middle Easterners or Latin Americans."

Here are character names Cliff Curtis has played that aren't Arabic (from IMDB)

Bowman
Detective Flores
Searle
Captain Ariel
Wiremu (Maori I presume)
Whitman
Franklin
Kadyrov (Chechen -- muslim but not arabic)
Herrera
Porourangi (Maori)
Camello
Perrini
Pablo Escobar
Billy Willliams
Cy Coates
Hiko
Freeman
Fraser

Not an arabic name among those Of those 18. Also, I'd count about 14 that are not identifiably "latin american" or Arabic. I didn't include ones like "pizza delivery man" which don't indicate an ethnicity.

So, does "Cliff Curtis always play(s) either Middle Easterners or Latin Americans." ?

No. I'd say that 14 out of 38 listed credits is closer to "nearly half" than to "nearly never."

Fumento and Sailer leap to the conclusion that the character is Arabic despite his name being "Bowman" and the actor playing characters of Maori, Latin American, generic "American," Chechen, Italian, etc. descent.

Sailer began with a false premise, and it went downhill from there. All in this racially-tinged (surprise Sailer would show up in one of those!) thread.

Shouldn't you get your race-baiting right after all the practice you've had, Sailer?

Posted by blatherskite | July 9, 2007 1:15 AM

"Lots of willful obtuseness on display here. "

Yeah, let's take advice on race from the race-obsessed member of a hate group. That's a good idea.

A question for Steve Sailer. Have you ever dated a non-white woman (assuming, of course, you can get dates without having to pay for them)?

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 1:30 AM

The Teutons?

Posted by novakant | July 9, 2007 4:21 AM

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 8, 2007 11:04 PM:"if some Hollywood writers or producers want to slip some socially edifying, ever-so-faintly liberal messages into mass market entertainments like Live Free or Die Hard - messages like like "not all Arab guys are bad" - then what's the problem?"

The problem is who is the enemy in their place? This whole thread has concentrated on one tiny little part of the criticism. If Die Hard makes the Feds, as usual, the *real* terrorists, then that obviously is a problem. It is not that they are slipping in a little positive message, it is that they are not willing to tell the truth about the War on Terror or whatever passes for it. They have become so open minded they have lost this plot. Once CAIR et al started complaining, Hollywood all but ceased to use Arabs as bad guys. They are usually Nazis or English these days. Or of course the Government itself. So True Lies and the Siege have Arab baddies - and who else I wonder is likely to want to blow up Miami with a nuclear weapon? The Amish perhaps? But by the time of The Three Kings, it is poor White trash that is the problem - and of course the Feds. When the Manchurian candidate was remade, it was again America that was the problem.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 8, 2007 11:04 PM:"I guess his preference would be that for the duration of the War on Terra, all the Muslim or Muslim-looking characters in Hollywood movies should be bad guys; or else if they are good guys, they should always be balanced by some Muslim terrorist baddies. He wants to bring back the good old Hollywood of WWII, when all the Japs were yellow devils."

That may be what he wants. But a film made by someone who "gets it" would not be a bad thing. America is not the source of all problems. The Jihadis are very very bad people - worse than any James Bond bad guy. We are fighting nasty evil people. But Hollywood does not get it. Serving in the Army is what hicks do. Bush is the problem. Terrorists are just misunderstood. Religion is only acceptable if it is not Christian. Hollywood got it very wrong with the Passion of the Christ. I expect they will go on getting it very wrong with the War on Terror too. At least until someone murders enough Hollywood directors.

I really don't think that a little patriotism is a bad thing in Hollywood films. And I don't see why anyone would object to that comment. Conversely I don't see what the problem is in pointing out that terrorists are highly likely to be Muslims - it is their reason for being these days.

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 5:28 AM

Well, I doubt "The Kingdom" is going to portray al-Qaida in a positive light. Being subtle and nuanced is a good thing, but is not desired by the Mark Steyns of the world, which is why they didn't exactly endorse movies like "The War Within." "Syriana," which got unfairly labeled anti-American, did not support the suicide bomber of the guy who tortured the CIA agent either, but did note how the CIA has had a tendency up to 9/11 of talking out of both sides of its mouth on such issues. Similarly, MI6 back in the mid-1990's paid off al-Qaida affiliates to assassinate Qaddaffi. When an agent leaked this, he was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. The thing is terrorists are a very different threat than the Soviets or the Nazis. The latter two could thereotically overthrow our government and posed an existential threat. Terrorists find their greatest successes in getting their state-based enemies and societies to over-react and shoot themselves in the foot, such as France's heavy-handed tactics led to the radicalization of Algerians against French occupation. Strengthening the narrative of Arab/Muslim/Persian = bad is thus actually counter-productive when fighting such terrorists if it ends up harming integration, which has been our greatest tool in ensuring that Muslim Americans remain loyal and successful.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:34 AM

"did not support the suicide bomber of the guy who tortured the CIA agent either"

should have been

did not support the suicide bomber or the guy who tortured the CIA agent either

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:35 AM

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:34 AM:"Being subtle and nuanced is a good thing, but is not desired by the Mark Steyns of the world, which is why they didn't exactly endorse movies like "The War Within." "Syriana," which got unfairly labeled anti-American"

As far as I can see Steyn is actually often subtle and nuanced and he likes films that are too. However Hollywood's political correctness is anything but subtle. Look at the Siege which was as clumsy and didactic as you could get. I have not seen the War Within but how you could describe what looks like a piece of Agitprop to me as either subtle or nuanced is beyond me. It does a good impression of "America is Always Wrong" to me. As for Syriana, of course it is anti-American and yet again neither subtle nor nuanced. Subtle would have kept the so-to-be-killed Arab leader someone like Saddam - the original character in the book after all - and not Hollywood's liberal wet dream.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:34 AM:"but did note how the CIA has had a tendency up to 9/11 of talking out of both sides of its mouth on such issues."

Sorry but what is the evidence of this?

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:34 AM:"Similarly, MI6 back in the mid-1990's paid off al-Qaida affiliates to assassinate Qaddaffi. When an agent leaked this, he was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act."

And the evidence for this conspiracy theory would be?

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:34 AM:"The thing is terrorists are a very different threat than the Soviets or the Nazis. The latter two could thereotically overthrow our government and posed an existential threat."

I find it hard to see how the Nazis could have done that.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:34 AM:"Terrorists find their greatest successes in getting their state-based enemies and societies to over-react and shoot themselves in the foot, such as France's heavy-handed tactics led to the radicalization of Algerians against French occupation."

France's heavy handed tactics led to 10 years of peace. It was liberal reform in Algeria that set the stage for the FLN's campaign. Heavy handed tactics work which is why Communist countries and Arab dictatorships have little trouble with terror. Terrorists find their greatest success when they persuade liberals that they are not the problem, the liberals' governments are. As in Algeria and Vietnam and now in Iraq. They do not win military victories, they win political ones.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:34 AM:"Strengthening the narrative of Arab/Muslim/Persian = bad is thus actually counter-productive when fighting such terrorists if it ends up harming integration, which has been our greatest tool in ensuring that Muslim Americans remain loyal and successful."

I fail to see that is the case. Europe has an even stronger tradition of lying about the origins of Islamist terrorism and they have a worse problem. I think the evidence is that when the Muslim communities feel under threat, they tend to respond in a positive way. I notice no one much turned out for the anti-Terror rally in Scotland and it is now 6 years since 9-11 - the first such rally. Sometimes a little intimidation does work. It is a pity that the West cannot do it.

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 6:54 AM

But by the time of The Three Kings, it is poor White trash that is the problem - and of course the Feds. When the Manchurian candidate was remade, it was again America that was the problem.

See, that's the real problem-- reducing both movies and the real world to black hat/white, good guy/bad guy dichotomies. The world does not work that way. In Three Kings, their isn't a specific "bad guy". Certainly Saddam is portrayed as a horrid dictator. The Iraqi soldiers who murder an innocent family are also very clearly portrayed negatively. But what's also denounced in the film is the (historically accurate) way in which the United States rallied Iraqis to overthrow Saddam and then abandoned them. This is denounced because it was a hideous thing to do that had horrible consequences for the Iraqi rebels. Because the world is complicated, and doesn't fit childish Manichean categories, the United States very often does evil, evil things. I don't think anyone needs to hear the list of really bad things that the US has done that are not disputed historically at all. It's not a question of "who's worse". It's a question of accountability for our country.

Also-- did you see the original Manchurian candidate? The US certainly doesn't come off smelling like a rose their, either.

The thing is terrorists are a very different threat than the Soviets or the Nazis.

Yes. The biggest difference being how extreme of a threat is actually posed, with the Nazi offensive and the risk of nuclear war with the USSR being honest-to-goodness existential threats, and terrorists not coming close.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:03 AM

France's heavy handed tactics led to 10 years of peace. It was liberal reform in Algeria that set the stage for the FLN's campaign.

That is simply contrary to the historical record of the Algerian campaign.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:08 AM

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:03 AM:"See, that's the real problem-- reducing both movies and the real world to black hat/white, good guy/bad guy dichotomies. The world does not work that way."

When it comes to the war on terror I am afraid it does. Nothing the West does is remotely comparable to what the terrorists do and to say so is so irrational it is to excuse. Go look at Nick Berg being beheaded on the internet - a video that got half a million downloads in its first day on line.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:03 AM:"In Three Kings, their isn't a specific "bad guy". Certainly Saddam is portrayed as a horrid dictator. The Iraqi soldiers who murder an innocent family are also very clearly portrayed negatively."

Saddam is hardly portrayed at all. The film gives ample time to the Iraqi officer torturing the captured America to explain why he does what he does - and of course blame America. The rebels, as ignorant of the region as the director was, are shown as good guys but only the rebels. Not the Americans who are consistently vile.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:03 AM:"But what's also denounced in the film is the (historically accurate) way in which the United States rallied Iraqis to overthrow Saddam and then abandoned them. This is denounced because it was a hideous thing to do that had horrible consequences for the Iraqi rebels."

Actually it perpetuates the lie that the Americans rallied the Iraqis to overthrown Saddam and had one single damned obligation to them. It is a liberal myth - like Osama being trained by the CIA - that makes Leftists happy I suppose but has no relation to the real world. Bush Senior called on the Iraqis to overthrown Saddam. But so what? Everyone has called on the Iraqis to do so. With good reason. Abandon? America never ever gave any support to begin with. How can you abandon someone who is not on your side?

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:03 AM:"Because the world is complicated, and doesn't fit childish Manichean categories, the United States very often does evil, evil things."

Tell that to Hollywood which likes childish Manichean categories and frequently puts the US in one - the bad guys. The US very rarely does evil things and nothing as bad as the people America fights. By and large. America is not the problem. People who behead other people on the internet - or serve their children up for dinner - are the problem. And *that* reality is Black and White. As Manichean as you can get.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:03 AM:"It's not a question of "who's worse". It's a question of accountability for our country."

It is neither. It is a question of perspective. When Iraqi prisoners beg for Abu Ghraib not to be handed over to Iraqi control but kept under the Americans, when Muslims in Guantanamo say they do not want to be sent home and would rather remain inside, we are dealing with a complex reality the MSM does not want to touch. By any rational measure, the US does not do a great deal of evil in the world but America's enemies do. Hollywood is oblivious to that fact.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:03 AM:"Also-- did you see the original Manchurian candidate? The US certainly doesn't come off smelling like a rose their, either."

But in the end America did not brainwash anyone. China did. The Joe McCarthy character is a Communist agent, not a normal product of Middle America or a corporation. America was not perfect but everyone knew who the enemy was. Because, after all, the enemy was and is vile. America was and is not.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:03 AM:"Yes. The biggest difference being how extreme of a threat is actually posed, with the Nazi offensive and the risk of nuclear war with the USSR being honest-to-goodness existential threats, and terrorists not coming close."

The Nazis were never ever an existential threat to the US. Britain perhaps. That was not a reason to stay out of the War - as America probably could have if it had not imposed sanctions on Japan. The Soviet Union could have annihilated America, and it is not comforting to see Muslim countries that promise to do likewise seeking to acquire the weapons. Why wait? Terrorism and guerilla war have transformed the maps of the world. As Martin Van Creveld pointed out they have defeated every major European power and reshaped the entire Third World. Whereas conventional warfare has changed little since 1948. Terrorism, especially nuclear terrorism, is an existential threat. Look at Israel.

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 7:21 AM

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:08 AM:"That is simply contrary to the historical record of the Algerian campaign."

No it is not. The Setif massacre was not followed by a mass uprising of Algerians but as I said, ten years of peace. The war came under Pierre Mendès France. Algerians had been setting up nationalist parties since the 1920s. They had all been suppressed. MF was a long-standing opponent of Colonialism and he response was not like Setif at all. It was appeasement. The FLN grew out of parties that were not properly suppressed. Indeed he might well have given Algeria independence, as he did with Tunisia and Morocco, if the pied noir had not stopped him. Indeed Leftist French governments consistently appointed Leftists to rule Algeria and they consistently tried to appease the Algerians and usually failed over the objections of the pied noir. But also there was a consistent shift to the Right as Leftists were purged of their illusions about the FLN and came to embrace the Right. Jacques Soustelle is a perfect example. He started out as someone like Matthew, but in Algeria he was exposed to what Jihadis really meant and he "got it". Did him no good of course.

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 7:33 AM

As for Syriana, of course it is anti-American and yet again neither subtle nor nuanced. Subtle would have kept the so-to-be-killed Arab leader someone like Saddam - the original character in the book after all - and not Hollywood's liberal wet dream.

Well, you might be interested in what Bob Baer said about Syriana in this interview. Here's part of it:

SIEGEL: OK. Let's hear from you about some things that happened in the movie and whether they're historical or plausible. Bob Barnes, the George Clooney character--we just heard him in Beirut talking with an old acquaintance, I guess a former CIA contractor. And they're talking about the abduction of this independent-minded prince from an oil-producing state of the Middle East. Plausible--such things have really happened, or a good fiction writer's conceit?

Mr. BAER: It's more than plausible. It happened to me. In 1997 when I left the agency, I resigned; showed up in Beirut, and there was a contract out on a Gulf prince. It was open, and people knew about it. He was hiding in Syria at the time. He opposed his government. He was a cousin of the emir of his government. He was a bit of a, you know, red-diaper prince. He tried a coup in 1995 and was trying again in 1997, and there was money being offered to whack this guy. So it is plausible. This is the way the Middle East works.

It is simply not true that the Americans are portrayed as the heavies or bad guys, and that the movie is thus "anti-American." The movie is filled with a variety of American characters, some with decent motives, some with selfish motives, some with ambiguous motives. And there are plenty of non-American bad guys in the movie. There is a rather vile Iranian torturer in the movie. Some amoral arms traders get what they deserve. Some terrorist recruiters seem to be portrayed for what they are. The prince who is assassinated is planning a coup against family members who are hardly portrayed sympathetically.

All in, the movie portrays events in the Middle East as causally determined by a variety of actors with a variety of tangled and conflicting interests. I suspect the Saddam character was changed to a Guf prince only so that the film would seem contemporary rather than anachronistic.

What right-wing critics hate of movies like Syrian is not that they get the facts wrong, but that they get too many of them right. They want propaganda films, and when they don't get them, they sulk.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 9, 2007 8:25 AM

In Algeria, the use of torture against supposed FLN agents led to the torture and radicalization of more moderate elements. Whenever an FLN agent was captured, he was told to give the name of members of more moderate groups that wanted to work with the French. The French forces then captured and tortured the moderates. At first this led to the death of much of the FLN core, but also brought Algerians as a whole closer to the FLN line. The "Ten Years of Peace" you've bought into was just the time required for the necessary organizational structures to be put in place to once again fight the French. by Colonel Karl Goetzke of the United States Army and the Army War College has an interested paper on how torture in part led to the French's eventual loss in Algeria. Also, no one here is saying we shouldn't fight al-Qaida.

"Terrorism, especially nuclear terrorism, is an existential threat. Look at Israel."

As far as existential threats go, the likes of Hamas are small bananas. Even more Palestinians have been killed in the Second Infitada than Israelis, while the number of Israelis killed have been too few to constitute an existential threat. You want a real existential threat against Israel, go with Nasser, who once ruled as a dictator over the largest Arab nation and even then he turned out to be a paper tiger.

Your portrayal of a bunch of the above films as anti-American is reductive, ignores many parts of the film and just shows how overly sensitive you are to any criticism of American actions. It just makes you look weak and hysterical. I find it kind of funny in a pathetic way. Calling something "anti-American" is just a way to control the conversation by portraying certain ideas as beyond what is acceptable without actually engaging the ideas.

"Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:34 AM:"but did note how the CIA has had a tendency up to 9/11 of talking out of both sides of its mouth on such issues."

Sorry but what is the evidence of this?"

Well, you do have the long history of the CIA's involvement in the Middle East, which has seen support for the House of Saud and Moubarek (which helped lay the foundations for the social, political and economic context for the rise of Islamist violence today), the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran, support for the Shah's secret police, etc. You also have the help the CIA gave to the radicals in Afghanistan, which, contrary to your assertion, did include bin Laden and proto-al-Qaida elements.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 6:34 AM:"Similarly, MI6 back in the mid-1990's paid off al-Qaida affiliates to assassinate Qaddaffi. When an agent leaked this, he was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act."

And the evidence for this conspiracy theory would be?"

I first heard it mentioned (without challenge, I would add) on Fareed Zakaria's show on PBS. You can also go through archives of the British press from the mid-1990's, but it should be noted that it is rather difficult for the British media to report on such things due to its strong libel and slander laws, as well as the Official Secrets Act.

"I fail to see that is the case. Europe has an even stronger tradition of lying about the origins of Islamist terrorism and they have a worse problem. I think the evidence is that when the Muslim communities feel under threat, they tend to respond in a positive way. I notice no one much turned out for the anti-Terror rally in Scotland and it is now 6 years since 9-11 - the first such rally. Sometimes a little intimidation does work. It is a pity that the West cannot do it."

Well, for one thing, Europe is not a uniform entity. Second of all, it is the discrimination against Muslims in Europe that is a big factor in the radicalization of European Muslims. Muslims in Europe live in various versions of the banlieus, which are the French version of ghettos. After all, Atta became radicalized in Germany, not the US. The real domestic danger in America is from radical converts, such as Azzam al-Amriki. The fact of the matter is that Muslim Americans are well-integrated into American society. Muslim Americans earn about 50% more than the average American and tend to be better educated. The situation is the reverse in Europe.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM

The Jihadis are very very bad people - worse than any James Bond bad guy.

Utter rubbish.

James Bond villains have nuclear weapons and use them to hold the world to ransom (Thunderball) or they plan to destroy civilization and emerge to rule the earth from their underwater (The Spy Who Loved Me) or orbiting (Moonraker) strongholds. They have independent space launch capability (You Only Live Twice)! They develop lethal biological weapons (On Her Majesty's Secret Service)! They plan to destroy London with orbital beam weapons (Goldeneye) or Los Angeles with artificially triggered earthquakes (A View To A Kill) or the entire Royal Navy in a faked-up war with China (Tomorrow Never Dies) or Istanbul with a hijacked nuclear warhead (The World Is Not Enough)! Bond villains are supremely badass.

What have the jihadis got? Propane (God's fuel). They're a bunch of strange beardy men with petrol bombs and chapati flour who have killed fewer people than a single medium-sized earthquake. Woo.

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"In Algeria, the use of torture against supposed FLN agents led to the torture and radicalization of more moderate elements."

Not only is there no evidence of this, but it is known that when the FLN tortured and murdered, they forced moderates into their camp. Ferhat Abbas is a good example of someone who faced with threats and actual murders of his extended family by the FLN decided it was a good idea to join.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"Whenever an FLN agent was captured, he was told to give the name of members of more moderate groups that wanted to work with the French. The French forces then captured and tortured the moderates."

Yeah yeah yeah. Spare me the FLN propaganda. Whatever else you can say about French torture, in the end everyone told the French everything.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"The "Ten Years of Peace" you've bought into was just the time required for the necessary organizational structures to be put in place to once again fight the French."

What organizational structures? Besides, if the French hadn't repressed them at Setif the war would probably have come sooner. For better or worse. Again it is the liberalism of the Fourth Republic that allowed that organization.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"As far as existential threats go, the likes of Hamas are small bananas. Even more Palestinians have been killed in the Second Infitada than Israelis, while the number of Israelis killed have been too few to constitute an existential threat. You want a real existential threat against Israel, go with Nasser, who once ruled as a dictator over the largest Arab nation and even then he turned out to be a paper tiger."

More indigenous people than settlers are killed in every guerilla war or terrorist campaign. Hamas has driven Israel out of Gaza. There is every reason to think they pose an existential threat to Israel especially given the success of everyone else who runs a half competent campaign. The number of White South Africans killed by the ANC was minimal but White South Africa surrendered. Same in Algeria. Nasir did turn out to be a paper tiger, but then Hamas has proven more of a military opponent than he did.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"Your portrayal of a bunch of the above films as anti-American is reductive, ignores many parts of the film and just shows how overly sensitive you are to any criticism of American actions."

Actually it is none of those things. It is a simple straight piece of reporting.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"It just makes you look weak and hysterical. I find it kind of funny in a pathetic way. Calling something "anti-American" is just a way to control the conversation by portraying certain ideas as beyond what is acceptable without actually engaging the ideas."

Weak, hysterical and right. I am not interested in controlling the conversation. Somehow I don't think most people here are put off by accusations of anti-Americanism, but that is what those films actually were and there is no point pretending otherwise. I am actually engaging with those ideas, unlike everyone else who is in denial.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"Well, you do have the long history of the CIA's involvement in the Middle East, which has seen support for the House of Saud and Moubarek (which helped lay the foundations for the social, political and economic context for the rise of Islamist violence today), the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran, support for the Shah's secret police, etc. You also have the help the CIA gave to the radicals in Afghanistan, which, contrary to your assertion, did include bin Laden and proto-al-Qaida elements."

Which is all very interesting - except that last bit which remains untrue - but not, that I can see, relevant. The CIA has consistently played a straight game in the Middle East by supporting anyone in power with oil.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"I first heard it mentioned (without challenge, I would add) on Fareed Zakaria's show on PBS."

Well fourth hand gossip! I'm convinced.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"You can also go through archives of the British press from the mid-1990's, but it should be noted that it is rather difficult for the British media to report on such things due to its strong libel and slander laws, as well as the Official Secrets Act."

Which is to say that there is no evidence of such a thing surely? Or more accurately only the rantings of David Shayler who also thinks that 9-11 and 7-7 were the work of the American and British governments? Nice to see the level of proof you're accepting these days. That helps your credibility no end.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"Second of all, it is the discrimination against Muslims in Europe that is a big factor in the radicalization of European Muslims."

As far as I can see there is precisely no evidence for this journalistic cliche whatsoever. There is not a strong link between discrimination and radicalization.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"Muslims in Europe live in various versions of the banlieus, which are the French version of ghettos."

Again Europe is a big place and France is hardly typical of most of the rest of Europe. Moreover this is not a problem with discrimination as such but the French welfare state and insanely high youth unemployment.

Posted by Reality Man | July 9, 2007 8:28 AM:"After all, Atta became radicalized in Germany, not the US."

Where he was not living in a banlieu.

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM:"Utter rubbish."

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM:"James Bond villains have nuclear weapons and use them to hold the world to ransom (Thunderball)"

They use them to hold the world to ransom. These Muslim terrorists are not interested in holding anyone to ransom. Their aim is to kill. They do not phone warnings and they do not make threats. They murder. If they had a nuclear weapon the first we'd know of it would be the smoking hole where Paris used to be. They are, as I said, vastly worse.

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM:"or they plan to destroy civilization and emerge to rule the earth from their underwater (The Spy Who Loved Me) or orbiting (Moonraker) strongholds."

Replace underwater or orbiting stronghold with "Tora Bora Cave" and what is the difference?

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM:"They have independent space launch capability (You Only Live Twice)! They develop lethal biological weapons (On Her Majesty's Secret Service)! They plan to destroy London with orbital beam weapons (Goldeneye) or Los Angeles with artificially triggered earthquakes (A View To A Kill)"

So they are technically more competent than al-Qaeda. That does not make A-Q nice people.

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM:"Bond villains are supremely badass."

Oh please. They are total losers. They talk tough but when it comes down to it, they are even afraid of a little blood - always leaving James Bond to be cut in half by a laser or eaten by sharks so they don't have to watch it. When did they ever personally behead anyone and put the video on the internet? They are the Screeches of the fictional villain world.

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM:"They're a bunch of strange beardy men with petrol bombs and chapati flour who have killed fewer people than a single medium-sized earthquake. Woo."

Yeah but you're looking at achievement which is not a good reflection of character. All the James Bond villains put together probably did not kill as many as a single medium sized earthquake either.

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 10:30 AM

HeiGou, you don't have to respond seriously to my post. I was mocking you.

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 10:41 AM

The number of White South Africans killed by the ANC was minimal but White South Africa surrendered. Same in Algeria.

Wow.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 9, 2007 10:44 AM

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 10:41 AM:"you don't have to respond seriously to my post. I was mocking you."

Really? Perhaps next time you might like to indicate your attempts at humor with a smiley?

Besides, I'd still give your post vastly more attention than it deserves. Why single you out?

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 10:51 AM

Why single you out?

Oh, quite. Everyone was mocking you.

And I think you should think about the distinction between "mockery" and "humour".

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 11:42 AM

Just like to point out that the terrorists in the original Die Hard were ex-Baader-Meinhof Brigade types who had given up on The Cause and were just re-tooling their marketable skills to the new free-enterprise global economy.

Posted by MikeN | July 9, 2007 1:13 PM

"People who behead other people on the internet - or serve their children up for dinner - are the problem."

Just so you know, that second part--serving people's children for dinner--never happened. They even admitted the evidence was flimsy on NRO's The Corner, for God's sake. I believe the evidence was some guy told someone else who told Michael Yon which would make it… what's that term again? Ah yes. Fourth-hand evidence.

If you're going to shoot down other people's flimsy evidence, you'd better not go around waving your own.

Posted by Greg | July 11, 2007 2:21 AM