Hollywood and Islamofascists actions

1. How Hollywood treats Islamofascistic actions---------------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLYWOOD GOES TO WAR Michael Fumento New York Sun, October 25, 2007 Critics have labelled the new movie Rendition a "politicalthriller." Whether it thrills or not is subjective. But "political"?Absolutely. It's merely the latest in an unbroken series of major filmsabout the war on terror that range from those seeking to assure us thatIslamist terrorism isn't the threat we might think, to those depicting theterrorists as no worse than those who fight them-and by implication theAmerican people as a whole. In 1942, Hollywood went to war. It began pumping out countlessmovies designed both to entertain the public and bolster its will to fight.A lot of them were cheap, hokey, or both. But even in a nation thatseemingly needed little reminder of the dastardly attack on Pearl Harbor orthe evils of the Nazis, they kept drilling home the message that we mustpersevere no matter the costs or the duration. Well that they did. PresidentFranklin Roosevelt lived in constant fear that the public would turn againstthe war. . Fast forward that reel to the post-9/11 era. Just how manyHollywood movies (not documentaries) have been made in which the bad guysare Islamist terrorists that do not specifically concern the Sept. 11attacks? If you have to guess, guess "none." Consider the film that came out this June, Live Free or Die Hard.Early on in the story the FBI believes a massive cyber-attack is the work ofIslamists. But it's the Department of Homeland Security that proves to bemore or less responsible.. In one of last year's most critically acclaimedfilms, the severely disjointed Babel, what is treated as a terroristshooting of an American tourist woman in Morocco proves to have beenaccidental. But the Moroccan police, fearful of losing tourist dollars,stage a desperate manhunt that ultimately leads only to the shooting of acute little boy. Consider, too, the odyssey of the conversion of Tom Clancy'smassive bestselling 1991 book, The Sum of All Fears, in which a nuclear bombdestroys an American city, into the 2002 film of the same name. In the bookand the original script, the bad guys were Islamist terrorists. Little did Mr. Clancy know how realistic his choices of villainswere: Federal court hearings in February 2001 revealed that as early as1993, Osama bin Laden offered $1.5 million to buy uranium for a nuclearweapon. But ultimately the Paramount movie depicted the bomber as yetanother comic book character villain, an Austrian neo-Nazi. (Though at leasthe never says, "Vee haff vays uf making you talk!") Mr. Clancy, who unfortunately had no control over the process, tooka swipe at director Phil Alden Robinson on the special features section ofthe DVD. Mr. Robinson, for his part, made the incredible claim on the DVDextra that the change was in the name of realism. In reality, the Council onAmerican-Islamic Relations had lobbied to change the villains and won. "Ihope you will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negativeimages of Muslims or Arabs," Mr. Robinson wrote to them, "and I wish you thebest in your continuing efforts to combat discrimination." Paramount's CEOat the time, Sherry Lansing, also suggested that she would steer clear ofmovies with Muslim villains.. As for CAIR, former FBI assistant director and chief of the FBI'scounterterrorism section, Steven Pomerantz, has charged that theorganization has "effectively given aid to international terrorist groups."In June federal prosecutors named CAIR an "unindicted co-conspirator" in aplot to fund the designated terrorist organization Hamas. CAIR's 1996publication, The Price of Ignorance, listed "incidents of anti-Muslim biasand violence" that included the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman. Mr. Abdel Rahmanwas convicted of conspiring to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel and other New YorkCity landmarks.. The most one-sided of these films, however, are The Kingdom andRendition. In The Kingdom, Islamist terrorists blow up 200 American men,women, and children. [T]he film is a fairly straight-forward action filmwith a bit of forensics tossed in. Until the last few seconds, that is. That'swhen we discover that the FBI agents, and America as a whole, are really nobetter than the terrorists.. [I]n the film.an Egyptian-born American and"dedicated family man" who is clearly innocent of any wrongdoing. U.S.authorities nonetheless snatch him from American soil and deliver him to acountry where he's horrifically interrogated. The authorities deny anyknowledge of the incident. They are liars and they are torturers-by-proxy.. [Yet] it's hardly the case that Islamists don't make believable andcaptivating villains, much less more believable than evil cyber-geniuses andneo-Nazis. Islamists have killed about 3,000 American civilians on 9/11,killed almost 200 people in the Madrid Train Bombings, and 52 more in theLondon subway bombings. Islamic terrorists routinely explode bombs inmarkets and launch chlorine gas attacks. They build torture chambers andmake and display videos of beheadings in which the victim screams in agonyas his head is sawed off with a dull knife.. As to not wanting to stereotype either Arabs or Muslims, the vastmajority of whom want nothing to do with violence done in Mohammed's name,has it occurred to the Tinseltown terror apologists that nobody suffers morefrom Islamic terror than Muslims themselves?. Whether or not CAIR cares about them, we should. So should themoguls in La La Land. Instead, they're giving us the equivalent of 1943movies equating FDR with Hitler.. (Michael Fumento has been embedded three times in Iraq and once inAfghanistan.)

Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg