Osama bin Laden's view of the Crusades

[Ned]

This is what a Brit history called the new movie Kingdom of Heaven.

"But the film has also been dogged in recent months by accusations that it short-shrifts real history. Jonathon Riley-Smith, one of Britain's leading authorities on the Crusades, labeled it "Osama Bin Laden's version of history" and said, "It will fuel the Islamic fundamentalists."

http://www.variety.com/VR1117922320.html

I have seen the film and agree. It is so heavily biased against the West as to be almost pitiable. It is an enormous pile of PC garbage. I left so angry at the stupidity of the film that I was almost beside myself.

Go see it if you must. If you already agree with OBL's view of history, you will thoroughly enjoy the film.

[Combat Ingrid]

I didn't see it yet. What's so bad about it? It doesn't end with the Americans dropping by to save the world?

[Winston]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
I didn't see it yet. What's so bad about it? It doesn't end with the Americans dropping by to save the world?

I didn't see it either, but that's one odd commment right there.

[Heresson]

I haven't seen the film yet, I am going to do it today, so I won't comment it. But it's true that political accuracy in Europe is in general self-lashing, especially if it has anything to do with Christianity, and especially crusades tend to be depicted from a biased perspective.
I think it's that they were once depicted as something better than they were, and it eventually unleashed wave of criticisement that's depicting them as something worse than they were. Oneday perhaps we'll reach sensible compromise.
Another problem is that some parts of the world do not even try to be obiective, not to mention self-bashing.

[alva]

What sort of a man is Ned?!

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Winston


I didn't see it either, but that's one odd commment right there.

An attempt at humor that really doesn't make it perhaps?

[Asher]

Anything that makes Christians look like warmongering cultists must be biased.

[BeBMan]

Haven't seen it yet, but I heard it tries to be rather balanced - pc - if you will, but what's bad about it? Such movies often sacrifice historical detail for a certain message, and while some of us may dislike it, it is still legitimate from the artist's POV in a movie that is mainly done for entertainment (and of course to make money).

For accuracy there are history books and stuff....

[dannubis]

the christians loose jerusalem to the arabs in the end ...

that means that those desert rats actually have pwnd western ass...

and that does not go down well with ned

so the movie must be bad, no ?

ps : i saw it, and was pleasantly supprised. i found it rather good

[Shi Huangdi]

To a substantial number of people on this forum, Ned, that post you made would be the best possible advertisement to go see the movie.

[curtsibling]

While I would like OBL's impaled head as a rotting decoration in my front room, I will go and see it.

I am not afraid to call both 'Conquest-ianity' and 'Isla-mania'
corruptly-controlled war excuses at the time of the crusades.

If it shows the holy dictators of the time in the true light, but
dwells on the bravery of individual warriors, I can live with that.

Too bad for those who want a white-bearded god flying in on a F-15 with Uncle Sam as co-pilot!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by alva
What sort of a man is Ned?!

A big fat troll.

[Admiral]

I was under the impression that one of the accuracy problems with Kingdom of Heaven was that it presented the crusaders in a better light than they deserved. But I have yet to see it, so will withhold judgement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Admiral
I was under the impression that one of the accuracy problems with Kingdom of Heaven was that it presented the crusaders in a better light than they deserved. But I have yet to see it, so will withhold judgement.

[BeBMan]

Hm, the biggest massacres were during the first crusade, and the movie starts much later.....