ForumGarden

I suppose everyone knows what happened in Copenhagen yesterday - just across the bridge:

Copenhagen shootings: suspect was known to authorities – live updates | World news | The Guardian

I can understand that you are upset but advocating terrorist actions against specific targets is not appropriate and will not be accepted on this site.

I don't know what was removed here, but you have my sympathies.

All non Jews would love to think this is a problem for Jews, but 21 Christians were beheaded in the past week and in Paris it turns out that only 4 of the 17 victims were Jewish.

The world needs to united against this behavior and quit making the focus Jews. Others are dying almost daily and the world chooses to be in denial that they are also at risk. The world chooses to believe that this is simply against the Jews.

Haven't we lived through this before?

Bryn Mawr;1474156 wrote: I can understand that you are upset but advocating terrorist actions against specific targets is not appropriate and will not be accepted on this site.


All that I am saying is that rather than making the innocent pay .... take it out on the guilty instead. Hollywood is the most blatant tool of false propaganda in the world and their vile message is sent out over the entire planet - while the employees of the WTC building were only trying to make an honest buck.

flopstock;1474172 wrote: I don't know what was removed here, but you have my sympathies.

All non Jews would love to think this is a problem for Jews, but 21 Christians were beheaded in the past week and in Paris it turns out that only 4 of the 17 victims were Jewish.

The world needs to united against this behavior and quit making the focus Jews. Others are dying almost daily and the world chooses to be in denial that they are also at risk. The world chooses to believe that this is simply against the Jews.

Haven't we lived through this before?


I agree with you. However, the Jews are capaitalizing on the situation just as much everyone else is. Perhaps their history (the Holocaust) gives them an edge and is more obvious but if you look closely you'll see that everyone is playing the sympathy/innocent/outrage/indignant card ... and worst of all are using every incident to play tit-for-tat in an never-ending battle of self-promoting "Good Guy - Bad Guy".

Bryn Mawr;1474156 wrote: I can understand that you are upset but advocating terrorist actions against specific targets is not appropriate and will not be accepted on this site.


Post Script. ..... but yes I see your point and I should not have expressed myself is such a manner. I was wrong to do that.

But what if I'd said “Bomb Baghdad Instead? Is the complaint against the title, in fact, politically oriented?

High Threshold;1474189 wrote: But what if I'd said “Bomb Baghdad Instead? Is the complaint against the title, in fact, politically oriented?


Not in the slightest, it is the encouragement for terrorists to select a specific target and to commit an act of terrorism that is unacceptable, whoever the terrorists are and whatever the target.

High Threshold;1474189 wrote: But what if I'd said “Bomb Baghdad Instead? Is the complaint against the title, in fact, politically oriented?


Bryn Mawr;1474156 wrote: I can understand that you are upset but advocating terrorist actions against specific targets is not appropriate and will not be accepted on this site.


But what if you'd said "I'm Dying for Attention Instead?" :yh_rotfl

High Threshold;1474189 wrote: But what if I'd said “Bomb Baghdad Instead? Is the complaint against the title, in fact, politically oriented?


See, now you forced me to really look at the title.. was it originally 3 letters?

Anyhoot, knowing this folks for as long as I have, I don't think they'd like anyone bombed.

and come to think of it, these days, it wouldn't take much more than a threatening title to have various agencies on everyone on this site like white on rice.

flopstock;1474193 wrote: See, now you forced me to really look at the title.. was it originally 3 letters?

Anyhoot, knowing this folks for as long as I have, I don't think they'd like anyone bombed.

and come to think of it, these days, it wouldn't take much more than a threatening title to have various agencies on everyone on this site like white on rice.


It was about Hollywood. Personally, I prefer Brown rice.

Can you really blame Hollywood? Hollywood is just the Supply for the Demand. When it comes down to it, it's the General Public who provide the Demand that are really to blame. Hollywood isn't in the business for moral development, be it pro or con. It's in it for money - plain & simple. If it's not what the Public want, it doesn't sell. It loses money. Not exactly good business sense. Instead, just churn out movies showing how the Glorious American Army whooped the Korean & Vietnamese asses - regardless of historical accuracy.

Bryn Mawr;1474191 wrote: Not in the slightest, it is the encouragement for terrorists to select a specific target and to commit an act of terrorism that is unacceptable, whoever the terrorists are and whatever the target.


You use the word “terrorist and well, you're being a bit cryptic about it. Look, no hint of supporting or instigating terrorism and such but I'd like you to tell me if it's alright to say (on the forum) that one thinks “the west ought to bomb Baghdad, and if so would it be alright on the basis that “the west isn't considered a terrorist entity - as seen by western governments? You know what I'm getting at so don't wait until I twist myself into a pretzel to find the politically correct expression for it. I'd really like to know for my own personal use, as they say.

FourPart;1474196 wrote: Can you really blame Hollywood? Hollywood is just the Supply for the Demand. When it comes down to it, it's the General Public who provide the Demand that are really to blame. Hollywood isn't in the business for moral development, be it pro or con. It's in it for money - plain & simple. If it's not what the Public want, it doesn't sell. It loses money. Not exactly good business sense. Instead, just churn out movies showing how the Glorious American Army whooped the Korean & Vietnamese asses - regardless of historical accuracy.


"Almost 100,000 British troops fought in Korea 50 years ago in conflict as bloody as any seen before or since. Yet many veterans still consider it the war our country has forgotten."

BBC News | UK | Britain's forgotten war

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A Jungle Too Far: Britain and the Vietnam War

Recorded on 6 December 2012

Robert Fleming explores how a secret British involvement in the Vietnam War came about through covert operations, proxies and attachments to US, Australian, and New Zealand units."

A Jungle Too Far: Britain and the Vietnam War | Video Archive | Lunchtime Lectures | National Army Museum, London

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I prefer to think of Vietnam more as a win for them, then a loss for us & golly, seems like You were part of

US.

Also, a movie almost never loses money. With tax breaks, selling to Television stations & videos, DVDs, no one in the movie business loses money on a flop.

flopstock;1474193 wrote: See, now you forced me to really look at the title.. was it originally 3 letters?


No.

flopstock;1474193 wrote: .... it wouldn't take much more than a threatening title to have various agencies on everyone on this site like white on rice.


I understand that to be true.

FourPart;1474196 wrote: Can you really blame Hollywood? Hollywood is just the Supply for the Demand. When it comes down to it, it's the General Public who provide the Demand that are really to blame.


I most definitely do not believe that.



FourPart;1474196 wrote: Hollywood isn't in the business for moral development, be it pro or con.


Hollywood is under a lot of pressure to present the U.S. government's view and have been producing propaganda for quite some time now. Much in the same way the Soviet Union did.

High Threshold;1474206 wrote:

Hollywood is under a lot of pressure to present the U.S. government's view and have been producing propaganda for quite some time now. Much in the same way the Soviet Union did.


Hollywood is under no more pressure than any other media is influenced by any other government. This is not WWII with propaganda. Hollywood is no longer exclusively American, i.e. Sony, which produced 'The Interview' is Japanese. Hollywood is now a multi-national conglomerate. Whether the person who made this foolish assertion reads or ignores, the Rest of You do read & I cannot allow ridiculous assertions to go uncommented on. Thank you.

IN ADDITION:

Hollywood’s Propaganda

Hollywood�s Propaganda: Hollywood helps Americans feel good about being part of an empire that kills other peoples at will.

Top War Films Used as Political Propaganda

Top War Films Used as Political Propaganda

Hollywood propaganda

Hollywood propaganda | Film | The Guardian

Screen Propaganda, Hollywood and the CIA

Screen Propaganda, Hollywood and the CIA | Global Research

Yawn. Well! This proves someone logs off, reads incognito, then logs back on. Yawn.

What is in Hollywood to bomb?

Tourist traps and residents. There is no industry there.

High Threshold;1474209 wrote: IN ADDITION:

Hollywood’s Propaganda

Hollywood�s Propaganda: Hollywood helps Americans feel good about being part of an empire that kills other peoples at will.

Top War Films Used as Political Propaganda

Top War Films Used as Political Propaganda

Hollywood propaganda

Hollywood propaganda | Film | The Guardian

Screen Propaganda, Hollywood and the CIA

Screen Propaganda, Hollywood and the CIA | Global Research


That's my point. You may call it Propaganda. I call it giving the Apple Pie, Red, White & Blue, Uncle Sam Patriots what they long for. Do you really think that a film depicting how the Brave Vietcong kicked the US Army out of their country would really sell that well in America?

High Threshold;1474175 wrote: I agree with you. However, the Jews are capaitalizing on the situation


WOW

You found us out. Still looking for that pound of flesh.

High Threshold;1474175 wrote: just as much everyone else is. Perhaps their history (the Holocaust) gives them an edge.


Never let a tragedy go to waste.

High Threshold;1474175 wrote: and is more obvious but if you look closely you'll see that everyone is playing the sympathy/innocent/outrage/indignant card ... and worst of all are using every incident to play tit-for-tat in an never-ending battle of self-promoting "Good Guy - Bad Guy".


Hmm, I dunno,

Coptic Christian village devastated by Islamic State beheadings

Don't forget Jesus was a good Jewish boy.

FourPart;1474221 wrote: That's my point. You may call it Propaganda. I call it giving the Apple Pie, Red, White & Blue, Uncle Sam Patriots what they long for. Do you really think that a film depicting how the Brave Vietcong kicked the US Army out of their country would really sell that well in America?


Apocalypse Now.

FourPart;1474226 wrote: Don't forget Jesus was a good Jewish boy.


Only Xians say that.

High Threshold;1474201 wrote: You use the word “terrorist and well, you're being a bit cryptic about it. Look, no hint of supporting or instigating terrorism and such but I'd like you to tell me if it's alright to say (on the forum) that one thinks “the west ought to bomb Baghdad, and if so would it be alright on the basis that “the west isn't considered a terrorist entity - as seen by western governments? You know what I'm getting at so don't wait until I twist myself into a pretzel to find the politically correct expression for it. I'd really like to know for my own personal use, as they say.


Anything organized act of violence that is not a legitimate act of war is, potentially, an act of terrorism and I have a very restricted definition of a legitimate act of war.

I am on record, on this site, as saying that Blair and Bush should be tried in the Hague to determine whether the invasion of Iraq was within International Law - personally I doubt it but I'm not in possession of all of the facts.

To me, any incitement to violence is unacceptable and encouraging "terrorists" to target a specific group or area is unacceptable however you define terrorist - and it was you that introduced the term.

tude dog;1474216 wrote: What is in Hollywood to bomb?

Tourist traps and residents. There is no industry there.


What was in the WTC to bomb? A symbol? Hollywood is much more than that. Or perhaps you disagree?



tude dog;1474216 wrote: You found us out. Still looking for that pound of flesh.


Please do not insinuate that I am an anti-Semitic. I am most certainly not. My reply was in response to someone else's “blanket mention of Jewish interests.

FourPart;1474221 wrote: That's my point. You may call it Propaganda. I call it giving the Apple Pie, Red, White & Blue, Uncle Sam Patriots what they long for. Do you really think that a film depicting how the Brave Vietcong kicked the US Army out of their country would really sell that well in America?


Good point? Bad point? Correct me if I am wrong but weren't “Platoon and “Born On The Fourth of July both produced outside of the U.S.? The reasons for that are blindingly clear. That ought to give some hint that I am on the right track, both in my now “between-the-lines suggestion and in the sub-topic.

Bryn Mawr;1474235 wrote: Anything organized act of violence that is not a legitimate act of war is, potentially, an act of terrorism and I have a very restricted definition of a legitimate act of war.


OK.

Bryn Mawr;1474235 wrote: I am on record, on this site, as saying that Blair and Bush should be tried in the Hague to determine whether the invasion of Iraq was within International Law - personally I doubt it but I'm not in possession of all of the facts.


If it were possible for me to agree with you more ¦. I'd go there.

Bryn Mawr;1474235 wrote: To me, any incitement to violence is unacceptable and encouraging "terrorists" to target a specific group or area is unacceptable however you define terrorist - and it was you that introduced the term.


Yes alright, I understand. Ta.