What if Tarantino Had the ‘Basterds’ Take Taliban Scalps?
by Chuck DeVoreQuentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” has all the trappings of a Tarantino film – from the rich cinematography and soundtrack to the unpredictable action and character development. Tarantino has directed and written another effort that, as usual, is in a class of its own.
“Basterds,” misspelled the way Brad Pitt’s moonshining Lt. Aldo Raine character carved it into his rifle, takes place in German-occupied France from 1941 to 1944. Tarantino makes a point of specifying “Nazi-occupied France,” justifying to the film watcher the extreme measures needed to deal with this particular type of human evil. That National Socialist German Workers’ Party membership never numbered more than about 20 percent of the adult German population is beside the point; the Nazi Party in the guise of Hitler (played by Martin Wuttke) controlled the Wehrmacht from the top.
“Basterds” follows three characters. ”Chapter 1″ introduces Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) a young Frenchwoman whose dairy farmer family is wiped out in 1941 by the Germans and Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), who directs the killing. Landa is a member of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the intelligence service of the SS and the Nazi Party, who considers himself a detective asked by his government to find every last Jewish person in France. In “Chapter 2″ we meet U.S. Army Lt. Aldo Raine. Raine’s crossed arrows insignia on his collar identifies him as a member of the First Special Service Force, a U.S.-Canadian commando force called the Devil’s Brigade. Lt. Raine leads a small band of soldiers, all of whom happen to be Jewish, on a mission of retribution, mayhem and terror behind enemy lines, the goal: take 100 “Nazi scalps” each.
While “Basterds” is pure fiction, it does trace historical actions depicted in “Bodyguard of Lies” by Anthony Cave Brown. “Bodyguard” details the deadly cloak-and-dagger action surrounding the effort to return Allied forces to the Continent on D-Day. The scene with Mike Myers’ as British spymaster General Ed Fenech and Rod Taylor as Churchill suggests Major General Sir Stewart Menzies, Britain’s WWII head of the Secret Intelligence Service, as the basis for Myers’ character. “Bodyguard’s” riveting accounts, such as the German capture and interrogation of British agent Princess Noor Inayat Khan (she was killed in Dachau, her last words being “liberty”), echo parts of “Basterds” – reminding one that “Basterds” may not be real, but it’s true – which brings up an inconvenient truth for some enthusiasts of Mr. Tarantino’s latest work.
The theme of “Basterds” is revenge. But revenge in this case takes place in occupied France in 1944. In this context, Lt. Raine and his encouragement of scalping and other torture methods, violate the Hague Conventions (the forerunner to the Geneva Conventions) to which both the U.S. and Germany agreed. The Hague’s Article 23 specifically prohibited the “treacherous” killing of an enemy, or harming enemies who had surrendered, or “declar(ing) that no quarter will be given.” Of course, Raine’s men, usually operating sans uniform, were in violation of The Hague’s Chapter I, The Qualifications of Belligerents, Article 1, reading in part, that proper belligerents must, “have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance” and “conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” Executing prisoners is, unfortunately, an unspoken reality of swift-moving commando forces operating behind enemy lines. Beating enemy prisoners of war to death with a baseball bat while not wearing a uniform is an even more obvious violation of the law of war. Under rules then in effect, if Raines’ men were captured while operating outside of these rules, they could be treated very harshly – even summarily executed.
In 1949, the Geneva Conventions updated the Hague Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, Part I, Article 4, parallels The Hague’s Article 23 in specifying the attributes of a legitimate prisoner of war who is deserving of protection by his captor. It is this part of the law of war that the Bush Administration cited when justifying their treatment of men captured as part of the Global War on Terror (now called “overseas contingency operations”), i.e. al-Qaeda didn’t fight with “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” or carry “arms openly” or conduct “their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war” therefore they were “unlawful combatants.”
It is interesting indeed to see those who applaud Tarantino’s latest, admittedly excellent work, revel in the unbridled revenge against Nazis who get what’s coming to them. Many of whom, without batting an eye, view al-Qaeda killers as deserving of respect, protection, and the benefit of civilian law. Since all that separates al-Qaeda from the Nazis is the means – industrial power, modern education, and an organized national base – one wonders why a certain amount of cognitive dissonance wouldn’t kick in after a liberal enjoyed screening “Basterds.”
To the point, what would a liberal think of the scene where Lt. Raine interrogates a captured German sergeant, demanding the location of a German outpost and its supporting artillery? As the German NCO refuses to talk, Raine orders one of his men to kill the prisoner with a baseball bat. When the two remaining German prisoners see this, one runs in horror and is shot down, while the other is brought over and threatened with the same deadly treatment. He talks, saving the lives of the American commandos. For the prisoner’s troubles, Raines carves a swastika into his forehead. By comparison, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during interrogation seems rather pedestrian.
Were Lt. Aldo Raine unleashed in Waziristan today, he and his men (all from New York City to provide the needed element of justifiable revenge) would no doubt relish taking al-Qaeda and Taliban scalps. Alas, were Tarantino to make this flick, it would end prematurely just as Osama bin Laden was about to be relieved of his wavy locks by Raine’s massive knife. The unsatisfying closing sequence would have a shocked Raine arrested by FBI agents after the Basterds’ cover was blown by the New York Times. The credits would roll on Raine’s trial by Attorney General Holder’s Department of Justice with bin Laden in protective custody as a witness to Raine’s heinous war crimes.
I don’t see Tarantino making that film – it might not be real, but it’s too true for Hollywood.





Subscribe via RSS
77 Comments
You are absolutely right. That Tarantino movie will never get made (even if he wants to). Eric Holder will see to that, in advance–with the help of his Hollywood snitches.
[...] Michigan? Sweetness & Light: Obama Sends Terrorist Murderer Home Chuck DeVore, Big Hollywood: What if Tarantino Had the ‘Basterds’ Take Taliban Scalps? Media Lizzy and Friends: Basically, Obama found out George W. Bush was right Clinging to G & [...]
[...] lukewarm reception, then bashes them; Update: A Gulf War vet responds Chuck DeVore, Big Hollywood: What if Tarantino Had the ‘Basterds’ Take Taliban Scalps? A Solitary Conspiracy: Never forget the real heroes Jeremy D. Boering, Big Hollywood: USO: How [...]
Jeez – Its not much of newsflash that movie heroes break the law. Superman doesn't read criminals their rights (in fact he's not even a deputized law enforcement agent) and as much as I believe he's a good guy, I'd frown on someone in the real world putting on a cape and beating up criminals. And hold on to your hat here, cause this might blow your mind, but I thoroughly enjoyed Basterds AND I think the United States ought to obey the law about handling prisoners of war.
AND I'd happily go to a movie where a bunch of GI's dropped Osama Bin Laden in a tank of acid after they already had him captured. I like violent revenge fantasies as much as the next guy (more than most!) but I don't think we should set public policy based on them.
[...] Not so fast on closing Gitmo Stop The ACLU: CIA Morale At Minus 50 Chuck DeVore, Big Hollywood: What if Tarantino Had the ‘Basterds’ Take Taliban Scalps? The Patriot’s Mind: Obama’s Approval in the Tank – Solution? Investigate the CIA! and Yippee [...]
mega trivia alert…
Sir Stewart Menzies, the head of British Intelligence, was reportedly the model for Ian Fleming's 007 taskmaster
'M'…
The only really authentic piece in this revisionist nonsense.
You miss my point, which, as the headline and the last two paragraphs ask, "What if Tarantino Had the ‘Basterds’ Take Taliban Scalps?" Clearly I did not equate the film to our prosecution of the current "overseas contingency operations."
It takes little imagination to understand that such a film wouldn't be made today. It seems some enemies of freedom are more deserving than others in the eyes of Hollywood — although I am more than happy to be proven wrong in my lifetime.
What I wrote, or the film?
You miss my point, which, as the headline and the last two paragraphs ask, "What if Tarantino Had the ‘Basterds’ Take Taliban Scalps?" Clearly I did not equate the film to our prosecution of the current "overseas contingency operations."
It takes little imagination to understand that such a film wouldn't be made. It seems some enemies of freedom are more deserving than others.
I want to write the sequel: Infidel Basterds.
Oh, would it be glorious.
PC Lefties feel free to be loud and proud anti-nazis because real nazis are safely dead or hiding out in nursing homes.
Islamo-nazis are very much alive, and have a tendency to go ballistic if you even print a disparaging word or cartoon about their prophet.
no, your post is excellent…
It's the nonsense that a bunch of spoiled Hollywood brats could have their way with one of the toughest fighting forces in history, that Eli Roth could scalp 100 men- it's just an insult to those who served, that's all.
We could appreciate it on it's comic merits. But your points were spot on, and reduced this to the PC porn that it is…
I do plan on seeing this one, and if the hypothetical Q movie taking taliban/al queda/terrorist scalps were to be made, I would be first in line for that one too. Alas, I have to agree. In the current Hollywood political climate, such a movie would nto be possible (even though I believe Q would personally have no problems making one if he could).
ok, maybe in due time out thoughful response will be posted. Until then, Mr Devore, your post is fine- we agree…
Totally agreed.
If we really want to hold these "man made disaster" makers (MMDM') accountable, we had better start behaving according to the law. If we are going to trot them back to American court, soldiers had better read read the MMDM's their rights in the battlefield and stop to collect evidence to use in court. And PLEASE, here and now, we should really stop with the indiscriminant killing of innocent until proven guilty alleged MMDM's by predator drones or evil snipers. Osama bin Laden – should get a fair trial. Why, how about getting those 3500 odd "little eichmanns" to testify against him…
Oh. Wait.
OK never mind.
Chuck:
You write: "Since all that separates al-Qaeda from the Nazis is the means … one wonders why a certain amount of cognitive dissonance wouldn’t kick in after a liberal enjoyed screening “Basterds.” "
Have you not considered this depressing possibility: there will be no conitive dissonance for the simple reason that some people see al-Qaeda as the Basterds and the U.S. as the Nazis?
Insane? Sure, but the insane don't dissonate much.
I'd also watch Basterds Take Taliban Scalps, and enjoy it. That doesn't mean that I think it's okay to commit war crimes. I'd be just fine if the only war footage I ever saw was produced in a Hollywood studio. We'd all be better off if that were the case.
How many Americans would volunteer for a real life "Basterds" type of fight against Islamo-Fascists? Many Americans still believe in fighting "fire with fire". Did anyone see the story of that brave Afghani that had his ears & most of his nose cut of by the Taliban because he dared to vote? This is what we're up against, and several teams of "Basterds" dropped into areas where Islamo-Fascits operate would go a long way to discouraging those type of actions.
Doesn't scalping kill the scalped not merely torture them?
Those who complain about waterboarding actually said they do want it done, but only by a rogue agent like Jack Bauer. Anyone remember that poll? Just like this movie, people want the outcomes of violence against people who want to wipe us from the earth, they just do not want to get bogged down in the details unless it can be couched within fantasyland perspectives.
I'm fine with 'Mitch Rapp' justice for those that would kill or maim people in the name of any perverted system of government or religion. I'm also fine with the Geneva Convention for uniformed enemies. But, take off the uniform or indiscriminately kill civilians, even if you are a 'soldier', and you don't qualify. (Same is true for us too. I wouldn't expect our enemies to follow the 'Convention' with an American spy.) I also believe in the death penalty for kidnappers, murderers and the like. It's very black and white with me, I don't have a PC bone in my body. Olddog55 has the right idea, though, like him I suspect, I'm a little old to do it myself. But, P.S. I thought the same when I was young and stupid.
Brilliant ending there Chuck. But fear not, this movie will be made, just not by Tarantino, and unfortunately not for another 65 years.
I'm currently hard at work penning the screenplay for what will be called "Inglorious Cowards". This will be just like Tarantino's version except it will be Liberals who finally confront the al-Qaeda network and it's misunderstood ideology.
In this movie there won't be any gratuitous violence to sweeten our taste for revenge. That's not very politically correct.. In my script the Liberals will torture their captives with kindness. The al-Qaeda henchmen will be nurtured or pestered to death with compassion and appeasement. So much so that they literally start taking their own lives while actually CURSING allah for the cruelty of their fate.
Obviously, my definition of the "law" is different Thant yours.
But that is the point – heroes are heroes because they have to do what others wouldn't or won't do. Another movie version of this is Dark Knight. And yes our policies should be based on this rather than to be cowereds hiding.
Which citizens do you want to live with El Dorado or those of HIgh Noon.
And to take it even a step further – it is better to die in the ghettos of Warsaw than in a Dachu
"What if Tarantino Had the ‘Basterds’ Take Taliban Scalps?"
I have no issue with that in real world. The Taliban has no issue with taking heads off people, throwing acid in faces of young girls, or cutting fingers off voters. I know this does not go along with Progressive Transformation or even Mainstream Conservatives, but I never said I would play follow the leader.
The Taliban laugh at our laws and Bin Laden himself says US laws will loose the war for us. He is right Miranda rules will kill us big time.
The scalped were usually dead before they were scalped. But even in the Old West, there were stories of people who survived being scalped.
Just a quick point. Scalping was begun by the Brits here in North America in their wars with Indians (and possibly the French) as a way to pay their Indian help (warriors) based on the number of enemies they could prove they killed.
A scalped soldier (Indian or White) would probably eventually bleed to death, but usually were probably already dead when the knife came out. Otherwise, you would have to hold him down while you removed the skin on the top of the skull. He might also try to kill you (even with his hair removed) if he was still conscious.
I thought this was Tarantino's best movie since Kill Bill…but since the only competition was his stupid Grindhouse film, that's not saying much.
I did enjoy this one though, and left the theater thinking "That movie's so messed up. In a good way." Tarantino can get away with so much stuff other directors can't–who else could freeze-frame action and have a name written with an arrow pointing to the actor just so you know who plays each of the big-wig Nazis? Love or hate Tarantino, you'll never watch one of his movies and leave saying, "That was so cliched. When's he going to stop being so predictable with his scripts?"
Technical point: having grown up immediately after WWII, I believe that it was possible to be a spy but not executed for that charge so long as your underwear was government issue.
Two things are needed to take Taliban scalps:
1) We have to handle our oil/energy issues, so that when OPEC tells us to bend over we are able to show them pics of their boys grabbing their ankles instead.
2) We are going to need our own Inglorious Basterds to revenge Tarantino's execution. I'd prefer a ratio of about 10,000 Al Qaeda to 1 for every director they want to pretend is Vincent Van Gough's progeny.
Seems to me that if you're going to pontificate on the brutality of Al Qaeda and their ideological allies, you shouldn't set the bar at "indiscriminate killing of civilians." God knows the Allies did plenty of that in WW2 with our area bombing of places like Dresden, Hamburg, etc.
While some of the area bombing we performed was militarily justifiable, the vast, overwhelming majority of it was not. It was indeed the indiscriminate, wanton slaughter of civilians. Unless you can provide some, uh, evidence that it wasn't that, anyway.
[...] the rest here: What if Tarantino Had the ‘Basterds’ Take Taliban Scalps? This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I think I would rather be scalped than beheaded. But then again I am a girl. Baldness is completely unacceptable for us… scaplessness would probably not be one bit more acceptable.
If the man across the street does not turn off his weed eater I am gonna use it to scalp him. I am also not particularly thrilled with the stellar jay screaming right out the window. MY NERVES!
Jason,
What has school taught you. Do you understand that bombs dropped from a plane were not accurate at all in WWII. Do you think we flew 40 missions over a single factory and never hit it once for the fun of it? Do you have one set of orders that prove your misguided comment? If so post it, otherwise shut up!
That would be a great movie, Tarantino has his next concept. I’ll be first in line. Basterds is a good movie worth the money.
It's important to point out that the Left thinks that the Nazis were right wing. Jonah Goldberg call your office.
Your argument is self defeating. You state (accurately) that bombs weren't terribly accurate in WW2. At best, accuracy was ~30% for the first waves in an attack (later waves' accuracy was reduced by smoke & flame over targets). It's safe to assume that the Allied commanders knew that. Hell, it's common sense.
Or do you think that the commanders somehow didn't know that thousands of non-combatants would die in the raids? Even conservatives aren't that naive.
I don't think strategic bombing was done for fun. But it WAS done KNOWING that many civilians would be killed, due to the nature of the missions and the inaccuracy of the bombing. It was inevitable and desirable, since they were working in war production. Area bombing was also designed to break civilian morale. That means you bomb…civilians.
See also the firebombings of Japanese cities. Commanders KNEW Japanese cities were wood and paper, and would go up like kindling. That was part of the plan. Hard to keep up war production when you lack workers.
(cont'd)
While I don't think civilians dying was a Good Thing, I accept it. It was a fight for our life and that of our allies – a true threat to our existence (unlike al Qaeda et al).
Sometimes you have to do some crazy-ass, wild, evil shi+ to win a war, and the Germans/Japanese certainly would've done it to us if they could've, so to hell with them. But this jingoistic, empty-headed "America can do no wrong" horseshi+ just doesn't fly.
Also, I have a sneaking suspicion, since most Liberals have been known to refer to conservatives as 'Nazis' or 'Fascist' (revealing their ignorance on history, politics, idealogy and pretty much everything else), revel in the torture and killing of Nazis in the same way peace-loving folks like Al Franken use a baseball bat to beat a conservative in that skit.
They see it as justifiable. Ends, means and all that. Conservatives (Nazis in their thinking) can be tortured with extreme prejudice without so much as a lost wink of sleep, because, they are conservatives and are deserving of such treatment and with no mercy whatsoever.
Bush was heavily criticized for the 'with us or against us' statement and the 'black and white' nature of his philosophy on fighting terrorists.
Yet it is the Liberal who is the true black and white thinker, who holds a 'with us or against us' mentality to extremes rarely seen since Pol Pot.
Anyone who has Liberal friends knows what I'm talking about. Sadly, many of us do have Liberal friends whose apparent bi-polar viciousness from reasonable person to rabid and cruel maniac upon discovery that you may not find O'Reilly or Limbaugh all that bad, or heaven forbid, you actually liked Bush.
We've heard from countless actors and artists and right here on BH from Orson Bean to Dwight Schultz their own experiences with this and how friendships dissolve instantly, as if dipped in acid, because the Liberal friend discovered a drop of conservative blood in you.
Yes, Liberals can easily condone violence and cruelty just like they can condone racism, sexism and any other 'ism' they've historically opposed and proclaimed as 'evil' (a word used constantly to describe Bush/Cheney, yet they criticized Bush for using during 9/11 against the attackers). so long as the 'ism' is against a conservative, it's not only perfectly fine. It's required, 'de rigueur'.
Hypocrisy and double standards.
That's why Plame's CIA is a good CIA. That's why Rush's drugs are bad drugs. Palin's premarital sex is bad premarital sex, 9/11 was deserving retribution upon the US, yet those who perpetrated it do not deserve retribution. They must have rights, lawyers, and trials.
This dichotomy, I believe, is the main reason most intelligent Liberals leave that ideology behind, finding reason and logic elsewhere, usually with conservatives. They see the hypocrisy in their fellow Liberal's actions and statements and can't excuse it.
The Land of the Liberal is a lost one. Trouble is, we're having to live in it with them and now, largely, by their rules.
That's exactly how Liberals see it. And quite possibly how Tarrantino intended it.
Wow — How wonderfully realistic is that dreamland of yours!?
You sound wonderful when you speak so boldly. Blue Jays can't help it sometimes. They're just loud but pretty just the same…Maybe like you!
Clemente lives! Vive Clemente!
— On Tue, 9/1/09, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:
I dunno…with swift medical attention, you might survive being scalped, and there are wigs and colorful scarves to cover up with. To my knowledge, decapitation is always fatal.
GB, like most Progressives, you appear to have trouble making the distinction between fantasy and reality. There is no "law" regarding the treatment of terrorists who lurk in the shadows and make no distinction between civilian and military targets.
The "law" you so blithely expect American intelligence officers to adhere to was drafted to cover the treatment of uniformed military personnel captured in battle. Such legal protection was granted on the expectation that captured troops had conducted themselves in accordance to the conventions of war.
Those legal eagles who demand extension of Geneva Convention rights to murderers who deny the least shred of decency to their victims are in the process of destroying those protections for all of us.
When the terrorist spared capture by the Obama Injustice Dept. touches himself off in a theater near you, keep on telling yourself, "It's only a movie."
Chuck, while I completely agree with your point, I am not sure this is the movie with which to raise this issue. I thoroughly enjoyed Basterds, but I could not really take any of it seriously. The over-the-top violence had more to do with the pulp genre of the film than any sort of moral or theme.
To really make your point, I would refer to the opening of Saving Private Ryan when the two Americans shoot down the surrendering Germans in the trench. Or Band of Brothers, when Lt. Spiers executes the German prisoners. Or Letters from Iwo Jima, when the American executes the surrenders Japanese P.O.W.
Better yet, just watch any sort of documentary on WWII and listen to men describe how circumstances often dictated the treatment of P.O.W.s.
It might not be ideal, but neither is losing. For some folks, that is something that they can comprehend in a movie, but not in real life.
Chuck, while I completely agree with your point, I am not sure this is the movie with which to raise this issue. I thoroughly enjoyed Basterds, but I could not really take any of it seriously. The over-the-top violence had more to do with the pulp genre of the film than any sort of moral or theme.
To really make your point, I would refer to the opening of Saving Private Ryan when the two Americans shoot down the surrendering Germans in the trench. Or Band of Brothers, when Lt. Spiers executes the German prisoners. Or Letters from Iwo Jima, when the American G.I. executes the surrendered Japanese P.O.W.
Better yet, just watch any sort of documentary on WWII and listen to men describe how circumstances often dictated the treatment of P.O.W.s.
It might not be ideal, but neither is losing. For some folks, that is something that they can comprehend in a movie, but not in real life.
True, but as with most inspirations, they're incomplete.
Fleming, like all good writers, took from his own experiences, from real life and changed it. There's been much talk about who was the real-life James Bond. Actually, it was a writer of books on birds and nature that Ian had on his shelf at Goldeneye.
But seriously, the "character" of Bond as we know him, the ruggedly fearless secret agent could be traced to:
- Peter Fleming, Ian's older brother.
- Conrad O’Brien-Ffrench
- Patrick Dalzel-Job
And as for the debonaire life style:
- Wilfred Dunderdale was most likely a model, along with Fleming's spy/writer pals, Noel Coward, Graham Greene, Carol Reed and Fleming himself.
All in all, not a bad bunch of chaps to get ideas from.
A fitting touch,Brad Pitt screams Gerronimo, before he scalps, then throws a can of that cheesy head shoe polish to the victim—basic black–of course.
P.S.——OUCH !!!
Also, I have a sneaking suspicion, since most Liberals have been known to refer to conservatives as 'Nazis' or 'Fascist' (revealing their ignorance on history, politics, idealogy and pretty much everything else), revel in the torture and killing of Nazis in the same way peace-loving folks like Al Franken use a baseball bat to beat a conservative in that skit.
They see it as justifiable. Ends, means and all that. Conservatives (Nazis in their thinking) can be tortured with extreme prejudice without so much as a lost wink of sleep, because, they are conservatives and are deserving of such treatment and with no mercy whatsoever.
Bush was heavily criticized for the 'with us or against us' statement and the 'black and white' nature of his philosophy on fighting terrorists.
Yet it is the Liberal who is the true black and white thinker, who holds a 'with us or against us' mentality to extremes rarely seen since Pol Pot.
Anyone who has Liberal friends knows what I'm talking about. Sadly, many of us do have Liberal friends whose apparent bi-polar viciousness from reasonable person to rabid and cruel maniac upon discovery that you may not find O'Reilly or Limbaugh all that bad, or heaven forbid, you actually liked Bush.
We've heard from countless actors and artists and right here on BH from Orson Bean to Dwight Schultz their own experiences with this and how friendships dissolve instantly, as if dipped in acid, because the Liberal friend discovered a drop of conservative blood in you.
Yes, Liberals can easily condone violence and cruelty just like they can condone racism, sexism and any other 'ism' they've historically opposed and proclaimed as 'evil' (a word used constantly to describe Bush/Cheney, yet they criticized Bush for using during 9/11 against the attackers). So long as the 'ism' is against a conservative, it's not only perfectly fine. It's required, 'de rigueur'.
Hypocrisy and double standards.
That's why Plame's CIA is a good CIA. That's why Rush's drugs are bad drugs. Palin's premarital sex is bad premarital sex, 9/11 was deserving retribution upon the US, yet those who perpetrated it do not deserve retribution. They must have rights, lawyers, and trials.
This dichotomy, I believe, is the main reason most intelligent Liberals leave that ideology behind, finding reason and logic elsewhere, usually with conservatives. They see the hypocrisy in their fellow Liberal's actions and statements and can't excuse it.
The Land of the Liberal is a lost one. Trouble is, we're having to live in it with them and now, largely, by their rules.
My father once told me. "They would tell us,we don't have time for prisoners"—so it goes in major offensives. Injured men,and prisoners in general,must be treated,housed,and fed. Have any of you ever talked to old Merchant Marines from WW11? When a ship from their convoy was sunk,they didn't stop to pluck survivors, floating in the freezing water—that would spell certain death for the other ships. Wars, that we fight to win,are horrible affairs.
That's the key—fighting to win. Libtards don't do that.
Well said, Schiz! I have some Lib friends to whom I'd like to forward your comment.
Bond was also fashioned on a MI6 operative whose name escapes us- a Serb, if one remembers correctly. Big WWII OSS/Jedburgh type. And Connery's Bond was really Terence Young, who moulded the rough diamond into a version of himself. He took the rugged Scot to his tailor on Saville Row and had him make custom suit, shirts, the works- and told Sean to go home and 'sleep in them'.
He wanted him to be as comfortable in his suits as he was in his jeans. Remember that when you see just how good he looks in his early films…
You're saying that since the enemy breaks the rules, it's okay for us to. I think that's bad policy and makes us moral equals with those that want to kill us.
Therein is the challenge. The terrorists aren't following the Geneva Convention. So, they cannot be treated as enemy prisoners of war. So, do we treat them as criminals and give them the full rights of the accused? The previous administration put them into a third category. What would you do? Remember, your life and freedom is at stake.
It is a challenge, no doubt. But yes, they should be treated as the criminals they are. The DC snipers were/are considered terrorists and certainly weren't following any rules except their own. Why weren't they "unlawful enemy combatants?" We put all of our criminals on trial, some of whom have committed more heinous acts than those held at Gitmo. And the notion that we can't put these people in a Supermax facility and close Gitmo down is ridiculous. No one has ever escaped from one of those and likely no one ever will. Add to all that, the fact that Al Qaeda terrorists have admitted that Abu Ghraib and Gitmo have been their most effective recruiting tools. If we are going to beat them, we can't play their game as they want us to. We have to be better than that.
I'm sure that passes for brilliant and unanswerable argument in the circles you run in; but it's profoundly stupid reasoning.
When it comes to fighting Islamo-nazi terrorists, there ARE NO RULES.
Geneva Convention protections were drafted to encourage member signatories to adopt humane rules of engagement to protect non-combatants and captured uniformed enemies. The conciet of invoking them to cover non-uniformed, non-signatory thugs who routinely target civilian populations and observe no rules of engagement undermines the whole concept of the Convention.
It also ties the hands of those whose responsibility is to protect the civilian population from terrorist attacks.
If you can't tell the difference between us and the terrorists because we employ EITs to obtain information from a few murderers in order to save innocent civilian lives, then I suggest you have a severe perception problem.
I disagree with your opinion that there are no rules when fighting terrorists. We don't behead them. Why? We wouldn't want any of our citizens or soldiers to be tortured with waterboarding, therefore we have an obligation to refrain from that ourselves. Besides, there's no proof that torture even works. The captives will say anything to get them to stop.
Stunning that you woud cite the arrest of the D.C. sniper. When a citizen or person lawfully in the U.S. commits a crime, of course they should be treated as a criminal.
By your very flawed logic, you would have military personnel in the field of battle read captured terrorists their Miranda Rights. This is insane. That is why your ilk is not trusted by the American people to properly protect our nation and the U.S. Constitution against Islamo-fascists.
You cannot see the difference between combat and domestic law enforcement efforts?
Stunning that you would cite the arrest of the D.C. sniper. When a citizen or person lawfully in the U.S. commits a crime, of course they should be treated as a criminal.
By your very flawed logic, you would have military personnel in the field of battle read captured terrorists their Miranda Rights. This is insane. That is why your ilk is not trusted by the American people to properly protect our nation and the U.S. Constitution against Islamo-fascists.
You cannot see the difference between combat and domestic law enforcement efforts?
Yes, there is proof, that the three captured enemy combatants who were waterboarded did, in fact, produce actionable intelligence after use of the enhanced interrogation techniques. Before that: nothing. Hence the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. They worked.
I see lots of differences between "combat" and "domestic law enforcement." For example, when a criminal is on the run here in the US and his whereabouts are located, we do not launch bunker busters at his hideout. Typically no innocent people die when law enforcement is apprehending a suspect. That's a big dfference.
I believe adopting policies that lower ourselves to the level of our enemies and in turn make us less safe is insane. Why give them more ammo? I don't understand that.
And why does it matter where the criminal is located? If the local government wanted to handle the "combatant's" case, then I'd be all for that. But if their system can't try them, then ours can. I don't see why that is such a difficult idea to grasp.
When I said that "there are no rules" for fighting terrorists, I meant that none of the existing rules governing treatment of prisoners of war applied to the non-conventional war in which we find ourselves with an ideological entity with no borders and no state. The rules which have governed our treatment of captured Al Quaida terrorists have had to be drafted in the middle of the fight, and reflect the best values of American jurisprudence and precedent.
The "torture" involved has been largely psychological, and employed with exceptional restraint.
As for your assertion that there's "no proof" that the EITs worked is plain BS. After the EITs were used on KSM, he became a font of valuable information. AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO ATTACKS ON AMERICAN SOIL.
In case you haven't noticed, those few servicemen and numerous civilians who have fallen into the hands Al Quaeda are ALREADY being tortured and mutilated. BTW, they view our humanity towards civilians and POWs as evidence of the weakness of our culture, which their brutal methods will subdue and conquer.
They recognize our scruples, and actively seek to exploit them by means of "lawfare". There are plenty of useful idiots in the media and the courts upon whom they count to advance their agenda off the battlefield, and to weaken our determination to continue a long, frustrating fight.
Also Roald Dahl.
Well, I see the fundamental (hyuk hyuk) difference here is that Nazis systematically conceived and partially followed through on a plot to conquer and then ethnically cleanse the entire world, and ended up killing 11 million or so 'undesirables'.
Taliban are a mostly disorganized religious collective with goals of getting westerners the funk out of their country so they can go back to abusing their women and crying about how much they love Allah.
It's sort of like comparing the Mafia in their heydey in the 40's to a street gang.
That being said, this is a movie, made for entertainment purposes. I could make up a villain and have them getting batted and scalped and tortured by Brad Pitt and audiences would eat it up.
I couldn't make a film about Brad Pitt scalping Christian fundamentalists (who perpetrate some of the most heinous crimes of domestic terrorism) and release it either, although I sure would like to.
It's the difference between religious fanaticism and malicious racism.
Psychological methods are not the same as physically taking someone to the point where they could die and then stopping. I don't have a problem with them playing head games to try to get info. Cops do that with suspects all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. There is no guaranteed way to get credible info from a hostile party.
It hurts our cause when we are on one hand trying to entice others to follow our lead towards freedom and democracy, setting a moral example for the rest of the world, while torturing prisoners and helping terrorists recruit more members with the other hand. I don't agree that you can make rules up as you go along and still maintain international credibility and respect. It doesn't work.
Sorry but you're dumb and wrong.
KSM was on Al Jazeera before his capture bragging about his role in 9/11. He wasn't shy at all. He was happy to talk about it, proud of his work. I think offering him a hot meal would have gotten info out of him.
Basically QT is a pussy. He thinks he makes edgy and contorversial films like Pulp Ficton was considered when he used the N word and was called out for it by spike lee. Each film he does after that is his attempt to be Cool like that again and most are just pathetic.
I liked "Basterds," but didn't love it. When I'm marveling at the Ennio Morricone on the soundtrack and not the action, it's not a home run for me. As usual, Tarantino is as much in love with his own cleverness and knowledge of cinematic history as the story he's telling. (I place this one below the Kill Bills, but then Jackie Brown is my fave Tarantino, and Pulp Fiction one of my least, so there ya go.) I wish we'd gotten to know some of the "Basterds…" 2 1/2 hours and I have absolutely no idea of any individualism they might have, and I couldn't have named more than 1 or 2 if you put a gun to my head. It's also so off the rails of reality/history that it's sort of silly to apply facts to the film's approach, IMHO. It's a bunch of kids playing WWII. Mike Meyers completely took me out of the movie; Cristoph Waltz's Landa is the shining light (albeit evil) of the film. I'm always a little nonplussed at the anger over the fact that most American film makers don't make blatantly anti-islamic terrorist films. They're film makers, not soldiers. Not everyone has the stones to put their lives on the line. I think no less of Tarantino or any other director because they don't want to put a very large and public target on their head. The Taliban will be coming to _his_ house, not the key grips'.
It was a movie. Movies, for the most part, aren't meant to be applied to real life situations. They are meant to be an escape from reality. I'd love to see a movie where torturing an enemy forces them to give someone faulty information (since they don't know anything else, and just want to say something to stop the torture), which then leads to the "good guys" using incorrect intelligence.
Not to mention that torture, as we see it today, has been shown to actually encourage terrorism: http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/05/07/a-tortu...
Mr. DeVore, instead of just propping up a straw man argument, I'd love to hear your opinion on torture. Would you, since you believe it is effective, allow US troops to beat an enemy to death with a baseball bat? I mean, if that saves lives, you would be for it, I have to assume? Let me ask, if we use such tactics, where do we get off purporting to be "better" than the terrorist we are fighting?
That may be the mantra that Cheney is chanting, but from what I've read the CIA officially has only said that the effectiveness of the torture is "inconclusive." How much of what he said was pure bogus? Weren't there supposed to be planes flying into LA skyscrapers and the Brooklyn Bridge or something? I can't recall anyone being captured in this country who was about to pull one of these capers. I've seen no "thwarting" based on something we've heard KSM has said.
If there is to be another 9/11 or worse, its going to happen no matter what. I mean, look how easy that was for them. There was 8 years between the 1993 bombing and 9/11, which is where we stand now, so they may have another just about ready to go. Hopefully if they hijack planes again, NORAD will decide to scramble some jets instead of letting them fly our planes around for an hour.
[...] a kitchen knife. Ballistic experts have taken the pistol with the unfired bullet. … What if Tarantino Had the 'Basterds' Take Taliban Scalps?Islamo-nazis are very much alive, and have a tendency to go ballistic if you even print a [...]
It's interesting that you invoke cognitive dissonance…do you understand the difference between fiction and reality? Basterds is a MOVIE, and the fight against Al Qaeda is REAL. I like watching 'The Godfather' but I don't think that it's really okay for the mafia to kill people. I like watching 'Scarface' but I don't think drug dealing is glamorous in real life. And I enjoyed 'Basterds', but that doesn't mean it's okay for the US to torture people. This is just like people invoking Jack Bauer as a justification for torture. The only proper response is: "Are you being serious?"
In reality, of course, our refusal to torture and our humane treatment of POWs was one of the things that distinguished us during WWII. It's where the ideals of American freedom and justice were propagated throughout the world. That's what Ronald Reagan (who I'm certain the assemblyman admires) knew when he signed treaties against torture and inveighed against it in speeches and rhetoric. That's what George Bush and Dick Cheney have stolen from us all.
I'm not going to go into here the many utilitarian reasons why torture is an ineffective policy. I just want to say that using a fictional piece of entertainment to attempt to make a serious point about US POW policy shows the insanity and dissonance of your own side.
fanasizing about revenge really isn't healthy. what an exercise in stupid egosim. if you ideologues need an ideology to cling to why not read the bible, instead of concocting one completely about yourselves. oh that's right it's called conservatism. just call it selfishness and be done with it.
[...] Big Hollywood: GI Film Festival: Where Hollywood Fears to Tread Chuck DeVore, Big Hollywood: What if Tarantino Had the ‘Basterds’ Take Taliban Scalps? A Solitary Conspiracy: Never forget the real heroes Jeremy D. Boering, Big Hollywood: USO: How [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.