You have a vivid fantasy but may I ask you that when refering to me, you would be so kind to refrain from insinuating situations that aren’t even remotely present?
I could of course return it and say: So sad for those who don’t know how to use their brain cells in a way that makes them able to understand what I write.
Really? I recall that I answered the questions of the OP. Where do you come into that ?
I wouldn’t say that you make your own fiction of my posts if you didn’t do it, would I? You may think otherwise, but up to this day I’m not locked up in a madhouse.
Please do. And read my posts while you are busy. Thank you.
The OP tells us about people who claim it is anti Semitic. That is what the thread is about.
Now follows your “samplings” which have no other meaning then giving example how people respond to the OP and in some cases also to answers on the OP.
Next follows:
As far as I recall, I didn’t say you screamed no matter what.
I explained how this ridiculous screaming “anti Semitic” about a film even before it is released comes across. Which is answering the OP.
Wrong. It is what you want to make of it and what you try to make of it while rewriting among others my posts turning them into your fiction of them.
Sorry? Can you write that last sentence in clear simple English please?
Read again my posts. Where do I say the Jews should ignore the past? I say quite the opposite. More then once.
Wish you good luck with your next attempt to rewrite my posts.
But I don’t know if you are aware of it: You are disturbing this thread with your off topic posts who seem to have as on of the main goals to write your fictional versions of my contributions. Therefore I shall not reply on such comments any further because I don’t want to disturb the thread anymore with this.
I don’t think anyone has objections to it that you open an other thread to practice your rewriting skills while creating your own fiction of my posts. If that amuses you, why not?
By the way: I asked you a question on which I didn’t see an answer from you. Of course you have no obligation whatsoever to answer questions. Yet you made it happen that I’m now of course inclined to think that you failed to read it.
I apologize for your confusion. The statement about those movies was not directed to you per se. It was in reference to those claiming this movie does not represent an accurate historical description. Gibson is an actor, director and producer - not a historian. Thus he is more concerned with telling a story as to teaching a history. Braveheart and The Patriot (both movies he directed) are examples of this, The Passion would be no different. In fact, given his religious nature (and especially that of Gibson’s father), he would be more inclined to stick to portray the story as written instead of being worried about the problems with the historical details.
Maybe you should keep your smarmy comments to yourself. I see that you have seen the movie and therefore do have knowledge of who Mel Gibson is (contrary to your claim). Thank you very little for the review though . My nitpick (look up the word if you don’t know what it means) was in calling him a US’er. He’s Australian.
But I see you didn’t bother responding to the bulk of the post in which I called you on saying the US a place where " where religious nutcases seem to pop up and flourish like mushrooms" but then go on to list why the people and theocracies of the MENA would have problems with even releasing this movie. Tsk tsk, typical Alde.
And here we run smack into another major case of irony.
In this thread we have Eva Luna angrily citing an old thread in which a former poster criticized her for citing alleged crimes by Israel without devoting equal attention to bad acts committed by other regimes around the world. Eva obvious felt, and quite rightly, that she should be able to draw attention to her concerns about Israel without having to drag in every wrongful act committed by others.
Here, however, Eva has a problem with Mel Gibson giving a direct answer to whether he believes the Holocaust happened, apparently feeling Mel had an obligation to drag in references to suffering during the entire Second World War and preceding years.
Excuse me, but I find this thinking bizarre.
Descendants of Russians whose relatives died due to government-caused famine have a right to commemorate those events without having to discuss other instances of famine around the world.
Roma deserve an opportunity to discuss their tragedy without necessarily having reference to everyone else’s.
Jews, whose Holocaust (to my knowledge) is the only one facing persistent attempts at denial, may legitimately wonder about Mel Gibson’s views (At least one of Mel’s parents, by the way, was reported in a recent Pit thread to be a Holocaust denier).
And Mel could not bring himself to give a straight, unequivocal answer to a simple question. His response comes off as though he is trying to minimize the mass murders of Jews (“t’ain’t nothin’ special”).
My perception of his good intentions has not improved.
I never stated I had a problem with Mr. Gibson’s answer; quite the opposite. I actually have a bigger problem with those who have a problem with his answer. As I stated above, I think he simply overexplained in an attempt to forestall the criticism which he probably knew was forthcoming (and see? He was correct). I never said anything about him having an “obligation” to refer to every contemporaneous instance of persecution; I just explained why he might want to do so.
Why is he required to give a one-sentence answer if he feels more explanation is in order? In this case, his attempt at pre-emption seems to have backfired. The road to Hell and all…
I’m amazed by the confidence with which people assert historical knowledge. I don’t see what the “facts” have to do with Gibson’s movie though.
The movie is purportedly based on the accounts in the Gospels, and that is as far as anyone need go to base an opinion of propriety or anti-semitism.
The Gospels clearly claim that a Jewish mob demands the execution of Jesus. Pilate is portrayed as a reluctant instrument of their will. I think it is fair to read Matthew 27:25 ("And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”) as a schism between Christianity and Judaism. Christianity is essentially a rejection of the rites, customs, culture, and core beliefs of Judaism, and Jews are seen as the deniers of Christ and Christianity.
Any assertion of the Gospel truth of the circumstances of the Crucifixion is, by definition, an anti-semitic assertion. In fact, any public assertion of a religious belief is an “attack” on the beliefs of others. Regardless of how we candy-coat opinion and pretend to be engaging in free civil discourse, when we say, “My belief is right!” we are also saying, “Your belief is wrong!”
Gibson will be telling the world that Jews failed to recognize a superior and ultimate truth. He will assert that they murdered his Savior in an orgy of sadistic ignorance. Of course this is insulting. It is sad that so few people find this wrong.
I believe Gibson has acquired some kind of “prophet complex.” Some of his recent roles have been profoundly preachy. I see this movie as a spiritual ego trip for Mel. Maybe he believes producing such sycophantic maudlin melodrama will help circumvent Jesus’s declaration that it will be tough going for a rich man to get into heaven.
Well yes, that’s the oddity I was getting at. Instead of his dancing around the subject, a simple, direct answer from Mel would have been appropriate.
Such as: "Yes, of course. The Holocaust is historical fact. "
You actually feel the need to choose someone else’s specific words, when the ones he has chosen for himself express pretty much the same thing? I think his answer pretty much assumes that the Holocaust is historical fact; why should he have to beat the rest of us over the head with it?
Since it was below a comment on my posts, it looked that way.
In fact: no description of anything historical can ever be “accurate” as in: completely correct.
Maybe you should keep your eyes where they are supposed to be when reading posts of others. In addition you could while doing your typing refrain from trying to post rather weird sounding “insults” to the one you address yourself.
Where do I “claim” that I “don’t know who Mel Gibson is”?
But in fact: I don’t know who he is… Do you? I mean: Do you know him personally to be able to “know who he is”?
I don’t. I see an actor in a movie. I seldom even pay attention to the name of the actor. He is good or he is not good in my view which is all what matters when I spend my time on looking at him when he plays his role.
I have no idea where this might refer to.
My online dictionary is constantly under my eyes when I need to write in a language I don’t master, like this one. That is why I call it “online dictionary”.
I’m so sorry that my sheer disinterest in actors and whatever that might be their background and life caused me to insult you. Unforgivable that I didn’t read a biography of this Mel Gibson and thus wasn’t aware of the life-saving knowledge that he happens to be Australian.
While half of the US seems to be all over him for several issues for quite some time now.
This last little detail leaves me rather helplessly puzzled now, by the way.
Maybe you could send me a biography of said Mel Gibson because obviously him being an actor makes him automatically someone I must be completely informed about if I want to be counted among The Living.
Thank you.
Well let’s see… Could it be because there is in my view no connection visible between the first and the second?
Do you disagree with
There is an abundance of religious nutcases popping up and flourishing in the USA
Countries where Islam is the State Religion happen to be rather restrictive to allow proselytizing and Muslims are in general not interested at all to pay for going to watch a few hours of what is considered heresy.
= such a movie is most likely not going to be approved by government, religious authorities and public = it is most unlkely that is shall be released.
But wait… I see now what you try to make of it:
There are no religious nutcases in the USA
All Muslims are religious nutcases.
I make a claim that there are no religious nutcases among Muslims.
Consider yourself to be wrong at all 3 the points.
Salaam. A
Since it was below a comment on my posts, it looked that way.
In fact: no description of anything historical can ever be “accurate” as in: completely correct.
Maybe you should keep your eyes where they are supposed to be when reading posts of others. In addition you could while doing your typing refrain from trying to post rather weird sounding “insults” to the one you address yourself to.
Where do I “claim” that I “don’t know who Mel Gibson is”?
But in fact: I don’t know who he is… Do you? I mean: Do you know him personally to be able to “know who he is”?
I don’t. I see an actor in a movie. I seldom even pay attention to the name of the actor. He is good or he is not good in my view which is all what matters when I spend my time on looking at him when he plays his role.
I have no idea where this might refer to.
My online dictionary is constantly under my eyes when I need to write in a language I don’t master, like this one. That is why I call it “online dictionary”.
I’m so sorry that my sheer disinterest in actors and whatever that might be their background and life caused me to insult you. Unforgivable that I didn’t read a biography of this Mel Gibson and thus wasn’t aware of the life-saving knowledge that he happens to be Australian.
While half of the US seems to be all over him for several issues for quite some time now.
This last little detail leaves me rather helplessly puzzled now, by the way.
Maybe you could send me a biography of said Mel Gibson because obviously him being an actor makes him automatically someone I must be completely informed about if I want to be counted among The Living.
Thank you.
Well let’s see… Could it be because there is in my view no connection visible between the first and the second?
Do you disagree with
There is an abundance of religious nutcases popping up and flourishing in the USA
Countries where Islam is the State Religion happen to be rather restrictive to allow proselytizing and Muslims are in general not interested at all to pay for going to watch a few hours of what is considered heresy.
= such a movie is most likely not going to be approved by government, religious authorities and public = it is most unlkely that is shall be released.
But wait… I see now what you try to make of it:
There are no religious nutcases in the USA
All Muslims are religious nutcases.
I make a claim that there are no religious nutcases among Muslims.
Consider yourself to be wrong at all 3 the points.
Salaam. A
From the linked article - the question to Mel Gibson from Peggy Noonan (noting that Mel’s father is a Holocaust denier): "“You’re going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?”
IMO he answered the question. He used a few more words than you might have liked, but he answered the question. (How could he have known Holocaust survivors if he didn’t believe the Holocaust existed?) And God forbid any of us should be held responsible for any wrongdoing our parents may have committed.
Was that question posed to M. Gibson in relation to his new movie? If yes, then the motives of the reporter doing the interview are questionable. The holocaust has nothing to do with Jesus’ crucifixion. It seems to me that the reporter is trying to stir a controversy by asking something irrelevant.
It’s not related to the movie, but it’s tangentially related to the issue. There would have been no controversy had Mel done the simple thing and said “yes.” Why he went on to discuss famines and the Soviet Union is beyond me.
First off Eva, the question had an obvious intent: it was a lob to Mel to give him a chance to clearly distance himself from Holocaust denial and to mend fences. His answer of essentially well War is always Hell and shit happens was at best stupid and insensitive. If he’s not a fool then why not answer the lob with a straightforward answer?
But why should we give a shit in any case, what Mel thinks? For all I know he may think that The Holocaust was just a population relocation during which some Jews died and, like his father, believe that the numbers of Jews are grossly exaggarated by Jewish forces (his answer doesn’t conflict with his father’s claims). He could be a raving antisemite or not. I don’t care too much. If a movie with wide distribution had serious antisemitic content (or obvious antisemitic effects), I’d care, whether the creators were antisemitic or not. If it does not then I don’t.
Maybe he is a fool. I don’t know, and I honestly don’t care much. He’s got enough people pounding on him for this one; I’m honestly not offended by his answer enough that I care to add to the pile-on.
The Chechens were forcibly relocated during the war, and 25-50% of them (depending on whose estimates you believe) died. They were forced to live in camps, and weren’t allowed to leave their official places of abode.
Did the Soviet government honestly think that if you piled people into cattle cars and had them travel through the desert for a couple of weeks with basically no food or water that there would be no adverse consequences? No, the Chechens weren’t gassed wholesale, but the ones who didn’t die weren’t officially allowed to return to their homeland for decades, and to this day they are having the crap pounded out of them by the Russians, but hardly anyone cares much about them. And in contravention to the RF Constitution, the Chechen language is not taught past second grade in public schools, and even then the textbooks have titles like “Russian for speakers of other languages.” Is this genocide? If not on the same scale as the Holocaust, well, then it’s nothing to sneeze at, either.
Honestly, even if he didn’t intend to, I think Mel’s got a point.
“I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century 20 million people died in the Soviet Union.”
Mr. Foxman also protested Mr. Gibson’s remark on the Holocaust. “At the very least it was ignorant, at the very most its insensitive. And you know what? He doesn’t get that either. He doesn’t begin to understand the difference between dying in a famine and people being cremated solely for what they are.”
Theres nothing ignorant or insensative about Gibsons remark. Yes, the holocaust happened. But its almost as if everyone is supposed to think that the genocide of the jews was worse than the genocide of any other group that has been slaughtered throughout history. The interviewer even starts to head in the oh so very immature direction of tallying up ways in which that genocide was inflicted (comparing starvation and cremation), as if some types of inflicted death are more acceptable/less abhorrant than others.
All Gibson seems to be pointing out is that the Jews dont have a special place in history as being the only group of people killed en masse for who/what they are. Nothing ignorant about that. As far as insensitive, what, is he supposed to alter the truth of what he thinks just to spare the feelings of the interviewer or the readers?? Perhaps the interviewer is not really old enough for the job if he expects people to lie/candy coat their feelings for his sake. And I doubt this interview was meant to be read by children, so theres no reason for Gibson to lie/candy coat his opinions for the readers.
I dont recall seeing complaints about how The Ten Commandments was anti-Egyption.
As for the movie causing offense, well its religous nut movie, of course its going to be offensive, if to no one other than nuts of other religous persuasions. You may as well have a group of people who worship Tinker Bell getting upset at people who worship Peter Pan. One is by default going to offend the other, while everyone who doesnt live in Never Never Land can sit and watch and eat popcorn and laugh. This movie is by, about and for religous nuts. If you think you might be offended, then remember that nothing is forcing you to buy a ticket. Myself, I think melodrama is the highest form of comedy; its absurd how seriously people can take themselves.
[QUOTE=Voodoochile]
[Theres nothing ignorant or insensative about Gibsons remark. Yes, the holocaust happened. But its almost as if everyone is supposed to think that the genocide of the jews was worse than the genocide of any other group that has been slaughtered throughout history.
[QUOTE]
Yuh, them Holocaust-hogging, attention-craving Jews, who do they think they are?
They’re always putting down the sufferings of others. Or if not, it sure seems that way, I guess.
And black people in America. Who are they to talk about slavery as though it was something that only happened to their ancestors? Millions of people were slaves throughout history, but you don’t hear black people talk about that. Uh-huh, yeah.
Everybody should stop fussing and end this pity party. Uh-huh.
Right. :rolleyes:
I think it’s Herod that’s portrayed as a nancy-boy but either way it’s bogus. neithet Pilate nor Herod Antipas was gay. Herod was often accused of being a womanizer but not of being gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Obviosuly, Gibson thinks that making Herod a homosexual makes him that much more contemptable and villainous. the audience is supposed to be disgusted because he’s gay. His gayness is proof that he’s evil. And of course, he’s not just homosexual but the most cartoonish, predatory stereotype that Gibson can cobble together.