HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Just Saw "Zero Dark ...

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:44 AM

Just Saw "Zero Dark Thirty" -- You Probably Won't Like It.

It's not pro-Obama at all. It's very, very, very pro-CIA. I know why Kathy Bigelow got the access she got. The first half of the movie is defense of CIA torture tactics, Black sites, detainees, etc.

The mission to kill Bin Laden was done extremely well, and it's very harrowing. If you're a very sensitive person, you won't like it.

All in all the movie is very well made, but it's a CIA propaganda film.

35 replies, 2981 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Just Saw "Zero Dark Thirty" -- You Probably Won't Like It. (Original post)
Yavin4 Dec 2012 OP
Sassie Lassie Dec 2012 #1
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #2
msanthrope Dec 2012 #5
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #8
msanthrope Dec 2012 #20
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #24
msanthrope Dec 2012 #28
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #32
former-republican Dec 2012 #3
Yavin4 Dec 2012 #4
former-republican Dec 2012 #18
Cha Jan 2013 #35
TeamPooka Dec 2012 #16
former-republican Dec 2012 #17
Lord Magus Dec 2012 #6
madokie Dec 2012 #9
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #10
NealK Dec 2012 #26
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #27
zappaman Dec 2012 #7
Yavin4 Dec 2012 #11
Warren Religion Dec 2012 #12
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #13
dogknob Dec 2012 #14
Kablooie Dec 2012 #15
ellisonz Dec 2012 #19
Yavin4 Dec 2012 #23
Kablooie Dec 2012 #31
Yavin4 Dec 2012 #34
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #21
sendero Dec 2012 #22
DearHeart Dec 2012 #25
ShadesOfBlue Dec 2012 #29
alarimer Dec 2012 #30
WilliamPitt Dec 2012 #33

Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:55 AM

1. Sounds interesting

I didnt see it, I'm gonna check it out..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 05:04 AM

2. Ugh, pro-torture, another piece of apologist for war criminals propaganda.

Goebbels would be jealous of our propaganda machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:20 AM

5. Which war criminals are you referencing from the movie? Be specific. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:50 PM

8. Why are you demanding information from this poster? Be specific. No, more specific than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:56 PM

20. I would love to give Manning the credit he deserves. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:33 PM

24. The ones that devised the torture regime, the ones that devised the legal

framework for it, the ones that okayed it, and the ones who carried it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:16 PM

28. Name them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:37 PM

32. We all know many of the names of the architects, as for the rest...

that is the job of the justice department. Ooooh, but we can't do that. Oooh, we can't take on the CIA and the NSA, and whatever other torturing and killing orgs that we've got.

Freedom, liberty, justice my ass. We are a bunch of frightened puling chicken shits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:39 AM

3. Why does it have to be Pro Obama at all ? it was a CIA mission that gathered the intelligence ?

 

The President was the guy who gave the go ahead .
Isn't that enough ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:00 AM

4. Other Movies Slammed Clinton for not Killing OBL

Just thought that the president should get some credit for pulling the trigger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:49 AM

18. He's still President isn't he

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:57 PM

35. Especially since PBO had such

a big part of making it his mission to get bin laden out of the picture on his watch. And, the cheney-bush regime said they weren't interested and now they're all jealous of President Obama doing what he said he would do.

The President gave the order.. it was part of the reality of history. If it had gone horribly wrong ..who would get the blame?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:36 AM

16. Because Jimmy Carter is atill paying for military helicopters that crashed in the Iranian desert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:47 AM

17. Everyone knows the President gave the order to take him out

 

I don't see any value of having an actor portray the President in a movie like this.

Just so they can film an actor discussing the intelligence or to show an actor giving the order.
To me it would look silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:41 PM

6. I've always thought that anybody with even the slightest connection to the torture program...

...should be rounded up and executed. Sadly, Obama went soft on Bush and his band of war criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:51 PM

9. Can you imagine the shit that O would have stirred if he had gone after the bush/cheney cabal

Hell just being black was enough for them to treat him like he was a slave or something, not like he is a duly elected President. If he'd gone after the war criminals they'd, the republiCONs, would of hung him from the nearest tree and you ought to know that. President O due to the fact he is breaking ground that the old white mans club doesn't like is walking on thin ice. They'll do anything they need to do to tarnish his administration even if they have to make it all up.

I'm an old white guy if you wonder.
I love my President. Voted for him three times now and would vote for him a dozen more if the occasion was to arise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:42 PM

10. Just for the sake of discussion, the last sitting President to pose a threat to the CIA....

....was JFK. Following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he fired Allen Dulles, the CIA's Director and a fellow by the name of Richard Bissell, Deputy Director of Plans. That pissed off a lot of people inside the Agency who were already pissed about what they believed was JFK's failure to take the proper course of action during the Bay of Pigs operation. The next person to state his willingness to "scatter the CIA" was RFK.

Since then, sitting Presidents, or people running for President, have avoided talking about the CIA. Of course, the CIA had one of their own long-time operatives become Vice President in 1980 under Reagan. Poppy's activities with the CIA may extend as far back as the OSS in the Pacific Theater during WWII. For all intents and purposes, Poppy Bush WAS the acting President during those eight years under Reagan, and just officially extended his reign in 1988.

There are also strong rumors to the effect that George W. was also involved in CIA activities in Central America. Makes you think doesn't it? Did the CIA have another man in the White House for another eight years? If true, the CIA had a rep in the White House for twenty of the forty-nine years since JFK was killed.

But I digress....as far as torture is concerned, don't like it at all. It is not effective at obtaining useful intelligence because the victims will say anything to get the torturer(s) to stop. Cheney and his fellow travelers are war criminals as far as I'm concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:01 PM

26. +1

Didn't know about the W rumors though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NealK (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:04 PM

27. Here's more about the Bush Crime Family....

The Bush Drug Sting, The Sins of the Father, The Sins of the Son and -- The Smoking Airplane

I've talked personally with Hopsicker. He is a meticulous blood-hound as an investigative reporter.

....and....

Zapata Corporation

Don't be put off by the Wikipedia article...it is well-sourced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:47 PM

7. I thought it was a very good film.

Well written and very tense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:51 PM

11. Yes. It's Very Well Made, But It's Still Propaganda

Check out Chris Matthews' Segment on the movie:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#50166205

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:44 AM

12. The film version of '24" that didn't get made

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:51 AM

13. Pretty soon the back story about the disgruntled CIA operative is going to get more coverage than

the movie.

You guys tried to obstruct me. You fought me. Only I deserve the award.

When her name is made public, and it will be, I hope the US Government gives her the protection she so obviously deserves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:52 AM

14. When is she gonna do a romantic comedy? Jeez... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:34 AM

15. I saw "Zero Dark Thirty" tonight and finished reading the book 'No Easy Day' a few days ago.

The movie was almost identical to what was described in the book which was written by one of the SEALS who shot Bin Laden.

The movie is all about the woman Maya.
She's called Jen in the book, the writer admitted changing names for security reasons.
In the book she appears when training for the mission starts, about the middle of the book

I didn't think it was CIA propaganda.
It was about one woman and how she personally forced the CIA, against it's better judgement, to capture Bin Laden.
In the book she is described as being fanatically dedicated to finding him for 10 years.
In the book she also is the only person who says that it's 100% that Bin Laden was there.

As to defense of torture, they didn't get accurate info from the torture. Only when they used other methods of tracking phone calls was the intel really useful so it's more a statement against the usefulness of torture.

There are a few minor differences such as a scene in Area 51 in the movie is described as Virginia in the book but overall both accounts of the mission are nearly identical.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:54 AM

19. Sounds like their avoiding getting more complex about the politics...

Thanks for your review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:12 PM

23. In the movie, after the torture scenes, it does focus on the CIA Agent's Pursuit

However, the movie depicts a broken, tortured detainee giving them the name of Bin Laden's courier. In essence, that scene was shouting, "See, torture works".

See Chris Matthews' segment on the film for more details:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#50166205

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:29 PM

31. But they don't get useful info until they stop torturing the guy.

They get the name of the courier once they bring him out, give him a decent meal and trick him into thinking they already have the info. The torture gave them nothing. Deception did.

The film also explains that after 2008, when Obama became president, torture was outlawed and stopped. The CIA complains about this but is forced to resort to other means which is the bulk of the movie.

The fact that America condoned torture is part of the story and it would be dishonest to ignore it. It's shameful but it happened.

The fact that torture didn't provide critical information is also part of the story and though the point is not highlighted in the film, it is there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:04 AM

34. The Movie Also Shows A Montage of Clips from Detainees (some of which are tortured)....

giving up the name of the courier. Sen. Diane Feinstein released a statement that torture of the detainees didn't yield any info leading to the killing of OBL, so the movie is misleading the audience.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:47 PM

21. ZDT may do what Karl Rove could not have done with all the money in the world

by Adam Sewer

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2012/12/zero-dark-thirty-osama-bin-laden-torture

Defenders of Bush-era enhanced interrogation waged a fierce public relations campaign to rehabilitate torture in the aftermath of the bin Laden killing, in part to award Bush credit for the raid. But the facts kept getting in the way. Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA official responsible for the destruction of videos recording the (ineffectual) torture of detainee Abu Zubayda, went on 60 Minutes and was unable to rebut the fact that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed lied when questioned about bin Laden's courier, despite being tortured. The CIA inspector general found that "you could not in good conscience reach a definitive conclusion about whether any specific technique was especially effective, or the enhanced techniques in the aggregate really worked." Republicans are currently attempting to block a Senate intelligence committee investigation of the efficacy of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Someone attempting to make a "journalistic" feature film on the hunt for Osama bin Laden could be expected to be aware of all this. When Filkins asked Boal about the portrayal of torture departing from the known facts, he replied, "It's a movie, not a documentary." Bigelow and Boal want their film to be seen as a contribution to the historical record, not as mere entertainment. So far they are winning over influential film critics. If you're thinking of giving them an award, Zero Dark Thirty is "history"; if you're a journalist asking a question about a factual error in the film, it's just a movie.

The critical acclaim Zero Dark Thirty is already receiving suggests that it may do what Karl Rove could not have done with all the money in the world: embed in the popular imagination the efficacy, even the necessity, of torture, despite available evidence to the contrary. Whatever the artistic merits of the film, that will be its moral legacy. That's quite an accomplishment, but not a journalistic one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:49 PM

22. I could tell that..

.. just from the promos, but thanks for confirming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:41 PM

25. Wouldn't wast a penny on this movie! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:14 PM

29. I have read too...

that it isn't a pro-Obama film (it isn't anti-Obama btw either), it simply deals with the inner workings of the CIA. That's cool with me. That's what Bigelow and her screenwriter have been saying all along: it wasn't political. What pisses me off is that once folks on FOX websites saw the film they started cheering that "finally" the people who actually were responsible for killing Obama were getting credit instead of politicians (read: Obama) getting credit. These revisionists fail to point out that they made a fuss about Obama getting glory in the movie when in the end it turns out they were dead wrong. Period.


By the way listening to a BBC report this week there was one reviewer being interviewed who thought the movie actually put Obama in an extremely good light (he didn't sound upset about that). Just thought I throw that out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:20 PM

30. I won't watch this propaganda film

With the access they had, it HAS to be propaganda. Plus the whole torture porn thing.
No thanks. I desperately hope it's snubbed at Oscar time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread