Talk:Rules of Engagement (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Year

What year did this movie come out in theaters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.234.74 (talk • contribs) 12:59, June 8, 2005

Afghanistan

Wasn't it Afghanistan where the actual event took place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.229.79 (talk • contribs) 20:57, July 16, 2006

Controversy

This article seems exclusively focussed on controversy about the film raised by a limited number of viewers and/or reviewers. The article, as it is, seems to be focused on the "offended" side. Deathbunny 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In some cases, a spade needs to be called a spade. No one will disagree that many of the blaxploitation flicks in the 70s were racist, for example. Nor would they disagree that several films made by US studios in the 30s and 40s reeked of anti-Semitism, overt or otherwise. In light of this, "Rule of Engagement" is racist in its caricatures of Arabs, its implications, etc.. To my knowledge, the movie doesn't contain racist language, but that doesn't give it a free pass. --Kitrus 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it was the director's intent to do so, the movie does serve as an allegory and exploration of the "gray area in military operations that tactical and operational decision-makers face when trying to determine a course of action that complies with regulations, the need to accomplish the mission, a desire to protect fellow military personnel, and the limited information due to the fog of war."

Whether or not it is racist is a different matter. As real world events have shown during blow-up about cartoons of Muhammed and the allegations that many "atrocity photos" taken in Palestine are posed or simulated, the behaviors shown in the movie and ascribed to Muslim peoples of the world are well within the realm of probability and likely similar to personal experiences reported anecdotally in the real world. It portrays Muslims in the film in a way that many people find offensive and definitely does not try to portray a neutral point of view towards Muslims in general, yet this is the way many Muslims actually act and react, if news reports, self-reports by Muslims, and academic research is to be believed.

This fiction's portrayal focuses primarily on the tactical situation that Colonel Childers (and Lieutenant Childers) was placed in and the legal consequences that resulted from the course of action he chose. That's what the movie is about and that's what I think the focus of the article about the movie should reflect in addition to the controversey.Deathbunny 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The faceless dark-skinned masses portrayed in the movie are specifically identified by their nationality, Yemeni, not by thier faith, which you seem to place so much emphasis on.

You have finally shown your true colors in this post. Whether or not you, Deathbunny, have convinced yourself of Muslim "badness" is beside the point. --Kitrus 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Define "badness". Then tell me what and whose scale of moral goodness you are judging it against?

What is your issue? Why do you automatically assume all people follow the behavioral norms you ascribe the qualifier "good" to? What gives you the right to apply those terms to peoples of other culture?

I don't care about what color their skin is or isn't or what religion they are, only what the behavior is and whether it is realistic. And, last I checked, most Yemeni are Muslim and, though rare in Yemen, also participate in violent riots (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-21-yemen-riots_x.htm).

Deathbunny 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean. Almost everyone would agree that the way you describe Muslims as typically behaving is despicable.

P.S.:What was your USA Today link supposed to prove? That Yemenis, most of whom are Muslim (why do you keep coming back to this point?), tend to be violent, resolve issues violently, etc.? This is racist thinking, pure and simple. Did you fail to read the article? It states that the riot, which left 16 people dead, was "the country's worst civil strife in more than a decade." So much for those frequent "violent" riots... With 50% of Yemenis living at malnutrional levels under a regime responsible for widespread government corruption and theft, the recent cut to national gas subsidies by 50%(!) were another major slap to the face of Yemenis, with very serious economic consequences. Like so many other people living in 3rd world nations (from Latin America to Africa to Southeast Asia) whose governments accepted offers from the IMF, Yemenis took it to the streets. And, yes, like in so many of those other countries, people were killed in the ensuing protests. --Kitrus 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't describing the behavior of the Yeminis in the film as despicable or non-despicable. I was stating that the behavior in the fictitious movie is within the realm of possibility for real behavior as seen in the USA Today link. I am not judging Yemeni behavior in the real world or in the movie. I understand that they do not have an easy life. According to the CIA World Factbook, the Median age for Yemenis is 16.6 years, the literacy rate is just above 50%, and the population below the poverty line is 45.2%. That makes for a massive amount of stress on them.

If you want to bring up "Almost everyone would agree that the way you describe Muslims as typically behaving is despicable." I'm going to argue that many Muslims would not find that behavior too despicable and I would thank you to not ignore their feelings on this subject with a blanket (ethnocentric) dismissal.

Your assertion that I was being racist is offensive and I think deserves some form of censure. Your ignorance and inability to consider things rationally while screaming the party line, about a piece of fiction no less, makes for an impression of an extremely shallow and weak-minded individual. Deathbunny 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"I was stating that the behavior in the fictitious movie is within the realm of possibility for real behavior as seen in the USA Today link."

Why are you even bringing this up? Please stick to the topic, this is not a discussion forum, nor a platform for you to explain the intentions of the creators of the movie and the actions portrayed in the movie or prove that the events are plausible. Please discuss the development of the article, and avoid making inappropiate statements, which are more likely to inflame than create constructive discussions.

Anyway, back to the topic, for this article to be neutral, we should not interject our own personal opinion about the movie, whether your opinion is that the movie is racist or your opinion is that it is inspired by actual events, thus not racist but accurate. We should avoid labeling the movie racist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, but the article definitely should keep the section on criticism and controversy of the movie because there has been plenty and it is notable. I think the section should be expanded. --Inahet 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I probably shouldn't have let what happened on this page turn into an off-topic discussion. I also realized, later after User:Derex edited out a lot of what I added, that I was putting a lot of opinion in where I probably shouldn't have. I believe the edits I made since then are more along the lines of what was there, in the movie, than what people might percieve to be there. Thank you for taking a look. Deathbunny 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Well, happy editing. - Inahet 23:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My belated reply:

It is unfortunate that you have resorted to name-calling and ad hominem attacks behind a computer screen. It has now been made clear that you have reached the point where you can no longer argue with a cool head. Calling me "ignorant" or "irrational" or "shallow" or "weak-minded" will get you nowhere but banned. Furthermore, as an individual who had a 1.97 GPA (!) in one of the most facile education systems on the planet and a community college graduate, you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence, termite extermination knowledge aside.[1] What you have shown instead, through your outbursts, are possible symptoms of a larger personal problem: a lack of self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, psychological projection, name-your-defense mechanism, etc...

It's no wonder that you've failed to grasp my response to your USA Today link. Slabbing a few Googled statistics together doesn't prove anything.--Kitrus 00:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My background is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether what I wrote is true or not. Your attitude and what you said, from behind your computer screen, fits what I said. Your accusations of racism and holier-than-thou attitude are irrational and your inability to consider the fact that others have a different take on something you find offensive bely a weakness of mind and an ignorance that I don't care to try and explain to you. Your implied threat that you would or could somehow intimidate me to the point I wouldn't state what I believe is true were we face to face is also indicative of someone who can't argue a point on merits and not resort to violence. I think you really need to take a step back and do some soul-searching before you start whining about someone else's ethics.Deathbunny 03:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"It is unfortunate that you have resorted to name-calling and ad hominem attacks behind a computer screen."

Now that I think about it, that is a terribly ironic statement by you.

Why?

One form of ad hominem attack is the disregarding of one person's idea(s) based on a slight towards them as a person. Such as: "Furthermore, as an individual who had a 1.97 GPA (!) in one of the most facile education systems on the planet and a community college graduate, you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence, termite extermination knowledge aside." and "What you have shown instead, through your outbursts, are possible symptoms of a larger personal problem: a lack of self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, psychological projection, name-your-defense mechanism, etc..."

The closest any of what I wrote approaches a 'personal attack' is "Your assertion that I was being racist is offensive and I think deserves some form of censure. Your ignorance and inability to consider things rationally while screaming the party line, about a piece of fiction no less, makes for an impression of an extremely shallow and weak-minded individual." and was entirely based on your inability to argue the point of the discussion preferring instead to call names and try to pigeonhole what I said into what you might consider "racism". I restricted my observations, both here an in User talk:Deathbunny to what you have said and what you have done without any ascribing of any traits you may or may not have.

You expect "respect and decency", I expect the same and would appreciate if you restrict any further interactions with me to discussions on factual matters regarding specific articles based on their merit and degree of correctness. (This will be repasted into my User talk page for historical reference.) Deathbunny 21:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

One other thing, the last line in the Critisiscm section "Also worth noting is that the movie depicts Mass-murder against civilians as a legitimate tool to achieve Military Victory" was clearly written by someone who hasn't actually watched the film. The action is centered around a trial, whose purpose is to determine if the Samuel L Jackson character ordered his men to fire into a crowd of civilians, or to return fire on armed combatants, who were seeking cover amongst the civillians. Perhaps a subtle point, but I thought it was pretty blatant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs) 16:43, March 27, 2007

Set the record straight. Made it clear the "criticism" ("Also worth noting is that the movie depicts Mass-murder against civilians as a legitimate tool to achieve Military Victory") was only an opinion shared by some, and then stated the actual facts of the movie which directly contradict the quoted statement.
This statement is completely false but is clearly representative of how some people feel after watching the movie. I thought it better to rebut it by stating the actual facts than to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.228.152.6 (talk • contribs) 22:41, April 5, 2007

Well the criticism ("Also worth noting is that the movie depicts Mass-murder against civilians as a legitimate tool to achieve Military Victory") Is not only true but totally accurate in my opinion , Yes indeed the final morale of this motion picture is that US forces "enjoy" the right of slaughtering anybody whether unarmed or not in order to "secure" US interests.

To be honest , I can't explain how a movie that represents such a racist , quasi-fascist and human degrading mentality , found it's way into the box office! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.1.10 (talk • contribs) 00:09, April 10, 2007

The above comments are heavily opinionated, and the "criticism" section of the article is embarrassing, at best, and offensive to the academic community, at worse. The "review" quoted is nothing more than a poorly written rant about the film by some BA wielding student, and in no way should it qualify as sufficient to be quoted as a source.

The scenes of the Arab crowd in this film might as well have been taken from actual footage of anywhere from Pakistan to Palestine. Mobs such as these are all-to-common in the Middle East, and calling the film "racist" for depicting such, while an opinion, is the sort of literary tripe that turns people off wikipedia. I strongly suggest an editor remove the section, for the sake of this websites objective integrity. 76.174.66.220 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "The 'review' quoted is nothing more than a poorly written rant about the film by some BA wielding student, and in no way should it qualify as sufficient to be quoted as a source," per above. Rudy Breteler (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

as nobody have voiced disagreement with this, I have removed the mention of this non noteworthy film critic. Rudy Breteler (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fallujah

When I began this article 4 years ago, I mentioned the parallels to a real-life incident in Fallujah, as well as the military ethics regulating confrontations between the US military and civilians. What happened to this information? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to answer my own question, maybe that's because the 2003 incident in Fallujah occurred 3 years after the film was made. So the film could not have been based on that particular incident.

Nonetheless, the theme of armed US troops confronting civilians is not going to go away. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

based on a true story

The end says it's based on a true story.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the end doesn't say that, and it isn't.--193.160.157.241 (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The ending says what happened afterwards as if it was a true story which is very misleading imo and should be noted in the article. Lame propaganda film Simanos (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)