Nuclear Iran

Movie review

In response to Oliver Stone’s attempt to make a film about Ahmadinejhad, a conservative Tehran paper reviews the director’s oevre:

Oliver Stone is the same famous Hollywood director who in 2004 made the film Alexander about the life and battles of Alexander of Macedonia and engaged in blatant alterations of historical truths against Iran. In addition, by offering an unrealistic and sensationalist image of Alexander, introduced him as a free, justice-seeking and just person and in contrast, showed the Iranian nation as barbaric and a savage race and at no point in the film does he point out the burning of the glorious Persepolis structure which represented the Iranians’ civilisation and the height of Alexander’s savagery. This is despite the fact that because of his overthrow of the Achaemenid dynasty and the savage mass killings and attacks carried out by his army, Alexander is a hated figure among Iranians. Also, through his film, the World Trade Centre and in keeping with the Pentagon and in line with the White House, he tried to show the 9/11 event as an attack by the world of Islam against the western world and western civilisation. Incidentally, two years previously, Stone had also made a documentary about Fidel Castro which was met by Castro’s protest and dissatisfaction. Although he introduces himself as one of the critics and opponents of Bush’s and the White House’s warmongering policies, he supported George Bush in America’s presidential elections.

Among Oliver Stone’s other works, films such as Platoon, JFK, The Doors and Nixon can be pointed out and The Doors was in commemoration of one of America’s perverted and half mad singers; someone who urinated on the head of his fans during his concerts and enjoyed doing so and who finally died in Paris as a result of a drug overdose and was buried in the Pere Lachaise cemetery.

The film JFK was made with the aim of drawing a picture of John F Kennedy as a political saint as ordered by America’s Democratic Party who during the first elections against Bush senior, introduced Bill Clinton as the person most similar to Kennedy and the film played an undeniable role in Bill Clinton successfully entering the White House. And finally, in the film Nixon, an overthrown and warmongering president who initiated several wars is shown as an innocent and blameless individual. All these facts leave no room for doubt of Oliver Stone’s affiliation to America’s key policies; despite the fact that some groups, out of ignorance, call and introduce him as an independent filmmaker.

Now the question remains that has Oliver Stone, suddenly and single-handedly risen to reveal certain truths and to enlighten the American nation? At a time when under orders from their politicians, policy makers and the ruling system, it is on the agenda of the western world’s media to portray Mr Ahmadinejhad as a harsh, dogmatic, inhuman and … individual, does Stone want to move against this current? Why has he decided to choose Ahmadinejhad, a figure disapproved by western and American officials, as the topic of his film? Will Ahmadinejhad’s active diplomacy and foreign policy based on interaction with Iran and forging ahead be portrayed or will Iran be portrayed as warmongering, violent, abusive of human rights and undemocratic?

A group of American academicians invited Dr Ahmadinejhad to Columbia University to make a speech and to engage in a question and answer debate but contrary to academic conduct and procedure and manipulated by White House politicians, they tried seriously to discredit him and to portray him as extremely savage and inhuman, in which endeavour they were heavily defeated however. How can we now trust such a deceitful culture with its double standards and forget the Americans’ propaganda and negative portrayals and voluntarily go under the hand of the filmmaker’s blade so as not to have any chance of self defence later on.

In any case, we are afraid that the outcome of such a venture will not be the true and realistic portrayal of an intellectual and a peacemaker such as Ahmadinejhad but a portrayal of Ahmadinejhad according to Stone, Hollywood and global Zionism and in that case there will be no opportunity for complaint because there is no solution to an act which is done voluntarily.

Science Friction

Earlier today I sat on a panel on “The Future of War” with a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst and an author. The DIA guy, an old Sovietologist, moderated.

The whole thing started off normal enough. We talked about the communication needs of today’s military and how the flow of information can be disrupted. I mostly talked about the physical danger to the satellite infrastructure. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, the moderator started talking about the need to think about the kind of enemy we will be facing. In the Middle East, in particular. He wondered if in such a cultural/civilizational conflict one could still distinguish between civilians and combatants. If not, he suggested, we might want to start thinking about means of war that amount to genocide (his word).

It went down hill from there. People stormed out of the room. One guy started shouting about U.S. imperialism.

Eventually things calmed down and we discussed the bioweapons threat at my urging, and we had some healthy disagreement about what was likely. We eventually wrapped the whole thing up with the obligatory “all of this doesn’t matter because the Chinese will take over the world” platitudes.

My goodie bag from the conference included:

1. The November 2005 edition of “Locus – The Magazine of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Field.”
2. This January’s “Fantasy&ScienceFiction,” a pulp journal with the short story “How to talk to girls at parties,” which culminates in a pubescent boy encountering unusual anatomy in a party hook-up. I’m not into Freudian stuff, but I’m sure there’s something psychologically revealing about the author in that.
3. The Program Book, which offers the helpful pointer: “The more you cover up hotel property, the less it can get damaged.”

 

 

Rude to the boob

Lee Bollinger should have consulted Miss Manners on how to treat a guest. His now-famous introduction of Ahmadinejad was terribly rude and amplified the popular impression of Americans as arrogant. The good that came out of the spectacle was that he was laughed at and looked like the buffoon that he is. The bad part was that it made him look like the victim of American bullying, which is exactly how he wants the confrontation over his country’s nuclear shenanigans to be seen.

Bollinger take note: some people have been tasered for being less insulting. I was at the scene of the crime this weekend and my friend pointed out a fraternity with a “We support UPD” banner pasted to their red-brick mansion. He mused that “even this has become a left-right issue.”