Posted by Richard Dewsbery on 03/13/06 16:53

>"Gunther Gloop" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

> > Indeed. Although the only side presented in the film is their side -
> > and for the forst half of the film, I didn't believe a bit of it.
> >
> > It did provide me with a degree of entertainment, though.
> >
>
> I'm looking forward to it anyway -mainly because of the director and for
the
> "second half" that has been pretty much corroborated by people on both
> sides.

I have little doubt that most - or even all - of the second half is true and
accurate (or at least a whole lot more true and accurate than any American
propaganda about the camp is).

> The rest would have to be more one-sided since they are the only ones who
> know themselves.
> But I think I would be a little more inclined to go along with their
version
> of events anyway in lieu of any verifiable details to the contrary.
> Afterall, I don't think anyone gets out of that place without everything
> being checked out as much as humanly possible.
> And even then, if there is still a doubt... don't think it'd happen.

Ever read the Real Bravo Two Zero? Someone went back and retraced the route
of the SAS patrol from the first Gulf War - checking out as much as humanly
possible - and found it almost impossible to corroborate a single piece of
information in the original books. Yet an awful lot of people found those
books very plausible.

Whereas I found the first half of this film extremely implausible - watch
it, and you'll see what I mean. It didn't make the Americans' treatment of
them any more justifiable IMO, but the real harm it might have done is in
making cynics doubt that the second half was any more accurate than the
first.

Richard

[Back to original message]