The reviewer for the National Post wrote: “15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.”
Yes, of course. The movie should have dwelt on all the terrible things that racist, “Islamophobic” Westerners did to the poor fellow to drive him to misunderstand his peaceful religion.
The reviewer for the Daily Mail, the worst paper in the Western world, opted for some repulsive moral equivalence between the jihadi and those who stopped him: “In that sacred American way, incidentally, their Christianity is not incompatible with an obsession with firearms…The narrative throbs with Eastwood’s conviction — shared, as we know, by President Trump — that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.”
Of course. Every right-thinking person knows that the best way to stop a bad guy is to shower money and special accommodations upon him until he is love-bombed into pacifism.
“Hollywood Elites Blast Clint Eastwood’s Film for Not Portraying ‘Sympathetic Terrorist,’” by Ben Marquis, Conservative Tribune, February 16, 2018:
Islamic terrorist Ayoub El-Khazzani boarded a train headed from Amsterdam to Paris in 2015, wielding an AK-47 rifle, handgun and box-cutter, with the goal of murdering innocent passengers in a jihadist attack.
Little did he know, there were three Americans on that train — Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone. When the jihadist experienced difficulties operating his rifle, these brave men sprang into action, thwarting the attack and saving countless lives.
The heroic actions of those three friends was recorded in a book that was then adapted into a film by conservative Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood. Eastwood cast the three friends to play themselves in a movie portraying their bravery.
Despite all this, elitist Hollywood liberals have found reason to hate it, as was evidenced by numerous reviews of the film by left-leaning media outlets, according to Hollywood In Toto.
Liberal film reviewers had already made their opinions of Eastwood and American patriotism known following the 2014 release of “American Sniper,” but they have reiterated their anti-Americanism and sympathy toward Islamic extremists in their reviews of “The 15:17 To Paris.”
The reviewer for the National Post complained that the movie was akin to sitting through somebody else’s vacation, and lamented that the terrorist didn’t receive enough screen time. He wrote: “15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.”
The reviewer for Slate also griped about feeling like he was watching a slideshow of another person’s vacation in Europe, and took up too much of the film too boot, and wrote, “The sense of wheelspinning only underlines the movie’s failure to make its antagonist more than a cartoon scowl with a Kalashnikov. The geese in Sully (a Tom Hanks film about a passenger jet which crash landed on the Hudson River) were more well-rounded characters.”
The Slant Magazine reviewer, when not sneering at conservatives, Christianity, the military and Eastwood’s method of film-making, took issue with the film’s departure from the “surprisingly visceral and nuanced book,” and wrote, “One misses the prismatic structure of the 15:17 to Paris book, which fuses multiple points of view—including El-Khazzani’s—and which is reduced by (screenwriter) Dorothy Blyskal’s script to cut-and-pasted bromides.”
Over at The Daily Beast, the reviewer stated that the film was “more mind-numbing than his empty chair speech” and called it a “stunning misfire.” Of the terrorist, he wrote, “As for the villain in question, Eastwood primarily films his hands, sneakers, arms, and back, all as a means of making him some sort of faceless existential threat — a symbolic vehicle for Stone’s ‘greater purpose.’ Mostly, though, it’s just another example of The 15:17 to Paris’ regrettable blankness.”…
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette review, which did lament the exclusion of “any hint of the terrorist’s motivation,” led the way with an open bashing of American patriotism combined with a not-so-subtle shot at Trump, and wrote, “There’s a certain repellent hubris about (Eastwood’s) patriotic formula: Make America grate again, on the rest of the world, in paint-by-numbers (red, white and blue), which happen to be the same as the Tricouleur — not that Mr. Eastwood makes any use or reference to that.”
The reviewer for the The U.K. Daily Mail wrote of the three heroes, “In that sacred American way, incidentally, their Christianity is not incompatible with an obsession with firearms,” and continued with, “The narrative throbs with Eastwood’s conviction — shared, as we know, by President Trump — that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.”
Last, but certainly not least, we have the review from The New Yorker, in which the reviewer called the film a “reactionary fable” and described a scene in which a young Sadler and Stone play with an “arsenal” of toy guns, about which the reviewer wrote, “As I watched the scene, I thought, You could cut it out of this movie and paste it, unchanged, into another one, about a nice suburban kid who grows up and carries out a mass shooting.”
That New Yorker reviewer also criticized the lack of answers to questions about the terrorist, and wrote, “Was this not an ideal opportunity to trace the paths — whether of grievance, paranoia, faith, or wrath — that lead a young man to dreams of slaughter? Was he not, in his way, catapulted toward his purpose no less firmly than Stone and his companions were, and with an equally fervent belief that he was obeying the decrees of his God?”…
Jim Self says
We sure do have a lot of pansies in the media.
gravenimage says
Oh, they are worse than pansies–they are apologists for evil.
Wellington says
Yep.
Alain Barchichat says
I am sorry to disagree with you, but I think the media are evil in themselves, not just supporters of evil.
gravenimage says
Not everyone in the media is evil–but these vicious “critics” certainly are.
Save Europe says
The Daily Express is the only UK paper worth reading – they tell the truth daily on grooming gangs, FGM, Jihadis, illegal entry into Europe etc , I admire the paper – the only one who were utterly pro Brexit, from start to finish.
Shelagh Robert says
Daily Mail runs with the hares and hunts with the hounds! It can’t decide who it supports.
Save Europe says
Yes, it sits on the fence, with a rectal bleed, very much indeed.
Gareth says
The Daily Mail is certainly not the worst paper in the Western world – it is not even the worst paper in the UK. The Guardian and Independent are far worse.
Robert Spencer says
No, the Daily Mail is far worse than both. With the Guardian and Independent you know you’re getting pro-jihad twaddle. But the Daily Mail covers the jihad very well — and then turns around and smears and defames those who oppose jihad terror. That’s why it’s the worst paper in the Western world.
LeftisruiningCanada says
True i think, at least within the English press. The DM sucks in conservatives with it’s stance on several issues, while still feeding leftist ideas in on the sly. It’s sneaky. The Grauniad is at least consistently awful.
Nigel GFF says
Yes Mr Spencer, the Daily Mail can be disappointing,…pernicious (harmful, damaging, destructive, injurious, hurtful, detrimental, deleterious, dangerous, adverse, inimical, unhealthy, unfavourable, bad, evil, baleful, wicked, malign, malevolent, malignant, noxious, poisonous, cancerous, corrupting, ruinous, deadly, lethal, fatal;)
“…Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.” (WS: Sonnet 94)
CRUSADER says
Good to know your perspective and distinguishing discrimination toward these media rags.
mortimer says
QUESTION FOR HOLLYWOOD ELITES: CAN YOU FIND ANY THING ‘WARM’ ABOUT THE DOCTRINE OF AL WALAA WAL BARAA??? Please read the following authentic quotes for ‘sympathetic feelings’ in Islam…
ISLAM HAS A DOCTRINE OF HATE: ‘AL BARAA’ = Islamic Apartheid, Shunning
The hatred of Kafirs ‘for the sake of Allah’…Al Bughoud or Al Mu’adaat (hatred) is the opposite of Al Muwalaat (love of Muslims), it is:
– To Hate
– To keep distance from
– To be enemy to
– To desert
– To decline to help
– To disrespect
– To put down
– Not to ally with
– Not to support
Allah ordered Muslims to have Baraa (to be cleansed) from the kufaar and from kufr and shirk.
-Imam Abdul-Latif ibn Abdur-Rahman Rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed and act upon it, and yet not be HOSTILE against the mushrikeen. So anyone who isn’t HOSTILE against the mushrikeen (wrong worshippers), then it cannot be said that he acts upon Tawheed nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
-“The doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa is the REAL IMAGE for the actual practice of this faith.” – source “Al Walaa wal Baraa According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf”, by Sheikh Muhammad Saeed al Qatani, authoritative Saudi Sharia lawyer and imam at the Abu Bakr and Al Furqan Mosques in Mecca. – https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/al-wala-wal-bara-according-to-the-aqeedah-of-the-salaf-parts-123/
-Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Atiq said:
“There isn’t in the Book of Allah the Exalted – after the issue concerning the obligation of tawheed and the forbiddance of its opposite (kufr=wrong worshipping)- any issue which has as so many proofs, nor so clearly explained, than the issue of al-walaa’ and al-baraa’.” (W-B is Islamic apartheid)
Examples of al-Baraa from historic figures:
– from Sufi scholar Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): “The honour of Islam lies in INSULTING kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to HUMILIATE them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain TERRIFIED and TREMBLING. It is intended to hold them under CONTEMPT and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”
– from ibn Taymiyya, “Book of Emaan”: “… true believers show ANIMOSITY and HATRED towards disbelievers and NEVER support them.”
utis says
When someone threatens you with a knife or gun, you do not think about his/her sad childhood, ideology or troubled psyche. Survival instinct is telling you, “how do I get this roach off me without getting myself killed.”
Speaking of parasites — movie critics. They’d do the world better sweating a little and using their bare hands to repair the infrastructure or to build lavish homes like their own for the homeless.
Shmoovie says
Critics have a much more important job. They are doing their part in the world by warning Slate, New Yorker, Young Turks etc. readers of any remaining intolerance, phobia or reality in the movies. Most look at the people involved, glance over a one-paragraph synopsis then ‘write’ a collection of clever brickbats against guns, right-wingers, and America. Although some might actually suffer through a viewing..
You’d think something like this would flunk CAIR/UN approval and its run would be limited to a few select cities.
CRUSADER says
>>When someone threatens you with a knife or gun, you do not think about his/her sad childhood, ideology or troubled psyche. Survival instinct is telling you, “how do I get this roach off me without getting myself killed.”<<
UTIS, indeed, this is what many don't understand. In Self Defense, Offensive Mindset is key to survival.
It's usually not until they are attacked or someone they love is attacked, and then they start to "get it".
CRUSADER says
….but maybe not so much a roach, but a scorpion, or a critter more dangerous….
Mike Elmore says
The paradox of modernity. Where else could you have an economic model that would even allowed for such a luxury. Think about it. Being a movie critic could only happen in a material world completely self absorbed in fun and fantasy. This ilk of people 100 years ago would never of been in charge of anything and would of been so low on the pecking order as to be insignificant. Now we have a whole industry built around this entertainment model. Worst of course is now they are lecturing us on morels, fairness, hurt feelings and social justice. To paraphrase, I believe it was author Lee Harris and I apologize if I am incorrect, ” Modernity has been its own gravedigger”. Words never truer when dealing with Islam.
Mike Elmore says
In my previous reply I was incorrect when paraphrasing Lee Harris. It was Peter Berger in his book The Sacred Canopy. Here is what he wrote. “After Western religion paved the way for modernity, advanced modernity was now finally killing off religion. Christianity has been its own gravedigger.” And that was written back in the 60’s.
Michael Copeland says
Yes, New Yorker, the terrorist WAS catapulted towards his purpose.
The catapult was a book Have a look at it some time, say, Chapter 9.
He was doing “exactly what this book says”.
CRUSADER says
Aw! Chapter Nine? That gives it away!
Shucks.
Now, you’ve ruined the suspense! LOL 🙂
David George says
It would be very interesting if Clint Eastwood released a revised movie where he focused on the terrorists devotion to Islam and how this was reinforced by Imams, fellow terrorists and reading the Quran.
Dave
CRUSADER says
This film leaves you with the chance to question all that.
Maybe there will a sequel. It was novel of Clint Eastwood not to go into that stuff…
….just let the view sit with it, and know it is a film about regular guys…who happened on to something….
gravenimage says
I don’t think Clint Eastwood is apt to cave.
greyhound fancier says
The critics’ response to THAT would be interesting!
CRUSADER says
Nope.
Can’t wait for his next movie.
Wonder what theme / topic it will cover.
Carol (the 1st) says
Put the Coen Brothers on it. “No Country for Old Men” is terrific and the rudderless, psychotic windmill called Chigurh is very reminiscent of Islam. Always testing, testing – but with nowhere to go but downhill.
Dan says
Truth be told, I didn’t have much intention of seeing this movie as, while it was a great example of courage, I just couldn’t really see a whole movie being built around it.
HOWEVER…
Since the loonie left has it’s panties in wad?
It’s good enough for me.
Plus I never knew Clint Eastwood was involved. Except for a few flops, he’s always done great stuff, and I’ve got a lot of his dvds.
By the way.
All you liberal movie stars and producers and directors and what not who complain about piracy and lost profits?
That might be in part because you’ve pushed socialism so hard people don’t think of watching pirated movies are theft, so much as they think it’s that you’re filthy rich and they’re not so you don’t need anymore money. And that if you don’t let people see your movies for free, you’re just one of those “greedy capitalists” you hate so much.
Also, when you put out those anti piracy ads in the theater?
Please don’t whine how it affects the carpenters, and electricians, and the extras and the caterers and all the who nots because it doesn’t.
They all got paid, and you’re just using them to get sympathy.
The only people who loose when it comes to a pirated piece of work are the investors in the film and those who have percentages.
Ironically, usually the ones pushing socialist movements and beliefs so…
Either shut up and be proud to share your hard work for free…
Or at least shut up.
I’d go on about the Muslims now but, I’m sure everybody else here will be more than happy to cover that.
CRUSADER says
“15:17 to Paris” is a movie told in a ‘just so’ format….rather novel in some ways.
This current film is CLINT EASTWOOD.
So OF COURSE you go see it!!!!
Other reasons:
Events actually happened.
They unfold on film in realistic ways.
Sure the acting could be better, but they aren’t actors, they are
the REAL DEAL.
It’s told as a story, of humans, by humans, not “actors”.
Can it be considered weak? Sure.
I consider it a life story, told, just so.
I kept open through the whole movie, and by the end, I was okay with it.
Heck, even the normally lame and bland Socialist president of France comes out alright for once!
His speech was inspiring, actually.
The incident on the train occurs as it occurred. How many films can say that?
It shows — in a real way, just as “12 Strong” had realism to it in a different way —
how an ordinary situation can turn unusual and then extraordinary.
I would recommend all you EMTs and jiujitsu-ka out there to see the movie, as you
would appreciate aspects of the film….
Film needs support.
Just as “The Promise” did. As “12 Strong” has needed.
I would gladly reassign my movie ticket to “Cujo” of long-ago to instead
see “15:17 to Paris”…. which I did see anyway, without further compunction.
HOORAH!!!
Ray Jarman says
Remember the criticism of Eastwood’s movie about Iwo Jima? They complained that there were no blacks hoisting the flag. Eastwood always tries to remain true to history and this movie seems to be no exception. The left refuses to see the truth and the old phrase that a picture is worth a thousand words simply does not work either.
Raja says
Sympathy for terrorist who wants to kill you or enslave you for just being what you are?
These journalist idiots are already enslaved to political correctness and multi-culture that they don’t know what they stand for !!!
They can’t hate evil, can’t perceive threat ,ever ready to die just as the vile Islam expects of them. Islam is already in hyper action..
‘
gravenimage says
+1
CRUSADER says
Actor portraying the trained Train Jihadist was intended to resemble Evil incarnated.
The fact that the film showed that the Jihadist fought like he was supercharged (as on some narcotic) and did injure his subduer despite not being able to get a round off shows that Eastwood did sympathize enough with the perp.
CRUSADER says
FYI
Robert Spencer utilizes sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek, and entendre when he is speaking about “racism”
for all of you readers on this who don’t seem to get this, and haven’t read much on Jihad Watch….
FYI
Kay says
“”Was he not, in his way, catapulted toward his purpose no less firmly than Stone and his companions were, and with an equally fervent belief that he was obeying the decrees of his God?”…”
———
Undoubtedly. One god asks that you kill and be killed. God, the author of life, urges us to choose life and to value others’ lives.
I heard one of these young heroes interviewed on the radio. It was a kind of situation that many Christians will recognize when plans are unexpectedly changed and only in retrospect can we see that it allowed us to do God’s work of saving lives.
I hope filmgoers will flock to see the film in spite of these nasty reviews.
CRUSADER says
>> I hope filmgoers will flock to see the film in spite of these nasty reviews. <<
How about BECAUSE of nasty reviews. We live in a polar opposite era.
Do what is deemed not to be done.
Don't do what is deemed to be done.
That's how Trump won.
God Bless.
Tom Noyb says
Robert Spencer – you are an abject DORK!! You try to present yourself as a journalist – a person who should have a better than average understanding of the language they are choosing to represent and you are so bloody DUMB you haven’t worked out that you cannot be “racist” in condemning a CULT. Every race in the world is represented in islam bobbie so how does opposition to their kill everyone ideology make one racist? Please explain.
Also -grab a dictionary and look up “phobia” bobbie. You’ll find that a “phobia” is an unreasonable or unreasoned fear.” So pleae explain what is “unreasonable” about fearing a buch of lunatics whose STATED OBJECTIVE is to kill ALL infidels (everyone but a muslim) who refuse to convert? I think you need to go back to school mate – probably abround grade four and don’t write anymore until you actually understand what you are saying. be a good boy now.
gravenimage says
Tom Noyb wrote:
Robert Spencer – you are an abject DORK!! You try to present yourself as a journalist – a person who should have a better than average understanding of the language they are choosing to represent and you are so bloody DUMB you haven’t worked out that you cannot be “racist” in condemning a CULT. Every race in the world is represented in islam bobbie so how does opposition to their kill everyone ideology make one racist? Please explain.
………………………….
Robert Spencer has never said that opposing the savagery of Islam is racist–he has just noted that others have falsely characterized it in this manner.
More:
Also -grab a dictionary and look up “phobia” bobbie. You’ll find that a “phobia” is an unreasonable or unreasoned fear.” So pleae explain what is “unreasonable” about fearing a buch of lunatics whose STATED OBJECTIVE is to kill ALL infidels (everyone but a muslim) who refuse to convert? I think you need to go back to school mate – probably abround grade four and don’t write anymore until you actually understand what you are saying. be a good boy now.
………………………….
Robert Spencer has, in fact, many times noted how ludicrous and dishonest the term “Islamophobia” is, and how cynical its use often is–how could you have missed this?
It seems, in fact, that you haven’t really read much of anything at Jihad Watch.
CRUSADER says
Tom is just being an annoying Noyb.
Obviously this blowhard blockheaded bloke hasn’t read much of the many Robert Spencer treatises.
They are all masterfully written, researched, well-studied, presented, etc. We are fortunate to have such a man in our midst offering us wise counsel and intellectual prose.
There is a reason why Spencer is a formidable debater, and why many (in opposition) can’t muster the courage to debate him. While others have to resort to the time-worn Leftist trick of character assassination of a man with truly important things to say about awareness and concern. The knowledge he imparts to us stems from a deep base of understanding, from a very long period of observance. And, his mind is a sponge of much useful as well as even humorous realism.
But, somehow, Noyb here thinks he can be justified to snipe in his anonymous way at a real scholar.
Pathetic, Noyb.
Just do us and yourself a favor and pick up three or four Robert Spencer books and take some time out, breathe and read through them, thoroughly, please. Take some time, please, do. Take some time. Grow.
Happy reading.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Think you missed Mr Spencer’s irony Mr Noyb.
Wellington says
Islam does terrible things to the mind. As demonstrated here in this article by Robert Spencer, so does Leftism.
And once again at JW I will openly contemplate a world without Islam or Leftism. Quite unlikely of course, even completely unrealistic, but still, I would contend, a beautiful thought.
CRUSADER says
Isn’t that called something like MuslimThink?
Billy Chickens says
A friend and I took that same train once years ago. Two young guys saw us in our compartment and came in to sit thinking we’d welcome them. After they started edging closer and trying to kiss us I flicked out my stiletto and told them to get lost. Their eyes bugged out of their heads and they jumped up and got out as fast as they could. Never saw them or anyone else until we got to Paris.
Gray says
‘Theatre critics are like eunuchs in the harem. They see it done every night, but they can’t do it themselves.’ (Kenneth Williams)
Michele says
Muhammad tried to convert peacefully. But he was mocked; called insane. His only followers in the first 12 years were family and close friends. So he found it absolutely necessary to KILL ALL HIS CRITICS…and run murderous, rape and plunder raids into villages in order to get followers. Followers came in droves. Joining Islam meant “war booty” of rape, land and possessions. He was little more than a murderous, plundering land pirate. Anyone who disagreed was murdered. Men were murdered, women and children were raped and enslaved. Muslims got free: land, possessions, rape and slaves. Murdering non Muslims and stealing their land and possessions was a perk of Islam. Sharia is based on Muhammad’s life, considered the perfect, god-given law. Can never be changed. Murdering, raping, plundering you (collective non Muslim) is not only halal (allowed), but ordered and demanded by Islam. The only certain way to reach Paradise (eternal orgy in the sky) is to kill an Infidel. Allah bragged he was the best of deceivers and Muhammad bragged he had been made victorious through terror…….Today Muslims are laughing their heads off…..they can strike fear by screaming “Islamophobia”…….Don’t even need to use their calling card of head chopping. As instructed by the Koran.
Phobic-ist says
Spot on!!
CRUSADER says
Ooooh. I like the concept of “Phobicism”.
Hey, Michele, that was a wonderful elevator encapsulation of Islam/Shariah/Mohammadism.
Carol (the 1st) says
Ooooh!…well, when you put it that way….!
Ren says
Ignorance is not a virtue as claiming that islam is a peaceful religion is not a smart statement.
John says
I applaud Eastwood who will give an honest account of Islamic terrorism. Anyone why sympathises with the Islamists are nothing short of idiots!
Michele says
WHY DO MUSLIMS TERRORIZE? Being a terrorist is to be the most holy of the Muslims; carrying out the Koran to the letter. Terrorists get huge wages from Islam, pays much better than going to work. They have the highest position in the Muslim community. Their relatives suddenly are highly regarded and respected. If they die killing the non Muslim, they are immediately transported to the eternal orgy in the sky, Paradise. Where they are blessed with endless perpetual virgins and an eternal erection. This is why one often sees terrorists running around with metal plates and lumps of concrete dangling in front of their naughty bits. They want to remain intact for entry into Paradise. While the terrorist is transported straight to Paradise, their earthly relatives receive the highest accolades and pensions for life. Becoming a terrorist has nothing to do with insufficient love bombing and money from the Infidel……They are after their eternal erection and perpetual virgins…..untold wealth and leaving their families with fantastic pensions for life. Perhaps we need to really understand the draw of Paradise….really understand why Muslim terrorists are dying to die and murder the Infidel.
CRUSADER says
Another good encapsulation. Thank you Michele.
And an interesting question to pose, as well.
dumbledoresarmy says
I remember when this originall happened. It was, of course, discussed very thoroughly here at jihadwatch.
And.. I have always thought that the three guys – mates, two of them with military training, working as a team, which is how they were able to be so effective – saved many more lives than the lives of those who were passengers on the train.
Because remember, this is the *Very Fast Train*.
I’ll BET the jihadi intended to *hijack* the train and then either drive it – or force the driver to drive it – FULL TILT, MAXIMUM SPEED into the biggest and most crowded railway station on the line. I think that – just as on 9/11 the jihadis crashed fully loaded planes into buildings – *this bloke* intended to crash a fully-loaded *train*, so as to kill not only the people on the train, but *also* hundreds of people on the platform/s.
This attack could in fact have been worse than the Bataclan, worse than Nice.
But it was stopped, by three brave men.
Saint Michael the Archangel – patron of soldiers and policemen – was riding that train, that day.
Mockingjay says
Maybe you’re right, DDA, maybe that was part of the plan – but even if people would have managed to pull the emergency brakes shortly after the shooting started, it would still have taken MUCH time for the train to come to a full stop – and probably even longer for the doors to be opened… Good God – it would have been a bloodbath of unimaginable proportions – all those people on the train with nowhere to go. In fact – many could have even been shot in the back AFTER they would have managed to get outside…
I thought about this so many times, about what COULD have happened, and like you, I also strongly believe that there has been some kind of supernatural intervention that day.
Of course, the skeptics might ask: why then aren’t ALL terrorist attacks twharted like it happened here? Although that is a valid question in itself, I believe that on our earthly plane, not ALL evil can so easily be neutralized, even if that is God’s wish for us.
It is just not always possible. But sometimes it is.
CRUSADER says
Why does the trained Jihadist go shirtless on the train?
Perhaps to offer opposers to have less grasp on him?
Kay says
I hadn’t realized that the attack could have been deadly to more than the passengers.
As to why all evil attacks aren’t stopped. One thing is (and not to minimize the tragedies) we don’t know that they aren’t somehow reduced. Secondly, it takes people willing to speak in truth and act bravely. Speaking truth is often characterized as bigotry and acting bravely for others’ good is also (amazingly) derided.
Z says
Have u seen the trash they produce? They wouldn’t know a good story if it punched them in the face
Santa Voorhees says
So, the establishment media is sympathetic to jihad terrorists. Truly says a lot!
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
I will be buying theatre tickets to see Eastwood’s masterful film. And when it comes out on video, I will be renting several times. You should too.
CRUSADER says
Good choice to do that affirmative act.
See “12 Strong” and “The Promise” as well….
Indiana Tom says
that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.” Well….it is a start.
CRUSADER says
It is how they prepare for defense at Israel schools.
mgoldberg says
“…That New Yorker reviewer also criticized the lack of answers to questions about the terrorist, and wrote, “Was this not an ideal opportunity to trace the paths — whether of grievance, paranoia, faith, or wrath — that lead a young man to dreams of slaughter? Was he not, in his way, catapulted toward his purpose no less firmly than Stone and his companions were, and with an equally fervent belief that he was obeying the decrees of his God?”…”
Indeed, therein lies the conundrum. This reviewer and his culture cannot separate wheat from chaff and refuses to dig down and assess who are indeed of moral intent versus thems that are of serial murdering intent?? If someone wants to off a bunch of people they are not moral, ethical people. I may despite Jihadists but in no way is serial murdering civilians a righteous action. This is not difficult.
That I and many others wish to stop people from slaughtering is indeed rightous compared to those who think ending lives of strangers in a train, marketplace, or anywhere, is the righteous action.
And this has to be shown to the numb as a boot people who have the nerve to write as if, there is a moral and ethical equivalence.
gravenimage says
Good post. That there are those in the West no who cannot see the difference–or pretend not to see it–is utterly grotesque.
Carol (the 1st) says
mgoldberg needs to harness his energies e.g.: “whether of grievance, paranoia, faith, or wrath” can be focused on one subject in a nutshell – ISLAM.
Carol (the 1st) says
oops…guess I should have said the New Yorker reviewer needs to harness his energies.
gravenimage says
Establishment media slams Clint Eastwood film for not portraying Islamic jihad terrorist sympathetically
…………………………
This is just disgusting. Reading these reviews you would think most of these moral idiots would have been happier if these brave men had not stopped the Jihadists at all.
gravenimage says
Here’s the trailer for “15:17 to Paris”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC_lnyn2R2Q
It looks like a great movie–I plan to see it.
And here is an interview with the heroes by Ellen DeGeneres:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkTVqLTbMvk
Even though she jokes with them, she clearly admires their bravery–not like most of the creeps cited above.
CRUSADER says
Oh, with the 1400 year reference, I thought you were discussing Islam.
How it has been mummified for 14 centuries, you know, since 632 AD (year of OUR Lord)…
Anne Smith says
Clint Eastwood is amazing – I am a great admirer of his work. Not only does he ride horses quite beautifully with understanding and superb balance, but his films do seem to have an underlying Christian theme of vengeance after suffering extreme evil.
Pale Rider presumably comes from the biblical quotation from Revelations 6:8 “and I looked and behold a pale horse and his name that sat on him was death and Hell followed with him” . The film carries mystical references to eventual retribution for evildoing.
High Plains Drifter carries many religious references/allegories, most strikingly in one of the final scenes when the evildoer is being whipped to death against the burning town of Lago, the flames representing hellfire.
I am greatly looking forward to seeing this latest film. Three cheers for Clint!!
MFritz says
Fortunately, Eastwood doesn’t give a damn about the msm.
David says
This is Hollywood. Almost all publicity that is generated is good. I has not heard of the movie. I may be interested in seeing it now.
FYI says
If it was the BBC(the Britanistani Bs Corporation)they would try hard to humanize the poor jihadist like they did in the recent Next Of Kin series in which the devout muslim boy(a reluctant jihadist) suddenly grew a conscience and decided to sabotage the murderous plans of his jihadist friend before dying theatrically at the hands of the police.
You could write the islam-riendly script yourself.
No doubt more islam-friendly productions will follow.
Just like the execrable “Victoria and Abdul” has queen vic reading the koran.
Somehow I bet Abdul didn’t tell her that his “holy ” book….denies Christ,curses Christians k9:30 and instructs muslims NOT to be friends with Christians and Jews k5:51
“Oh ye who believe!Take not the Jews and Christians for friends”
This koranic teaching is something that the leftie liberals,the media,the Quisling politicians seem to ignore.
Tjhawk says
By all means, let’s give the jihad character more depth. Let’s show him poring over the koran and picking out the murderous verses that provide his inspiration. Let’s show him engaging in habitual, ostentatious, head banging prayer, while he nurtures and grows his resentment and rage. Then when the audience fully understands the source and depth of his hatred, then put him on that fateful train.
gravenimage says
+1
Carol (the 1st) says
I think Michele should send in a script.
Leon says
Self hating misanthropes, they’re self proclaimed omniscient power to extrospection
, it is in fact a cover for the total lack of introspection. They proclaimed that they’re ideas must be practice by all and at any cost. They and there fore runners, [Mentors and hero’s] Walter Dranty (Stalins NYT apologizes) Bernard Shaw (The Intellectual advocate Mass extermination for the good the group) and Margaret Sanger
(The ardent raciest, eugenicests, Under the guise of womans health).
If we let them, they will sacrifice the whole of western civilization (if not mankind) on there alter of moral relativism.
Cheer Bear Girl says
I love Clint Eastwood. There is nothing sympathetic about that dangerous cult known as Islam.
Infidel says
What more can be expected from these dhimmi left lib cronies and the Hollywood PC mafia…… The same thing is happening in India with resp to Bollywood..
Valkyrie Ziege says
: in a related story, the survivours of the victims of John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahner, Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, One L. Goh, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold, and any other murderers, want the perpetrators portrayed in a positive light.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Absolutely Jay Boo.
They were disappointed at not being made to feel responsible for the attack due to their own existences. A few sequences of the jihadis poor upbringing, scenes of racist bullying and perhaps a references to it all being Israel’s fault, and they would have been much happier with the movie.
It’s their way of self flagellation and being convicted of sins.
gravenimage says
Here’s a story that should cheer up these critics:
“France: Two men stabbed in the neck outside train station in busy tourist hotspot”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/02/france-two-men-stabbed-in-the-neck-outside-train-station-in-busy-hotspot#comment-1842308
Good thing there were no gauche Americans there to stop the attack…
Karen says
Yes, our betters in the media have said that such heroics are in very poor taste.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Karen. What moral insanity.
Karen says
The New Yorker says, ““Was this not an ideal opportunity to trace the paths — whether of grievance, paranoia, faith, or wrath — that lead a young man to dreams of slaughter?”
Ah, the pretentious art of the movie review. Talk about missing the point; this is a $10 movie celebrating 3 American heroes. The objective does not include agonizing over who’s to blame for the twisted brain of a Jihad scum bag; we’ve seen that story plenty of times, and it’s wearing thin.
LeftisruiningCanada says
+1
gravenimage says
I just saw this film in a small theater in Berkeley–yes, that Berkeley. There was a small but enthusiastic crowd that burst into applause when the film was over. There is hope yet.