It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paramount Bans Showing ‘Team America’

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Jonjonj

No, I'm saying that humor is a necessary and powerful tool. Humor is lot better than guns and bombs and assassinations, in a world of guns and bombs and assassinations.


100% agree, I understand that. But this isn't humour, it's baiting. And it has produced yet another escalation in an already out of control cycle. Well done hollywood right? I shake my head man.




posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: burdman30ott6



I am asking you directly, what possible good can come of the American DEMAND for entertainment when the only possible outcome is POLITICAL animosity?





LAUGHTER!!! You know, the BEST medicine?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

See above.
And let me add, do you like to laugh WITH people...or AT people?


edit on 18-12-2014 by Jonjonj because: grammar



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj




100% agree, I understand that. But this isn't humour, it's baiting.


IDK, it looks pretty humorous to me. It does a good job of making EVERYBODY look pretty inept, especially the CIA.




posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
And let me add, do you like to laugh WITH people...or AT people?




Both, actually. I was an Opie and Anthony die-hard for over 10 years... there are people in this world who need to be laughed AT, otherwise you would not be able to stand it. Let's be real honest here, when somebody makes an ass out of themselves, whether intentionally or uninetntionally, it's funny. Human nature is going to make the average person point and laugh at, say, a person who slips and falls on their ass. Some in this world are refined, cultured, and self-controlled enough to completely mask their smirks, place a hand over their mouth, and say "Oh dear! Is that person OK?" On the other end of the spectrum you have folks like me.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I don't think I have anything more to add here really. I wanted to show what I feel about this subject.
In my opinion, those who find a way to defend this film have their own views, I personally see it as nothing more than yet another reason for non americans to be disgusted at the lack of tact.
One could almost say arrogance. And now, as a result, a bad situation is even worse. It's time people started thinking about context, these issues are not local, they are global.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Bet ya don't laugh at the guy with the gun in your face though right?
Yep... I despair.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Come on, ATS.

You're supposed to be better than the average person. Question everything.

Like, I don't know...
The Evidence That North Korea Hacked Sony Is Flimsy?

Sony and FBI Deny Connection to North Korea

First of all, Sony and the FBI have announced that they’ve found no evidence so far to tie North Korea to the attack. New reports, however, indicate that intelligence officials who are not permitted to speak on the record have concluded that the North Koreans are behind the hack. But they have provided no evidence to support this and without knowing even what agency the officials belong to, it’s difficult to know what to make of the claim.


And what have the hackers said?

But in their initial public statement, whoever hacked Sony made no mention of North Korea or the film. And in an email sent to Sony by the hackers, found in documents they leaked, there is also no mention of North Korea or the film.
...
“[M]onetary compensation we want,” the email read. “Pay the damage, or Sony Pictures will be bombarded as a whole. You know us very well. We never wait long. You’d better behave wisely.”

To make matters confusing, however, the email wasn’t signed by GOP or Guardians of Peace, who have taken credit for the hack, but by “God’sApstls,” a reference that also appeared in one of the malicious files used in the Sony hack.

A person purporting to be a Guardians of Peace spokesperson then emphasized again, in an interview with CSO Online published Dec. 1, that they are “an international organization … not under direction of any state.”

The person also said the Seth Rogen film was not the motive for the hack, but that the film was problematic nonetheless in that it exemplified Sony’s greed and fed political turmoil in the region:

“Our aim is not at the film The Interview as Sony Pictures suggests,” the person told CSO Online. “But it is widely reported as if our activity is related to The Interview. This shows how dangerous film The Interview is. The Interview is very dangerous enough to cause a massive hack attack. Sony Pictures produced the film harming the regional peace and security and violating human rights for money. The news with The Interview fully acquaints us with the crimes of Sony Pictures. Like this, their activity is contrary to our philosophy. We struggle to fight against such greed of Sony Pictures.”

It was only on December 8, after a week of media stories connecting North Korea and the Sony film to the hack, that the attackers made their first reference to the film in one of their public announcements. But they continued to trounce the theory that North Korea was behind their actions, and they denied ownership of an email sent to Sony staffers after the hack, threatening them and their families with harm if they didn’t denounce their employer.


You know, little things.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
WOW, so this is the new scare tactic for Hollywood to stop making movies! Something as simple as a few emails being hacked, displayed for the world to see on how this one producer things this one actor is a brat and so on.... It looks like they are setting a standard here, not just the fact that systems were hacked and data was taken and displayed, but the the standard of and how this country has been moving, do something bad to us and we will stop whatever it is were are doing standard. What a load of crap! What a waste of time! Why spend the resources to cripple the release of a movie, just because you don't like the content? I would think they would want to spend their resource dollars / hours toward something far more impacting then a movie with third rate actors in it.

I'm waiting for them to call this an act of terrorism so they can legally induce panic among the people and cause even more damage than the actual act of a company being hacked which happens every day to multiple corporations.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Here we go...
I didn't read the other post so sorry if some has already been covered.

The thing with these kinds of issues is this:
There is always two ways this can go..
Hope this makes sense.. Sorry if it does not come out like I mean for it to.

1. We fall into the "trap" - Seeing the movie could result in a terrorist attack. So no one should go see it, in fact, they pull the movies.. To cause fear? Maybe.. Fear mongering-- a clear tactic. You failed miserably . You let North Korea win.

OR

2. "They" meant to do this. This is America, we don't take bullying. We will stand together and fight. Band together guys, it's supposed to be "Team America"
Hello? ( You know, that kind of team where the top 1% owns most of the whole countries wealth, where people work for major corporations- 60+ hours , only to barely get by) that kinda team!! When push comes to shove we should have their back, man.

Simply put... It could either be about fear or about war promotion ..
That is something odd I have found out, usually when such dramatized things happen in the media.. There is ALWAYS two major outcomes/situations that they could want pushed through.
It's hard to choose which one is right...
Personally , I study up, and pick the one opposite of the MSM's side. Just seems more legit. (Most of the time)

Not saying we should bow down to other countries at all!
But WHY in gods name would Sony make that kind of movie? I mean really.
There are MILLIONS of different topics.. But THAT kind of movie?
What the # !
You just don't do that.
There IS an agenda to this.
I can promise you that.
edit on 19-12-2014 by GoldenOne23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Thank god somebody is on the same page as I am!
I am not buying it either.
a reply to: Greven



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Yeah I agree I'd much rather people lose their lives in a terrorist attack than shut down a #ty propaganda film.






Priorities people, priorities!!!


So if there's a threat against schools in the US, all kids should stay at home?

How about cancelling all flights when there's a threat against air travel?

How about shutting down all bridges when they threaten those?

Or maybe you just don't understand the precedent that's being set here...



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I don't think I have anything more to add here really. I wanted to show what I feel about this subject.
In my opinion, those who find a way to defend this film have their own views, I personally see it as nothing more than yet another reason for non americans to be disgusted at the lack of tact.
One could almost say arrogance. And now, as a result, a bad situation is even worse. It's time people started thinking about context, these issues are not local, they are global.


Right, because no one has ever joked about a U.S. President.

The only thing disgraceful about this whole debacle is the fact that some people are so lacking in the "sense of humor" department that they make comments like yours.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
If the DHS have deemed this a National Security issue, I'd say it's pretty much common sense to assume we don't know all the information about this situation.


They didn't... They've said there is no credible threat.



People died over these films?
I'd appreciate a source so I can change my position on that.


No one died over this movie, so why should I have to do anything?
edit on 19-12-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It's called caving to terrorism and by doing it, you show that their tactics can not only be successful, but actually produce measurable results. You are FEEDING into the terrorists by being ok with this out of fear of people losing their lives (of course there is no credible evidence that the Guardians of Peace can even injure anyone in America anyways)

I don't think they want to injure people, just stop the shopping



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
(Inspiration for this post:
US Officials Signed Off On Movie Depicting Assassination Of North Korean Leader
)

We all know North Korea doesn't hesitate to issue threats and claim victories. Yet, regarding the Sony hack, they don't claim responsibility:
North Korea says Sony cyber-attack may be 'righteous' work of its supporters

“We do not know where in America the Sony Pictures is situated and for what wrongdoings it became the target of the attack nor we feel the need to know about it,” reads the statement. “But what we clearly know is that the Sony Pictures is the very one which was going to produce a film abetting a terrorist act while hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK by taking advantage of the hostile policy of the US administration towards the DPRK.”

The spokesman added: “The hacking into the Sony Pictures might be a righteous deed of the supporters and sympathizers with the DPRK in response to its appeal … The righteous reaction will get stronger to smash the evildoings.”


And who thought it was a good idea to put in North Korea and a sitting head of state as an assassination victim?
The Interview: an “Act of War”

According to Sterling, the original basis for The Interview came in 2011, when Sterling, Rogen and Evan Goldberg (Rogen’s collaborator) kicked around the premise: “what if a journalist scored an interview with Osama Bin Laden?”

“Sasha (Baron Cohen) was getting ready with The Dictator, so he sort of cornered the market on Middle Eastern tyranny jokes around that time,” Sterling muses. “I went and wrote the script with a fake name and fake country, but after discussing the project with Seth, Evan and the executives at Sony, we decided I ought to try writing it with Kim Jong-un. Once it was in there, we knew it was the way to go.”


Sony even sought advice from the RAND Corporation - specifically, Bruce Bennett. He's a senior defense analyst who specializes in North Korea and has written a book over the country.
E xclusive: Sony Emails Say State Department Blessed Kim Jong-Un Assassination in ‘The Interview’
Bruce Bennett said this back in June, apparently thinking it good propaganda:

"I also thought a bunch more about the ending. I have to admit that the only resolution I can see to the North Korean nuclear and other threats is for the North Korean regime to eventually go away.

In fact, when I have briefed my book on ‘preparing for the possibility of a North Korean collapse’ [Sept 2013], I have been clear that the assassination of Kim Jong-Un is the most likely path to a collapse of the North Korean government. Thus while toning down the ending may reduce the North Korean response, I believe that a story that talks about the removal of the Kim family regime and the creation of a new government by the North Korean people (well, at least the elites) will start some real thinking in South Korea and, I believe, in the North once the DVD leaks into the North (which it almost certainly will). So from a personal perspective, I would personally prefer to leave the ending alone."


Oh, and the U.S. State Department weighed in as well.

“Bruce – Spoke to someone very senior in State (confidentially),” wrote Lynton. “He agreed with everything you have been saying. Everything. I will fill you in when we speak.” - Michael Lynton, CEO of Sony Entertainment.


Naturally, the government denied involvement:


QUESTION: So Assistant Secretary Russel in his conversations with the Sony executives – if they got – if those executives got the impression that he was saying it’s okay to do this, they were mis – getting the wrong impression?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think – I don’t think any executive would want the State Department or the United States Government to be in the business of signing off on the content of their movies or television shows or whatever it may be. But of course, there’s a lot of information that we all know about North Korea and the fact that they have one of the worst human rights records out there, that they have consistently put out threats against the United States. And certainly, we share information that is publicly available with executives as well.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven




MS. PSAKI: Well, I think – I don’t think any executive would want the State Department or the United States Government to be in the business of signing off on the content of their movies or television shows or whatever it may be.


Yeah right! The government, I'm sure, has no say in the TV shows like NCIS. /sarcasm

The government had no problem assisting in the production of pro-American WWII films with Ronald Reagan and John Wayne!



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes They Did!!!


So you repeatedly call me a fear monger for having a difference of opinion.
Then you twice said I was appealing to emotion... Again for a difference of opinion.
That's ad hominem and you know it.



Then you claim people have died over the movies you listed.
Now you've turned it round and said no one has died over this movie either so you don't have to prove anything...


Even though I never claimed anyone did die... & I constantly said the word "potentially"...


When you make a claim, and someone asks for a source, usually it's protocol on ATS to back up your argument...
You can argue with yourself from now on.


Salam Alaykum.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes They Did!!!


So you repeatedly call me a fear monger for having a difference of opinion.
Then you twice said I was appealing to emotion... Again for a difference of opinion.
That's ad hominem and you know it.

That's not what that article says.

That article is saying the White House called the cyber attack a security threat - not the threats against movie theatres.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

You do realise a quick Google search will show you that all of those things have already happened?


I don't get the point you are trying to make when the examples you listed have already set precedent.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join