13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

For posts related to a specific film -- beware of spoilers o ye who dareth enter!
Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by Stewball »

It's impossible to separate the politics from this "true story" of valor, but I can't imagine why anyone would even try. It's blatantly obvious that security at the compound was woefully inadequate, which was brought up by Ambassador Stevens and others down the chain; but the lack of response using F-16s and a C-130 gunship which were standing by cries out for Administration transparency. Instead, we were told it was an impromptu demonstration generated by a video on YouTube. Even if that lie had been true, so what? Does that mean those assets should not have been used and the security team told to "stand down"

The movie doesn't offer any explanations for why no response was authorized, though it does beg the question for the reason for such a lack of response. The closest it comes is to show an image of the White House just after the attack begins, with the subscript, "The POTUS is briefed". Technically, the movie is pretty phenomenal in it's recreation of the events, though it is hard to follow at times--though that could be written off as an accurate portrayal of the fog of war. But enough already with even its occasional use of the shaky-cam. At times it looked like I was watching it through helmet-cams like someone playing "Call of Duty", which I guess could be considered a compliment to the film and/or the game.

One of the six, Mark Geist, equated this battle to holding the Alamo, though this turned out better for all but four of the defenders. That's a good analogy, with Al Qaeda standing in for General Santa Anna; but the likes of those "Texians" such as Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett, didn't have cameras from above beaming their actions back to Washington--or reinforcements being held idle only minutes away. 8/10

Pickpocket
Posts: 1615
3024 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 2:20 pm

Re: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by Pickpocket »

I'm excited to see this. Is this more Pain & Gain Bay or Bad Boys Bay? Or is it more this version of Bay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4rMy1iA268 ?

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by Stewball »

Pickpocket wrote:I'm excited to see this. Is this more Pain & Gain Bay or Bad Boys Bay? Or is it more this version of Bay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4rMy1iA268 ?


Yeah, I dunno, I sort of emphasize with him there. I think they characterize it wrong to call it storming off rather than having an embarrassing brain lockup. Creating a movie is a lot like writing, something that I'm a lot more comfortable with than public speaking or even just talking. It's a lot easier to contrast the huge departure of the realism and relevant impact of 13 Hrs. with the hokum of the Transformers. I welcome the change and take it at face value--though the Box Office apparently takes a dim view of said change.

TheSean
Posts: 51
1220 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:08 am

Re: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by TheSean »

The thoroughly reputable Salon.com in running this headline

Audiences reject “13 Hours”: Big blow for the right’s desperate quest for Clinton’s Benghazi smoking gun — it’s just not there


Click at your own risk.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/19/audienc ... not_there/

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by Stewball »

TheSean wrote:The thoroughly reputable Salon.com in running this headline

Audiences reject “13 Hours”: Big blow for the right’s desperate quest for Clinton’s Benghazi smoking gun — it’s just not there


Click at your own risk.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/19/audienc ... not_there/


On what do you base your "thoroughly reputable" tag? Salon is a left-wing rag.

It is a smoking gun, the administration was totally unresponsive before or during the attack; and it's only immediate excuse is that it was impromptu due to the offensive video, which even they eventually had to back off from. And Clinton's own callous words, "What difference, at this point, does it make?", are as indefensible and irrational, as their lack of transparency and action.

If anything, box office numbers are below expectations due to it's lack of being more straightforward, having should have portrayed Obama and Clinton and the roles they played--or didn't play (e.g. Obama on the golf course turning off his phone). The left, both media and politicians, have provided unscrutinized cover for so long, their reasoning skills have atrophied to the point where all they can think of to do is bluff, bluster and ad hominem--to wit, the unresponsive, embarrassing Salon article. The tell is the link to an article off to the right, "The stunning transformation of the Obama sisters". Image

TheSean
Posts: 51
1220 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:08 am

Re: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by TheSean »

Stewball wrote:On what do you base your "thoroughly reputable" tag? Salon is a left-wing rag.


I based it on sarcasm ;)

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by Stewball »

TheSean wrote:
Stewball wrote:On what do you base your "thoroughly reputable" tag? Salon is a left-wing rag.


I based it on sarcasm ;)


Well then *snif* I guess my only criticism then would be to suggest that one might telegraph one's sarcasm a tad more adequately. Hopefully my subsequent rant wasn't a total waste. I'm told that there are many more lurkers who inhabit message boards than there are posters. *shuffles off mumbling*

TheSean
Posts: 51
1220 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:08 am

Re: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by TheSean »

Stewball wrote:Well then *snif* I guess my only criticism then would be to suggest that one might telegraph one's sarcasm a tad more adequately. Hopefully my subsequent rant wasn't a total waste. I'm told that there are many more lurkers who inhabit message boards than there are posters. *shuffles off mumbling*


Ha, well I did put "thoroughly reputable" in italics. And did put a warning before the link. Nevertheless - my apologies!!

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by Stewball »

TheSean wrote:
Stewball wrote:Well then *snif* I guess my only criticism then would be to suggest that one might telegraph one's sarcasm a tad more adequately. Hopefully my subsequent rant wasn't a total waste. I'm told that there are many more lurkers who inhabit message boards than there are posters. *shuffles off mumbling*


Ha, well I did put "thoroughly reputable" in italics. And did put a warning before the link. Nevertheless - my apologies!!


Emoticons are easier to use and a little more obvious for those of us a little slow on the uptake--which shouldn't be taken as a reference to myself. :roll:

TheSean
Posts: 51
1220 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:08 am

Re: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Post by TheSean »

Understood! ;)

Salon has to be close to the worst "news" site on the internet. I can't remember who it was that said the frightening thing is today's Salon is tomorrow's Huffington Post. That's... pretty much true.

Looking forward to seeing the movie. Looks like I'll have to wait. My local cinemas aren't showing it.

Post Reply