 |
|
MosesPresley
|
|
I just saw this movie on PBS. This is certainly an interesting movie right now. I was especially intrigued by some of the disturbing parallels with our recent occupation in Iraq.
Has anyone else seen this? Do you think this is our future with the Iraqis?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
I've seen it mentioned in a documentary that tried to connect French instructors and doctrines developed for Algiers with torture in South America and Vietnam. Supposedly both US personell and Chileans and Brazilians had French instructors in "anti insurgency" tactics and interrogation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VetLegion
I've seen it mentioned in a documentary that tried to connect French instructors and doctrines developed for Algiers with torture in South America and Vietnam. Supposedly both US personell and Chileans and Brazilians had French instructors in "anti insurgency" tactics and interrogation. |
The French general rationalizing the torture of the Muslims to gain information was disturbing bit of deja vu.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
This documentary did establish links - tracked down the French intelligence officers in question. But it didn't strike me as a big thing. Find people and torture them, fight insurgency -- doesn't strike me as something you can't invent yourself.
I agree with you though, there are resemblances between Algiers and Iraq, BlackCat is wrong for laughing it away.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
The Pentagon had a screening of it in 2003.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087628/
However, if you will notice in the film, all of the armored military vehicles are Soviet built, which immediately made me suspicious. Since the filmmaker had been given that sort of access, I seriously wondered what the director's personal leanings were.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/Century_...,345300,00.html
quote:
Its stance is as fair as any such film could be, despite the fact that Pontecorvo was a member of the Italian communist party at the time and thus was implicitly on the side of the independence movement. There is, though, no caricature and no glamorisation of either side - just a feeling of palpable horror evoked by urgent images and Ennio Morricone's dramatic but never melodramatic score. Pontecorvo sees the colonialists as victims of their own system, and the rebels as taking on some of the excesses used against them. |
I disagree with the conclusions, but I quote the entire paragraph out of fairness. The fact is that he was a communist, and that the government of Algeria helped him. In fact, to quote an article on the context of the government of Algeria at the time.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic...i_55683885/pg_4
quote:
The Kennedy Administrations difficulty to win the friendship of the new state, was soon confirmed by the Algerian leaders' explicit criticism of all the Western powers for their hostile policies toward Algeria's cause of independence, and this as opposed to the expressed gratitude to the socialist countries for both their moral support and material assistance along the road to independence.(77) It was against this background that Adlai Stevenson, while welcoming Algeria's adhesion to the U.N., called upon the leadership of the nascent republic to abandon extremists and reject fanatical counsel, in reference to the F.L.N.'s leaning toward Nasser's Egypt and the Eastern bloc.(78) |
None of this changes the fact that the French occupation of Algeria was brutal, it's response to the insurgency even more so, and the fact that the French military was so out of control that they even tried to stage a military coup against the French government over issues related to the war. The insurgents, however, were also pretty brutal, though find a case of an insurgency where the rebels fought a nice war and I'll show you some rebels who were executed.
I am making a point just like a press release from Karl Rove or a study by the Heritage foundation, or anything by Michael Moore, that I would view The Battle for Algiers as a docudrama with both strong propaganda elements and enough facts to make it credible. The balance between propaganda and facts is always subject ot interpretation, and viewpoint.
There are disturbing parallels between Iraq and the French-Algerian conflict. In an interview with a French diplomat (on BBC I believe) I found it interesting that he stated that it was not that his government was per se opposed to the US intervention in Iraq, but that after the lessons in Algeria the French knew that we were going to fail and that is why they were opposing Iraq II. Any attempt to impose western values in a Muslim state was not going to work. He said we tried, and that it had been very costly for France.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
Nice post shawnmmcc.
I was trying to view the movie as objectively as possible. What caught my notice, besides the obvious Muslim angle, the insurgents constant and desperate acts of defiance, terrorism against the French. It reminded me of the endless waves of suicide bombers in Iraq. These people were willing to kill themselves to oust the French.
The thing I am wondering about, is that in the film, the Algerians finally rallied and banded together to force the French out. In Iraq, I don't see that kind of solidarity of the people yet. Maybe in the long run the US presence there might force this kind of unity on them. This would in turn give the insurgency a legitimacy in the world community's eyes and put pressure on us to get out eventually.
I say in the long run, because I don't think we will be willingly pulling out of Iraq for at least a generation or two and maybe not even then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
However, Algeria was still colonial, in that the native peoples still outnumbered those of French extraction by a significant majority. Therein was a major difference, granted, between Iraq II and Algeria and in fact between most of the so-called colonial conflicts with European powers as compared to American post-WW2 conflicts.
The colonial conflicts include expatriots of that occupying power, and expectations that they should be supported by the home country, and that the property rights gained by these individuals, at the expense of the native populations (and often at gunpoint) should be preserved. Plus the expatriot individuals often ran the occupied territory, had connections with the oligarchy in the home country, thus making it even harder for the colonial power to simply cut and run.
The insurgents, as in most wars of liberation, were hardly a monolithic group and in fact fought among themselves at times. Part of that conflict continues to this day, with the conflict between those who want a Muslim Algerian state versus those who want a secular one. Both groups wanted the French out, but they had very different views of what they wanted afterwards.
The situation in Iraq is more of a long-simmering ethnic/religious war. Great Britian deliberately created boundaries that exascerbated those tensions when they first manufactered a country that had never existed (within those boundaries) as a way to keep their installed ruler in power, and keep control of the oil wealth of Iraq. Saddam with his brutality kept a lid on it, which Bush Sr. understood when the decision was made to leave him in power.
Bush Jr. and his administration, with their ideology, had absolutely no understanding of the tensions in that country, and thus were not prepared for what happened. IMHO the Civil War is already happening, it is going to kill as a minimum tens of thousands, and might well exceed one hundred thousand by the time it is over. I'm guessing that will take over a decade. I honestly believe, as either with or without continued US involvement it ends up becoming quasi-religious Shia state, that we should let them fight it out without US troops. I gave my own summary of that in a thread from just a few days ago.
http://www.apolyton.com/forums/show...threadid=136106
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
Dunno.. I saw a documentary once about this.. can't remember if it was some kind of an event, but bunch of Algerians wanted to protest in Paris or some other city, well what happened was that they got beat up super bad and many died, and it was an order from the chief of police to beat them up really bad. Basically cops directed them, divided them, and then beat them up really really really bad. In the streets. It was a total chaos, and unlike some hippies stirring things up, they actually were peaceful. They didn't even fight back when they started to lose their lives. It was disgusting, just disgusting. The Frenchies were also kind of in a state of unbelievable, and discovered later on what really happened. It was brutal and it wasn't an accident and people died in bunches. In the streets, the few ones that got snatched, got tortured.
Nice one. I can't remember why they wanted to protest. I guess they wanted human rights or something. This would happen in the 60s or 70s.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
I think that you better compare the situation to the one here, with many differences, but it's still closer. The only parallels vis a vis America are "Westerners fighting arabs". The situation differs in the level of involvement, and in the political climate in the country. |
Exactly. The Français d'Algérie were a western population transplanted for generations in an Arabic territory, in a way similar to Israel, although there are large differences (the gov was in Paris and not in Algiers, there was no territorial entity where the French were the ethnical majority save for a few urban enclaves)
And this is why they fought bitterly, just like the Israelis fight bitterly for the continuation of their country. However, the Français d'Algérie could fall back on the actually French territory, and most of their war effort was supported from Paris. When Paris decided to stop fighting, there was little the Français d'Algérie could do. Two major differences between the Algerian war and the Israeli conflict.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
ZK - legally it was part of France, if you grant the premise of the supremacy of Western doctrines of conquest. Islam actually states, since Algeria was Moslem, that it is rightfully a Muslim state and will always be so - as is/was most of the territory of Spain. Accepting the idea of "legally" is almost always a red herring, unless the system determining the legality is freely acknowledged as legitimate by all involved. Otherwise it is an acknowledgement of who had the power and the will to impose their legal judgements and property rights. The French lost that in Algeria, rightfully so IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
France is set to become the first moslem country in europe. Interesting turn of events.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-07-2005 07:24
|