On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:07:07 PM UTC-4, Tegger wrote:
So, even Ambassador Taylor is not saying that the idea to create and use a Hollywood movie as the cover to get the Americans out was an idea created by
Canadian officals, as Nestork claims. As I said, I agree Canadians played
a major role, right from the start. But I think Nestork is probably more
inaccurate in what he's claiming than the movie. The movie Argo showed:
The incident started by the 6 Americans managing to flee to the Canadian
embassy where they were given sanctuary and kept hidden for months, either
there or at the ambassador's house.
The fake Hollywood movie idea was conceived by CIA agent Antonio Mendez,
and put together with the help of a real Hollywood producer, including
fake press releases about the movie, opening a fake movie office
in Hollywood, etc.
Mendez and others posing as those producing a scifi movie and scouting
for a location to shoot it, went to Iran, got together with the 6 Americans
at the Canadian embassy and then escorted them out,
with the 6 posing as having just come there recently as part of the movie scouting visit.
The movie I think did show that the Canadians at the embassy in Iran
were at considerable risk for their lives the whole time. It showed
what happened at the US Embassy in Iran, the violent protests in the
streets, people be killed, etc. It was clear that if the Iranians
discovered what the Canadians were doing, the same thing that just
happened at the US Embassy could have happened to them too.
I don't recall it showing who exactly produced all the fake documents required.
It did show that the fake cover story included that while the movie
involved Hollywood, the producers and company behind it were supposed to be Canadian.
It showed the 6 leaving posing as part of that Canadian crew, so of
course they had fake Canadian passports and I think Argo did show
that Canada provided the passports. If Argo specifically showed
the CIA making up those documents, then I would agree that was very unfair
Like so many movies that are drama based on historical events, stuff
was added for dramatic effect. The scenes showing the Iranians
having figured out that something was up, still chasing them by car
as the plane was taking off, etc were made up. That's pretty typical.
When I saw it, I figured a lot of that had been put in for dramatic
It appears per what you just posted, that they showed the Canadians telling the Americans that the embassy was going to close soon and they needed to get out
soon and that was untrue. I can see that being something that was made up
and being perceived as unfair to Canada. I'd like to see that part again to
see exactly how that was portrayed.
But overall, for a dramatic recreation of a historical event, I don't
think the movie was out of the norm or particularly unfair to Canada.
If Nestork doesn't like this, I wonder what he would have thought if
say Oliver Stone had done the movie like he did JFK. If Stone had made
Argo, it would probably have shown some sinister US and Canadian
businessmen in a dark room in Ottawa planning to screw all the Iranians
and take their oil. The heroes would have been the Russians or some
other commie creeps, who saved the day and helped the Americans escape.
In other words, it would have had no resemblance at all to reality.
And I'm still very curious to know whether Nestork even saw Argo.
Keep in mind that it is just a movie.
Argo comes on like a documentary, but it's not and, AFIK, does not claim
I probably watch more movies than most, and I have to keep reminding
myself that I am seeing somebody's fantasy or private version of
reality. "Inspired By..." and all that.
Documentaries are a separate case and some of them I take at face value.
"The Devil Came On Horseback", for instance.
My recalibration came when I watched the director's interview for
Fargo begins with a realistic-looking "Names were changed to protect the
innocent..." scene and it really looked to me like somebody's attempt at
When that was put to the directors, they replied in the vein "It's a
*movie*... if you believe any of it, you got what you deserve."
Pretty typical. TheYanks love to rewrite history. They won WW1 and 2
They think they defeated Russia.
Soon they will have won in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
When Hollywood comes up with a script.
Only in the USA are people credulous enough/short memory to take this crap
Watched "Lincoln" the other day. Mawkish crap.
He was as bad as Saddam Hussein in reality.
Heck Hairy, perhaps you don't know the difference in an entertainment
movie and a documentary? Both can be based on truth or can be works of
fiction but most folks assume a movie is a work of fiction and a
documentary is based on true facts. It really depends on the producer of
the work. ^_^
If you make a movie about a historical figure then it should be accurate.
If you want to do fiction, then the characters should be fictional.
That way we all know where we are.
Even the credulous.
If you don't do the above, we are talking propaganda.
But ah, you do live in a fascist state as is being revealed more and more
I know darn well, as most folks do, that the scriptwriters must spice up
any script when making a movie. A movie is entertainment with "some"
basis on historical fact and if movie makers want their production to
make money, it better not be boring. Even with "The Dumbassification of
America" and the rest of the Western world, I doubt anyone believes that
Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter. Here in the U.S., we have
P.L.L.C.F, Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freaks producing so
called "documentaries" that are nothing but propaganda filled with
politically slanted codswallop. Al Gore and Michael Moore are fine
examples of Moonbats producing delusive documentaries. O_o
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.