Roger Ebert Supports Terrorism

[edotherocket 0]

The original article...

 

Roger Ebert Gives Thumbs-Up to Terrorism

By Debbie Schlussel

FrontPageMagazine.com | March 29, 2005

 

Normally, it would be unfair to attack Roger Ebert for his addiction to food.

 

Normally, it would be in poor taste to hold the calorically-gifted film-critic’s insatiable taste-buds against him.

 

Normally.

 

But now, Roger Ebert’s irresistible yen for a sandwich is literally his excuse to defend an Islamic terrorist, Ibrahim Parlak.

 

Parlak, who is under deportation orders, owns a restaurant in Harbert, Michigan—a restaurant Ebert frequents, with apparently great appetite.

 

In a letter to the U.S. government opposing Parlak’s deportation, Ebert wrote, “[H]e offered to come to my home and prepare special foods for me.”

 

But haute cuisine for liberal movie critics is no justification for Ibrahim Parlak to remain in the United States.

 

Parlak is a terrorist and a murderer—facts that celluloid simp Ebert conveniently ignores.  While he might make a mean tossed salad (just like Hillary Clinton), Parlak also makes a mean tossed hand grenade.

 

Parlak admits he was a member of the PKK, the Kurdish Islamic terrorist group on the State Department’s terrorist list.  But he deliberately hid that he was found responsible for the murder of two Turkish border police, a fact he lied about at least five times— in applications for 1) political asylum, 2) Lawful Permanent Status, 3) citizenship, 4) his restaurant, and 5) a Michigan liquor license.  Had he been truthful from the beginning, Parlak would never have been allowed to stay in the United States in the first place.

 

Ebert and others want us to reward the lies of a murderous terrorist alien—hardly sound immigration policy.

 

Carrying an AK-47 and pistol, Parlak threw a grenade and shot at the guards who were murdered.  He claims he accidentally “lost” the grenade but it didn't detonate, and that he “never used my gun.”  Would that line work for John Dillinger?

 

The murders took place upon Parlak’s return from a Syrian-run terrorist camp in Lebanon, where he spent eight months and was trained in rifle fire.  Training at those camps then and now are members of terrorist groups Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a host others that tell a lot about the company Roger Ebert’s friend kept before he lied to obtain the benefits of U.S. citizenship.

 

Yet this murderer and terrorist is “not in any way a threat to the security of the United States,” according to newly-minted terrorism expert Roger Ebert.  “On the contrary, he is precisely the sort of citizen we should make welcome.”  Review a couple of terrorism movies, and suddenly you are a scholar on the topic.

 

Where was Roger Ebert when Parlak directed Turkish police to a cache of buried PKK munitions?

 

Parlak raised funds for Islamic terrorist group PKK while living in West Germany in the 1980s.  A Marxist-Leninist insurgent group of Kurds, PKK is responsible for the death of more than 30,000 innocent people, including over 5,000 civilians.  Some of these civilian victims’ “transgressions” were teaching Turkish in school or being moderate Kurdish landlords.

 

The PKK isn’t just any old terrorist group.  According to the Sunday Times of London, no bastion of right-wing Bush (or even Blair) Administration propaganda, PKK trained with Al-Qaeda.

 

Abu Mohammed, an Iraqi defector to Turkey, told the Times that he saw Bin Laden's fighters in Iraqi training camps in 1997. At the time, he was a colonel in Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad run by Iraqi intelligence, where terrorists-in-training learned to hijack planes with knives on a Boeing 707. "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK.'"

 

This is the group of which Ibrahim Parlak admits he was a member.  But media portrayals, and letters by activist movie critics and liberal academics, make him out to be a hero.

 

A Sunday New York Times Magazine cover sob-story on Parlak by regular contributor Alex Kotlowitz wasn’t just full of sympathetic drawings, it was replete with false statements and untruths.  Among others, Kotlowitz wrote that Turkey, which wants Parlak for questioning on terrorism, “long ago revoked Parlak’s citizenship,” implying he can’t be deported there.  Actually, Turkey never revoked Parlak’s citizenship, and he should be shipped there at once.  So much for the Times’ fact-checking post-Jayson Blair.

 

Worse, elected officials like Senator Carl Levin and Rep. Fred Upton are equally fawning.  Attacking the Parlak deportation ruling as “unjust,” Levin called this murderer and terrorist “a peaceful citizen” and is rumored to be considering a “Private Bill” to give Parlak instant U.S. citizenship, a rare honor bestowed on heroes, like the Iraqi lawyer who led troops to Jessica Lynch.  Upton, one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress, says he’s now helping Parlak’s family.

 

Then, there are Parlak’s lawyers:

 

    * Noel Saleh—An admitted financial supporter of Hezbollah, the thrice-disciplined attorney is suing to overturn the Patriot Act.  He represented “former” PFLP terrorist Imad Hamad and Rabbih Haddad, deported for funding Al Qaeda. Saleh is President and attorney of ACCESS (Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services), which was raided for Medicaid fraud for pregnant Muslim foreigners, and which funded commercial driving lessons for alleged Al-Qaeda members.

 

    * Jay Marhoefer—A member of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s former law firm, sources say Marhoefer is on Chertoff’s schedule to lobby him for Parlak’s release from prison and obtaining citizenship.  Connections help terrorists.

 

It’s time for terrorists—including those loved by ignorant cinematic suck-ups and politicians—to be exported from our country.

 

Parlak’s restaurant, Café Gulistan—where Roger Ebert likes to eat—is named for the Kurdish word for “land of roses,” or paradise.  But America is neither paradise nor rose garden with men like Parlak roaming our shores.

 

For Ebert and all of America, it’s time the balcony was closed on Ibrahim Parlak’s stay in the U.S.

 

Ebert's reply:

 

> Dear Ms. Schlussel,

> >

> > Update your database. I have lost 100 pounds.

> >

> > As you know, because I made it clear in the letter

> > you refer to,

> > Ibrahim's offer to come to my house to cook for me

> > came during a period

> > when I was recovering from radiation treatment. By

> > suppressing the

> > context, you make it seem as if I support him

> > because I am a glutton.

> >

> > Of course I do not support terrorism, as you know

> > perfectly well. I

> > support Ibrahim, who was granted asylum in this

> > country at a time when

> > the Kurds were considered to be U.S. allies.

> >

> > From the New York Times article on the case:

> > "...one of his closest

> > friends, Martin Dzuris, who had fled Communist

> > Czechoslovakia and who

> > is now a loyal George W. Bush supporter, built a Web

> > site and organized

> > a letter-writing campaign to

> > politicians."

> >

> > He is a true conservative in that he opposes

> > unnecessary government

> > intervention in the private lives of citizens.

> >

> > Since you are personally aware of the nuances of the

> > case, as a fellow

> > journalist I doubt you are proud of the headline

> > "Roger Ebert Gives

> > Thumbs-Up to Terrorism." Surely there is a way to

> > make your argument

> > without playing dirty?

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > Roger Ebert

> >

> > P.S. I submitted this letter to the "Comments"

> > section of

> > Frontpagemag.com, and it was rejected because "we

> > have new standards in

> > place that prevent the use of vulgarity and profane

> > terms." What's with

> > that? If you have a sense of fair play, you will be

> > sure to see that

> > the letter is posted on the site.

 

And Debbie's retort:

 

> Dear Roger Ebert, "R. Hyde," "Reinhold Timme," or

> whatever name or pseudonym you are using these days:

>

> I was sorry to learn that you were ill, and am

> sincerely glad to hear that you are in remission.

> However, as you readily stated, during a recent

> appearance on "The Howard Stern Radio Show," your

> weight loss was forced--due to your illness.

>

> Regardless, that is not the issue. I did not once

> mention your weight or illness in my column. They are

> irrelevant. Instead, I mentioned your penchant for

> food, which appears-- from your letter to the U.S.

> Government--to be the sole reason you know this man,

> Ibrahim Parlak, and want him to be allowed to stay

> here. In your 16 line letter (as it appears on

> Parlak's website), I counted at least 7 references

> (almost one every 2 lines) to Ibrahim Parlak's

> "restaurant," restaurant "business," your status as a

> 10-year "regular patron" of the restaurant, his offer

> to prepare "special foods" for you, etc. I could have

> quoted all of those things to give it even more

> "context" (which you claim is lacking, but isn't), but

> in the interest of space, I chose only one of those

> many references.

>

> And therein lies the issue. You are vouching for this

> murderer and terrorist because he makes food you like

> to eat and you like his restaurant. But that does not

> mean he is not a terrorist or a man held responsible

> in the murder of two people, and did not lie about it

> to get into this country and remain here. As you are

> well aware, Parlak is and did all of these things, of

> which he is accused. In fact, his food preparation

> skills and restaurateur status have nothing to do with

> the price of tea in China, as the trite old saying

> goes.

>

> I am sure Osama Bin Laden could make a mean falafel

> and a fabulous fattoosh if he had to, but that would

> not be an excuse to fail to bring him to justice. I'm

> not saying this man is on that level. He isn't. But

> he's a terrorist and a murderer, who trained in terror

> training camps, and that's enough. And many in his

> shoes can make Middle Eastern food. In fact, several

> men arrested on terror charges and/or deported from

> the U.S. have owned, operated, and/or worked at Middle

> Eastern restaurants. The ability to make Baba

> Ghanoush is not a litmus test on whether one is a

> terrorist or a murderer.

>

> You claim that because PKK was not always classified

> as a terrorist group, as it was not so classified when

> Parlak came into this country, that Parlak should not

> be penalized. However, the same can be said of the

> groups Hezbollah, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and, yes, even

> Al-Qaeda. Yet, we regularly--thankfully--deport those

> who have been involved with these groups on a regular

> basis, even if they came here when, unfortunately, our

> country did not take terrorism seriously enough, and

> the groups were not labeled as terrorist groups. The

> State Dept. terrorist list only dates back to 1995 or

> 1996, when President Clinton signed a law mandating it

> and making it illegal to be involved with those

> groups. While, as you state, the Kurds were

> considered to be allies, the PKK was hardly considered

> to be so. It has ties to Al Qaeda and a host of other

> groups who hate us and want to eliminate us.

>

> Regardless, it was ALWAYS illegal to lie on

> immigration and other forms. And it was ALWAYS the

> policy not to let a man held responsible for the

> murders of two men (who served jail time for it) into

> this country. Yet, your culinary pal, Mr. Parlak,

> lied not once, but FIVE times on FIVE separate

> government documents/applications -- all of which are

> enumerated in my column, a fact which you continue to

> choose to ignore. It is a fact which is important,

> because, as you and I both know, had your chef, Mr.

> Parlak, been truthful even once regarding his

> conviction, he would NEVER have been allowed to stay

> here in the first place. He was granted asylum, only

> because he lied and continued to lie thereafter, every

> step of the way. That is the issue, plain and simple.

> Yet, you fail to address that.

>

> You claim that because Martin Dzuris, a

> self-proclaimed conservative Republican, is a friend

> and supporter of Parlak, therefore, some Kosher (or is

> that Halal?)seal of approval must automatically be

> stamped on Parlak. What does Dzuris know about

> Parlak? He played tennis with him and, like you, ate

> at his restaurant. Big deal. He was not there in

> Turkey with Parlak and his grenade, AK-47, and pistol,

> and he was also not there, each of the five times

> Parlak lied about his being held responsible in two

> murders. He was not there at the terrorist training

> camp in the Bekaa Valley, etc. What about that?

>

> And what about Parlak's lawyer, Noel Saleh, who openly

> declared that he donated to Hezbollah, another

> terrorist group, which murdered over 300 U.S. Marines

> and civilians, and who is president of an organization

> tied to terrorism? President Bush welcomed Islamic

> Jihad front-man Sami Al-Arian to the White House, as

> well as others who are strongly tied to terrorist

> groups. Bush, as you may know, is a conservative

> Republican, too. But, he, too, was wrong (and I

> called him on it, in an October 2001 series of columns

> and an "O'Reilly Factor" appearance, that same month).

>

> As a conservative, I really do not need to be lectured

> by a liberal, activist movie critic about the

> definition of a "conservative." "Unnecessary

> government intervention in the private lives of

> citizens" (your words) have nothing to do with this

> situation. This is not even close to akin to

> government intervention in abortion or someone's sex

> life, regardless of what your and/or my views on those

> issues are. In fact, the primary purpose of

> government is to defend its citizens--from harm, from

> foreign armies and invaders, etc. I suggest a review

> of the U.S. Constitution, as I can think of no better

> example of the federal government exercising its power

> per Article IV, Section 4, which states, "The United

> States shall guarantee . . . . and shall protect each

> of them [each State] against Invasion," or Article I,

> Section 8, which provides Congress (which created DHS)

> the power to "repel Invasions." When illegal aliens

> come to this country, and lie to get citizenship, that

> is, no doubt, an invasion.

>

> As for the headline you quote, which you claim is

> "playing dirty," I am, indeed, proud of it. On my own

> website, it's entitled, "Thumbs Down: Roger Ebert

> Supports a Terrorist." In your own letter to the

> government, you begin by saying, "I am a film critic."

> You are allowed to use your status as a TV and print

> movie critic as a credential, however dubious with

> regard to national security, for your claims that

> Parlak does not pose a risk to this country and is not

> a dangerous person, yet I am not allowed to use your

> trademark phrases employed as a movie critic? You

> can't have it both ways.

>

> As far as "playing dirty," I could have mentioned in

> my column your own failed "films," which you--no

> surprise given their gutter quality--wrote under the

> pseudonyms, "R. Hyde" and "Reinhold Timme."

>

> I could have discussed the "plot" of "Beneath the

> Valley of the Ultra-Vixens," the promotional posters

> of which feature two giant female breasts and erect

> nipples, with nude and semi-nude women orgying on top

> of them. I could have discussed the main character,

> "Lamar's obsession with rear entry," how "Lamar is

> trying to find other tail to try his technique on,"

> and the movie's "love scene from the mattress' point

> of view." Or I could have mentioned your masterpiece,

> "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," featuring "a

> sleeping woman performing on a gun which is in her

> mouth" and "lesbian sex scenes." Or I could have

> written about "Up!" which features an Adolf Hitler

> lookalike, playing character "Adolf Schwartz" (talk

> about belittling the Holocaust and WWII). "Springtime

> for Hitler," anyone? That's not to mention its

> "one-woman nude Greek chorus" that pops up at various

> intervals during the movie, to narrate, and "breasts

> from every angle imaginable."

>

> Had I mentioned these other things, perhaps you could

> have said that I was "playing dirty"--or merely just

> writing about you "playing dirty." But the dirtiest

> thing here is that a renowned movie critic--who

> employs ink by the gallon for his own print column--is

> using his renown to help a man like this--a murderer

> and trained terrorist. Then, he's shocked, shocked,

> when someone calls him on it.

> Sincerely,

> Debbie Schlussel

> P.S. I'm not sure why your letter to the "Comments"

> section of FrontPageMag.com was rejected, as I don't

> believe it was vulgar or profane. It must have been a

> computer error, and I am therefore, forwarding and

> submitting it along with this response to the editor

> for publication.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Odd, I thought the only terrorist Ebert supported was Spike Lee...

[Gary Floyd 0]

Ebert himself is a terrorist. Why? Simple-he gave "Van Helsing" thumbs up, fooling people into thinking it would be any good, thus helping inflict it's horrors upon its viewers.

[Guest JMA]

Ebert himself is a terrorist. Why? Simple-he gave "Van Helsing" thumbs up, fooling people into thinking it would be any good, thus helping inflict it's horrors upon its viewers.

Now that's unforgivable.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I wish people would get over him giving Van Helsing three stars. Everytime his name is brought up, there's at least one person who mentions this, and the comments don't ever add anything more than the last ones about it did.

[Guest Beingz0wningj00]

The comments on this thread are far more entertaining then even attempting to read what that long winded bitch was saying.

 

 

Really... how much of a name for herself does she expect to get by ripping on Roger Ebert. Fat man or not... that article is too long and doesn't seem to have added any point other then twisting words to make each other seem like fools. Thankfully, they have succeeded in that extent, and I didn't need to read it all to get it.

 

 

Anyway... VAN HELSINGZ 0WNZ0RZ J00 @LL!!!!@#$@%^!#

$^@%&

[Henry Spencer 0]

Ebert really isn't that fat anymore.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I wish people would get over him giving Van Helsing three stars. Everytime his name is brought up, there's at least one person who mentions this, and the comments don't ever add anything more than the last ones about it did.

Oh come on, what's next? Forgiving him for giving "Blue Velvet" one star? I don't think so!

[Jingus 0]

Ebert has had some dumb, dumb, duuuuuuumb reviews through the years. Giving 3.5 stars to a certain cinematic masterpiece named Anaconda comes to mind.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I wish people would get over him giving Van Helsing three stars.  Everytime his name is brought up, there's at least one person who mentions this, and the comments don't ever add anything more than the last ones about it did.

Oh come on, what's next? Forgiving him for giving "Blue Velvet" one star? I don't think so!

You may disagree with him, but I've never read one of his reviews where he didn't justify his opinions on the movie. One way or the other, you know why he felt the way he did. He doesn't pan stuff just for the sake of it, just like he doesn't praise without backing it up. I don't always agree with him, but he's never produced a review where he didn't at least use solid reasoning about why he liked or disliked a movie. No one is going to agree with anyone else about every movie that comes out. I don't see why people get themselves in a frenzy because someone thought differently of the same movie.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ebert really isn't that fat anymore.

Neither is Rush, but people still make fat jokes. However, there's another movie guy I know that is a bit portly whose waistline is still a target for jokes.

 

And Ebert gave Anaconda 3.5 stars? Oy.

 

And I didn't think Van Hel was that bad. A little long, but not as horrible as I hear people say it is...

[Jingus 0]

I like Roger's work in general and agree with most of his reviews, but there are many exceptions. Giving thumbs down to Fight Club comes to mind.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

But Fight Club's easily one of the most overrated movies of our times. I don't fully agree with the review, but too many people act like it's the movie. It's more of a cult classic than a truly great film.

[cabbageboy 0]

Fight Club is about 2/3 of a really great movie but the last 1/3 becomes so goofy that I wish I could stop the movie whenever I see it, but somehow can't. I can't even make up my mind star wise what I'd give it, maybe ***-***1/2.

 

As far as VH goes, I'd give it **. Certainly not the BOMB Maltin and people like that say it is, but not great either. It had a few nice moments, but that dude who was Dracula was really, really awful.

 

In terms of Ebert, hell, I'd say giving XXX ***1/2 is much worse than giving Anaconda the same.

[Precious Roy 0]

Is there anything that actively connects this guy to terrorism or proof that he was funding it, like a paper trail or something? He was involved with Kurdish freedom fighters in the 80's, as was probably every Kurdish man of fighting age at that time, but nothing I've read provides evidence that he's still involved in anything. They're holding one incident from 20 years ago against the guy. We've got all kinds of mercenarys and even a couple ex-terrorists contracted in the middle east, Bush gets off the hook on everything he did as a kid, that's some crazy hypocrisy to hold this dude's past against him.

[edotherocket 0]

I think Anaconda is actually a pretty fun monster movie. Jon Voight hamming it up as the villain is worth watching this film for.

 

It's also nice to see so many of the people in that film actually became pretty big film stars (Owen Wilson, J Lo, Ice Cube etc) although none of it would really be attributed to Anaconda itself.

 

Anacondas was balls though.

[Betty Houle 0]

I wish people would get over him giving Van Helsing three stars.  Everytime his name is brought up, there's at least one person who mentions this, and the comments don't ever add anything more than the last ones about it did.

Oh come on, what's next? Forgiving him for giving "Blue Velvet" one star? I don't think so!

You may disagree with him, but I've never read one of his reviews where he didn't justify his opinions on the movie. One way or the other, you know why he felt the way he did. He doesn't pan stuff just for the sake of it, just like he doesn't praise without backing it up. I don't always agree with him, but he's never produced a review where he didn't at least use solid reasoning about why he liked or disliked a movie. No one is going to agree with anyone else about every movie that comes out. I don't see why people get themselves in a frenzy because someone thought differently of the same movie.

Exactly.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Is there anything that actively connects this guy to terrorism or proof that he was funding it, like a paper trail or something? He was involved with Kurdish freedom fighters in the 80's, as was probably every Kurdish man of fighting age at that time, but nothing I've read provides evidence that he's still involved in anything. They're holding one incident from 20 years ago against the guy. We've got all kinds of mercenarys and even a couple ex-terrorists contracted in the middle east, Bush gets off the hook on everything he did as a kid, that's some crazy hypocrisy to hold this dude's past against him.

So it matters he might not be involved in terrorism anymore? Forget he killed 2 turkish security guards, and trained in a terrorist camp. That was 20 years ago. That hippy bitch Sarah Jane Olson or whatever she went by, wasn't arrested until like 20 years after she was involved in the murder of the police officer. Should they not of charged her? After all, she doesn't have anymore ties to the left-wing terrorist groups.

 

Bush wasn't a fucking terrorist has a kid. Why the hell would you even bring his name up?

[MDH257 0]

Ebert really isn't that fat anymore.

Neither is Rush, but people still make fat jokes.

Concerning Rush, I don't hear fat jokes anymore. I think it's moved on to jokes about him being a junkie.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Ebert remains, without a doubt, the best film critic out there. The only who comes close to his level of knowledge, analysis, and writing is Charles Taylor.

 

Lots of people trying to draw terrorist ties to Ebert lately. He's one of the most notable faces on nutball David Horowitz's supposed "terrorist networking" site too. What a weird guy to pick as your target.

[SuperJerk 0]

The simple matter is that Ebert believes the man is innocent for reasons other than what the reporter is implying (that he's a good cook).

 

The fact that Ebert believes the man is innocent also negates the implication that the reporter thinks he's giving a "thumbs up" to terrorism.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Besides the who interaction between Ebert and Steussel. I don't really understand, why a former terrorist should be allowed to stay in the country. He was a Kurd...but a member of a communist Kurdish group, so it's hard to image he was really an allie of the US.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

<<The fact that Ebert believes the man is innocent also negates the implication that the reporter thinks he's giving a "thumbs up" to terrorism.>>

 

How?

[Ripper 0]

He can't be giving a thumbs up to terrorism if he is saying the man isn't a terrorist.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Concerning Rush, I don't hear fat jokes anymore. I think it's moved on to jokes about him being a junkie.

True dat, but I have heard the "he's fat" line every now and then, although the drug issue is used much more now...

[LessonInMachismo 0]

He can't be giving a thumbs up to terrorism if he is saying the man isn't a terrorist.

Okay...but the fact is that the man IS a terrorist, hence my confusion.

 

Ebert is either in denial or really naïve.

[Ripper 0]

He can't be giving a thumbs up to terrorism if he is saying the man isn't a terrorist.

Okay...but the fact is that the man IS a terrorist, hence my confusion.

 

Ebert is either in denial or really naïve.

Doesn't the word IS imply that he is currently making terroristic actions? I mean I am not going to say he is or isn't, I am just guessing that you don't really know either. He is being deported because of a crime he committed and served time for before coming to this country. I mean, show me where he has committed acts of terror since and I'm with ya. But until then, Rog has the right to believe in the guys innocence there for he isn't supporting terrorism. he is calling a friend of his innocent.

 

Plus she dissed one of the great movies of our era:

 

 

so fuck her.

 

(no I couldn't find a American poster for the movie so you get the...um...German(?) one. )