Report a comment as inappropriate

You are reporting the following comment by Taomaster on this page.

"Why would Tom Hanks choose this? That's simple, he knows which side his bread is buttered. This movie is yet another instance of Hollywood rewriting history in a sugar coated patriotic self embrace. Even as a "fictionalised" account of the main character's story it is a poor screenplay, lacking any meaningful dramatic conflict or tension. As a comedy it was mild satire at best. But as historically informative? Give me a break! A movie that claims to tell the story of the Afghan Russian war of the 80's without a single mention of its main player Osama Bin Laden is just such brazen propaganda I am amazed there are numpty's here eating it up? It fails to mention that it was the US that started that war. The Soviet backed socialist leaning government in Kabul was dealing with the type of terrorist conflict the US had been so good at in Central America, and feeling they were losing the battle against the US armed Mujahideen they invited the Russians in to defend them. That is how the war started. When the US started to lose that war they raised the stakes. Enter Bin Laden courtesy of the then head of the CIA George Bush Senior (also a Texan not mentioned in this scenario) who was closely associated with the Bin Laden family. By using Bin Laden and the Saudi's as a conduit for financing, arming and training the Mujahideen the loosely veiled US involvement was politicised. I am sure some of Charlie Wilson’s involvement is true and I am even more certain that this womanising drunken letch was just a tool used by the CIA and not visa versa. You only have to have been alive and following the events to see through this propaganda tripe. But for all those of you for whom this is just history and you get your “information” from Sky or Fox News, educate yourself."

Please state your reason

Reason *
* mandatory fields