EURO down, no surprise to me

I never had much faith that the Euro would do well as a currency. In it's most basic form, investing in a currency is investing in that country and its economic plan. The current higher value of the Euro does not have anything to do with the strength of the Euro but the relative weakness of the dollar due to a few factors including, the War against Islamic Terrorism. With at least 25% of France and Germany working for the government (overhead) and 10% unemployment, the 65% who work to create wealth have a large burden to bear. Add lots of red tape and taxes which prevent new businesses from growing and average people from being motivated to become richer. To top it off, many of the weaker countries will have problems limiting budget deficits, hence, you could see a situation where the Euro is worth more in different parts of Europe.

I think the euro will continue to tumble as America winds up the costlier portions of the war and its economy continues to grow.

The euro tumbled to a fresh seven-month low against the US dollar in European morning trade on Tuesday as trading desks returned to full strength after Monday's holidays in the US and UK...President Jacques Chirac's decision to name Dominique de Villepin as prime minister, following the resignation of Jean-Pierre Raffarin, also appeared to go down badly with the market, sending the euro lower still when the announcement was made.
"Dominique de Villepin, has a social democratic stance on economic policy, which might help to persuade the anti-reform minded French electorate, but would cost France precious time to reform its outdated economic model. In the case of Villepin being appointed the euro would slide further," Hans Redeker, global head of forex strategy at BNP Paribas, had said prior to Mr Chirac's decision.
Further evidence of the economic plight of the eurozone also emerged on Tuesday, with eurozone-wide industrial and consumer sentiment declining in May. French unemployment also remained at a five-year high of 10.2 per cent, while German joblessness remained at 11.8 per cent....After news of Mr Villeprin's appointment, the euro was down 1.3c at $1.2343 against the dollar AP

The Gulag of Our Times?

Amnesty International has lost any remaining credibility by trying to compare the US prison at Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet Gulag. They remind me of teachers in grammar school who would be afraid to reprimand the prominent school bullies at recess, but would rather would criticise normal children for playing in the snow.

It is also reminiscent of former US Senator & ambassador to the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan's "Law" regarding the UN & human rights, which stated the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights.

LONDON - Amnesty International branded the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay a human rights failure Wednesday, calling it "the gulag of our time" as it released a report that offers stinging criticism of the United States and its detention centers around the world.
The 308-page report accused the United States of shirking its responsibility to set the bar for human rights protections and said Washington has instead created a new lexicon for abuse and torture.
In the harshest rebuke yet of U.S. detention policies, Amnesty International called for the camp to be closed.... "Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time," Amnesty Secretary General Irene Khan said.

The French may have some smarts yet

I think the EU constitution is a bureaucracy mess that will sink Europe further. Increased bureaucracy and government overhead will not help Europe compete. Notice how the journalist (or the editor) throw in their opinion into the story even by the title. "Constitution foes" is not a neutral term to describe an opponent of the issue.

Also notice the problems that France is having passing this referendum, but the legislatures in 10 other countries passed the constitution quickly. The politicians love the bureacracy. Perhaps the French street is slightly smarter than those they elect.

Constitution foes fear for France's soul By Tom Hundley Chicago Tribune

Such are the depths of Francois Vincent's disdain for the new European
constitution that he recently uttered words that have not passed the lips of
many Frenchmen.
"I would rather be an American than a European," said Vincent, 63, who owns a vegetable stall in one of Paris' open-air markets. "At least Americans love their country."

Like many Frenchmen who plan to vote "no" in this Sunday's referendum, he is worried that the new European constitution will rob France of some vital piece of its national soul.

Didier Vernet, 53, a stallholder in the same market on Boulevard Raspail, thinks that's nuts.

"Do you think the French will be stupid enough to vote `no'?" he said with a
disdain to match Vincent's. "That would really be going backwards."

The French referendum Sunday and another one three days later in the Netherlands have unexpectedly turned into a crisis for the architects of the constitution.

Voters in both countries appear ready to ignore the pleadings of their elected leaders and reject the turgid 448-article draft that is supposed to serve as a constitution for the EU's 25 member states.

Thus far, 10 member states have approved the constitution, but only one, Spain, did so by referendum. The others ratified it in their national legislatures.

The draft constitution streamlines decision-making for the EU and gives it a stronger defense and foreign policy. The draft must be accepted by every member state before it becomes law.

The French and the Dutch have long been among the most enthusiastic supporters of the European project. When French President Jacques Chirac opted to put the constitution to a referendum rather than a legislative vote, he assumed it would be an easy sell. It now looms as the biggest miscalculation of his long political career.

Polls: `No' camp leads Opinion polls over the past month have consistently shown the "no" camp with a steady lead in the range of 51 percent to 54 percent. The only hope for constitution supporters is that a quarter of voters say they have not yet made up their minds.

Chirac's center-right government, the opposition Socialist Party and most of the French political and intellectual establishment support the new constitution, arguing that a "no" vote will cripple the European project and cost France its place at the very heart of Europe.

The opposition comes in all political stripes: dissident socialists who fear the new constitution will end France's welfare state; Catholic nationalists angry that the document makes no mention of God; trade unions that fear it will export jobs to Eastern Europe; far-right followers of Jean-Marie Le Pen who think a "no" vote will keep Turkey out of the EU; anti-globos who argue that the document is a plot for the corporate takeover of Europe ...

Congratulations to Illario Pantano and his Family!!!

MIAMI (Reuters) - The U.S. Marine Corps said on Thursday it had dropped all charges against a Marine lieutenant accused of murdering two Iraqis during a vehicle search near a weapons cache in Iraq last year.

The Marine Corps said in a statement from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina that charges of premeditated murder were dismissed against 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano for his involvement in the shooting deaths of two Iraqi men on April 15, 2004, during combat operations in Iraq.
Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, the commanding general of the 2nd Marine Division, had completed an investigation that included a review of the autopsies of the Iraqis shot by Pantano, the statement said.

"After careful consideration of the Article 32 Investigative Report and of the autopsies, Maj. Gen. Huck has decided to dismiss all charges," the statement said.
"While the Article 32 Investigation has been lengthy, the best interests of 2nd Lt. Pantano and the government have been served by this process."

Is Liberalism a Mental Disorder?

Radio Host Michael Savage has coined the term "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" and enrished it as the latest title of his book. The first time I heard this, I scoffed at it a bit or thought it was a bit of humor. The more time passes, the more I realize is that it must be true.

Why else would self-described feminists supports the Islamists who would ruthlessly beat them if they lived in one of their countries. Why do the gay lobby support the Islamists who would KILL them instantly if they live in Saudi Arabia? Why would so-called liberals of the press voice support for the Islamists who would never allow the same freedoms that they enjoy here? Why? Why? Why? They must be insane!

The Fall of Italy

Islamist have brainwashed Italian liberals into believing that any writings critical of Islam should be banned. I've read the Rage and the Pride. Although its translation (her own) is a bit awkward at times , the anticdotes are interesting and informative. She is able to provide an insight into the back areas of third world countries that mainstream media passes by.

Fallaci charged in Italy with defaming Islam

ROME (Reuters) - A judge has ordered best-selling writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci to stand trial in her native Italy on charges she defamed Islam in a recent book.The decision angered Italy's justice minister but delighted Muslim activists, who accused Fallaci of inciting religious hatred in her 2004 work "La Forza della Ragione" (The Force of Reason).
Fallaci lives in New York and has regularly provoked the wrath of Muslims with her outspoken criticism of Islam following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. cities.
In "La Forza della Ragione," Fallaci wrote that terrorists had killed 6,000 people over the past 20 years in the name of the Koran and said the Islamic faith "sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom."
State prosecutors originally dismissed accusations of defamation from an Italian Muslim organization, and said Fallaci should not stand trial because she was merely exercising her right to freedom of speech.
But a preliminary judge in the northern Italian city of Bergamo, Armando Grasso, rejected the prosecutors advice at a hearing on Tuesday and said Fallaci should be indicted. Grasso's ruling homed in on 18 sentences in the book, saying some of Fallaci's words were "without doubt offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith."

MUSLIMS HAIL DECISION
Adel Smith, a high-profile Muslim activist who brought the original law suit, hailed the decision."It is the first time a judge has ordered a trial for defamation of the Islamic faith," he told reporters. "But this isn't just about defamation. We would also like (the court) to recognize that this is an incitement to religious hatred."
Justice Minister Roberto Castelli, who has a prickly relationship with the Italian judiciary, said the ruling represented an attack on freedom of expression.
"In Europe we are seeing the birth of a movement that is looking to silence those who don't follow a single mindset, within which it is forbidden to speak ill of Islam, of homosexuals or of the children of homosexuals," Castelli was quoted as saying in an interview with Radio Padania.
"In Fallaci's book there is very strong criticism but not defamation," Italian news agency ANSA quoted him as saying. There was no immediate comment from Fallaci who is in her 70s and suffers from cancer.
Just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Fallaci published "La Rabbia e 'Orgoglio" ("The Rage and the Pride"), in which she said the West was superior to Islamic society and complained that Muslim immigrants had "multiplied like rats."
The book sold more than one million copies in Italy and at least 500,000 elsewhere in Europe. Fallaci received numerous death threats following its launch and "La Forza della Ragione" was billed as her response to the outpouring of anger.
No date was set for the opening of the defamation trial.

Star Wars, Anti Bush? I think not!

Although some liberal conspiracy theorists want to analogize Star Wars episode III, with President Bush, not only do I fail to see the connection, I think the opposite is true.

In Star Wars, the traditional force of good in the universe, the Jedi council, has been branded as evil and trying to take over the universe, by the leader of the evil men, Palpatine. In the real world, the traditional force of good in the world, the United States, has been branded as evil and trying to take over the world by those evil people who seek to undermine it. Palpatine also convinces Skywalker to support him, a dictator, in his quest for "peace." This reminds me of the so-called peace protesters who would support a dictator (Saddam) in their quest for "peace."

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - A powerful leader moves to suspend civil liberties to defend the republic during a time of war. The subject of political debate in Washington? No, it's the new "Star Wars" movie.

"Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith" has barely hit screens, but political activists are already drawing heated comparisons between Darth Vader's battle in a galaxy far, far away and Bush's war on terror.

George Lucas's sixth and final offering in the classic film series is stirring up a hornet's nest of controversy in the United States, whether or not the director intended to bring modern politics into his sci-fi allegory.

"If you're not with me, you're my enemy," Anakin Skywalker, who goes to the "dark side" as the evil Lord Darth Vader, tells his onetime mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi in one scene in the film that raked in a record 50 million dollars on its opening day in North America on Thursday.

The phrase eerily echoes Bush's warning to the world following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on US targets: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

In another scene that has annoyed conservative groups and delighted liberals, Chancellor Palpatine exploits war fears to consolidate his power and turn the Republic into an empire ruled by him alone.

Senator Padme Amidala, played by Natalie Portman, watches the scen

CBS makes more excuses and spin spin spin

Hmm.... perhaps if CBS pulled it's head of the ground it would realise that perhaps the poor ratings are due to the FALSE story. I love the spin in the article too. The use of "ill-fated" instead of false or the last sentence. It was bloggers who showed that the documents were fabricated on a modern word processor. They were "fake" not "not able to be verified." The spin is ungodly.

NEW YORK - CBS said Wednesday it is cancelling the Wednesday edition of "60 Minutes," insisting the decision was made because of poor ratings and not last fall's ill-fated story about President Bush' s military service. Dan Rather, the newsmagazine's lead correspondent, will contribute stories to the Sunday edition
of "60 Minutes," said CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves. "This was a ratings call, not a content call," Moonves said Wednesday. The newsmagazine spinoff was where Rather reported last September that Bush skirted some duty while in the Texas Air National Guard and a commander felt pressure to sugarcoat an evaluation of him. An independent panel later concluded that documents used in the story could not be verified.

Made In China

This is a very real article on the types of war that the US will face in this century.

The great British mathematician Alfred North Whitehead once wrote, "It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious." Some Chinese believe that Osama bin Laden has such a mind. Although bin Laden and his minions are plotting the current terror war against the United States, the Chinese – in their quest to create a multipolar world – may have written the book on terrorism…literally.
From the collapse of the Soviet Union and the U.S. victory in the first Gulf War, political leaders and military strategists drew two obvious conclusions. The United States could not be defeated militarily, and any nation that sought to achieve military parity with the U.S. would, like the former Soviet Union, bankrupt itself in the attempt.
To the leaders of China, France, Germany and Russia, a unipolar world with the United States as the world’s only superpower is an unappealing long-term prospect. ... Only China is growing economically at a faster pace than the United States. But even with its burgeoning economy, overtaking the U.S. is a very long-term proposition.
China has an added incentive for wanting to see U.S. power weakened, the possibility that a declaration of independence by Taiwan could lead to armed conflict. Jiang Zemin, in July 1999, said that he realized that at some point China would have to fight the American wolf, but for now the wolf was too strong, and so the right course for China was to continue to court American business and investment and increase exports to the U.S. China needed to "dance with the wolf" in order to build a strong economy.
In recent years a number of articles and books have been written by Chinese military analysts wrestling with the problem of how to win a war against a seemingly invincible United States. Only one of these has received attention by the mainstream American press. Chaoxian Zhan (Unrestricted War) proposed a total war approach to defeating the U.S. that was praised by China’s highest ranking officers. In their war fighting methodology, the authors (Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui) included the possible use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Western journalists, unable to read Chinese, drew their news reports from an English summary of the book that focused on the weapons of mass destruction and missed the most important point. Osama bin Laden had analyzed the obvious and concluded that while the United States could not be defeated by a foreign power, Americans could be induced to defeat themselves.

In Unrestricted War, Osama bin Laden is the prototype for the "new terrorist." He has acquired capital, technical expertise and access to weapons by taking advantage of the "loopholes in the free economies of the West." (Bin Laden has boasted that his followers understand Western financial systems as well as they know the backs of their hands.) The ease with which his organization has been able to raise funds coupled with his skillful use of religious organizations and the media to gain recruits to his cause has guaranteed a ready supply of men and weaponry to carry out his attacks.
According to Qiao and Wang, the new terrorists are not restrained by "international law, behavioral norms and ethical principles…Because they operate secretly, are well concealed, and cause widespread damage, their attacks …seem uncommonly cruel. All of which when it is broadcast in real time by the round the clock coverage of the modern media further strengthens the effects of their terrorist acts." Defeating the new terrorists is difficult because a nation "which follows certain rules and will
only use limited force to achieve limited goals" is at a distinct disadvantage against organizations "which do not observe any rules and are unafraid to fight an unlimited war using unlimited means." Terrorist groups rely on the fact that even though they are fighting a technologically and numerically superior enemy, the nature of their attacks provides insufficient justification for the enemy to make full use of its superiority. The new terrorists are like rats with very sharp teeth and excellent survival skills. Like rats, they strike quickly and then duck back into their holes. However, whereas rat-infested habitats can be destroyed, terrorists conceal themselves among civilian populations and any massive military retaliation is certain to result in the loss of innocent lives. When you kill innocent civilians you are condemned by the media, human rights groups and the nations most closely allied to you.
Prior to 9/11 the U.S. response to each terrorist attack had been predictable. When the Khobar Towers were bombed in 1996, President Clinton said, "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished." He responded to the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, by calling terrorist acts "abhorrent and inhuman" and promising to "use all means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice." After the U.S.S Cole was attacked in 2000, he warned
the terrorists, "You will not find a safe harbor. We will find you, and justice will prevail."Only after the embassy bombings did he authorize military action, a missile strike against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical weapons plant in Sudan. The argument has been made that surgical strikes that limit collateral damage are less likely to result in a negative reaction by the American people. Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper, U.S.MC, and Major General Robert Scales, U.S.A, believe that one of the lessons of the first Gulf War is that when our nation’s leaders think that the American people are unprepared to deal with the carnage of war, "psychological revulsion" becomes a powerful weapon in the enemy’s arsenal especially when that weapon is unwittingly wielded by our own media.
By the time bin Laden laid the plans for his 9/11 surprise, he could feel fairly certain of two things: The U.S. would continue to view terrorists as criminals rather than as enemy combatants engaged in a war against the United States, and even when military power was brought to bear by launching missiles at suspected terrorist hideouts, the mission would be undertaken in the name of law enforcement, not as an act of war.
The Bush administration’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in response to 9/11 caught bin Laden by surprise, and invalidated his hypothesis about the willingness of the U.S. to use military power to destroy terrorist bases and training camps, and to change the regimes of nations that harbored and supported terrorist organizations. However, bin Laden has reason to believe that our military response will be undermined from the inside. Many of the people educating America’s children today came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, and by and large believe that all war is wrong. The Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI), established in 1892, is the oldest professional association of its type in the United States. Its executive director considers the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq "profoundly sad and most unfortunate." ACEI takes the position that "a vital way to prevent war and bring about peace is to raise a generation of children who reject killing as uncivilized and as a barbaric, unproductive way to deal with human conflicts."
While ACEI’s bold statement stands in sharp contrast to that of the other associations of American educators, which implicitly sanction antiwar teachings
under the mantle of academic freedom of expression, the most widely held view is
that "peace education" is the "natural role" for America’s teachers at every level from pre-kindergarten through graduate school. And peace education seems to be working. The Army and the Marine Corps are failing to meet their recruiting goals. The head of the Army Recruiting Command, referring to enlistment projections as "not a bright picture," calls it "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer army." The Army is so desperate to sign up new recruits that it has begun offering 15-month active-duty enlistments. However, such a short enlistment will almost certainly mean reduced training time and lowered unit cohesiveness, which will inevitably result in greater numbers of U.S. casualties.
During the Korean War, Joseph Stalin told Zhou Enlai that the United States had "lost the capability to wage a large-scale war." Mao Zedong also believed that Americans "cannot stand wars." In his declaration of war against the United States, bin Laden cited Reagan’s withdrawal of the Marines from Beirut in 1983 after 241 were killed in a suicide bombing, and Clinton’s withdrawal from Somalia "when tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu" as examples of American "impotence and weakness." Qiao and Wang believe that "CNN’s broadcast of an American soldier’s exposed corpse on the streets of Mogadishu" was all that was needed to "shake American determination."
The Koran teaches that "Allah is with those who patiently persevere." Osama bin Laden believes that if he can just keep killing Americans, the nightly news images of dead and wounded, the rising casualty count and the faces of young soldiers killed in action will take their toll on the American people. The 2004 election was so close that he has every reason to hope that next time the U.S. will elect a president who will end large-scale military operations and return to the practice followed by the Clinton administration of responding to terrorist acts by trying to bring the individuals responsible to justice. When that happens, Osama bin Laden is convinced that we will be forced to withdraw from the Middle East as Clinton did from Somalia, "carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat, and your dead with you." Al Kaltman

Newsweek: "We're Stupid"

In an effort to break the "next Abu Ghraib scandal," Newsweek decided to publish a story saying that American officers were destroying Korans and Guantanamo. They had dodgy sources which they are now hiding behind. Now all the hajis are up in arms. Imams are calling for jihad. Terrorist recruiting is probably on the rise. 16 people died in rioting. American lives are at risk.

Oh sure, Newsweek is apologizing for the story, but it's a little late.It doesn't matter. Do you think a terrorist recruiter will mention the retraction when he is preaching hate?

This is similar to when the Daily Mirror (UK) and the Boston Globe printed fake abuse pictures. Those pictures were used by the Islamofacists. It didn't matter that then turned out to be fake.
Are the editors of just stupid, so eager for a big story they will sell out soldiers lives, or are they treasonous?

NEW YORK - In an apology to readers this week, Newsweek acknowledged errors
in a story alleging U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran.
..."We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our
sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its
midst," Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the apology.

John Edwards & his Two Americas

John Edwards spoke of two Americas prior to the election. Clearly he is from the rich America. Why does Edwards need 100 acres, when so many people have less? What a blatant hypocrite.

That's why I hate limosuene liberals so much. What is an extra few thousand to a rich liberal? Arguing for increasing bureaucratic social programs helps to eleviate their guilt. However for myself who lives on an area 0.015% that of Edwards, a few extra thousand goes a long way towards saving. The higher taxes are, the harder it is for a lower class or middle class person to become rich.

Some liberals might defend him saying..."I don't think a person should begrudge an individual for using his abilities to accumulate wealth" Isn't that what raising taxes is?... begrudging people's wealth. It's saying, "you make too much, I'm taking some of it and redistributing as I see fit."

"The Edwardses put their detached yellow brick Georgetown home on P Street on the market last week for $6.5 million....Edwards said the couple will move to their white clapboard family home in Raleigh while they build a house on a 100-acre parcel in Chapel Hill." Detriot News

Iran to fear the EU.

Ut oh, Iran! If Iran doesn't listen to the EU, well, they may suggest to threaten sanctions. That would scare them! Iran might be forced to blow smoke in the eyes of the EU and continue what they are doing. And if Iran gets handed over to the UN, well it's all over then. The UN cannot be bribed or comprimised. We all know that.

France, Britain and Germany have warned Iran they will break off talks and join Washington in seeking U.N. Security Council action if Tehran makes good on its threats to resume atomic work, EU officials said on Thursday. The foreign ministers of the European Union's three biggest powers sent a strongly worded letter to Hassan Rohani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, warning that resuming potentially arms-related nuclear work "would bring the negotiating process to an end," an EU diplomat quoted the letter as saying.
"The consequences could only be negative for Iran," it said. British Prime Minister
Tony Blair spelled out the potential consequences, telling reporters: "We certainly will support referral to the United Nations Security Council if Iran breaches its obligations and undertakings." Reuters

Hollywood worried? Let the Christopher explain why

When Hollywood is worried about the decline, in box office revenue, they start to make excuses just like the RIAA does with CD sales. They ponder: "why aren't people going to see our movie?" Then they create some excuse: "Oh it must be because it's allergy season!" Kingdom of Heaven made a paltry $20 mil on its opening weekend, when it cost $130 mil to make. Look for it to drop to about $8 mil next weekend, when everyone who saw it says what a bunch of crap it was. When I first heard of the movie, I was cautious. Hollywood's reputation preceeds itself. If they are going to make a movie regarding Christians, expect the Christians to be bad. Since it involved the Crusades, Muslims would be portrayed as wise, kind, and brave, while the Christians were corrupt, dishonorable, and cowardly, except for the main character who becomes disillusioned by his fellow Crusaders. I wouldn't have been surprised if Bloom had become a Muslim by the movie's end.

No historian would say that all the Crusaders behaved honorably, but they tendancy of Hollywood to highlight the injustices of one group and whitewash the other, is inaccurate and inappropriate. So these were my original feelings and Hollywood would have needed to work hard to over come them.

Now Hollywood is starting to get worried. The poor box-office performance
last weekend of the first major film of the summer, "Kingdom of Heaven," released by 20th Century Fox, made for 11 weeks in a row of declining movie attendance and revenue compared with last year, adding up to the longest slump since 2000 and raising an uncomfortable question: Are people turning away from lackluster movies, or turning their backs on the whole business of going to theaters?
The historical epic about the Crusades, which stars Orlando Bloom and was directed by Ridley Scott, took in just $20 million at the domestic box office, a puny opening
for a film that cost about $130 million to make and was supported by a major
marketing push. NY Times

Well, my initial suspicisions seemed validated by this story when came out a few days before the release. I noted it especially because these "groups" tend to be propoganda groups funded by our so-called "allies" in the Middle East.

Muslim Groups Praise 'Kingdom of Heaven' - The American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee was among those worried groups, but half a dozen
members came away greatly relieved after a "Kingdom of Heaven" screening
arranged for them by Scott.
"It's one of the better representations of Muslims we've seen out of Hollywood," said Laila Al-Qatami, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based group. AP

I decided to read some reviews for myself. This humourous one from someone calling himself admiraltylawyer. I decided to post it nearly in its entirety:

...I went into the movie fearing to some degree that it would be PC and try to preach Muslims good, Christians bad. Well, it did a lot of that, but suprisingly it didn't really piss me off at all because it was so unrealistically biased it was actually humorous! I mean they portray the Knights Templar as totally one dimensional cardboard cutouts. One of the evil guys looks like the Undertaker from WWF and his personality is about as realistic. "Must kill arabs..." ...Absolutely unrealistic.If you are going to have evil characters you've got to give them some depth and motivation. I felt like I was watching Monty Python for parts of the movie. Orlando Bloom would try to convince them they couldn't beat the Muslims and one evil knight yells "blasphemy!" Then another yells "God Wills It!" Then they all yell "GOD WILLS IT!" It reminded me of the villagers yelling "She's a Witch! Burn her!" Except
Monty Python was a comedy. This was supposed to be a drama!

Also, did Ridley Scott even TRY to make this movie accurate? Every single priest in this movie was absolutely corrupt. Every single one! Could they not have just one priest who was presented in a positive light? And not ONE Muslim ever did anything bad in this film. I mean come on!! At least show there were good and bad on both sides. This was so lopsided it was humorous.Then there are the platitudes and cliches that pass for "wisdom" in this movie. Is our society so mindless and lost that anybody who saw this was actually inspired by any words spoken by Bloom or Neeson? They were completely useless drivel. The whole movie seemed like a really expensive ad for some simpleton mind numbing appeal to world peace. I couldn't really identify with Bloom as the hero. I never knew what exactly he stood for. Some vague notion of doing God's will? I'm just guessing here. I honestly don't know what his purpose was. He starts out seeking forgiveness for murdering someone but then that just fades away by the end of the film.And what about the princess who becomes queen? First of all she's not even that hot. Secondly she just goes insane and into a daze about 3/4 into the film, cuts all her hair, and just becomes an even more unattractive boring shallow character. Bloom gets her to throw away being a queen in the end. For what? Is that supposed to be the movie's subtle way of downing monarchies? I don't know. No clue.Plus the King of the Christians is some Emo Phillips wannabe in a silver mask. He looked kind of like a gay cobra commander. He was just annoying and pathetic to look at. A real embarassment.And Saladin? Who the hell did they get to play him? The guy reminded me of an old Jaimie Farr playing the Arab in Smokey and the Bandit 2. After about an hour in to this travesty I would have begged someone to let me watch Smokey and the Bandit 2! If I have to be forced to look at fake corrupt priests at least I can see Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr. in collars drinking liquor and hitting on chicks.And then after 2
hours we finally, FINALLY, get a battle scene. The muslims finally attack Jerusalem. It was all well and good until the muslims started launching RPG's at the crusaders. WTF!!?? Am I missing something or did the muslims not posess the technology to launch exploding fireballs in the middle ages? I mean you can launch a big ball of flaming wood I suppose or some flammable object. But once it hits the other side it DOESN'T EXPLODE. *****, you had exploding fireballs like freaking grenades all over the place. Christians flying through the air. It was just terrible.All in all building ZERO character empathy, and having a pathetic, cliche, so biased it was laughable, script sent this movie into absolute ruin. The worst part was the boredom. OH the boredom! It's almost three hours long and it NEVER picks up. It's like dying a slow death. Like getting drug to death behind a kid on a tricycle. I was physically and emotionally drained and numb after this movie. I am now dumber for having seen it.Seeing all of the A's given out on here for this movie I have to wonder if every one of you is an absolute mind numbed moron or if I should just weep for America. I honestly should have known that if Ebert liked it, it had to suck. I could kick myself for not giving this movie the Ebert test before I saw it. Yahoo Movie Review