Seems pretty clear to me, but let me check dictionary.com. Yep, documentary and fiction, two different meanings. Arabs are probably the fiction-makers' most used antagonist, but the reason for that is that there are more extremist Arabs. Sure, these movies could use Buddhist extremists, or Hindu extremists, but that wouldn't be very believable, seeing as there aren't really any around, whereas Arab terrorists are a dime a dozen.

It's not like anyone is saying all Arabs are bad though. When you see a movie that involves KKK members beating up black people, likewise, that isn't saying all white people are that way. If Arabs don't like playing the antagonists in movies, maybe they should look to their own flock and try to weed out the many that really *are* antagonists. In other words, if they acted more like peaceful Buddhists, they'd probably get the same film treatment as peaceful Buddhists. Unfortunately, there seems to be a disproportionately high number of suicide bombers and terrorists and such mixed into their population. You're judged by those with whom you associate. Whether that's fair or not is a question for another thread.

Can't remember the last time I saw a Jew kill a Christian child to use his blood to make matzah though. Oh yeah, that's right: never. Good thing 'documentary' doesn't necessarily mean 'true'. In any case, I was responding to the statement that Hezbollah isn't anti-Semitic. Their own documentaries prove that statement false, in as complete a way as is possible. They're their own worst PR people.