Is that a fact? - Speak for yourself, Mr. Mooney!
I knew he would hate the contest!
It's a topical connection that Peter Jackson, the director of the cinematic version of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy epic, seems to be inviting. In "The Two Towers," Jackson improvises upon Tolkien's text by introducing an orc suicide bomber at the battle of Helm's Deep.
You made the connection, Mr. Mooney, not me... Not bad though!
Orcs are men and elves who have been twisted and perverted by the evil one (Morgoth).
I can't understand why some people have to screw up a good story about good vs. evil by trying to read something into it that the author never intended.
The Lord of the Rings has nothing to do with anything going on in the world today except for the overall good vs. evil part. Getting into more detail than that is just a waste of time. It's also an indication how people have way too much time on their hands.
As a commentary on contemporary conflicts, Jackson's film has serious limitations.
Well, duh. The film was not a commentary on contemporary conflicts, nor was the book. It has applications, yes, and big, timeless themes but Sauroman is not Osama! Rumsfeld is not a Rohirrim! It's not a frickin' analogy for anything!! JRR was quite open and outspoken about this! Nothing cheeses me more than ill-educated journalists/commentators who confuse their own shallow and sorely misinformed opinions for fact. In terms of cluelessness, elementary education majors may occupy the bottom rung of the IQ ladder, but journalists are sitting in the mud beneath it- this guy is no exception.
Thanks for the chance to rant.
No personal insults intended to anyone who is, or may know and like, an "El-Ed" major. I have one in my family, too.
moonecc-at-yahoo.com.
This is his homepage
Didn't Saruman's forces blow up the wall in the book? I don't think PJ was thinking 'suicide bombers' when he filmed the movie, but for the analogy to be correct, the orc would have to have gone down into the caves where the women and children were and THEN blown himself up killing as many innocent civilians as he could.
The journalists of today don't like the fact that Tolkien could so easily define good and evil. They want there to be some sort of 'moral equivalence' between us and the terrorists, and they'll try any torturous route to create one.
I guess it would be inappropriate to remind folks that I never did like him as Aragorn.
WFTR
Bill
Just read the "article" by this Liberal. Some points of interest:
Mr. Mooney is obviously not a veteran of the Armed Forces. Were he, he would know that as desirable as following the so-called "rules of war" mayy be, it is not always possible when facing an intractable enemy. See both Dresden and Hiroshima. War, unfortunately, is not won by mercy, it is won by ruthless assault and violence of action. Mercy, whilst an admirable quality, is only admirable (and possible) in a VICTOR.
Mr. Mooney mentions, as most naive liberals do, the Geneva Convention. He forgets that without the enforcement power of (primarily) the U.S., that document would be utterly meaningless (as opposed to "almost meaningless"). It granted no protection whatsoever to Americans imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton, nor did it save those massacred at Malmedy, nor those tortured on the Bataan Death March. All it did, like all "laws", is provide for the punishment of the wrongdoers...AFTER they had worked their evil. when I went through SERE (Survival,Escape,Resistance,and Evasion, the ONLY school in the military where they are ALLOWED to physically...abuse students) school, we were taught that, if captured, we could expect the worst, Geneva be damned.
Finally, in this (admittedly useless) attempt at moral equivalence, Mr. Mooney somehow ignores the fact that, in context, the actions of the Rohirrim might well prevent further slaughter. Consider that such a battle scene, witnessed by other orcs, might cause them to think the better of attacking or invading that area, thus negating their similar fate, and certainly saving the lives of innocent civilians, who, by the way, are properly the Soldier's CHIEF concern. The enemy comes a distant LAST.
No, the Islamicists do not, so far as we know, engage in cannibalism. However, they DO certainly engage in the slaughter of innocents, the torture of prisoners both civilian AND military, and violate ALL so-called "rules of war". Simply because they may gripe to one another about their lot on occasion does NOT make their actions the less reprehensible. I'm sure, for example, that concentration camp guards grumped about the food and the smoky air, too. It didn't make them any more human, nor worthy of mercy.
Yes, Hair, you are ultimately correct, comparing a wonderful fantasy story to real events is a fool's errand, but this one required a dose of reality to balance it. Liberals, in discussing war, tend too often to apply their own "fantasy" to it. Such foolishness must be countered.
