Posted on 01/23/2006 3:18:42 PM PST by KingofZion
AT A RECENT family gathering, my cousin-in-law, Janice, asked me to respond to complaints she'd read over and over again about "Munich"...
***Why does the movie show Mossad agents having doubts and regrets about killing terrorists when apparently they never have doubts and regrets? Why did you make that up?
I've never killed anyone, but my instincts as a person and a playwright and the best books I've read about soldiers or cops or people whose jobs bring them into violent physical conflict suggest that people in general don't kill without feeling torn up about it.
***Janice asked a third question: Why do I, her cousin-in-law, apparently have a secret plan to destroy Israel?
I have indeed been critical of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza well, Janice knew that already. I'm an American and a proudly Diasporan Jew. I believe that the best hope for any oppressed minority is found in the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law, in secular pluralist democracy.
***I think it's the refusal of the film to reduce the Mideast controversy, and the problematics of terrorism and counterterrorism, to sound bites and spin that has brought forth charges of "moral equivalence" from people whose politics are best served by simple morality tales. ***This is a great annoyance to the up-and-at-'em crowd, whose unshakable conviction is that the only sane and effective response to terrorism is savage violence commensurate with the original act. To justify this conviction they offer, as so many of the political critics of "Munich" have done, tautologies on the order of "evil deeds are done by evil people who do evil deeds because that's what evil people do." If that's helpful to you as a tool for understanding terrorism, you won't like "Munich."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
But it's nice to get him on the record that he imbued the script with his left-wing views on the mideast conflict and his own moral dilemmas, which probably weren't shared by the brave Mossad agents (depicted otherwise)
..guess this clown missed the throat slashings..I won't for the sake of decency go into details
Doogle
"show Mossad agents having doubts and regrets about killing terrorists"
The real irony here is that people of conscience will always question the need to take human life, but such 'doubts and regrets' are NEVER ascribed to the Palestinians, who deliberately sought out and butchered noncombatants. The implication is that the Palestinians are monsters who kill innocents without hesitation or compunction, while the Israelis reflect and agonize over the taking of any life. The libs have never figured this one out.
So everyone's "instincts as a person" are to be deemed credible?
This guy's instincts also lead him to be a gay activist. Why should his instincts be deemed correct?
I applaud Golda Meir and the Mossad for taking these people out. I will continue to do so, despite whatever message "Munich" is trying to sell.
Glad to see all the criticism is making them nervous.
I wouldn't watch any of spielburg's movies. They're mostly leftist's propaganda.
I like that movie, Duel with Dennis Weaver.
In other words, soft-headed Hollywood liberals...
Avner's (the main character) problem was the way in which he and his team was treated by their Mossed handlers after the job was done.
He had no issue whatsoever with the killing of the terrorists.
I have not seen the movie, but if it portrays the team as remorseful in any way, they got it wrong, very wrong...
---------------------------
A few interesting links related to the recently released (pushed up because of the film) Aaron Klein book, Striking Back, which appears to present a more accurate version of the events.
aron Klein Discusses 'Striking Back,' A Look At The Munich Killings, Aftermath
Munich' distorts history-Michael Medved
New Book Takes Issue With Spielberg's 'Munich'
Rival tome snipes at 'Munich' 'Striking Back' says 'Vengeance' botches history
Why should he have to defend "Munich" to his stupid liberal family if they are still talking to him after "Angels in America"
"Why should he have to defend "Munich" to his stupid liberal family if they are still talking to him after "Angels in America""
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..........
well stated. Munich is a disgrace..Hollywood is truly a cesspool
Perhaps he can sit down with the murderer of Nixzmary and discuss a plan for rehabilitation.
Dennis Prager did an hour on the story with an expert on the real-life events behind the film 'Munich' today. If Prager is on replay today, be sure to catch it. It was the 2nd hour I think.
More baloney from Tony the phony
He offered the people on his hit list no mercy but it was a rather detached exercise for them save for the revenge hit on the woman. The aftermath of it was that he had no regrets about what he did only that he didn't see how it had really changed anything. It needed to be done no doubt but the lesson was that terror remained as something that simple vengeance wouldn't cure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.