Posted on 09/08/2009 11:51:07 AM PDT by La Lydia
The actor Will Smith is no one's image of a suicide bomber. With his boyish face, he has often played comic roles. Even as the last man on earth in I Am Legend, he retains a wise-cracking, ironic demeanor. And yet, surrounded by a horde of hyperactive vampires at the end of that film, Smith clasps a live grenade to his chest and throws himself at the enemy in a final burst of heroic sacrifice. Wait a second: surely that wasn't a suicide bombing. Will Smith wasn't reciting suras from the Koran. He wasn't sporting one of those rising sun headbands that the Japanese kamikaze wore for their suicide missions. He wasn't playing a religious fanatic or a political extremist. Will Smith was the hero of the film. So how could he be a suicide bomber? After all, he's one of us, isn't he?
As it happens, we have our suicide bombers too. "We" are the powerful, developed countries, the ones with an overriding concern for individual liberties and individual lives. "We" form a moral archipelago that encompasses the United States, Europe, Israel, present-day Japan, and occasionally Russia. Whether in real war stories or inspiring vignettes served up in fiction and movies, our lore is full of heroes who sacrifice themselves for motherland, democracy, or simply their band of brothers. Admittedly, these men weren't expecting 72 virgins in paradise and they didn't make film records of their last moments, but our suicidal heroes generally have received just as much praise and recognition as "their" martyrs.
...According to the popular view, Shiite or Tamil or Chechen suicide martyrs have a fundamentally different attitude toward life and death.
If, however, we have our own rich tradition of suicide bombers—and our own unfortunate tendency to kill civilians in our military campaigns—how different can these attitudes really be?...
Wow....just, wow.
They simply have a death wish. Not complicated.
We don’t have ‘our own rich tradition of suicide bombers’.
We have soldiers who fight bravely - IN UNIFORM - and who take care not to die while doing it. They also try not to kill civilians. They don’t blow themselves up at bus stops.
Meanwhile: its our enemy who don’t wear uniforms - and who hide behind woman and children - who are morally culpable for every true civilian killed in war.
Where would nuts like this BE without moral equivalence?
You really have to scratch your head when some imbecile actually compares mindless, violent movie zombies to say, innocent Israeli bus commuters.
John Feffer.
“Even as the last man on earth in I Am Legend,”
Did this complete and utter dumbass even see the film? Where in the HELL did it even suggest Will Smith was the “last man on earth?”
Stupid friggin Obama voter.
Trying to equate Will Smith in I am Legend where he “clasps a live grenade to his chest and throws himself at the enemy” knowing he is going to be killed by the mutants anyway with someone who blows up a pizza parlor filled with civilians is incredibly dishonest, naive and just plain asinine.
Yes, he conveniently overlooks the pukes who tie bombs onto women, children and the mentally defective, and sent them out in disguise to blow up innocent people. But then again, he would.
I am voting for asinine.
Everyone please email this genius and let him know what a dolt he is:
johnf@ips-dc.org
I don’t think calling him a dolt is going to help. I think pointing out his glaring logical shortcomings would be more effective.
Every film out of Hollywood today has at least some anti-American component to it. Some more than others, but they just cannot seem to produce a film without a token homosexual pervert, a slap at the Catholic Church, a tough woman who takes on men and beats them with fists or cleverness, and plots/sub-plots that cast the U.S. military and foreign policy as corrupt and evil. If I didn’t know better I’d think there was a bit of a conspiracy amongst the Hollywood moguls; but of course, there are no conspiracies and only the paranoid types think conpiracies exist.
We have one in the Offal Office...
Suicide bombers killing to kill (killing infidels), or killing to save (self-sacrifice so others may live)? Gee, no moral difference there.
Well, for thirty years a stock character in every film was the all-purpose psycho Viet Nam vet. Druggie loser, serial killer, drug trafficking mastermind, deeply-troubled-and-guilt-ridden-because-of-all-the-awful-things-he-supposedly-did, wife-beater, you name it.
Seldom if ever well-balanced, patriotic, happy family man. I don't think I remember seeing that one.
Under the sickening “logic” of this article, the only reason the Birmingham church bomber in 1963 was not a “hero” is because he didn’t die as part of the boming mission.
These people are grotesque.
He is a nutcase because of the more equivalence that he uses but he has a point of sorts.
Suicide missions are normally celebrated in all warrior cultures. The difference is in their and our motivations. Even if they did not use suicide bombers and used more conventional methods they would be just as evil.
There is no more despicable person than one who loves "every time except this one and every country but his own," as Gilbert and Sullivan used to say. Just Damn.
Did you ever see a movie called “Falling Down,” with Michael Douglas? It basically makes the case for the guy who goes nuts.
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.