Posted on 09/09/2005 9:43:56 AM PDT by Borges
Steven Spielberg has been criticized by the only surviving Palestinian terrorist behind the massacre at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany, because the director failed to consult him over his new movie dramatization of the tragic events. Mohammed Daoud was a member of terror group Black September in the early 1970s and was responsible for the deaths of 11 Israelis in Munich's Olympic Village. He has been on the run ever since. But Daoud is so angry with Spielberg's supposedly pro-Israel stance in new film Munich, he contacted news agency Reuters to put forward his side of the story. He says, "If someone really wanted to tell the truth about what happened he should talk to the people involved, people who know the truth. Were I contacted, I would tell the truth. (Israel) carried out vengeance against people who had nothing to do with the Munich attack, people who were merely politically active or had ties with the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization)."
Can't they trace the call?
BTTT
Okay, we can be completely fair about this. Spielberg agrees to meet with you personally to address your concerns and promises to give them proper consideration.
The meeting will be held in Jerusalem.
I imagine Carlos the Jackal will now be calling IMDB to complain about THAT statement.
And the athletely active Jews killed in Munich were guilty as what?
as = of
Here's the take from the Libertas Blog (August 17th)
Note ">>" equals a quote from the story that Libertas is commenting on:
Whatever nonsense Steven Spielberg hopes to convey in his film Munich, the documentary One Day in September, which won the 1999 Academy Award, is absolutely clear eyed and absolutely damning. It takes for granted the moral squalor of the terrorist position and devotes itself instead to a searing indictment of the German government, which was effectively complicitous in the murder of the eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. As the film reveals, the entire anti-terrorist operation was incompetent beyond any rational explanation. After refusing to allow Israel to send a team of commandos, the Germans, for legal reasons not made clear, refused to give themselves permission to send in their own army units, and left the initial assault on the Israeli compound to untrained “border guards.” In any case, the Germans had to call off the assault when it finally occurred to them that the terrorists had been watching the preparations unfold on TV. At the airport there was yet more comedy: five sharpshooters for eight terrorists, and the undercover team planted on the jet waiting to whisk the terrorists out of the country refused to participate in the operation at the last minute because they felt it was too dangerous. There were supposed to have been armored cars as well, but somebody apparently forgot to make the phone call. There’s more – a lot more – but you get the idea. And in the end, of course, the Germans elaborately conspired to let the three surviving terrorists go free, necessitating the assassinations which presumably prompt so much hand-wringing in Mr. Spielberg’s film.
So incompetent and lackadaisical and indifferent do the Germans seem that one can’t help wondering if the old anti-Semitism was at work. Certainly some of the German officials interviewed for the film give grounds for suspicion. General Ulrich Wegener, who was, I believe, in charge of the counter-terrorist operation, recollects the gun battle at the airport:
>>[The terrorists] fired at the [airport] tower and I told >>[the Israeli minister] that he should lie down and he >>touched down under the desk.
At this point, Wegener inexplicably breaks into mirthful laughter.
>>Very funny, from our view today!
Dead Jews still get a laugh in Germany, it seems. And the head of the Olympic Village, who participated in the initial hostage negotiations, has this to say about the terrorist in command:
>>In a way I didn’t like Issa of course because of what he >>was doing, but I could have liked him if I had met him >>elsewhere. He was not violent.
Notice the telling qualifier “in a way.”
The film includes extensive conversation with Jamal Al Gashey, the lone surviving terrorist, who now lives in Africa with his wife and daughter. He says that he remains proud of his part in the murder of the Israeli athletes. I can only say that I hope that Mossad has not given up the trail, and that there remains a bullet with his name on it.
So?
He's in Algeria, under the protection of the government. He showed up in an HBO documentary about the attack a few years ago.
Mohammed Daoud has a lot of chutzpah.
I actually just saw a documentary about the Munich incident a few days ago. The lone surviving Palestinian terrorist was actually used as a source and filmed while being interviewed by the director (with his face in the shadow) for much of the program. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. And to top it off, the terrorist and director were even lamenting the fact that our misunderstood terrorist was still being forced to live in hiding after all these years.
He could have emailed Reuters. Either way, I'm sure some people would LOVE to talk to him. Then, he can talk to Reuters.
I hope that he is a lot of dead ...and soon
Interesting in that he chose Reuters to put forward his side of the story (as though there are two sides to this story). Reuters = Most sympathetic, or least likely to cooperate with authorities?
Just another Jew-hating terrorist.
Not sure how to parse the domain name. Is the omitted space between the t and the s (leaving scum), or is it between the s and the c (referring to the 72 virgins)? Inquiring minds want to know.
Hey Mohammed, you have our permission to take Spielberg out!
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.