You have to go see this movie. Its pretty intense, makes you think about whats happening right now.

Go see the movie then answer this question could you do what the characters had to do?

Saw it a couple weeks ago...Spielburg tried to be sympathetic to the plight of the terrorist, but it didn't really fly.  The movie mostly showed how bad ass the mossad was and why they wanted to do what they did

The terrorist got to say his piece about 'retaking his grandfather's olive trees',

But the undercover mossad agent did a good job of explaining reality to him. Israel isn't going away. The only problem I had with the movie is the same problem I had with 'Sword of Gideon', the earlier movie based on the same book. There was too much breast beating over the wet work. It is not cold to deal harshly with murderers. Perhaps the author felt the need to absolve the Mossad agents from blame. But it  just made them look weak, imo.

There isn't a single country that hasn't displaced some peoples during it's founding. Killing the atheletes was wrong. Targeting civilians is wrong. The pallies need to learn something from Gandhi.

Quoted: "Dude, you have the right spirit, but somehow I don't think F-troop is scared......" -TheKill

How do you know ?

Quoted: Quoted: "Dude, you have the right spirit, but somehow I don't think F-troop is scared......" -TheKill   How do you know ?

Wrong topic, move along, take it to IM...

Originally Posted by Spyda The terrorist got to say his piece about 'retaking his grandfather's olive trees', But the undercover mossad agent did a good job of explaining reality to him. Israel isn't going away. The only problem I had with the movie is the same problem I had with 'Sword of Gideon', the earlier movie based on the same book. There was too much breast beating over the wet work. It is not cold to deal harshly with murderers

Exactly what I was thinking, you are just better at the big words than I am.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "Dude, you have the right spirit, but somehow I don't think F-troop is scared......" -TheKill   How do you know ? Wrong topic, move along, take it to IM... .

The subject is about a movie theater production and terrorism, and how people today see terrorism compared to the munich attack between the izzy's and pali's .

Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]   1. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a      mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.      [1913 Webster]   2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to      political demands by committing violence on civilian      targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.

Besides your comptriot friend there are many many Americans jailed or killed by terorists, using terrorism to achive a political gaol not by law as in a constitutional republic but by threat, duress and coercion in violations of the law.

If you feel terrorism will never touch your life or you yourself will never become a victim of it, and still have no sense of duty to confront it, demonstrates a key reason why terrorism in flourshing in the world.

The Unied States was and is intimately involved in terrorism, the u.s. contributed to the pali-izzy then and still does today.

Theater  in ancient times and movies today have always been a very important part of a culture as the muse of the people, they can be used as a distraction which is most common or they can be used as stimulus for change, a change in the way people think about a subject.

There are those who lust for the simple answers of doctrine or decree. They are on the left and right. They are not confined to a single part of our society. The are the terrorists of the mind. - A. Bartlett

I agree that it was intense. People keep asking me if I liked it or not, and I still can't decide. It was intense. I don't know that I'll see it again, however there were certainly some things that rang very true for me. In answer to your question - yes, I think I could, unfortunately.

I don't think Spielberg tried to be sympathetic. He gave a fictional character airtime to make a case. Allowing someone to say something, even something seemingly sympathetic, is not automatically the same as endorsing them, or what they are saying. Most terrorists have to look themselves in the mirror, too. They are mostly human. Doesn't make them right, just makes them human. I am sure that many evil deeds are done by people who tell themselves, and everyone else willing to listen, stories that add up to "don't blame me for this, ..."

I was following orders, they started it, they killed my <someone>, they took my land, they disrespected my god, they are unholy, they are animals, they will kill us all if we don't kill some of them, it's unfortunate but neccesary, it's for the greater good, strike first, ...

At the end of the movie, the controller won't break bread with the agent. Why is that? I haven't decided yet - but I have a sneaking suspicion it's because he's now dirty in the eyes of the controller. He's tainted. His work too closely resembles that of the people he has hunted. He's a cold-blooded, violent, and yet emotionally unpredictable killer, and Mr. Bossy Office Manager just doesn't see him as being human enough to break bread with, anymore than he'd break bread with a terrorist. He's damaged goods. He's off the reservation.

Note that in this scene they are in the shadow of the WTC. The implication seems to be that killing begets more killing, and that frontline soldiers - the men contending with the humanity of the other men they are killing - are wont to question the logic of more killing. Sooner or later, they will ask hard questions. The men (and in this case, women) calling the shots are disconnected from the brutal and messy affairs of their killers and they have the luxury of not having to face death. Questions are, frankly, a pain in the ass. They require answers. They are unforgiving of mistakes. No one wants to tell the killers "oops, we messed up, that wasn't the right guy - try across the street". And yet those kinds of mistakes happen.

They will continue to find killers to do their dirty work while staying clean themselves. I think Mr. Bossy Office Manager looks in the mirror thinking "I didn't pull the trigger - I am not a killer. I'm not like them."

It was telling that his mother didn't want to know the details. She can support him, and her govt, so long as she doesn't know what it has taken, so long as she only has to guess, and so long as she counts on him having made the Right Choices. He wants to tell her, in part I think to see if those choices were in fact Just - if mom freaks out, then maybe I am a monster?.

2520

Showtime or HBO produced a show called the Sword of Giddion several years ago and provided a superior ovorall picture. Munich was a lot less interaining and basically copied the showtime/HBO story line.  

Haven't gotten to see the movie yet, but I know the general details.

My question:

Did the movie give any coverage to where the Mossad killed the wrong guy by mistake?

-Frank

Quoted: Haven't gotten to see the movie yet, but I know the general details. My question: Did the movie give any coverage to where the Mossad killed the wrong guy by mistake? -Frank

The longer they worked, the more tenuous the relationships between the people they killed and the Munich Olympics. It's implied that some of the killings may not be righteous, but it's never really spelled out.

2520

Quoted: Showtime or HBO produced a show called the Sword of Giddion several years ago and provided a superior ovorall picture. Munich was a lot less interaining and basically copied the showtime/HBO story line.

...and *gasp*  Sword of Giddion basically copied the book the movie was based on.  It's kinda implied that if a film is based on a book thats based on real events that some of either the truth or the book will show up in the film(s).

Anyways, Could I do such a thing to the people who planned the WTC attacks?  Aside from a few bad dreams, I think I would be fine with it.