Get a clue. The Left is going more loopy. The direction is toward moonbattism. I expect this film to further reduce Hollyweirds profits while reaping the praises of the Koskids of todya's Amerikkka.

Ace, one thing to remember, however. It's certainly not a sop to leftist sensibilities to acknowledge that murder is a sin, and that to kill someone-- even in time of war, when you're supposed to get a blank check from the Big Guy-- exacts a moral price. *ESPECIALLY* on the good guys.

We in the West are not monsters. That does not mean we won't kill our enemies by the bushel, nor does that mean we won't exult in our competence in doing so, nor does that mean we won't be able to sleep at night after we've done so.

It *does* mean, however, that we should never lose sight of the fact that the evil deeds we sometimes have to do in order to combat evil are, ultimately, a sacrifice of nobility on our part to do so.

I'm hopeful that Munich will be good (c'mon, it's Spielberg-- he phones it in better than most director's A-games). I'm sure it wasn't easy for these men to do what they had to do, and run the risk of killing innocents in their duty (which did happen). War is never easy, and only monsters take unrestrained joy in killing.

That said, sometimes, some people just need killin'.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I think most Americans can and even should understand the "root causes". I know what axe the jihadis are grinding and I wish them painfully dead just the same. Adults don't care how justified your grievance is if the only way you express it is through murder.

Frankly, the American response ought to be to ratchet up the pain for them. Troops in Saudi? Here's more. Paying too little for the Arab's treasure? Fine, we'll just steal it then. Decadent culture? Free MTV.

We can fight this war on many fronts, though perhaps it's best I'm not in charge of the Root Causes Section.

Spielberg is undeniably a liberal, but I don't think he's a peacenik liberal.

Oh, as depressing as it is to accept it, I think he is. The clip I saw of the movie was some dialogue that those who hunted terrorists were merely assassins.

There is also, if I remember correctly, the fact that mossad did kill an innnocent man who they mistook for one of the murderers. I'm not sure if that is when the mission was called off or not. If so, it did not end on a happy note. Did they get them all? I dont' know. I thought a couple got away.

I don't think it can be any better then "One Day In September". If you haven't seen it yet, you're missing out. Excellent documentary.

One Day In September is the most infuriating piece of filmmaking I've ever seen. I wanted to storm the rhine again. Those fuckers bungled the rescuse attempt SO badly - half of the German police RAN AWAY from their posts that were set to attack the terrorists, fearing for their lives!

And that set-up hijacking as an excuse to let them go ... (getting pissed just typing this)

The Italians fucked us in a similar fashion with the Achille Lauro hijackers. Our guys almost got in a firefight with the Italian counterterrorist police, then the Italians basically let the hijackers get away. The Brits are the only ones with any stomach for killing terrorists in Europe.

Me thinks you're wrong on Spielberg. I think he is a liberal who sees no evil in the other side... how else to account for his comment that he wasn't looking to 'demonize' either side? If there was ever a side worthy of demonizing, it would have to be the terrorists who invaded the Olympic Village and killed innocent athletes....

The movie is supposed to be based on the book Vengeance by George Jonas. He interviewed the leader of the Mossad team for the book. It was out of print but is back in soft cover form.

Steve,

In fairness, what do you expect him to say?

Do you think he'd say, "My object in this film is to demonize the Palestinians" ?

"Vengeance" was also known to have included some stuff later proven to be false, wasn't it? I don't have the info in front of me, but I'm pretty sure there were some claims made about the man who was accidentally killed that turned out wrong.

As for the movie? Eh. I'm guessing (since it's Spielberg) it'll be a well-made, worth watching film....that very carefully doesn't take sides. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. That's his call of course - but I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to see a film about the response to a massacre of unarmed Olympic athletes come down more clearly on the side of civilization.

Ace, are we talking about the SAME Spielberg who crapped out that "Violence is useless, our brave spirit will kill the Amerikkkan oppressors" War of the Worlds?

After that, I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Ace: No, I didn't expect him to say the words you used, but I don't think it is too much to expect that he would make it clear that this isn't a case of 'you say tomato, I say tomato' (it really doesn't work in print, does it?).

I don't have high expectations for anything out of Hollywood these days, especially anything that dramatizes in any way the conflict of our time.

That said, I didn't find anything really objectionable in Spielberg's War of the Worlds. Was the fighting useless? Indeed. But I took it as a testament to the indomitable spirit of man, to fight against the most terrible odds.

What is important is the lesson that regardless of the odds, fighting for your survival is far nobler than curling up in a ball and wishing all your monsters away.

The terrorists who commited this crime are all dead so they can never do it again

The audience gets the last say. Yeah, play all the mournful fluegelhorn solos you want on the sountrack, the audience will still cheer when a terrorist gets a 9mm Nyquil. Or there won't be any audience.

Like the movie "Fat Man and Little Boy," which presented the development of the A-bomb as a war crime. Audiences atill cheered when the bomb worked. "Disturbed" the filmmakers.