Comments on: On Munich

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:57:28 +0000

Meanwhile Germany has released Mohammad Ali Hammadi, conficted of killing a US serviceman in a 1985 Beruit hijacking. They traded him for a German hostage in Iraq, who thinks her captors are really nice people and wants to go back. Her only complaint is that they had to kidnap a German because capturing Americans is too hard.

By: Orson2

Orson2 — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 10:41:52 +0000

The argument of Munich is that oppressing people’s desires for nationalism and land is at the root of Mid-East terrorism, if not all terror. It isn’t even about individual’s lives and the injustice they’ve suffered. Just satisfy or outgrow nationalist zealotry and there will be peace on earth.

Kun-bay-yah! Group hug! – problem solved.

Beyond being morally offensive, it isn’t even dramatically plausible. (Yes, I walked out of the film at 2 hours, 20 minutes, missing a puerile denoument – if it can be called this.)

One is much better off seeing the HBO original “Sword of Gideon” (1986) – “Munich” lifts several scenes from it verbatim – or else the documentary “One Day in September” (1986). The latter won an Oscar. As Aaron Klien’s new book “Striking Back” makes clear, Mossad policy of avenging terrorism worked to make the PLO abandon terrorism in the mid-70s as counter-productive – nothing you’d learn from silly trash like “Munich.”

By: Ben Pugh

Ben Pugh — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:00:45 +0000

There either is absolute morality or there is not. If there is not, there is no such thing as “moral equivalence” either. There ain’t no right nor wrong, just things that be. Any argument that assumes no absolute morality exists has absolutely no moral force. How can one have a morality parable that means anything while denying morality?

(Today’s fashionable theory of moral relativism simply denies absolute morality. Replacing it with an argument that “anyone’s morality is perfectly acceptible” is to make everything moral, and hence nothing moral.)

So were left with arguing morality in a world with absolute morality. If you believe that the Palistinean terrorists who murdered innocent Israeli athletes in Munich did not behave immorally, then you’ll have a happy afterlife in hell. If you believe it is immoral to punish those who act immorally, again, have a happy afterlife in hell.

So, the only serious argument is whether Israel overreacted in imposing the death penalty upon those responsible for the murder of its innocent citizens. This is not a close call, either. Cass Sunstein has recently pointed out that if the death penalty deters more murders than any other available punishment for murderers, then it is immoral to allow innocents to die by not killing murderers. With Munich, did Isreal have any other realistic option other than to kill those responsible? Bring them up to the ICJ? Give them 20 year jail sentences, out in 10, after being tried in a German court (i.e., what just happened to an al Q’aeda terrorist who killed an American serviceman)?

Nonsense. Kill the bastards. It was a moral obligation for Israeli leaders to do so.

By: Rey

Rey — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:03:47 +0000

Phill, I am sure that you feel that your solution will work. Are there examples in history where “we” (the west and the US specifically) took the first step by not retaliating, or attempting conversation or discourse with those who seek to destroy u? Well yes. During the Carter administration, the President decided not to get involved when the Sha, too sick to continue, saw his power slipping away. France decided to fill the vacumm and backed the then exhiled Ayatholla Khomeni. The result was an out of control theocracy that has financially and logistically supported the vast majority of terrorist atacks in the world. When the Islamists took over our embassy in theran, Carter, once more, chose discourse instead of force. Our hostages remain in captivity until the muhllas, believing that Ronald Reagan would invade Iran to get the hostages back, decided to release them. Are there other examples? Well yes. In 1993 Al Quaeda’s sleeper agents detonated a truck bomb in the sub-basement of the World Trade center. Instead of agressivelly pursuing the overseas organizations and governements that financed and backed the attack, The Clinton administration decided to arrest and jail those members that could be found domestically while ignoring the leadership overseas. The result? The bombing of our embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, etc. Osama Bin Laden himself, named the weakness of the American Government as proof that America is a paper tiger without the stomach for a fight.

By: Cardinal Martini

Cardinal Martini — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 05:18:23 +0000

Phil, I have no doubt that our enemies think they are correct and we are wrong. But so what? They’re still trying to kill us. I find there are two types of people on the other side; the reasonable ones, and the unreasonable ones.

We should try to reason with the reasonable ones. And we should kill the unreasonable ones, the ones who are so fanatical in their hatred for us that only force can stop them. Killing in self-defense isn’t “animal brutality”, as you put it. On the contrary, if we believe our way is better than theirs then it is both moral and logical to defend ourselves and our society from their attempts at destroying us.

You and I apparently understand the term “moral equivalence” to mean different things. As I understand it it means that neither side is right or wrong in a conflict. I just don’t think that is the case. That’s the stuff of the animal world. A bear in the forest is neither more or less moral than the fish he eats. But we are clearly different than both bears and fish.

We are creatures capable of higher thought. And we need to start acting like it. We need to evaluate complex situations such as the fight we now in, and determine which side is morally right and which is not. It is the case that only one side’s culture will prevail from this fight, and I think it should be ours. I believe America is right and good in this fight — not necessarily that our government is correct in everything it does, mind you. I believe that American values are worth fighting for and protecting. I think the exact opposite of the cultures from which our enemies have sprung.

It is clear to me that only a morally confused person can argue that Iran’s culture — oppressive, intolerant, misogynistic, brutal — for example, is morally equivalent to ours and other Western countries — which are open, tolerant, and democratic.

Plus, killing badguys is always satisfying.

By: Dave Munger

Dave Munger — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:10:35 +0000

Are you SURE you don’t find it a bit satisfying? Or do you have some evidence that it is at all effective?

By: Phil

Phil — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:35:51 +0000

The point of Munich is that when you set out to kill for moral reasons, you often end up creating a moral reason for someone else to kill. Which in turn creates a moral reason for you to kill … etc, etc.

“Moral equivalency” to me, is nothing more than that; recognizing that everyone, in every conflict, thinks their moral reasons for killing make perfect sense, and the other side’s reasons are insane.

So terrorists are horrible, evil, people, and we’re noble defenders of all that is good, blah blah blah. That’s such an old song. Thinking your enemies are brutal killers isn’t morality — it’s simply animal instinct, that’s all.

Moral relativism is deciding that the only real place to stop the cycle is with ourselves. I know, it’s not nearly as satisfying as killing those who disagree with you. The opposite of moral relativism is deciding to kill everyone on the other side (gosh, where’ve we heard that lately). And that is satisfying, if you succeed. But that’s not morality, it’s animal brutality.