The phiolosophy thread.

[Le Samourai]

Bring forwad interesting ideas or philosphy that you yourself create or come across and your own personal intrpretations of them.

They can be on anything......movies, books, actual philosophers......etc

[Le Samourai]

In 1972, the Israeli government instituted Opera

tion Wrath of God, a covert
response to the Munich massacre in which eleven Israeli Olympic athletes
were killed by Palestinian terrorists. In 2005, Steven Spielberg dramatized
these events in his film Munich. Using Wrath of God as an example, the
movie addresses the ethics of state-sanctioned responses to acts of terror-
ism. It is not surprising that the film simultaneously received commendation
and condemnation. For some, the film’s focus on the nature and logic of
counterterrorism undermines what they felt should be the proper discourse:
a moral denunciation of any and all acts of terrorism.1 For others, the film
thoughtfully conveys conundrums of individual and collective “moral insan-
ity” that can drive counterterrorist responses beyond an acceptable realm
of ethics and reason.2

Spielberg anticipated negative reactions to Munich. He attempted to
deflect some criticisms by publicly stating that the film was not designed
as an attack on Israel or its policies. Spielberg claimed that the film was not
an argument for nonresponse on the part of governments confronted with
acts of terrorism. To the contrary, the purpose of Munich was to show that
tactical response to counterterrorism—even when it is justified—still car-
ries with it important moral and ethical dilemmas that need to be carefully
thought through.

Spielberg has stressed that he was not attempting to make a documen-
tary. So much of the Israeli response to the Munich massacre is shrouded
in secrecy that a completely accurate retelling would be all but impossible
to achieve. It is through the interpretation and recasting of events such as
those following the Palestinian Black September killings in Munich that we
would typically find a filmmaker inserting himself and framing his argument.
Spielberg claims, however, that he attempted to avoid doing this. Munich,
he explains, is not designed to offer a single argument for or against the
use of violence as a response to terrorism. Instead, he sees the purpose of
this film as merely raising issues that must be openly confronted without
providing solutions. Ultimately, Spielberg created Munich as an attempt to
engage audiences in asking why a “country feels its best defense against a
certain kind of violence [terrorism] is counter-violence,” without providing
a definitive answer.

Despite the claim that he remains impartial throughout the film, I argue
that careful analysis shows Spielberg does not offer a disinterested portrayal
of the logic and ethics of counterterrorism. This is not to say that Spielberg
is lying. He may very well have intended a film that raises moral questions
without attempting to provide answers. However, Spielberg’s uncanny abil-
ity to create a connection between his characters and audiences may, with
this movie, have undermined his own goals. The empathy that Spielberg
creates throughout the film between the audience and Avner (Eric Bana) is
compelling, and the protagonist’s development provides an implicit argu-
ment regarding just and unjust actions on the part of the state. Whether
intentionally or accidentally, Munich offers a foundation for reexamining the
principles of vengeance and retributive justice related to counterterrorism,
and calls for alternatives to the perpetuation of cyclical violence

Thoughts?