esmith
Member
So having 3000 plus civilians killed isn't a big part of the 'first strike' theory/idea? Fine, i'll agree. But im certainly going to say that it was a big part of it. I'll wait to go further.
movie: The Kingdom...wow
- Thread starter neviander
- Start date
- Status
So having 3000 plus civilians killed isn't a big part of the 'first strike' theory/idea? Fine, i'll agree. But im certainly going to say that it was a big part of it. I'll wait to go further.
Bartkowski
Member
Wait, is it, or isn't it a big part. You agree that it isn't but say that it is.
Terrorist actions are a series of 1st strikes in retaliation against perceived wrongs be they political or otherwise. Their targets are not those directly responsible for the wrongs, but the civilian populations of those nations. They try to blow up the WTC, we investigate and eventually make arrests. They blow up Khobar Towers, we....(did Clinton do anything?). They blow up the USS Cole, we launch cruise missles at supposed training camps. They slit throats and fly planes into the WTC, we topple the government that harbored and sponsored them.
With each event, they initiate action and the target nation reacts. All they have to do is stop initiating terrorist actions. It is up to them, not up to both sides. A policeman who kills a banks robber isn't in a situation of "who hit who 1st" even if the bank robber's father was shot and killed by police during a crime. The robber chose to commit the crime and was the only one who had the power to choose differently. The policeman was just acting in self-defense (and defense of the community) in pure response to the criminal's actions.
Using phrases like "who hit who 1st" or "you push me, I'll push you back" implies an equal reciprocity. There is no equal in "you blow up a civilian dance club and we air strike your training camp." There is no equal in "Your western decadence is corrupting the world, we blow up a market using mentally retarded women as suicide bombers."
I believe in right and wrong not that everything is simply a matter of perspective. There is no perspective that justifies terrorism. If the Soviet Union had invaded the US, I would fight with all I had against their military and perhaps even political leaders. I would not, under any circumstances, bomb civilians in this country or in theirs no mater what they (the Soviet Union) did.
With each event, they initiate action and the target nation reacts. All they have to do is stop initiating terrorist actions. It is up to them, not up to both sides. A policeman who kills a banks robber isn't in a situation of "who hit who 1st" even if the bank robber's father was shot and killed by police during a crime. The robber chose to commit the crime and was the only one who had the power to choose differently. The policeman was just acting in self-defense (and defense of the community) in pure response to the criminal's actions.
Using phrases like "who hit who 1st" or "you push me, I'll push you back" implies an equal reciprocity. There is no equal in "you blow up a civilian dance club and we air strike your training camp." There is no equal in "Your western decadence is corrupting the world, we blow up a market using mentally retarded women as suicide bombers."
I believe in right and wrong not that everything is simply a matter of perspective. There is no perspective that justifies terrorism. If the Soviet Union had invaded the US, I would fight with all I had against their military and perhaps even political leaders. I would not, under any circumstances, bomb civilians in this country or in theirs no mater what they (the Soviet Union) did.
Seenterman
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 192
Terrorist Mindset
Terrorsists who will actually go to war or blow themselves up have a brain washed view of the world. This all Pre-Dates 9/11 by more than a decade. Many people consider 9/11 to be the "first strike" against America nothing could be further from the truth. This was the first attack on the continental U.S. (the U.S. Embassy bombing is technically U.S. soil even overseas) But the bombings in Beirut of our embassy and barracks, the downing of two black hawk helicopters during The Battle of Mogadishu (Al Queda provided the RPG's and training) , first bombing of the WTC, the attack on the U.S. Cole, all where precusors to 9/11.
These attacks where undertaken because radical muslim extremists preceived U.S. involvement in the middle east and support of Israel of being an "attack" against muslims. So the whole "who hit who first" argument could be argued by a radical extemist as the U.S. hitting them first. But we would say that providing military support to Israel is NOT on par with bombing civilians on 9/11 and they would say Israel has been killing muslim civillians since it was formed after WWII and is equal or worse than them.
Im not going to get into how flawed there logic is, its like a pro-gunner arguing for the Brady Campain but people need to realize this didnt start with or on 9/11 we just relized it could come home them.
Violence begets Violence is what I took away from the last line of the movie.
Someone hits you your going to hit them right back. But when this becomes a generational issue where children are indoctrinated to hate others based on ethnicity generation after generation it can no longer be solved with violence alone. When Bush first went into Iraq he wanted to win the "Hearts and Minds of the People". Why? Because people that like you wont want to kill themselves to blow you up. If you take the "Kill everything that moves" stance you become no better than them. You cannot solve every military problem by force alone.
I got a little derailed in my own post sorry but I still though it was important to post.
Terrorsists who will actually go to war or blow themselves up have a brain washed view of the world. This all Pre-Dates 9/11 by more than a decade. Many people consider 9/11 to be the "first strike" against America nothing could be further from the truth. This was the first attack on the continental U.S. (the U.S. Embassy bombing is technically U.S. soil even overseas) But the bombings in Beirut of our embassy and barracks, the downing of two black hawk helicopters during The Battle of Mogadishu (Al Queda provided the RPG's and training) , first bombing of the WTC, the attack on the U.S. Cole, all where precusors to 9/11.
These attacks where undertaken because radical muslim extremists preceived U.S. involvement in the middle east and support of Israel of being an "attack" against muslims. So the whole "who hit who first" argument could be argued by a radical extemist as the U.S. hitting them first. But we would say that providing military support to Israel is NOT on par with bombing civilians on 9/11 and they would say Israel has been killing muslim civillians since it was formed after WWII and is equal or worse than them.
Im not going to get into how flawed there logic is, its like a pro-gunner arguing for the Brady Campain but people need to realize this didnt start with or on 9/11 we just relized it could come home them.
Violence begets Violence is what I took away from the last line of the movie.
Someone hits you your going to hit them right back. But when this becomes a generational issue where children are indoctrinated to hate others based on ethnicity generation after generation it can no longer be solved with violence alone. When Bush first went into Iraq he wanted to win the "Hearts and Minds of the People". Why? Because people that like you wont want to kill themselves to blow you up. If you take the "Kill everything that moves" stance you become no better than them. You cannot solve every military problem by force alone.
I got a little derailed in my own post sorry but I still though it was important to post.
Seenterman
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 192
Im sorry but I have to play Devil's advocate.
Ok quick question. Was it right or wrong to drop two nuclear bombs on Japanese civilian cities?
True they had suprize f****ed us in the @$$ at Pearl Harbor and basically slaughtered a large number of military personel but they targeted a Millitary Instillation NOT a civillian population.
How do you perceive that as a U.S. citizen; a necessary cost of war?
What about as a Japanese civilian that had to see the carnage of civilians and children with radiation burns, burned out corneas because of the flash and any number of other injuries? Would you feel that "Hey we deserved this. We bombed them first."
I think perception has a bigger part to plan than many would like to think. Perception may be the only thing that actually sustains war. Now thats a point to argue.
Ok quick question. Was it right or wrong to drop two nuclear bombs on Japanese civilian cities?
True they had suprize f****ed us in the @$$ at Pearl Harbor and basically slaughtered a large number of military personel but they targeted a Millitary Instillation NOT a civillian population.
How do you perceive that as a U.S. citizen; a necessary cost of war?
What about as a Japanese civilian that had to see the carnage of civilians and children with radiation burns, burned out corneas because of the flash and any number of other injuries? Would you feel that "Hey we deserved this. We bombed them first."
I think perception has a bigger part to plan than many would like to think. Perception may be the only thing that actually sustains war. Now thats a point to argue.
esmith
Member
Im agreeing that it isn't the only reason behind the 'first strike' theory, however i believe its a big part of it.
strangelittleman
Member
Suspend all the flawed logic and uninformed opinions for a moment and remember, it's only a movie, with the last lines of the movie written by some latte-drinking goof who's never smelled where a badman has sh*#, let alone "seen the elephant"
Your Shakespearean signature line and statement above are just an incredible example of irony right? Isn't the whole purpose of the juxtaposed perspective offered by the filmmakers of The Kingdom the very same as that presented in Merchant?
I mean really, replace the Christian/Jew conflict pairing with Christian/Muslim, and go back through that very passage by the Bard.
I'm not saying that Berg and Carnahan are on par with 'ole Willy Boy...but I think they were getting at the same notion.
Further, I don't think Will ever "saw the elephant" either.
Last edited:
DougDubya
Member
I didn't think it was "moral equivalence."
When the FBI guys said they wanted to kill everyone responsible, they were talking about the bomb-building, child-murdering scumbags, while the Imam's "kill every one of them" they had no concerns about blowing up children or using them as shields.
Unless you guys think that we should start putting bullets into their children, there's NO WAY that was "moral equivalency."
Plus, the Sauds fighting alongside the FBI were Muslims and THEY DESPISED the baby murderers as well.
When the FBI guys said they wanted to kill everyone responsible, they were talking about the bomb-building, child-murdering scumbags, while the Imam's "kill every one of them" they had no concerns about blowing up children or using them as shields.
Unless you guys think that we should start putting bullets into their children, there's NO WAY that was "moral equivalency."
Plus, the Sauds fighting alongside the FBI were Muslims and THEY DESPISED the baby murderers as well.
I never wrote anything about equivalence, just shared blame....and I believe that is what the movie is getting at. The movie gives nods to Western policy in the region and how it has contributed to the blowback. If you believe a former Cold Warrior like Chalmers Johnson, terrorism is the expected response earned for "imperial" behavior. You fight the war you can fight, not the one your enemy wants you to fight.
If one side says..."We'll leave as soon as you stop the killing" and the other side says..."we'll stop the killing as soon as you leave" I don't see much room for anything other than an acrimonious resolution.
Seenterman
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 192
***?
What? Try to contribute to conversation instead of snarky comments about grammer.
What? Try to contribute to conversation instead of snarky comments about grammer.
No snarkiness intended my friend. In fact, I appreciate your additions to this discussion...as you appear to be an "ally" insofar as viewpoints on this topic of discussion are concerned.
I was just making a nod to the norms expected here at THR. Art's Grammaw being the barometer by which chosen language is judged.
Seenterman
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 192
Misunderstood
Sorry about that lysander. Friends!
Sorry about that lysander. Friends!
DougDubya
Member
Lysander, I didn't mean to seem to respond to you. I was responding to the ones under the delusion that the movie tried to state that the mass murderers held the same moral ground as the FBI agents looking to kill mass murderers, and not children and bystanders.
Plus, the way I see it, there are a billion of them. Even if they were only armed with forks, they'd overwhelm any military force we'd send if they were all murderous thugs. As it is, the few of them who are psychotic killers are too cowardly to try for an straight-up fight, because they know that their numbers are insignificant to the fighting force WE can muster.
But I agree, we do share some blame. Just hardly the same kind of blame because even in Gulf War I, when we hit civilians, it was never intentional.
Plus, the way I see it, there are a billion of them. Even if they were only armed with forks, they'd overwhelm any military force we'd send if they were all murderous thugs. As it is, the few of them who are psychotic killers are too cowardly to try for an straight-up fight, because they know that their numbers are insignificant to the fighting force WE can muster.
But I agree, we do share some blame. Just hardly the same kind of blame because even in Gulf War I, when we hit civilians, it was never intentional.
*** Spoiler Warning ***
But doesn't it go back further than that? Isn't that what the sequence in the beginning of the film, regarding the discovery of oil in the kingdom of Saud, is about?
There is, undoubtedly, an East/West conflict, but I don't think the movie did a good job providing an understandable basis for why there is a segment of the Muslim population in the Mid-East that resents the West. You can add up the reasons if you look for them. I think Syriana does a much better job of this.
To me, the overall message was "ye reap what ye sow." The bitter harvest is compounded by the idea that each side thinks it is in the right. What does intent matter to say, the sole surviving teenaged son of a family killed by an off target air strike? Chances are that kid is going to be primed to "aid the cause." What does intent matter to the Saudi child seen in the end of the film, who has just watched "bad guys" march into the room and machine-gun their beloved Grandfather? Yes, the Fibbies are different, they are "good guys" but that does rely on perspective, whether we want to admit it or not. In the larger sense (relevant to the theme of this movie), the "good" and "bad" thing is a distinction without a difference. Largely because the "bad guys" are not going to recognize the difference between intent or accident when it comes to civilian deaths caused by US action.
There is a tendency to call the insurgents throughout the Mid-East cowardly because they won't engage in a stand up fight. But really, we can't honestly expect our enemies to build a 20th century military, put on a uniform, stand up and go to war with us. (I'm reminded a bit of the whole Monty Python "How not to be seen" skit. "Mr. Nesbitt, will you stand up please?") Welcome to the 21st century unipolar conflict environment.
Now if you really want to think about an ending...check this out...here's what Peter Berg has said about the originally scripted ending:
But doesn't it go back further than that? Isn't that what the sequence in the beginning of the film, regarding the discovery of oil in the kingdom of Saud, is about?
There is, undoubtedly, an East/West conflict, but I don't think the movie did a good job providing an understandable basis for why there is a segment of the Muslim population in the Mid-East that resents the West. You can add up the reasons if you look for them. I think Syriana does a much better job of this.
To me, the overall message was "ye reap what ye sow." The bitter harvest is compounded by the idea that each side thinks it is in the right. What does intent matter to say, the sole surviving teenaged son of a family killed by an off target air strike? Chances are that kid is going to be primed to "aid the cause." What does intent matter to the Saudi child seen in the end of the film, who has just watched "bad guys" march into the room and machine-gun their beloved Grandfather? Yes, the Fibbies are different, they are "good guys" but that does rely on perspective, whether we want to admit it or not. In the larger sense (relevant to the theme of this movie), the "good" and "bad" thing is a distinction without a difference. Largely because the "bad guys" are not going to recognize the difference between intent or accident when it comes to civilian deaths caused by US action.
There is a tendency to call the insurgents throughout the Mid-East cowardly because they won't engage in a stand up fight. But really, we can't honestly expect our enemies to build a 20th century military, put on a uniform, stand up and go to war with us. (I'm reminded a bit of the whole Monty Python "How not to be seen" skit. "Mr. Nesbitt, will you stand up please?") Welcome to the 21st century unipolar conflict environment.
Now if you really want to think about an ending...check this out...here's what Peter Berg has said about the originally scripted ending:
Stevie-Ray
Member
If not in action, then check in drama. Sometimes it's in both.
The movies I buy are usually in new releases. But they sometimes put them in many categories at once.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
This isn't really on topic.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked