July 25, 2005, - 9:47 am

One Accidentally Killed: Maybe Spielberg Should Do a Movie

By Debbie Schlussel
Everyone is all up in arms over the mistaken killing of the Brazilian man in the London subway, Jean Charles de Menezes. By “everyone,” I mean all the liberals, Islamists, and haters of our war on terror–the ones who think we should just lay down and die in the name of civil liberties.
But the fact is, the man lived in Britain for three years, and, reportedly, still DIDN’T SPEAK ENGLISH! That’s why he didn’t heed police calls to stop.
How is this related to Steven Spielberg?
He’s making a movie, “Munich,” which was previously called “Vengeance,” because–despite his denials–it’s based on the apocryphal Jonas book “Vengeance.” As I’ve written here, here, and here, the message is that because ONE–ONLY ONE–innocent man was killed, Israeli Mossad agents, who successfully tracked down and killed all but one of the Munich terrorists who murdered Israeli athletes, should have never set forth on this mission. An absurd idea, but yet that’s the premise of Spielberg’s self-hating film.
Actors and advisors involved in the Spielberg propaganda project claim that the murder of one innocent (a Moroccan waiter in Norway) negated the whole operation. Revenge doesn’t work, said one. “Blood begets blood,” said another. Puh-leeze.
So maybe Spielberg should do a new movie, “Jean Charles de Menezes: How the West’s War on Terror Failed.”
Sorry, but wars involve the deaths of innocent people. Innocent people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and elsewhere. But innocent Americans died in Pearl Harbor, and so did 11 million innocents in the Nazi death camps. Should we have stayed silent and done nothing? No. Innocent Israeli athletes (including an American) died in Munich in 1972. Innocent people died on 9/11 and on 7/7, and might have on 7/21.
One innocent man’s death in a subway–that was attacked 6 times in two weeks–doesn’t mean fighting the war on terror is a mistake. It only reinforces its necessity.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses

It is my understanding that the guy did speak English, and well. The “he didn’t understand” excuse does not work. He also had a big bulky overcoat on during one of the hotest summers ever. Sorry, that is far too suspicious to let slide. If, after 3 years he doesn’t understand the word “stop”, runs into a train station that has been blown up twice this month, jumps a turnstile. I’m sorry, this is either a bad guy, or Darwinism at work.

Ruslfish on July 25, 2005 at 12:18 pm

Everyone “claims” to speak perfect English…even if they don’t. The victim’s family’s claim of fluency was itself delivered in Portugese.
The guy was illegal, didn’t stop when the cops warned “Armed police, stop!”.
I feel sorry for his mother.
Kol tuv,
Tamar
http://WWW.IsraPundit.com

Tamar on July 25, 2005 at 6:30 pm

I’m afraid the ‘fact’ is something completely different from what you claim.
Jean Charles de Menezes did speak English, and the Metropolitan police have now admitted to his family that he wasn’t wearing any kind of ‘bulky overcoat’ and that he didn’t jump over the turnstile. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html. The police have not challenged the family’s version of events and the case is currently being investigated by the police complaint authority.
The fact that an innocent man died does not mean the ‘war on terror’ is a mistake; it means that the war on terror is being fought badly.
Oh, and Ruslfish, that station had not been ‘blown up twice’ this month. All of the incidents happened at other stations, some a considerable distance away.

bookdrunk on July 30, 2005 at 5:19 am

But they typically only last a while and end up getting busted. ,

cmvnzxb on June 4, 2011 at 4:59 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field