Tel-Chai Nation

Debbie Schlussel reports that Steven Spielberg was interviewed recently by Der Spiegel in Germany, and in doing so, shows even more why he's heading downhill into hopelessness. What does he call critics of his Munich monstrosity? He calls them "extremists"!

Spielberg, 59, told German news weekly Der Spiegel that "Munich" aims to reclaim the debate about the moral costs of the struggle against terror from "extremists" and engage moderate forces in the West and the Middle East.

But what exactly does Spielberg, or Stuporberg, as I'm considering calling him now, mean when he says "extremists"? If my estimates are correct, he's referring to the security experts who're trying to combat the REAL extremists, that being the Islamofascist terrorists. How's that for a turnaround of the roles? It also looks as though he's trying to push for some sort of pacifistic movements as well, but if he's going refer to the West and only ambiguously to the Mideast, then not only is he resorting to more moral equivalency, he's also insulting the West by saying that they should not fight the enemy (whom he doesn't clearly name in the above either).

And well well well, what have we below here? More moral equations!

"Should you leave the debate to the great over-simplifiers? The extreme Jews and extreme Palestinians who consider any kind of negotiated settlement to be a kind of treason?" he said in remarks printed in German.

Wow, what's the "extreme Jews" got to do with all of this? I thought it was just the Hamas we were talking about here! That aside, here's a biting question for Stuporberg to answer: if the PLO, or the political representatives of the so-called palestinians, happen to be organizations that committed violent crimes against Israelis, Americans, and also Europeans, then should said political reps be considered worthy or even deserving of being leaders of the communities they represent? Should even said communities be supporting such organizations if they committed crimes in their name? Please, Stuporberg, do tell!

"I wanted to use the medium of film to make the audience have a very intimate confrontation with a subject that they generally only know about in an abstract way, or only see in a one-sided way."

And that you, Stuporberg, see only as you apparently want to see it: that the bad side is no more guilty than the good side, that the good side is no more innocent than the bad side, etc, etc. Clearly, Stuporberg knows no shame, and is really, and I mean REALLY, losing it now.

Final nail in the credibility coffin is here:

"Munich" was blasted by some US Jewish commentators who accused Spielberg of equating the Israeli assassins with the Palestinian militants.

Spielberg dismissed the charges as "nonsense".

"These critics are acting as if we were all missing a moral compass. Of course it is a horrible, abominable crime when people are taken hostage and killed like in Munich," he said.

"But it does not excuse the act when you ask what the motives of the perpetrators were and show that they were also individuals with families and a history.... Understanding does not mean forgiving. Understanding does not mean being soft, it is a courageous and strong stance."

Keep talking, Stuporberg, just keep talking. Because yes, we DO understand, and it's that you've lost all your marbles now. So now, just run along please, Stuporberg, and be a good boy, by not bothering us folk who'd like to keep safe and sound from crime everywhere, and by bearing in mind that the PLO, Hamas, al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and other such horrible entities can be as dangerous to you as they can be to many other people around the world. Bye!

Munich is sinking off the box office charts even as we speak, and Stuporberg would be strongly advised to come to terms with the fact that nobody buys into his arguments anymore.

Next time, I'd suggest that he stick to entertainment, and not sink himself into real life matters if he doesn't understand them himself.

For the record, Tony Kushner's also been going on the desperate defensive recently, with the following trash heap from the LA Times. And from what can be told here, even his very own family members are angry at him. Try as he might however, even he fails to convince.

For some better, more informative commentary on the Munich monstrosity, here's a recent article by Michael Medved, an op-ed by Suzanne Fields (Hat tip: Dhimmi Watch), and a topic from Jewish Issues Watchdog featuring an AP article that reveals that one of the Arab terrorists behind the massacre "regrets nothing". Stuporberg would be well-advised to pay sharp attention to that as well.

Update: Bruised Orange provides more info on the interview, including that Stuporberg denied any connections between the 1972 massarcre and Jihadism. One more REALLY BIG nail in the credibility coffin.

Also available at Adam's Blog, Basil's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, bRight & Early, Capitol Region People, Don Surber, Free Constitution, Is it Just Me, Jo's Cafe, The Liberal Wrong-Wing, Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Blogger, Wizbang.

Labels: Moonbattery