War of the Worlds

[drscott]

From Oriana Fallaci, via Roger Simon:

I'm not talking, obviously, to the hyenas that enjoy seeing the images of the slaughter and sneering "Good! The Americans [British] deserved it." I'm talking to people who without being bad or stupid still take refuge in reserve and doubt. To them I say: Wake up, people, wake up! Intimidated as you are by the fear of going against the tide, that is, of seeming racist (a wholly inappropriate word, because we're talking not about a race but a religion), you don't understand, or don't want to understand, that what's under way here is a reverse crusade. Accustomed as you are to playing a double game, blinded as you are by myopia, you don't understand or don't want to understand that what's under way here is a religious war. Wanted and declared by only a fringe group of that religion perhaps, but nonetheless a religious war. A war that they call Jihad. Holy War. A war that doesn't envision the conquest of our territories, perhaps, but certainly envisions the conquest of our souls. The disappearance of our liberty and our civilization. The annihilation of our way of living and dying, our way of praying and of learning. You don't understand or don't want to understand that if we don't oppose this, don't defend ourselves against this, don't fight, Jihad will win. And it will destroy the world that, good or bad, we've succeeded in building, changing, improving, and making a little more intelligent, i.e., less bigoted or even without bigotry. And with that it will destroy our culture, our art, our science, our morality, our values, and our pleasures... Christ! Usama Bin Laden feels authorized to kill you and your children because you drink wine or beer, because you don't wear a long beard or a chador, because you go to the theater and to movies, because you listen to music and sing songs, because you dance in discos or at home, because you watch TV, because you wear miniskirts or shorts, because at the beach you go naked or almost naked, because you make love when you like and where you like and with whom you like. Doesn't this even interest you, you fools? I'm an atheist, thank God. And I have no intention of allowing myself to be killed because I am.

We went straight from the gym to dinner at Togo's and then off to the movies to see The War of the Worlds (Spielberg version). My expectations weren't high, but it was actually good, especially if you view it as an homage to the 1953 version, which I've seen many times. I recommend it if you don't examine the science and the plot too closely.

The effects were spectacular, the acting mostly good (aside from having to watch Tom Cruise looking more boyish than his son, which was actually a theme.) Mr. Sarandon (Tim Robbins) did a spectacular job as an unhinged blue-collar survivor in the lengthy basement scene (which was one of the more effective bits in the 1953 version.) I thought it was a mistake to turn it into a family story (the 1953 version features a scientist and his girlfriend as protagonists; this allowed the hero to be in the right place for critical exposition. This new version relies on coincidence and such devices as running into a television news crew who conveniently replay footage of the attacks around the world for our hero. The family reunion at the end is hard to swallow -- the Northeast has been destroyed, people ground up and sprayed on bioengineered Martian kudzu, all electronics burned out by EMP, but somehow our hero lucks into a working car and delivers his family to what appears to be the Back Bay in Boston, which (aside from empty streets and abandoned cars) seems to have escaped untouched. Huh? I guess Michael Dukakis was there with his sweater holding back the invaders by boring them to death. Which makes more sense than the invaders' destruction by Earthly microorganisms, an idea which is hard to swallow today.

Comments

[excessor.livejournal.com]

And one way to start off is to not argue the pluses/minuses of the agitators' philosophies. A lot of arguments begin by saying “But Islam is peaceful,…” which is true and has nothing to do with the situation. It's like arguing Catholic policy with an archbishop: it might be a discussion, but no one will change his or her mind.

You are correct: those who use violence to gain power or to force others to submit to a belief system are very dangerous and must be completely eradicated. And by eradicated, I specifically mean that supplies, fighters (guerrillas), collaborators, and the systems that support them should be killed and destroyed. If that doesn't work, occupation and the systematic destruction of the local culture (religion, political structures, language, customers) are next*. There is precedent, however distasteful and expensive and repugnant, in our history.


*I don't, however, believe that the Israeli model is correct. The Israelis have gone out of their way to make their own situation worse.