Our BetterMost Community > Chez Tremblay
Really OT: United 93
littledarlin:
--- Quote from: Chanterais on April 06, 2006, 01:33:45 am ---LD, I hate how I con't convey with my tone of voice right now how I don't mean what I'm going to say in an argumentative way. I swear to god, I'm don't.
How is the administration using the film? I hadn't heard that they were supporting it, or affiliated with it any any way. Is that common knowledge? Fill me in! I'm no apologist for the Bushies, and I agree that their fear-mongering is unbelievably offensive and vile. But I have not heard that they are championing it.
--- End quote ---
chant, sorry if i came off as argumentative! that's the trouble with the net i guess. i should've been more clear, what i meant was the film comes off as feeding off the fear-mongering of the administration, not that the administration is endorsing it. i'm sure the administration will avoid it at all costs because if it is at all accurate, it will make them look like bigger idiots than they already are.
delalluvia:
--- Quote ---How is the administration using the film? I hadn't heard that they were supporting it, or affiliated with it any any way. Is that common knowledge? Fill me in! I'm no apologist for the Bushies, and I agree that their fear-mongering is unbelievably offensive and vile. But I have not heard that they are championing it.
In some ways, it strikes me that they'd have a lot to fear if people start being reminded again of how badly the administration has screwed things up since 9/11. Americans might start asking them a few more uncomfortable questions about how they allowed the attacks to occur, and why they haven't caught the people who masterminded it. They've got a lot to answer for, if you ask me. But then, nobody is! ;D
--- End quote ---
Chan, if the government is using or endorsed the film somehow I wouldn't be surprised. I haven't heard either that they have, but we wouldn't necessarily hear if they did or not. Who knows? People don't 'forget' such things happen, but the impact certainly fades. I believe some scientists put the 'forgetting' thing at like 6-7 years. That's why the worst disaster can happen, horrible earthquakes, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, hundreds of thousands of people injured, killed or losing everything, then in a few years, people move back into these places again. [shrug] You would've thought they'd remember what happened. They do, but the impact of the disaster fades.
It would behoove any government in a time of war to continually remind its people why they're fighting a war, hence newsreels, constant coverage and movies. I strongly believe our government has their finger in almost every media pie. That's why the History Channel is forever showing war documentatires or documentaries on the Middle East or Middle Eastern religions. This seems to have been a trend starting after 9/11. I've been watching the channel for years and for me, being totally uninterested in almost all of the above, it's like "What, another Middle East program?" It's like no other region or part of the world had history.
Yes, Bush and company haven't found Osama (as if that would stop anything) and totally screwed up by going into Iraq, but tail wagging the dog there, and believe me I have friends who are staunch Bush supporters and they certainly don't blame Bush for all this, including 9/11. That's all Clinton's fault because he was offered Osama as a prisoner by some country and refused, Clinton did not act when our bases were bombed in Kenya, the ship attacked in the harbor, etc., etc.
They firmly blame Clinton for his inaction which would have prevented all this.
According to them.
littledarlin:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on April 06, 2006, 09:28:25 am ---They firmly blame Clinton for his inaction which would have prevented all this.
--- End quote ---
i wonder how they feel about the memo from august of 01? it's so easy to blame clinton, isn't it? i'm by no means a clinton supporter (although bush makes him seem like a hero in comparison)
--- Quote ---"On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a briefing by the CIA titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. (National Post, May 20, 2002, p.1) The report was prepared at Mr. Bush's request after he became alarmed at warnings of 'an impending attack in the summer of 2001.' (ibid., p. A9) At the time, Bush was concerned about 'domestic targets.' Yet According to Jonathan Freeland (writing in the National Guardian, May 30-June 5, 2002 p. 11) "Vice President Dick Cheney sat on a Counter-Terrorism Bill passed to him in July, 2001. The Attorney General John Ashcroft refused a demand for more FBI anti-terrorism agents. The Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not deploy a predator drone aircraft which the Clinton Administration had used to track Bin Laden. National Security Advisor Condi Rice was warned by her Clintonite predecessor that she should spend more time on Al Qaeda than any other issue.' She didn't."
Source: "The FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit in Washington D.C." (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOO208B.html) by Steve Moore, Global Research, August 18, 2002.
--- End quote ---
adding on to my original complaint, i would prefer a documentary, interviews with the families, the tapes, questions, answers, instead of a dramatized depiction of the events.
JCinNYC2006:
--- Quote from: littledarlin on April 06, 2006, 10:42:33 am ---
--- Quote from: delalluvia on April 06, 2006, 09:28:25 am ---They firmly blame Clinton for his inaction which would have prevented all this.
--- End quote ---
i wonder how they feel about the memo from august of 01? it's so easy to blame clinton, isn't it? i'm by no means a clinton supporter (although bush makes him seem like a hero in comparison)
--- Quote ---"On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a briefing by the CIA titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. (National Post, May 20, 2002, p.1) The report was prepared at Mr. Bush's request after he became alarmed at warnings of 'an impending attack in the summer of 2001.' (ibid., p. A9) At the time, Bush was concerned about 'domestic targets.' Yet According to Jonathan Freeland (writing in the National Guardian, May 30-June 5, 2002 p. 11) "Vice President Dick Cheney sat on a Counter-Terrorism Bill passed to him in July, 2001. The Attorney General John Ashcroft refused a demand for more FBI anti-terrorism agents. The Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not deploy a predator drone aircraft which the Clinton Administration had used to track Bin Laden. National Security Advisor Condi Rice was warned by her Clintonite predecessor that she should spend more time on Al Qaeda than any other issue.' She didn't."
Source: "The FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit in Washington D.C." (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOO208B.html) by Steve Moore, Global Research, August 18, 2002.
--- End quote ---
adding on to my original complaint, i would prefer a documentary, interviews with the families, the tapes, questions, answers, instead of a dramatized depiction of the events.
--- End quote ---
Exactly, something that would look at what we actually know about what happened that raises difficult questions. Something less flashy than what, say, Michael Moore would do but keep the issue relevant and tied to what we're doing in Iraq.
On the other hand, a fictional movie could still be done well without having to recreate the attacks. At this point it's about the survivors as much as those who were lost. And I love it when people can get info like that so readily, I wish I could do that better.
Juan
Chanterais:
So many good points, Juan, Delalluvia and Little. So many. I'm not going to quote them all, because I would have to copy and paste everything. But I agree with most all of what you say. Jeez, you guys are convincing.
I think that's an extremely good point about making a really superb documentary. Gosh, I hope they do that, anyway.
And yes, I shouldn't dip into Bush-blame for 9/11. I actually don't believe that he could have stopped them. My supervisor here at university is a specialist in the history of espionage, and he is constantly reminding me that the systemic problems of intelligence services is that they have to deal with such a vast ammount of 'noise', or innocuous information, with tiny, microscopic information about real threats mixed in with an avalanche of rubbish. It is very, very hard to get it right all the time. Unfortunately, when it goes wrong, it tends to be pretty noticeable.
Nor do I believe that Clinton was responsible. Or to put it another way, they're all responsible, a steady blindfold put on about how the U.S. and British governments have been screwing around in the Middle East for over a century. The roots are deep.
Anyway, I find all of what you guys said extremely, extremely interesting. Gosh, it's lovely when you can mull this stuff over aloud, isn't it? And Littledarlin, I never thought that you were being argumentative. You've been so calm and well-reasoned. It was me I was talking about. (It's all about me, right?) I didn't want to give the impression that I was angry or challenging you, because I really respect what you have to say. I wish we had a font for that. Plus one for sarcasm.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version