Flight 93

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Apr 16 2006, 02:37 PM']Socrates, it isn't so much that I think that making a film about the hero's of that day is wrong. There were heros, many of whom died. But what I don't like, and what really bugs me about this film, is the fact that will we still have the popular idealized image of some of the heros on that day, like the fire fighters and police officers, we don't respect them at all. We talk about how brave they were, how selfless they were, etc, but when it comes down to it, all we do it give them lip service. Next time you are driving down the road, see how many people yield to a fire engine or police car with its lights and sirens on. Like I said earlier, roughly 90% of all fire fighter deaths occur en route to a call with the vast majority of them being from someone not respecting the rigs right of way or who just doesn't care. We can make them into heros in words, we can have the bumper stickers saying "FDNY 9/11" or something, but we cannot, as a society, bring ourselves to respect them at all.

Furthermore, what I also don't like is that we are idealizing them by ignoring their problems. Of the firefighters that were at Ground Zero, over 80% are now divorice or seperated because of the stress and because they feel as though their wives (and a few husbands) just cannot understand what they underwent. By idealizing them as heros, we forget that they are human and have the same problems as everyone else. Seeing them as heros makes it easier to ignore the bad elements of reality which envlope them. The firefighters there that day died and burned just like all of us, they were and are still human. We risk the same problem with idealizations of United 93.
[right][snapback]949329[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
While I appreciate your point that we should do more than pay mere lip service to those who sacrificed for a greater good, I really fail to see how portraying these people as heroes would [b]increase[/b] a lack of respect for them in real life.
Do you think they would be [b]more[/b] respected in day-to-day life if they were [b]not[/b] honored in the media?

Plus, I think it would be best to actually watch the movie before making judgments on whether it unduly idealizes people, etc.

[Shawn]

I think the movie is a good idea. It will remind the American people of the horrific crime perpetrated against them by Arab members of the Islamic cult.

If it leads to or creates support for more military actions this is good.

If it leads to more racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims this is also good. Racial profiling is a just and legitimate strategy to protect the US and Western peoples generally against the terrorist atrocities being commited by Arabs.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Shawn

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Shawn' date='Apr 16 2006, 08:15 PM']I think the movie is a good idea. It will remind the American people of the horrific crime perpetrated against them by Arab members of the Islamic cult.

If it leads to or creates support for more military actions this is good.

If it leads to more racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims this is also good. Racial profiling is a just and legitimate strategy to protect the US and Western peoples generally against the terrorist atrocities being commited by Arabs.
[right][snapback]949990[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As I have to posts to reply to and this one seems most foolish (whereas the other is valid), I shall start here.

I think you are forgetting something. Do you know what month has the most terrorist attacks in the US? April. Know why? Know what day they are centered around? 4/15.

I am not joking, the most terrorist attacks in the US occur during April and near the 15th. Waco, OK City to name two big ones. The vast majority of the terrorism here, and around the world, is home grown. We need to notice that and really consider it. How many terrorist attacks have occured on civilian or semi-civilian targets in the US in the past 30 years and how many have been conducted by Americans and how many have been conducted by people from outside the US.

In this case, I think we should also profile and stop the right leaning while American male as well. I mean, most of those white superemist groups are made up of white, male Americans who lean poltically to the right (far right, further then anyone on this board, unless we have some real wacko). The vast majority of white American males with rightward tendencies, or close to, say 45%, of this board, then fit that profile. Does that mean that 45% of this board are plotting to attack the IRS?

The shoebomber, Reid, was white, Anglo, non-Arab. But still he was a member of an Islamic cult that promoted attacks on civilians in the name of Allah. OH NO! He isn't an Arab! Drats.

Nor was McVay. Or any number of home grown terrorists.

Racial profiling doesn't work. If I tell you that I think an Arab looking man was spotted in the Sears Tower and that we had evidence that showed an Arab group was plotting to blow up the Sears Tower, is that racial profiling? No, you are stopping someone based on a reported id. If you stop someone because they are Arab, and only because they are Arab (or any other race) that is racial profiling. Which has been shown not to work. Furthermore, doing so makes it easier for the "real" terrorists.

Going back to the miltias I talked about earlier. If the police started stopping every white American male with right leanings in his poltics, then they would be wasting a lot of man power and money on chasing down these men, nearly all of whom would never dream of attacking the US. But there are some wackos out there who would, but as we would be wasting man power on chasing down false leads, then it would be easier for the real wackos to do what they are plotting without being thawrted. The same is true for all groups. The vast majority of Muslims are not willing or dreaming of killing Americans or anyone for that matter. Most are just like us, expect they follow a different religion. But in terms of behavior, the vast vast majority are just like any other person in the world. People, as a whole, don't enjoy killing other people. So, if you say racial profiling of Arabs is a good thing, you will waste massive sums of man hours and money to maybe find that needle in the haystack by checking every single straw (mind you, there is a time limit on this).

Something creating more support for a act of war isn't, per se, good or evil. Creating more support for the Allied troops in WWII was a good thing because they were partaking in a just war. Creating more support for, say, the French and Indian War isn't so hot as that war wasn't really all that just. If the war is just or not, really decides if creating more support for it is moral and good or not.

Also, any further actions on the part of the US in terms of war have to been seriously considered. The US army is streched very very thin right now. There is an exterme shortage of troops in both the Army and the Marines. Enlistment rates are down, and the National Guard is being extensively deployed in Iraq and Afganastan. We do have a shortage of troops right now. A few generals said before the Iraq war that they thought we would need almost half a milllion troops in Iraq to secure the state after the war and prevent an uprising or any civil war. While to some extent, we have been able to keep it dampened, one must question if we did have enough troops deployed in light of the growth of a possible civil war. Furthermore, the National Guard was not fully intended for this type of war. The theory behind their existance is to serve in civil roles (augment EMS, police, what have you, in domestic crisis) and to serve as a stop gap for the active duty troops ("Oh, crud, we need an extra 10,000 troops this week or else all heck is going to break lose") and then be returned to the US quickly. Their training is not as intensive as that of our active duty troops, they were not trained to deal with long term deployments like what we are doing. Any further action would require the use of either a draft or a shocking upturn in enlistments. Neither of which are foreseeable.

Part of the requirements for just war is that there must be a serious prospect of success. If we are running low on troops now in both Iraq and Afganastan to the extent that the National Guard is making up huge amounts of both forces, one must question how many troops we could devote (at present) to any further warfare. Additonally, we ought to have a number of troops free at any present momenent in case someone commits an act of war on us or an ally (say China invades Tawian). Furthermore, a low number of free troops puts us in a weakened state dipolmatically. If the US were to have to rattle a saber against North Korea or Iran and we only have 100,000 soldiers that we could deploy, it would be ineffectial.

I am going to presume this post of yours was made in ignorance of the reality due to age, as it seems that you are young, rather then willfully.

[Desert Walker]

After reading this

[url="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y"]Popular Mechanics' Debunking 911 Myths[/url]

I retract my assertion that the U.S. government orchestrated the 911 attacks.

If there's one thing the conspiracy theorists have not done its an objective, scientific study of the events of that tragic day. I've been to several 911 conspiracy web sites andthe most disturbing thing about them is their decided lack of objectivity and scientific acumen. What is MORE disturbing about them is that most of them attempt to link the "conspiracy of 911" with OTHER conspiracies which have even less evidence to back them up.



I am embarrassed that I bought the stuff.

But I defend myself in one sense: that I became aware of what is out there, what some people are thinking, and that I actively TRIED to disprove my own suspicions.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 16 2006, 08:00 PM']While I appreciate your point that we should do more than pay mere lip service to those who sacrificed for a greater good, I really fail to see how portraying these people as heroes would [b]increase[/b] a lack of respect for them in real life.
Do you think they would be [b]more[/b] respected in day-to-day life if they were [b]not[/b] honored in the media?

Plus, I think it would be best to actually watch the movie before making judgments on whether it unduly idealizes people, etc.
[right][snapback]949951[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do agree that they would be more respected in terms of us being aware of them, yes.

I was thinking about what really was bugging me about this movie last night and I read an article about it. It was mainly about the trailer to the film, as it hasn't been released yet. But the way the trailer presents the film is as if the movie is some thriller, like a Jerry Bruckenhiemer (I have no idea how to spell that name and my fingers are tired from my last post to such an extent that I feel justified in my laziness and shaln't look up the proper spelling) movie. What happened on 9/11 was horrible and we should not forget it. However, making it into an action type thriller, as the preview suggests it is, is not right. When I saw it I figured out quite readily that it was about 9/11. But my dad and some others with me (all well-educated and informed) could not tell if it was some fictional thriller (like Red Eye or something) until the movie came out and said it was about 9/11. I think that treatment of it is what bugs me. If the movie was presented more in terms of a histroical drama (like Gods and Generals or Gettysburg was) I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. I did enjoy some other movies, like Black Hawk Down, that did act more along the lines of an "action-thiller" movie. I did take some issues with it, in so far as the movie did take some liberities with who did what (having 30 some lead roles would have gotten confusing rapidly). But I don't think that a 9/11 movie really lends itself to the "hype" that a thriller movie holds.

[shortnun]

Two men who were on the flight, as well as the director (I think) are on The Today Show. Apparently all the families on the plane are supportive of the film.


Still settles funny with me...........

[jasJis]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 17 2006, 10:57 AM']After reading this

[url="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y"]Popular Mechanics' Debunking 911 Myths[/url]


I am embarrassed that I bought the stuff.

But I defend myself in one sense:  that I became aware of what is out there, what some people are thinking, and that I actively TRIED to disprove my own suspicions.
[right][snapback]950656[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Truthfully, not only is that a great defense, it also makes you more intellectually honest than the vast majority of the world. It's easier to find what you want to find than it is to look for what you don't want to find. Doing both is real wisdom.

[Shawn]

[quote name='Iacobus' post='950624' date='Apr 17 2006, 10:48 AM']
As I have to posts to reply to and this one seems most foolish (whereas the other is valid), I shall start here.


I am going to presume this post of yours was made in ignorance of the reality due to age, as it seems that you are young, rather then willfully.
[/quote]

I dont tend to respond well to insults, especially from people who go on to make remarkably shallow and ignorant arguments.


I am 41. I have been married for over ten years. More to the point, I have been studying and collecting information concerning Islamic terrorism since 1995. I have a vast database on the subject and I currently have 22 books dealing with Islamic terrorism from a wide variety of viewpoints, all of which I have read. And I am in the process of writing a book on the subject myself.

So your childish comments about age and ignorance debunked allow me to debunk the rest of your post.

The only terrorist attack by any person or group carried out by the US militia was the Oklahoma bombing. Since that time every expert on the issue agrees that the militia is no longer a serious threat and has largely withered and died.

Therefore the militia movement is not an ongoing threat to US citizens. Islamic terrorists are.

I have heard some silly arguments in my time but your claim that US citizens are more at risk from "right leaning" white males is a real hoot.

The truth is that most politically motivated murders or attacks have been carried out by left leaning groups like the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers.

Currently the biggest threat to law abiding US citizens comes from black and Hispanic gangs.

So your argument here is pure nonsense.

It also completely ignores several important facts, not the least of which is that Islamic terrorism is the only form of ongoing international globalised terrorism.

So unless you can point out to us any recent attacks or suicide bombings by US miltia I think we can move on.

Your claims about the ethnic make-up of Islamic terrosists is also wrong. The shoe bomber Rieid was the exception not the rule. The 991 terrorists? Arabs. The London bombers? Non-white ethnic Muslims. The perpetrators of the Spanish attacks? Non-white ethnic Muslims. The perpetrators of the Indonesian attacks? Non-white ethnic Muslims. The perpetrators of the Breslan atrocities? Non-white ethnic Muslims.

Oops.

Another argument bites the dust.

And that is another point. The issue here is not just whether US citizens are at risk, but all the peoples of the world who refuse to submit to Islamic Jihad.

Heres a list of Islamic terrorist attacks going back only to 1983.

* 9 November 2005 - 2005 Amman bombings, over 60 killed and 115 injured, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks on Hotels in Amman, Jordan. Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved.
* 23 July 2005 - Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, kill at least 64 people.
* 7 July 2005 - Multiple bombings in London Underground, 53 dead killed by four suicide bombers.
* 4 February 2005 - Muslim militants attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people.
* 11 March 2004 - Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured. (alleged link to Al-Qaeda)
* 16 May 2004- Casablanca Attacks - 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Slafaia Jihadia.
* 12 October 2002 - Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured.
* 24 September 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured
* 7 May 2002 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured
* 9 March 2002 - Café suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured
* 3 March 2002 - Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured
* 11 September 2001 - 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead.
* 7 August 1998 - Embassy bombing in Tanzania and Kenya. 225 dead. 4000+ injured
* 25 June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.
* 26 February 1993 - First World Trade Center bombing. 6 killed.
* 18 April 1983 - Embassy in Lebanon bombed. 63 killed.

ALL of those attacks were carried out by non-white ethnic Muslims.

So unless you can point to any other group or people, and especially to any white/European group that comes anywhere near the above level of activity shown in that list and which is currently ongoing and a global threat, your agument, using the one example of the failed attack by Richard Ried is completely refuted.

Racial profiling therefore is one of many legitimate and useful tools in trying to prevent further attacks on Western peoples by Islamic terrorists.


Finally to the issue of further military action.

While it is true that any action should be seriously considered so shout the possible results of inaction, especially concering Iran.

Moreover your concerns about troop recruitment levels totally miss the point that military action can take many forms which do not require large numbers of ground troops. An aerial bombardment of Irans nuclear facilties for example.

So I see no real valid points in your arguments. What I do see is factually challenged and frankly laughable claims about the supposed immanent threat of "right leaning" white males and the same wait and see until its too late approach to military action that allowed Hitler and Osma bin Laden to become serious threats that led to horrifying atrocities.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Shawn

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='shortnun' post='951932' date='Apr 18 2006, 07:25 AM']
Two men who were on the flight, as well as the director (I think) are on The Today Show. Apparently all the families on the plane are supportive of the film.
Still settles funny with me...........
[/quote]

I watched an interview on FOX News' "Hannity and Colmes" with David Beamer (Todd Beamer's dad) and one of the other relatives. Both supported the film and stated that ALL of the family members of victims support this film because the director and producer of the film wanted to tell the stories of the victims with respect to their families. Evidently, all of the families were throroughly consulted with and have seen the movie as well.