| Aug 17, 2006 @ 7:36 PM |
WTC Movie
|
|
WickedWench
Posts: 1,613
|
I just came home from watching this movie. Great tribute to the 2 officers that were trapped but otherwise, unremarkable. Very much the typical "Hollywood feel-good" movie of the "People loving people helping people helping people". 2 "average joe's" get trapped--one relentless ex-marine saves the day. Comes off as a bit of a "push" for the "it's war and we're gonna kill them all and let god sort it out" mentality. Seems like it was a "just in case you forgot why we're still there" 5 years later by Bush and his cronies-no offence ok? Just a couple of "jabs" during the movie that portray it this way.
The only thing about this movie that stirred me was the fact it's still a mystery unresolved, in my mind. I suppose I'm unsettled within as to why it happened so I'm looking for ideas. Again as I'll reiterate so I don't hear the "You don't like the US" bullshit, I'd like open non-punitive concepts. I'd like an open discussion, not a war. Did the US do something that warranted this? I know Bin Laden and Saddam were both trained by the US. How does that affect this? Please remember I'm sincerely looking to understand, not fight so please bare that in mind when you answer?
I'm looking for an enlightened perspective, one that doesn't constitute "anti-muslim" sentiments or "The world's against the US" comments or anything remotely similar to it. I'll admit I'm not completely up on all the politics that are involved in this ........but I am looking to understand why this happened.
[/B]---I am NOT starting this thread to initiate fights and I am NOT looking for ANY kind of finger pointing. I'm looking for genuine deeper perspective and I'm hoping some of the more enlightened posters that I respect and admire come out. That would be Sunbabe, Heaven, SuzieQ, Bj, Sciur(sp), Katts, China, Observed, Beachnut, Felici, Rare, LipGloss and a few others. (I"m sure you know who you are :))
I realize I can't exclude some people but I can certainly ignore them and I'm more than happy to.
Help me figure this out. What happened and why?
[Edited on 8/17/2006 9:23 PM]
|
|
  |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 7:40 PM |
WTC Movie |
|
jeanc200358
Posts: 934
|
Well, I know you don't like my perspective, but I'm giving it anyway. I think the U.S. government, GWB, etc., have a great degree of culpability in the events occuring up to 9/11, the day of 911 and the enusing coverup of what happened that day. IMO, conspiracy theories are only contrived by "nut jobs" when there is no basis in fact for them.
I've read a great deal about this and MPO is that there is/was some sort of a "conspiracy," for lack of a more apt term.
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 8:20 PM |
WTC Movie
|
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 2,652
|
I have not seen the movie and do not intend to watch it, but I am not surprised. Hollywood has a long history of trying to please everybody. I can't begin to count how many movies I have seen that included a worthless "throwaway scene" that had no purpose except to mollify potential critics.
As in most cases, perspective defines everything. We all have our biases and prejudices and hence will emphasize different factors or interpret the evidence differently. It is a complex matter and no one answer is sufficient. Some people (such as BJ and Patrik) will substitute their own solution rather than any consider any contradictory evidence. Others will persistently reject an interpretation and ignore or disregard the rest of the issue. A few will reserve judgment until all of the facts are known. Most of us will try to find a balance and modify our opinion as new evidence becomes available. It is not possible for any individual to understand every aspect of this matter, of course, so we will all have to choose which aspect of it matters most to us. In my own case, I am most concerned about how 9/11 affects our relationships with other nations because that will directly affect our ability to tackle the environmental problems that threaten us all.
I am also fascinated by this historical roots of this conflict. I have just finished reading an interesting book which examines this matter from a Muslim perspective: “Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy” by Fawaz A Gerges. I don't agree with all of his arguments, of course, but he did have an interesting opinion regarding Al Qaeda's motives. According to Fawaz, bin Laden and his followers struck at the US not so much because they considered it the "Great Satan" but rather because they felt abandoned by the USA after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They had been trained and supplied by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and felt betrayed when Americans turned their attention to domestic matters after the end of the Cold War. In sum, they began searching for reasons to hate the US and, of course, there were plenty of such reasons in the early '90's. Fortunately, Osama bin Laden and his staff shared one of the most prevalent flaws in the Muslim world: They had no gift for strategy. They were talented tacticians who could complete a given mission, but they were unable to achieve their design. They ignored any evidence that did not fit their agenda or their preconception of reality. Osama bin Laden genuinely expected Muslims everywhere to rise in support of Al Qaeda after 9/11 and was stunned when most condemned it instead.
Al Qaeda is, of course, hardly the first or the last to react this way. Our military did train Timothy McVeigh and the SOB repaid us by bombing Oklahoma City. The Koreans routinely damn our soldiers even though we saved their nation from total destruction. In fact, anti-American riots were occurring in Europe even as food was being unloaded from American ships as part of the Marshall Plan. Only a fool expects gratitude to last.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 8:56 PM |
WTC Movie |
|
FeliciVagano
Posts: 2,152
|
I'm unsettled within as to why it happened so I'm looking for ideas just ideas.. not theories right.. here is one that I wonder about.. all fiction BTW..
chapter one.
once upon a time..... the bad guys placed a bomb in a big big building.. it went off, weakening this buildings superstructure badly, but not enough to make it collapse. The issue now was that there was this unknown factor of how much more weight it could carry before tumbling down, and if it did collapse, who was going to be financially responsible for the death and destruction of the collapse.
So, the owners knew it had to be demolished.
Now the problem was, who was going to pay for the outstanding note on the building, the demolition of the building, and the rebuilding of a new building.?
The government declined knowing that the taxpayers would not like another bailout for this purpose. The insurance company said it was not going to pay for anything but repairs but would not be liable for anything if the building did collapse. So it was a problem... A big big problem.
Also there were questions, how long would it take to even get the permits to demolish this big big building?.How many lawsuits would be filed to stop the demolition, and how many personal injury lawsuits would be filed after the demolition of this building?
It seemed so simple to just pretend that the terrorists were the ones who finally "just blew it up".. So, the greatest minds of the group decided to blame it all on terrorists.. after making sure that there was insurance in place for a terrorist act.
chapter two
But unfortunately, like all plans.. everyone who found out about it wanted their "piece of the pie" the conspiracy grew by leaps and bounds.. The more players the bigger the story. The more players the bigger the scope It went from just an insurance scam to a multi billion dollar war on terrorism..
now just pick up with the events that we know happened on sept 11th... and continue the story. How it ends??? who knows... as it is all fiction... 
edited for wicked
Felici... As usual the way your mind works is insightful and new. What makes you think that? That is was a insurance scam? Where did that come from? Any sites I can check on to see? thank you for that.. like I said..it's all fiction..it is something that I seem to be able to do..(take known pieces and place them into a story) there is no proof, no web sites, nothing to back it up I was just drawing from "the windmills of my mind....."
[Edited on 8/17/2006 9:28 PM]
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 9:00 PM |
WTC Movie
|
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,279
|
According to Fawaz, bin Laden and his followers struck at the US not so much because they considered it the "Great Satan" but rather because they felt abandoned by the USA after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They had been trained and supplied by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and felt betrayed when Americans turned their attention to domestic matters after the end of the Cold War.
Interesting -- this was VERY BRIEFLY discussed in the days following 9-11, then buried...
Thank you for the reminder. I knew there was a certain 'logic' or 'mindset' behind the acts that preceded the "HolyWar"/Jiihad business.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 9:20 PM |
WTC Movie |
|
WickedWench
Posts: 1,613
|
Awesome! My thanks to Rare, Sunny and Felici
This was the kind of feedback I was looking for...and you all came "up to the bar" for me.
So..."Grasshopper" has some questions..cuz I'm on this quest to understand...if one can ever do that with something that just might not be completely known for many years to come.
Rare..According to Fawaz, bin Laden and his followers struck at the US not so much because they considered it the "Great Satan" but rather because they felt abandoned by the USA after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They had been trained and supplied by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and felt betrayed when Americans turned their attention to domestic matters after the end of the Cold War
So they had all this training....what kind of shape was Afghanistan in after the US left? Was the economy in better shape? Was there any kind of damage? What impact did this exactly have on them?
Jean.. I don't mind at all if you contribute your thoughts but like I said, I'm into finding out about this....and finding a way to "put it to bed", not into a pissing contest so if at some point someone posts something you don't agree with, please just allow the comment to be ok? I do know you're a very smart woman so I'm hoping you'll allow this thread to just "grow" ok?. I also know I'm just as much of a feisty woman as any one else on this so..I'll do my best?
I truly believe if we "come to the table" with a perspective of " This is what I think" and allow the others to voice their " I think this and that" without hostility or negativity, I might actually learn more and others might learn more too.
I do want to learn, to understand this in some other perspective rather than the typical "They bombed us they should die" perspective. I"m not out here to trash anyone but I am interested in seeking the underlying background of it.
Felici... As usual the way your mind works is insightful and new. What makes you think that? That is was a insurance scam? Where did that come from? Any sites I can check on to see?
Sunbabe...Why do you agree with Rare on that one point? I know you're a very smart politically enlightened woman. I know you know more..C'mon ..give over..what's the scoop girlie? 
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 9:40 PM |
WTC Movie
|
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 2,652
|
So they had all this training....what kind of shape was Afghanistan in after the US left? Was the economy in better shape? Was there any kind of damage? What impact did this exactly have on them?
* Scoff *
We provided aid to the Afghans to bleed the Russians as they had provided aid to North Vietnam. We helped them liberate their country; we did not try to rebuild it after the Russians left and we could not have helped rebuild even if we wanted to do so because the country immediately plunged into civil war. When the Taliban eventually won that war, they were not interested in economic aid from "infidels." We did not begin to rebuild the country until we drove out the Taliban in 2001. The work is far from finished, but Afghanistan is in much better shape now than it was in 1998.
The end of war was a real crisis for the Arabs who had flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. Most Muslim governments refused to let them return to their native countries for the fear that they would organize armed resistance. Many of these stateless people were eventually recruited by Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden himself was not welcomed back in Saudi Arabia and eventually departed to found Al Qaeda. He settled in Afghanistan only after being booted out of a couple of other countries, including Sudan.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 9:45 PM |
WTC Movie |
|
irish20835
Posts: 1,224
|
I have no intentions of seeing this movie ...not for any other reason than I think it deplorable that Stone is making money on one of the greatest tradgies in history ...until i hear that he is donating the profits of the movie to charity I will not spend any money to see it
Even if it is a typical "feel good' story
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 9:54 PM |
WTC Movie
|
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 2,652
|
I had forgotten that Oliver Stone had directed it. That is yet another reason not to watch it. Stone peaked with "Platoon" and has been going downhill ever since. 
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 9:57 PM |
WTC Movie |
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,279
|
Well first of all, Bin Laden was kind of a rebel in his family, was more-or-less a soldier (he could have been a financier or playboy or anything he wanted) He wasn't initially particularly "Holy" (like Khomeni or the radical clerics), but I believe he thrived/thrives on POWER...and has used Islam/Islamists as a tool.
Sometimes "influence" is most effective on people who are grasping for purpose or a sense of pride...especially when they've felt downtrodden (even though they might not have known that, prior to someone 'enlightening' them ~grin~)
So they had all this training....what kind of shape was Afghanistan in after the US left? Was the economy in better shape? Was there any kind of damage? What impact did this exactly have on them?
The US wasn't there (in the context of 'running the show')...we supported the Taliban to help get the Soviets out. I think they (the Soviets) were there for about 10 years - it was rough all around and the Taliban were strong enough to fight back (with our help) Auggh~ supposedly the better of two evils  (I can't remember if it was a UN/NATO type of support -- we probably had "advisors" there, just like we did prior to the major outbreak of the Vietnam War)
( I do know that in 1968 we had diplomatic relations and a US Army Military Attache' in Afghanistan, because the Colonel who replaced my father in Ethiopia DROVE all the way from Afghanistan to Addis Abbaba because his wife refused to fly   )
As I recall, the last 200-250 years has been up and down for Afghanistan...the Brits and Italians were involved, there was a king, then a military coup (?) with a brief stab at democracy -- but always a lot of corruption (which is the nature of the beast in some places/cultures)
All this is off the top of my head, so don't accept it as gospel, please I'll probably look it up later, because now I'm curious as to the timelines.  ...and the real facts, hehe.
I think Bin Laden just HAPPENED to be welcomed/tolerated in Afghanistan -- it could have been in any number of countries, I'm sure. Perhaps a bit of "baksheesh" greasing some influential hands could have been the reason, whatever his "ideals" or agenda...
I do remember, though, reading about how he was pissed at the US -- we're not always too good at extending our 'thank yous' (or perhaps 'rewarding' our 'allies' in the way they might be accustomed to...)
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 9:59 PM |
WTC Movie
|
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,279
|
Cool, Rare...you just filled in some (big) blanks in what I was rambling about  Thanks.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 17, 2006 @ 10:08 PM |
WTC Movie |
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 2,652
|
In addition to the book already mentioned, these two books provide more information about the situation in Afghanistan:
“Come Back to Afghanistan: A California Teenager’s Story” by Said Hyder Akbar
and
“West of Kabul, East of New York: An Afghan American Story” by Tamim Ansary
|
| |
|
| Aug 18, 2006 @ 1:02 AM |
WTC Movie
|
|
vipervenom
Posts: 442
|
It's just another piece of hollywood garbage, just another tragedy for hollywood to capitalize on. Only thing we need now is a jonbenet movie to be made, what am I saying it's probably in the works already.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 18, 2006 @ 9:44 AM |
WTC Movie |
|
WickedWench
Posts: 1,613
|
Most Muslim governments refused to let them return to their native countries for the fear that they would organize armed resistance. Many of these stateless people were eventually recruited by Al Qaeda
Being homeless and "goalless" would encourage anger no? THis sort of reminds me of Hitler and why his popularity grew so exponentially. ?
We provided aid to the Afghans to bleed the Russians as they had provided aid to North Vietnam
This occured during the Vietnam war (sorry..just read prior to?)I take it? So the US was involved in that too simultaneously? At war in Vietnam and providing support to Afghanistan to beat the Russians? Did the Afghanistan government want the US's help or was it "convenient" to aid them because it was against the Russians? Please remember I'm trying to understand, not stir up shit ok?
we supported the Taliban to help get the Soviets out. I think they (the Soviets) were there for about 10 years - it was rough all around and the Taliban were strong enough to fight back (with our help) Auggh~ supposedly the better of two evils[QUOTE]
So let me see if I'm understanding this correctly?
The US pulled out of Afghanistan(leaving Afghanistan to now do what?) (had the Russians been beaten back at this point?) and left them...struggling? And that's why Bin Laden would have been so welcomed? Am I reading this properly? So I'm getting the impression here (correct me if I"m wrong) that once the US pulled out of Afghanistan, any support they had was gone and they were left to their own devices to figure it out?
the country immediately plunged into civil war. When the Taliban eventually won that war, they were not interested in economic aid from "infidels[QUOTE]
Who were the Taliban fighting with? Russians? Muslims? ??
This is...complex to say the least... So the Taliban are/were/still are..angry at the US for this?
And if I haven't said it? Thanks EH?!?!? for your patience in explaining this to me.
Rare as much as we may occasionally "lock horns" you really are pleasantly knowledgeable.
And Sunbaby......I knew you were holding out 
|
| |
|
| Aug 18, 2006 @ 9:48 AM |
WTC Movie
|
|
WickedWench
Posts: 1,613
|
I have no intentions of seeing this movie ...not for any other reason than I think it deplorable that Stone is making money on one of the greatest tradgies in history ...until i hear that he is donating the profits of the movie to charity I will not spend any money to see it
Even if it is a typical "feel good' story
Titanic comes to mind, Irish, Scarlett O'Hara, Platoon and a few others.
And honestly it wasn't that "feel good". But I agree with your sentiment that he shouldn't be capitalizing on other's misfortune.
You have nothing to say about this Irish?I find that hard to believe from one of the more "feisty" lads on here.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 18, 2006 @ 10:18 AM |
WTC Movie |
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
To give some background on Taliban-era Afghanistan (from an archived Time article)....
The Taliban, who overran most of Afghanistan in 1996, are a militia driven by an extremely harsh Medieval interpretation of Sunni Islam. Backed by Pakistan and funded by Saudi Arabia, they promised to put an end to the factional warfare that had claimed thousands of lives in the years following the defeat of the country's Soviet puppet government in 1991. The Taliban imposed an extremely repressive, sectarian Islamic regime on the Afghan people, barring women from work and education and even killing Shiite Muslims of the Hazari minority.
Bin Laden had been a hero of the 'jihad' against the Soviet occupiers, and the Taliban welcomed him back to Afghanistan in 1996 after his expulsion from the Sudan. Bin Laden has reportedly cemented his ties to the Taliban leadership through his daughter's marriage to its leader, Mullah Omar. But more importantly, his "Arab Afghan" fighters have played a leading role in the Taliban's ongoing military campaign against its opponents. The Taliban's elite brigade were trained in Bin Laden's camps, and are believed to be loyal to the Saudi terrorist's "Al Qaida" movement.
As far as I know, there is no direct evidence the US government directly "helped" the Taliban gain power in 1996. If there was indirect support, it wasn't pervasive enough to influence events.
|
| |
|
| Aug 18, 2006 @ 10:56 AM |
WTC Movie
|
|
Bj864
Posts: 3,960
|
I think in the simplest terms, the reason we have been attacked at various times, is because of our interference in other countries.
Having said that, it would be good to look at the ways we have interfered and the problems we have caused with that interference.
I have still not formed an absolute opinion about the WTC attack. In too many ways, it looks like an inside job. In some ways, it looks like an outside job. When you weigh one against the other, to me the inside job shows more credibility. As I said though, the absolute verdict is still out for me.
I will be very interested in what people think in this thread and will enjoy a discussion about it.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 18, 2006 @ 11:26 AM |
WTC Movie |
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,279
|
Mo said:
As far as I know, there is no direct evidence the US government directly "helped" the Taliban gain power in 1996.
Yep, not like we had troops there...basically helped them with weapons so they could fight the occupying Soviets and their friends.
Here's an exerpt from a book I ran across that's sort of a succint statement about the Taliban's rise to power (which is really a different, though slightly related, 'issue', except for the Bin Laden connection/mind-set):
Ahmed Rashid's Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, published just six months prior to 9/11, provides a first-hand account of the Taliban's rise to power in the wake of interference in the region by foreign superpowers:
The Taliban's wounds are a constant reminder of 20 years of war, which has killed over 1.5 million people and devastated the country. The Soviet Union poured some US$5 billion a year into Afghanistan to subdue the Mujaheddin [Afghan resistance fighters] or a total of US$45 billion - and they lost. The US committed some four to five billion dollars between 1980 and 1992 in aid to the Mujaheddin. US funds were matched by Saudi Arabia and together with support from other European and Islamic countries, the Mujaheddin received a total of over US$10 billion. Most of this aid was in the form of lethal modern weaponry given to a simple agricultural people who used it with devastating results.
Prior to the war the Islamicists barely had a base in Afghan society, but with money and arms from the CIA pipeline and support from Pakistan, they built one and wielded tremendous clout. The traditionalists and the Islamicists fought each other mercilessly so that by 1994, the traditional leadership in Kandahar had virtually been eliminated, leaving the field free for the new wave of even more extreme Islamicists - the Taliban.
This is one of the few times I've run across the mention that it's actually the "Superpowers" interference/influence that's stirred up the hornet's nests, not just the US's...
Oh yeh, the US and other powers have used Islam (and other religions, at times) as a tool, too...not just Bin Laden's/Al Quaida's idea. Even Hitler made nationalism/aryan-ism practically a religion once upon a time....
Wench ~grin~ forget this whole statement :
"This occured during the Vietnam war (sorry..just read prior to?)I take it? So the US was involved in that too simultaneously? At war in Vietnam and providing support to Afghanistan to beat the Russians? Did the Afghanistan government want the US's help or was it "convenient" to aid them because it was against the Russians? "
I only referred to Vietnam as a comparison...Russia often compares their ten years trying to control Afghanistan their "Vietnam" -- they finally pulled out. Vietnam and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan were (primarily) in different decades, not simultaneous "conflicts".
|
| |
|
| Aug 18, 2006 @ 12:24 PM |
WTC Movie
|
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 9,737
|
Sunbabe, also please remember there was mountains of Soviet equipment left behind when the Soviets departed. More was bought on the black market. In fact, the amount of Soviet equipment in Afghanistan during this time dwarfed anything given by the CIA.
Most of the heavy artillery, tanks, and armoured fighting vehicles, not to mention thousands of RPG's and millions of Kalishnikov rifles, used by Afghans on all sides during their civil war were originally supplied by the Soviets during the earlier Soviet-Mujahideen War.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 18, 2006 @ 12:41 PM |
WTC Movie |
|
kattsmeow
Posts: 22,625
|
Where was I when all this was going on?
Oh ya, in the middle of the woods of Michigan, raising my children.
Ok with that said, I have no intentions of seeing this movie. Why? I am not the type to watch a "fictional" movie about this kind of tragity. A documentary maybe.
Ok, yes, I do remember when the bomb went off at the World trade center too.
Why did we (USA) seem to put that on the back burner then? We knew who did it, so we should have known it wasn't going to stop there.
I really do believe that the United States of America,,,,,thought it wouldn't and couldn't happen here. Who? Us? No, nada, it only happens to "other" people.
I need to read into this more, I remember the Soviets being in Afganistan, and when they pulled out. Need more coffee!
|
| |
|
|
|
|