• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Topic: review of flight 93

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    review of flight 93

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    'United 93' Defames Islam, Bill Clinton Equally
    by Ned Rice
    Apr 28, 2006

    United 93 is a taut, well-crafted “what if?”-type political thriller about what might happen if a group of murderous fanatics hijacked commercial airliners and used them as long-range missiles to destroy civilian targets within the United States.

    United 93 is well-acted and well-directed, with terrific special effects and a harrowing climactic sequence which, while disturbingly grisly, is sure to get the patriotic blood boiling — especially among un-educated Red Staters in fly-over country who tend to be suspicious of all “foreigners.” (Spoiler Alert: In this tale three of the four hijacked planes find their targets; United 93 takes place mainly on the fourth plane).

    So what’s the problem with United 93? In a word, plausibility. Granted, a certain suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite for enjoying thrillers, horror movies and other filmed works of fiction, but there has to be at least some semblance of reality in what is unfolding onscreen in order for the audience to “buy into” the story being told. And as any informed person knows, the events depicted in United 93 are simply too far-fetched to be believable.

    Right off the bat the makers of United 93 reveal their ignorance of recent history because, in point of fact, the World Trade Center was attacked. By sheer coincidence, in 1993 a group of young Muslim Arab males used a rented van filled with explosives to try to topple the twin towers. (By way of historical perspective, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center by Arab Muslims occurred after the totally random 1988 bombing by Arab Muslims of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and before the totally random 1996 bombing by Arab Muslims of a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia.) But their plot largely failed. President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department then brought indictments against the guilty parties and had them arrested, as any sensible person would in response to such a criminal act. The attackers were convicted in a court of law, found guilty, and placed in prison where they remain today. So much for the idea of any further attacks on our World Trade Center!

    Indeed, one would have to have slept through virtually the entire eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency to have made a film as historically inaccurate as United 93. (And if there’s one thing this writer prides himself on it’s his sense of history). A terrorist conspiracy such as the one depicted in this film could not possibly have taken place so soon after the Clinton era.

    First of all, a plot of this scope would have required literally years of planning, which means that an attack occurring in September of 2001 would have to have been conceived, planned, and largely carried out (i.e., the financing, the placing of terrorist “moles” within the U.S., the hijackers’ flight training, etc.) while Bill Clinton was still President. This, in a word, is simply preposterous: as any schoolboy could tell you the whole world loved the United States and every American from the day Bill Clinton first brought his unique brand of dignity and respect to the Oval Office until the sad day he stepped down. Moreover, the planning for a coordinated series of terrorist attacks on such a scale would have quickly been detected—and just as quickly stopped—by our nation’s combined law enforcement and intelligence communities.

    In a nation where Janet Reno’s Justice Department, the CIA, and the FBI all worked together like a well-oiled machine to effect a seamless exchange of ideas and information, even the best-laid attack plan wouldn’t stand much of a chance. Or to put it in layman’s terms, you couldn’t keep a terrorist plot this big a secret in Bill Clinton’s America even if you built a virtual wall between the FBI and the CIA … not that such a thing could ever happen.

    Even more flawed and wrong-headed are the political—and yes, the racial—implications of this movie’s basic premise. United 93 asks us to imagine that 19 religious fanatics undertake simultaneous suicide missions targeting perhaps tens of thousands of innocent American civilians—and that all 19 of the attackers are Arab Muslims! Even statistically speaking, what would be the odds that four different airliners, departing from three different cities, would be hijacked within minutes of each other on the exact same September morning—and that all 19 hijackers would be Arab Muslims? Did somebody say “conspiracy theory”? Come on, Hollywood … this plot point is practically screaming “re-write”!

    To say nothing of the cultural insensitivity (and ignorance) of implying, as United 93 surely does, that young Arab Muslim males are more prone to violence than are the rest of us. As any educated person can tell you, the Muslims have always been a peace-loving people. In fact, the word “Islam” means “peace”. (I think “Islam” actually means “submission,” but I guess that’s pretty much the same thing. Ed.)

    Ethnically profiling Arab Muslims as a group of fanatics bent on some sort of global holy war against non-believers might play well in the sticks, but back here in the real world (New York, Los Angeles), everyone knows that the religious fanatics we really have to worry about are the white Christian ones. Like Timothy McVeigh and … and all the other ones, too. For United 93 to be realistic at least half of the hijackers should have been white, red-state Christians, preferably pro-life fanatics, End-Timers, or—at the very least—Promise Keepers. Far as I’m concerned, making a movie in today’s modern world that portrays Muslim Arabs as murderous fanatics is nothing short of a hate crime.

    For all of its shortcomings in terms of believability, United 93 nearly redeems itself during its final moments. The display of raw courage by the doomed passengers as they thwart the terrorists’ plans with a coordinated assault of their own had an authenticity that will resonate with even the most cynical.

    The obvious implausibility of the grim scenario depicted in this film notwithstanding, one senses that a group of average Americans in a similar hypothetical situation would have fought back with all they had so as to ensure that their lives would not have been lost in vain. Granted, all that “Let’s roll!” business was a little “on the nose,” as any decent Hollywood script doctor could tell you.

    But in the final analysis the heroism shown by the passengers on Flight 93 was authentically American. That’s who Americans are, and that’s what Americans would have done. The idea that heroes like the “Todd Beamer” character would have given up without a fight, or begged for mercy, or tried to reason with the hijackers, or even—God forbid—tried to see things from their point of view, as if such brutality could ever be justified by some ludicrous stretch of the imagination—now, that’s something that could never happen.

    Could it?

  2. #2

    Re: review of flight 93

    This review angers me.

    "Ethnically profiling Arab Muslims as a group of fanatics bent on some sort of global holy war against non-believers might play well in the sticks, but back here in the real world (New York, Los Angeles), everyone knows that the religious fanatics we really have to worry about are the white Christian ones. Like Timothy McVeigh and … and all the other ones, too. For United 93 to be realistic at least half of the hijackers should have been white, red-state Christians, preferably pro-life fanatics, End-Timers, or—at the very least—Promise Keepers. Far as I’m concerned, making a movie in today’s modern world that portrays Muslim Arabs as murderous fanatics is nothing short of a hate crime."

    What is this guy smoking?!? The hijackers WERE Muslim Arabs! We know this as fact. I just can't even say anything more...the review/commentary is GARBAGE! We were attacked on 9/11 and this film is a depiction of what happened on one of the planes that day. He's almost making it like the whole thing never happened and/or that we should be more sensitive to "their reasoning behind it" well, we lost a lot of people that day, and as for their (terrorists) point of view...well, I don't care. They can burn in Hell.

    Steph



  3. #3

    Re: review of flight 93

    What about this one?

    By C. J. CHIVERS
    Published: May 6, 2006

    An effort by the American military to discredit the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by showing video outtakes of him fumbling with a machine gun — suggesting that he lacks real fighting skill — was questioned yesterday by retired and active American military officers.

    The video clips, released on Thursday to news organizations in Baghdad, show the terrorist leader confused about how to handle an M-249 squad automatic weapon, known as an S.A.W., which is part of the American inventory of infantry weapons.

    The American military, which said it captured the videotapes in a recent raid, released selected outtakes in an effort to undermine Mr. Zarqawi's image as leader of the Council of Holy Warriors, formerly Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and suggested that his fighting talents and experience were less than his propaganda portrays. But several veterans of wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, as well as active-duty officers, said in telephone interviews yesterday that the clips of Mr. Zarqawi's supposed martial incompetence were unconvincing.

    The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi's hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.

    "They are making a big deal out of nothing," said Mario Costagliola, who retired as an Army colonel last month after serving as the operations officer for the 42nd Infantry Division in Tikrit, Iraq.

    An active-duty Special Forces colonel who served in Iraq also said that what the video showed actually had little relationship to Mr. Zarqawi's level of terrorist skill. "Looking at the video, I enjoy it; I like that he looks kind of goofy," said the Special Forces officer, who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on military matters. "But as a military guy, I shrug my shoulders and say: 'Of course he doesn't know how to use it. It's our gun.' He doesn't look as stupid as they said he looks."

    The release of the captured video reflected the dueling public relations efforts between the American-led forces fighting in Iraq and the terrorists and insurgents. It also reflected increasing interest by the military and civilian strategists in trying to ridicule Mr. Zarqawi.

    "In Arab and Muslim societies, pride and shame are felt much more profoundly than they are in Western culture," said J. Michael Waller, a professor at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school in Washington. "To find video like this that can cut him down to size and discredit him is a real way of fighting terrorism." A paper written by Professor Waller advocating the use of ridicule against the insurgents has been circulating at the Pentagon and among military commanders with experience in Iraq recently, according to several military officers.

    But the retired and active officers said the public presentation of the tape did not address elements that were disturbing, rather than amusing: the weapon was probably captured from American soldiers, indicating a tactical victory for the insurgents. And Mr. Zarqawi looked clean and plump.

    "I see a guy who is getting a lot of groceries and local support," said Nick Pratt, a Marine Corps veteran and professor of terrorism studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Germany. "You cannot say he is a bad operator." He added, "People should be careful who they poke fun at."

  4. #4

    Re: review of flight 93

    Quote Originally Posted by moviemaestro
    This review angers me.

    "Ethnically profiling Arab Muslims as a group of fanatics bent on some sort of global holy war against non-believers might play well in the sticks, but back here in the real world (New York, Los Angeles), everyone knows that the religious fanatics we really have to worry about are the white Christian ones. Like Timothy McVeigh and … and all the other ones, too. For United 93 to be realistic at least half of the hijackers should have been white, red-state Christians, preferably pro-life fanatics, End-Timers, or—at the very least—Promise Keepers. Far as I’m concerned, making a movie in today’s modern world that portrays Muslim Arabs as murderous fanatics is nothing short of a hate crime."

    What is this guy smoking?!? The hijackers WERE Muslim Arabs! We know this as fact. I just can't even say anything more...the review/commentary is GARBAGE! We were attacked on 9/11 and this film is a depiction of what happened on one of the planes that day. He's almost making it like the whole thing never happened and/or that we should be more sensitive to "their reasoning behind it" well, we lost a lot of people that day, and as for their (terrorists) point of view...well, I don't care. They can burn in Hell.

    Steph


    What are you talking about???

    This kind of stuff is spewed every single day...from the MSM to certain members of congress to the ACLU. Do you not recognize it?

  5. #5

    Re: review of flight 93

    Yes, I recognize it. It doesn't change the fact that it Pisses me off.

  6. #6

    Re: review of flight 93

    come on now..there are people "here' who have expoused some of those views. Surely you can't be offended by it now?

    Yes..Zaraqawi ...we should not offend him...or make fun of him..because arabs are more senstive to that kind of thing. And as well..we should be "very" careful who we poke fun at!! And military sources..who suggest that showing him as inept...was somehow a bad idea. And that ...he wasn't inept at all!! Cause..well..it's not really a soviet weapon....he wouldn't really know how to operate it..hhahahahaha.

    Got to laugh..eh? God bless you all. Sleep tight.

  7. #7

    Re: review of flight 93

    Quote Originally Posted by dcornutt
    come on now..there are people "here' who have expoused some of those views. Surely you can't be offended by it now?

    Yes..Zaraqawi ...we should not offend him...or make fun of him..because arabs are more senstive to that kind of thing. And as well..we should be "very" careful who we poke fun at!! And military sources..who suggest that showing him as inept...was somehow a bad idea. And that ...he wasn't inept at all!! Cause..well..it's not really a soviet weapon....he wouldn't really know how to operate it..hhahahahaha.

    Got to laugh..eh? God bless you all. Sleep tight.
    Well, I really did know better than to get into this thread. Against my better judgement, jumped in anyways. Anger will do that you know...as far as what I'll do about it? I'll just have to let my vote count - I can't think of much else that I can do. Any ideas since you're hopefully done making fun of me?

  8. #8
    Moderator/Developer Brian2112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Out of my Mind
    Posts
    1,858

    Exclamation Re: review of flight 93

    Dcornutt,

    We can do without the taunting please. You have had your say.
    "So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
    Hint:1.6180339887498948482 Φ

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ojai, California
    Posts
    305

    Re: review of flight 93

    I think that if anyone looks the fool, it's the US military for releasing the video clips.

  10. #10

    Re: review of flight 93

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian2112
    Dcornutt,

    We can do without the taunting please. You have had your say.
    My apologies.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •