“Will you see the movie?” That’s a question going around America right now.
Reviews have generally been positive, but there’s no doubt it’s an intense movie and will bring back a flood of memories from that fateful day. Reviewer Bill McCuddy recently warned potential viewers they would “go down into the ground” with the airplane.
In any conflict it’s important for the public to understand the reason to place men and treasure in harm’s way, and the war on Islamic terror is no different. Of all the events on September the 11th Flight 93 was obviously a tiny ray of sunshine poking through a very dark cloud.
The only constructive reason to capture it on film, or for that matter see it, would be to learn from it. Movies about the other three flights would serve no other purpose but to glorify the terrorists. Flight 93 was about fighting back. As someone recently said, those passengers, through cellphone and airphone technology, grimly understood their fate and decided to launch the first counterattack of the war.
Any discussion of this subject would be incomplete without mentioning the effect the Iraq war might be having on the memory of the actions of those passengers. Regardless of which side one takes, the answer wouldn’t change the fact that certain Islamist groups wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible before the Iraq decision was made, and we have no reason to believe they’ve changed their minds.
Personally, I plan to see the film. Part of that decision is due to historical curiosity–I’m interested to see how they portray the FAA, DoD and airlines involved in the day’s events amidst a blevy of conspiracy theories on the web. But mostly it’s a desire to be reminded that there are still heroes in this world and on why we need to continue the fight.
MORE
John Podhoretz provides a very well-thought out review of the movie and why Americans should see it.
The Right Truth blog also has a review, which includes the following:
Writer / director / producer Paul Greengrass is a liberal. He says we must put our liberal and conservative views aside when it comes to this terror and protecting the United States. Rush Limbaugh has done a sit-down interview with Mr. Greengrass. The printed interview will come out in the next three weeks in the Limbaugh Letter. He is airing excepts from the interview on his radio show.
Joke about Rush if you like (he deserves some of it), and remind us he’ll put his own spin on it (he will), but Mr. Greengrass’s perspective is the important thing here. George Bush will be gone in a few years, and if the republicans continue their foot-shooting ways the democrats might wake up back in power, despite Howard Dean. But such events won’t change the terrorist mission statement one bit.
4 comments so far
OK, that goes for the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and the Taliban government who indeed appeared to be harboring them. The hijackings were not sufficient justification to attack Iraq or even to fight any more there, until such time as Zarqawi or his ilk make plans and some moves to attack the US. Four planes don’t bring down a great nation that stretches from sea to shining sea; and the sooner intelligent people like you lose the excessively militaristic brainlock, the better this country will be served.
When the Clinton administration bombed the factory at al-Shifa, it wasn’t because they were retaliating for a VX gas attack, it was because they thought Bin Laden was using it to produce the poison, which might one day be used against us. Since we knew Iraqi scientists had been involved with the Khartoum thugocracy, such was a reasonable assumption. It was more a pre-emptive strike than retaliation for the embassy bombings.
The same logic was used on Iraq after 9/11.
Let me turn this around on you, Wintermute. You appear to be an intelligent person, so why do you pretend Hussein’s ties with terrorism didn’t exist? Just because he didn’t do a joint press conference with Bin Laden doesn’t automatically exonerate him. Keep in mind he’s a gangster.
There’s no doubt Islamists will use WMDs if they ever obtain them. If you have any better ideas on how to stop them from gaining that technology without resorting to military interventions against countries who have no desire to be civilized members of the international community,
please provide them.
McCloud, where in the Constitution does it allow our county to decide which country can have which weapons?
China has Nukes pointed at us, why are we not bombing them?
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about airplanes or nukes? What it DOES say is the CIC will protect the nation from threats, both foreign and domestic. Just like Clinton was trying to do with al-Shifa.