Topic: United 93
Najosz Thjsza Kjras
written Monday, May 15 2006 14:52 Profile #50
Originally written by Jewels:
Basic theme of the movie-
It is a chronological pictation of 'what happened when' on United 93, in the Air Traffic Control rooms, in whatever office is in charge of overseeing all airspace flight over the US(and where the order to stop all flights came from), in the news, and in the military command centers in charge of scrambling fighters on the east coast. It ended when U93 crashed.
Of course most of what happened on United 93 is left to the movie producers discression, but there were many real phone calls made from the plane which they based it on.
I would think that everything else that happend on the ground is reasonably accurate and verifiable within 'poetic license'. But I am taking it all with a grain of salt.
**SPOILERS?**
According to the movie, the military attempted to scramble fighters soon after (forgive my memory) the first or second plane hit the towers but were refused clearence by the FFA, they then scrambled their planes anyway in defiance of the order, but the planes took off on a standard scramble coordinate by mistake heading east over the ocean and then had to get clearence to even turn around. It did say that the military were not even notified that U93 was a hijacked plane untill 4 minutes after it crashed.
/end spoilers
Didn't happen that way. In fact, this 'interpretation' of events is particularly sickening - taking the piss out of the bureaucracy for the benefit of the executive branch is a particularly inaccurate portrayal of how things happened on 9/11.
But, of course, it's a portrayal inaccurate in a way that marches perfectly with the fiendish prejudices of U93's target audience, so what can you do.
Originally written by Drew:
Feel good about the NSA having the calling records for all phonecalls made in the US from three out of the four major phone carriers? Kind of tramples our right to privacy under the Ninth Amendment. But of course, those people outside of any public oversight would never use those records for purposes other than fighting terrorism, right? Of *course* you can trust the current administration, right? Right...
I, in truth, do not care that the government has my phone records. I'm an open person by demeanor, and would probably enjoy being on a show like Big Brother(actually Survivor's more my type). I am not concerned with my privacy and I have nothing to hide anyway. What 'other purposes' should I be worried about?
Surveillance of the citizenry is the first step towards the breakdown of the rule of law. States which routinely practice it also do things like interfering with the personal affairs of opposition figures. The government doesn't like a public gathering you plan to hold? Well, conveniently enough, they just happen to have all of your personal information - bills, mortgage, bank accounts, and, if worse comes to worse, they know when you'll next be on an interstate miles away from the nearest settlement.
I know you conservatives have this weird-ass S&M thing going on with the government, but trust a scholar of history on this one - they ain't got no safe words where we're headed.
Originally written by TM:
With 9/11, it's true that a few evil men are responsible for the grievous acts.
At first I was surprised that you agreed that the terrorists were 'evil men'. Then I remembered that you think I'm evil. :P The movie does a beautiful job of portraying the hijackers, not as evil, but as devout men of the Muslim faith. They did not believe they were evil or doing evil, instead they thought they were doing the will of God. It does not make what they did any less horrific, but their motivations, imho, were not as malicious as it seems. Their actions are not that surprising considering they hold to the Old Testament, but not the New. God calling for the death of nations was not unheard of.
Has it occurred to you that that is evil, more or less in a nutshell? Even if they had been some kind of fundamentalist Christian crazy instead of some kind of fundamentalist Muslim crazy, they'd still have killed thousands of people to no tangible gain.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Kelandon
written Monday, May 15 2006 16:29 Profile Homepage #51
The movie does a beautiful job of portraying the hijackers, not as evil, but as devout men of the Muslim faith.... Their actions are not that surprising considering they hold to the Old Testament, but not the New. God calling for the death of nations was not unheard of.
Wait, I'm sorry, I didn't read this until just now. Are you saying that Muslims believe in the Old Testament but not the New Testament? If so, that's entirely false. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet just as much as Moses was.
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.
Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
WiKiSpidweb
TM, people have been predicting America's demise since before it's independence. It hasn't happened yet. I see no reason to believe the situation has changed substantially. Americans can and will adapt to changing economic and political environments.
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00
I did not say that america would literally die (although it would be a nice, added bonus). It's just that, it's not going to be the world superpower for much longer, and once it starts slipping, it won't stop.
*i
(although it would be a nice, added bonus)
TM - Don't ever call for the destruction of any nation on this forum, or your account will be deleted.
[ Monday, May 15, 2006 20:06: Message edited by: *i ]
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Nick Ringer
Originally written by Miya:
Bush has milked 9/11 for everything from bombing civilians in Iraq, his reelection, to removal of our freedom one protective measure at a time. 9/11 caused those close to where the planes hit, and those who were close to them to suffer, but it has also caused a great portion of the nation to support Bush getting away with murder.
Oh. Oh damn right. I like the Stalin quote, as well.
Most forums are very liberal (not unlike activist college campuses of the 70s). Why the sudden crackdown on political opinion? If I didn't know better, I'd think The Establishment was being sarcastic. Really did at first ... :( Don't like such turmoil.
One of these words is mispelled.
Posts: 284 | Registered: Tuesday, January 31 2006 08:00
Originally written by Nick Ringer:
You know, they got Capone on tax evasion.
I'm pretty lenient on political opinion, but I have to draw the line where speech directly or indirectly says the destruction/death of an individual, group of people, or nation is favored.
If you think that Estonia should be wiped off the map, fine, just don't bring those things here. Such comments are inherently incendiary and serve no purpose in terms of a constructive and healthy discussion.
To be clear, I agree with TM's statement, except the part I highlighted which serves no good purpose.
Jumpin Salmon
? Man, ? Amazing
Fortunately for us, the rules apply equally to all people. As such, and as was pointed out rather spectacularly today, this calls into question the sanctity of the source in journalism.
I, for one, am more than a little nervous when the government knows who called the Washington Post, or was called by them.
You can gesture openness all you like, and there is nothing saying you can't offer your phone records to the CIA or bank statements to the IRS. But you aren't required to do this, nor is it done for you. That is the difference between freedom and slavery. Think on it.
Edit - Funny how Alec and I are bothered by similar things. I'll leave it since we worked it a little differently.
[ Monday, May 15, 2006 20:56: Message edited by: Indifferent Salmon ]
Originally written by Kelandon:
Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Thuryl
...b10010b...
written Tuesday, May 16 2006 00:58 Profile Homepage #59
I'd have no problem giving up my privacy provided it went both ways. If the Prime Minister wants to know what goes on in my bedroom, I want to know what goes on in his office.
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
radix malorum est cupiditas
written Tuesday, May 16 2006 02:07 Profile #60
The Crusades, in theory, were a territorial grab, not an attempted genocide. They weren't trying to wipe out Jews and Muslims; they were just trying to get them out of the Holy Land.
The supposed purpose of the Crusades and the actual purposes of the individuals involved were often at variance, as in the Fourth Crusade, which never actually made it to Israel and ended up sacking Constantinople instead.
I was under the impression that the Turks in the Middle East at the time of the Crusades were overwhelmingly Muslim.
If anyone has any information to contradict any of this, it'd be worth citing sources, because what I've just said is the way the story is normally told in the books that I've read.
EDIT: That book is not new. The copyright date on it is 2000.
It was a response to the rise of the muslim population in Europe, the first ones weren't called by the Pope, but rather by the church (priests, etc.), and therefore aren't counted among the crusades.
The Seljuk Turks were not muslim.
??? ??????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:
I really have no idea where you're getting all of this from. While violence against Muslims and Jews &c was indeed sanctioned by elements of the Church, it had little to no connection to the Crusades in Europe. I would actually hazard to guess none whatsoever.
The crusading era was four entire centuries. Counting interreligious strife during those centuries as Crusades is as ridiculous as counting the Yom Kippur War as part of Vietnam.
And while there have been few eras in history in which it served as an advantage to practice Judaism, the Muslims were for damn sure not at a disadvantage in most of Europe. The religion spread as it usually does - an admixture of semi-secular war and peacable conversion - as far as southern France and Russia, and made serious inroads into central Europe. The Christian world during the Crusades could be roughly analogized to the Muslim world now.
I really don't want to derail the topic, but I cannot abide by bad history and honestly, it seems the only way you could get any worse is by trying to convince everyone the pyramids had something to do with all of this. :\
EDIT: And the Seljuks were too Muslim! The Sultanate of Rum was Muslim more or less from the word go (the mid-11th - before the first Crusade), and it was as far west (read: as distant from the Arab world) as possible.
[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 03:29: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ]
moonear
It isn't Chomsky's newest or most recent book, either -- he's published several new titles since then, both on politics and on linguistics.
Well, what do you know. I stand corrected. It was the latest one I had read and, as only a casual reader, I don't keep up to date. Should have known better than to state without support, especially when thare are language specialists at this forum (who are no doubt familiar with his linguistic works?)
As far as the US having an international presence, historically the US has avoided the world stage unless required to act in the political arean - WW II, international courts, lack of support for UN missions etc. Although they do involve themselves, it is often reluctantly and is not a primary focus of their politics and media. (my impressions). The US economy is another good example. Although there is much posturing with respect to international trade issues (tainted beef and Japan or Canada for instance) the actual value to the market place is small because the American economy is so large internally - and yes I realize that America is the world's largest agricultural products exporter. The net result is interational politics and world events are less important to the collective mindset of Americans and foreign events impact less on their day to day lives - unless massively forced on their consciousness (Pearl Harbour, 9/11)
[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 04:45: Message edited by: Molybdenum ]
"Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things."
"You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares."
Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00
Slarty
Raven v. Writing Desk
Did you decide to just ignore Kelandon's request? Honestly, if you're going to propose something that runs counter to what most people think they know, you need to provide evidence to back it up. Even if you're sure you're right. Otherwise, what the heck is the point of communicating your opinion? Nothing, except to troll.
As far as the Seljuks go, I found this site talking about advances in Islamic theology made by Seljuks. The other sites I found on the Seljuks seem to agree that they were largely Muslim.
I'm getting craptired of arguing with people who refuse to substantiate their claims even when they are asked to. Frankly, Infernal, it makes me inclined to take everything you say with several extra grains of salt. Cite sources or go away.
Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Chomsky's latest book IS Rogue States ;)
Has anyone read "A Concise History of the Crusades" by Thomas Madden (there is a revised edition out now, not sure of the differences) - he is a University professor - Jesuit? who writes that the crusades were a response to 400 years of Muslim expansion (often violent) that had claimed much of what had been previously Christian - for instance Palestine prior to Muslim conquest was one of the most Christianized places in the entire world. The Crusades started as a defensive war against muslim expansion and a rescue mission for Middle East Christians.
Originally written by Molybdenum:
My ass.
The Crusades were definitionally offensive. The flip side of that claim is that Islam had been in place fairly firmly for the areas Christendom 'lost' four centuries - and was the strongly prevailing religion and culture of almost every area the Crusades targeted, to the point that the culture of 'Middle East Christians' would have been closer to their neighbors than to their coreligionists in Europe.
The Crusades were motivated to some degree by religious fervor, but calling it a defensive, culture-based war is ridiculous. The political and economic motivators at work are far too heavy to discredit altogether. And the fact that the majority of the fighting in any successful crusade took place in a part of the world no Christian state had ruled over in centuries makes that claim all the more preposterous. It'd be like troops from a coalition of Muslim countries seizing Hungary - and calling it defensive, on the basis that the loss of it to Christendom was the product of centuries of aggression.
I'd seriously question the motives of a Jesuit publishing that kind of nonsense - might he perhaps have credentials in culture war / clash of civilization garbage? I'd be genuinely surprised if he didn't have an agenda to peddle.
At least he is a historian with refereed publications to his credit what are your qualifications?
I'm now firmly in this camp. Except I use the whole damn shaker.
The Crusades were motivated to some degree by religious fervor, but calling it a defensive, culture-based war is ridiculous. The political and economic motivators at work are far too heavy to discredit altogether.
This is a load of bolshoi. The crusades were incredibly expensive endeavours which cost many noblemen their fortune and ultimately their lives. A few people got rich but the vast majority (that returned) got nothing.
Originally written by Alec:
Well, since you seem to know the facts, what is accurate as far as military action timeline(This is really what I am most interested in) and what is your source?
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really care. I understand fully that everyone in this country has the right to privacy. If the government tries to abuse that right, they are wrong to do so, but you won't find me at the protest rallies fighting it. Besides, worrying about such conspiracy theories can be hazardous to ones health. Either in unwarrented stress because the government was planning nothing of the sort, or in a government hit because you were causing too much trouble over it. :P
Who is to say what is evil? Who is right and who is wrong? I know where I get my plumbline but the same tells me that God works all things out for the good of those who love him. My standpoint isn't that the events of 9/11 were not evil, it is that the terrorists, 'those people', are people just like us with different beliefs, different influences, different causes to fight for, but the same capability for love, compassion, guilt, and shame. I do not believe in their cause, I disagree with their methods, but I can't help but see them for what they are. People doing what they can with the information life has given them. Some may have had malicious, vengful hearts, but some may not have. Who can tell? This really is a molehill, though. I'm not trying to go anywhere with it.
"Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05
"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
A few people got rich but the vast majority (that returned) got nothing.
You know what else this sounds like?
EVERY GODDAMNED WAR IN ALL OF HISTORY.
So unless you're willing to posit that World War I was somehow a noble fight against an offensive enemy, I would seriously reconsider this line of argument.
TM, the argument:
A few people got rich but the vast majority (that returned) got nothing. was a response to the argument:
The political and economic motivators at work are far too heavy to discredit altogether.
It was used to discredit an argument not to advance one. Further, it is not my argument, but one of a historian who supports his contentions with historical evidence.
The Crusades started as a defensive war against muslim expansion and a rescue mission for Middle East Christians.
While citing one source is definitely better than just shouting your opinion, I understand why people are uneasy about this. One university professor's opinion does not a statement of fact make. Professors argue violently and hold radically different opinions all the time.
In this case it seems the book is challenging accepted opinion. If you hold the book highly, maybe it would be worthwhile for you to summarize some of its arguments here? That is going to work better than just citing somebody else's assertion and having us take their word for it, which is only one step removed from shouting an opinion.
As far as the US having an international presence, historically the US has avoided the world stage unless required to act in the political arean - WW II, international courts, lack of support for UN missions etc. Although they do involve themselves, it is often reluctantly and is not a primary focus of their politics and media. (my impressions).
I will agree with you as far as saying that U.S. involvement on the world stage is usually not a primary focus of American media. However, the U.S. intervenes all over the place all the time. Alec can probably provide more evidence off the top of his head than I can, but my first thought is of Central America and the dozens of interventions there throughout the twentieth century.
The U.S. meddles in other countries' politics all the time, often because of *arguably* pressing reasons (Iraq 2003-?, Kosovo in '99, Haiti in '94 — do you remember that? I don't — Kuwait in '91, etc.). In fact, going back at least to the Spanish-American War, there's been an intervention somewhere in the world just about every three years by the U.S.
It was a response to the rise of the muslim population in Europe,
The only substantial Muslim population in Europe in the eleventh century was in Spain, and that had been in place since the eighth century. What are you talking about?
the first ones weren't called by the Pope, but rather by the church (priests, etc.), and therefore aren't counted among the crusades.
The first ones of what? Did you just say that the first crusades weren't called by the Pope and therefore aren't counted among the crusades? I can't find any evidence of an unofficial crusade before the First Crusade, which was definitely called by a Pope.
Yes, they were. (Among other sources.) They weren't when they lived in Kazakhstan, but by the time they had come to the Middle East, they were.
[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 08:31: Message edited by: Kelandon ]
Kel, I accept your rationale on US interventions.
Slarty, your comment on parroting another's opinion is, in a large sense, true. However, I would suggest that my stating of the historians opinion, together with providing the source, is not shouting. edit: but I made these two statements in different postings so its not clear to the reader.
But, in that I do not want to argue this opinion and thereby sidetrack the argument, I did a little internet searching on the author.
Here is his home, Saint Louis University (it is a Jesuit University - perhaps part of the reason he is in strong defence of the catholic position on the crusades, that it was a defensive mission:
http://www.slu.edu/departments/history/madden.htm
here is a weblink - about one page long, that summarizes his views on the crusades, much better summary than I can do:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html
This link is also interesting in that he summarizes how the crusades have been variously interpreted through time: at the time of the crusades Catholicism viewed it as holy, the muslims viewed the knights with respect. Martin Luther and protestant reformation reinterpreted events to "a ploy by a power-hungry papacy". Eighteenth century philosphers viewed the crusades as lustful, greedy enterprises but their interpretations were influenced by their views on Christianity. Later periods were generally in favor of the crusades until post WW II, when ideology based warfane became frowned upon. The views he is espousing have developed from the 1970's onward.
And here is his summary of the book I cited itself. Interesting to note that in this column he asserts that he holds to the present mainstream view of crusades evidence and is NOT challenging current thought by historians on the crusades. Rather, he asserts that current thought among the laypeople has not caught up to current thought by historians.
While I would take this with a grain of salt (he may have his own bias/soapbox), he is a historian working in the field and is likely more qualified to make this statement then myself. I am hesitant to dispute this without evidence from scholars who hold opposite views (although it would be interesting to see what muslim scholars interpret the events as) vs. a layperson disputing the position.
http://www.godspy.com/issues/Real-History-of-Crusades-by-Thomas-Madden.cfm
For me, the most interesting part is how cautious we have to read our source material and in determining the bias behind the scholarship. A good reminder for anything we produce.
By Committee
Political purposes. Watergate ring a bell?
EDIT: Whoops! A little late on this one. Still though, Jewels, I think you need to seriously consider what you're saying. Say a particular interest group seized power after such authoritarian devices were established in our government. It's not much of a stretch from there before "religious police" or "thought police" a la Iran come into being, and then your very rights as a women could come into question.
The rights we enjoy live and die by how transparent our government is. I don't think it's a coincidence that the current regime is so secretive and the state of foreign and domestic affairs so craptastic for everyone except the wealthiest 1%. Don't be surprised if you see even Republican congressmen start to balk at these measures.
[ Tuesday, May 16, 2006 11:17: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00