United 93, opening old wounds and exposing some truth?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I am at home.

And you haven't proven anything, so why should I?

Thanks for giving up the chase. I haven't proved anything? I think not.

Simply proved "Not all Muslims are terrorists but the majority of terrorists are Muslim"

All I had to do was dial HEZBOLLAH. It isn't even close.

Use Lanny's site if you'd like
http://www.ict.org.il/organizations/...e.cfm?orgid=22
Approximately 10,000 armed combatants in Sri Lanka; about 3,000 to 6,000 form a trained cadre of fighters. The LTTE also has a significant overseas support structure for fundraising, weapons procurement, and propaganda activities.

The two groups I sited equal and surpass that. I can't find Hamas' numbers but safe to say if they can challenge the PLO they are as big as the Tamils.

So please prove your idiotic statement there apologist. Or maybe Lanny can come uo with another conspiracy theory to back your and his claims up.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Thanks for giving up the chase. I haven't proved anything? I think not.

Simply proved "Not all Muslims are terrorists but the majority of terrorists are Muslim"

All I had to do was dial HEZBOLLAH. It isn't even close.

Use Lanny's site if you'd like
http://www.ict.org.il/organizations/...e.cfm?orgid=22
Approximately 10,000 armed combatants in Sri Lanka; about 3,000 to 6,000 form a trained cadre of fighters. The LTTE also has a significant overseas support structure for fundraising, weapons procurement, and propaganda activities.

The two groups I sited equal and surpass that. I can't find Hamas' numbers but safe to say if they can challenge the PLO they are as big as the Tamils.

So please prove your idiotic statement there apologist. Or maybe Lanny can come uo with another conspiracy theory to back your and his claims up.

The only thing you've proven is my point.

Not all Christians are child molesters, but most child molesters are Christians.

I don't have to prove it, I can just say it over and over again. But just for fun...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

See? There are more Christians than adherents to any other religion so it seems logical to me that a disproportionate number of child molesters in the world must be Christian. Make sense?

I can understand why you make sweeping generalizations and handpick or distort information to "prove" your point -- it is the easiest way to do things. This "christian child molester" claptrap took me about 5 seconds. It's no different from what you routinely do.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Blue

Wow, I'm going to jump in here but I know I probably shouldn't. I read the first page of this and well, being an American didn't really want to read anymore. The title caught my attention because I've had a lot of discussion about this movie with friends. First off I have to say I am stunned by the hatred I read on this board for Americans. I have always found Canadians to be wonderfully nice, good people. This and other threads here shock me.

As someone who watched 911 happen before her eyes and who had a brother working in the Pentagon in that section I felt compelled to read this thread. Have I seen the movie? No. Why? Because the memory of that day still hurts and I don't want to. To me the people on that plane and every other plane were heros. As were all the people that died that day. You want to call us Pom Pom waving Americans so be it.

OK--so let's review. You read the first page of a multi-page thread, and felt qualified to comment on the level of "hatred" in the thread. If you'd read the rest of it, you'd realize that there's a diversity of views here--but I think it's safe to say that no-one "hates" America. Disliking American foreign policy isn't hatred, it's an opinion. People are entitled to their opinions in what is for now a free country.

I probably should therefore not be surprised that you didn't actually SEE "United 93" yet felt qualified to comment on it. I did see it, and yes, it's emotionally difficult, and as I said in my article, I have mixed feelings about whether it's a good thing to bring back the difficult emotions of that day.

Incidentally--and this will perhaps surprise no-one--I actually received hate mail because of the article today--in my mailbox, unsigned, no return address. Really freaked my poor wife out.

I guess there are some people out there who know they're right and don't want a debate at all.

[Blue]

You are right Iowa, I should not have commented. In fact I came back this morning after thinking about it to delete the thread. But that would be moot now. I was wrong to post it. I will stand by my opinion thought that there are not many here with fond feelings of Americans, which surprises me greatly. I've read more than a few comments here and on the hockey board. Again, I apologize for the above statement, it was wrong and not thought out.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The only thing you've proven is my point.

Not all Christians are child molesters, but most child molesters are Christians.

I don't have to prove it, I can just say it over and over again. But just for fun...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

See? There are more Christians than adherents to any other religion so it seems logical to me that a disproportionate number of child molesters in the world must be Christian. Make sense?

I can understand why you make sweeping generalizations and handpick or distort information to "prove" your point -- it is the easiest way to do things. This "christian child molester" claptrap took me about 5 seconds. It's no different from what you routinely do.

Please. Stop trying to make it look like I am labelling all Muslims terrorists or that it is a Muslim problem only like Lanny is so valiantly trying to do. I am not doing that.

It is not a generalization. It is a very sad fact. "Not all Muslims are terrorists but certainly the majority of terrorists are Muslim" By sheer numbers: the majority of terrorists, organisations, and volume of terrorist attacks.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Blue

You are right Iowa, I should not have commented. In fact I came back this morning after thinking about it to delete the thread. But that would be moot now. I was wrong to post it. I will stand by my opinion thought that there are not many here with fond feelings of Americans, which surprises me greatly. I've read more than a few comments here and on the hockey board. Again, I apologize for the above statement, it was wrong and not thought out.

I don't think you should or need to apologise at all. There are more here with fond feeling for the US than the opposite. We're just not as prolific as the others.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Blue

You are right Iowa, I should not have commented. In fact I came back this morning after thinking about it to delete the thread. But that would be moot now. I was wrong to post it. I will stand by my opinion thought that there are not many here with fond feelings of Americans, which surprises me greatly. I've read more than a few comments here and on the hockey board. Again, I apologize for the above statement, it was wrong and not thought out.

Fair enough. As you might be able to see from my nickname, I live in the US, and find it to be a wonderful place in many ways. I was simply pointing out that you can have fond feelings for the US, but still not embrace the bellicose foreign policy of one Mr. Bush. The two are not the same.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Says the dufus who has in the past attempted to justify the fire bombing of Tokyo, the carpet bombing of Germany and Vietnam. Nice double standard.

No idea what your talking about Lanny, wy don't you start telling us nice stories again?


You could start with how it was actually a missle that struck the Pentagon and not in fact a passenger jet.

Enlighten us all please.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

So, howcome the U.S. feels it is exempt from the Geneva Conventions in the war on terrorism? It's either not a real war, or the conventions are ignored.

If it is not a real war, then how can there be illegal combatants (which was your defintion of what a terrorist is)? And if they are being ignored by the U.S., then how can any tactic be considered illegal?

Well if you knew your ass from your elbow you would know that the Geneva convention specificallt states that illegal combatants automatically make themselves inelligible to be covered by POW statutes. This is why there is nothing illegal about Guantanamo.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Blue

Wow, I'm going to jump in here but I know I probably shouldn't. I read the first page of this and well, being an American didn't really want to read anymore. The title caught my attention because I've had a lot of discussion about this movie with friends. First off I have to say I am stunned by the hatred I read on this board for Americans. I have always found Canadians to be wonderfully nice, good people. This and other threads here shock me.

As someone who watched 911 happen before her eyes and who had a brother working in the Pentagon in that section I felt compelled to read this thread. Have I seen the movie? No. Why? Because the memory of that day still hurts and I don't want to. To me the people on that plane and every other plane were heros. As were all the people that died that day. You want to call us Pom Pom waving Americans so be it.

I agree 100%. Anti-American sentiment passes for haute couture nowadays, unfortunately. It's vogue to not like the U.S. and Canada is not immune to it as this thread can attest.

[Blue]

Well my comments were still out of line. Sometimes I type faster than my brain thinks. Thanks for understanding. As for not liking the U.S. being vogue, I guess Canada isn't alone. I was just a bit surprised because I've always considered Canadians our brothers to the North. And you have damn good hockey teams too.

[White Doors]

More like cousins?
And we have some ugly cousins in this forum.

haha

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well if you knew your ass from your elbow you would know that the Geneva convention specificallt states that illegal combatants automatically make themselves inelligible to be covered by POW statutes. This is why there is nothing illegal about Guantanamo.

Right. "Illegal Combatant" isn't at ALL a legal category invented by the Bush administration to JUSTIFY Guantanamo.

Please tell me you haven't been completely duped by the Bushies' doublespeak. Even most Americans see right through it.

[transplant99]

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

From the GC itself.

Which is fair to say...illegal combatants....no?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well if you knew your ass from your elbow you would know that the Geneva convention specificallt states that illegal combatants automatically make themselves inelligible to be covered by POW statutes. This is why there is nothing illegal about Guantanamo.

First of all, no reason to start with the personal insults. You always have to take it to that level it seems....

Now do you think that all of the prisoners in Guantanamo fall under the classification of "illegal combatant"? You can't really be that naive.

Many of them there were Taliban and Iraqi soldiers that we captured in conventional battles. And besides, I'm not just referring to Guantanamo, but also CIA and military interrogation techniques.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

From the GC itself.

Which is fair to say...illegal combatants....no?

The GC also states that it is up to an independent judge to decide who should get the status of "detainee" - not the ones who detain them. (Detainee being the accepted term for "illegal combatant").

An independent judge, Mary Robinson - The UN Human Rights Chief has already stated that those captured by the U.S. in Aghanistan and Iraq should fall under the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are under UN jurisdiction - that should count for something.

It's also notable that according to the GC definition of an illegal combabtant, many independent military contractors would also be considered "illegal comabatants", yet there was a lot of outcry from the Bush administration that American mercenaries should not detained or harmed by enemy forces.

[Scrambler]

I watched this movie on Friday night and I actually thought it was done pretty good.; Showed what I think actually happened on the flight and how the heroes saved possibly several other lives. It also showed many of the mistakes NORAD and air traffic controls made when no one really could believe this kind of thing could actually happen, even when it was happening. Very sad, and kind of early to release a movie like this, but how different is it something as difficult to watch as Schindler's List which happened 60 years ago?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Scrambler

Very sad, and kind of early to release a movie like this, but how different is it something as difficult to watch as Schindler's List which happened 60 years ago?

Why should we have to wait 48 years to see a movie about this? (Noting that Schindler's list came out 48 years after WWII, not 60, but anyways....) The movie is about the passengers being heros. For those who believe it didn't happen, then fine.

But why not allow those that want to see the story to see it? If I found out that all of a sudden my dad had died; at least I would take a great deal of comfort knowing he died trying to save other people.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Why should we have to wait 48 years to see a movie about this? (Noting that Schindler's list came out 48 years after WWII, not 60, but anyways....) The movie is about the passengers being heros. For those who believe it didn't happen, then fine.

But why not allow those that want to see the story to see it? If I found out that all of a sudden my dad had died; at least I would take a great deal of comfort knowing he died trying to save other people.

Definitely. I think in a situation like this, ignorance can be bliss. Especially if you had a family member involved.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Why should we have to wait 48 years to see a movie about this? (Noting that Schindler's list came out 48 years after WWII, not 60, but anyways....) The movie is about the passengers being heros. For those who believe it didn't happen, then fine.

But why not allow those that want to see the story to see it? If I found out that all of a sudden my dad had died; at least I would take a great deal of comfort knowing he died trying to save other people.

Not to mention that this isn't even the first feature-length film on this topic. There have been TWO made for TV movies about it. Why didn't someone ask this question then? Is TV less real than a film?

I thought the film (as I said in my review) was quite effective, and very moving. I don't mind telling you guys (since you're all strangers ) that I found it very upsetting and emotionally exhausting, which may have been the point.

My problem was that I wasn't sure what the positive social outcome of the movie could be. What can be gained by making this movie? How does it make us safer/wiser/more aware, etc.?

That statement has earned me a bunch of hate mail, some of which has come to my home address. I didn't even think my piece was that controversial, but it shows that some people aren't ready to think critically about the role of a movie like this.