Posted on 04/29/2006 4:39:58 AM PDT by fanfan
United 93, the just-released movie about the passengers who fought back against their hijackers on 9/11, is being recognized as one of the most terrifying films to come out of Hollywood in recent years.
My colleague Peter Simpson, the Citizen's arts and entertainment editor, was so affected after Monday's advance screening that he wrote a front-page assessment for the next-day's paper. The horror, he correctly noted, stems from the astonishing realism and the awful sense of inevitability: The audience knows how the story ends. My other colleague Jay Stone gave United 93 five stars in his review yesterday.
I too attended the advance screening, not as an arts critic but as a student of terrorism and militant Islam. Jay and Peter are right that the movie is effective as a piece of drama, but I took away three political lessons.
1) Soldiers, not lunatics: 9/11 was so sensational in conception and execution, so wholly out-of-the box, that many people assumed it was the product of disordered minds. What kind of madmen fly aircraft into buildings?
United 93 makes clear that the hijackers, though on a suicide mission, were not madmen. They were disciplined, well-trained and committed, in other words, soldiers. True, they believed their cause was worth dying for, but other soldiers on other battlefields in history have approached their missions that way.
There are strategic implications. If we characterize jihadists as crazed sociopaths, we risk dismissing them as aberrations or freaks and minimizing the threat they represent. We risk making 9/11 into a unique criminal event, like a random school shooting or the Paul Bernardo murders.
Sociopathic criminals like Paul Bernardo are interested in self-gratification and pose a danger mainly to individuals who come into their personal orbit. But the 9/11 hijackers had broader ambitions: They belonged to a political movement larger than themselves. Criminal acts are different from acts of war, and we need to understand the difference if we are to protect ourselves.
2) Terrorism is easy: In an operational sense, 9/11 was a complex affair. Most notably, the conspirators needed to learn how to fly commercial jets. Yet as a matter of general principle, it's easy to be a terrorist. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of non-combatants -- the targeting of unarmed people and institutions. Anyone can commit an act of terrorism at any time.
United 93 helps us understand the total vulnerability of what security experts call soft targets. There are no missile-defence systems around civilian skyscrapers. The movie captures the profound feeling of helplessness that engulfed the air-traffic and military command centres when they realized that the United States was under attack that morning. The whole country was suddenly one big target.
Anything and anybody is a terrorist target -- a day-care centre, a shopping mall, a corner church -- and it's impossible to protect them all. The political lesson is that defensive measures alone are not sufficient to fight militant Islam, not when Islamists define their struggle as a war against civilians. In the short term we can harden some obvious targets, but softer ones will always remain.
So we have to look at anti-terrorism as an offensive and long-term effort. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a radical attempt to reboot the Middle East, to spark a re-ordering of dysfunctional Arab-Muslim societies in a way that would make room for democratization. The Iraq gamble may ultimately prove too ambitious, but the Americans were right to try.
3) You do what you got to do: United 93 was the only hijacked plane that did not reach its target, and that's because the passengers rose up and tried to storm the cockpit. Why did they rise up? As the movie shows, the passengers learned from phone calls to family on the ground that the other planes had been commandeered into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. It was then that the United 93 passengers knew they weren't turning back to the airport for negotiations. When the enemy is on a suicide mission, your only hope is to destroy him before he destroys you. And so the men and women of United 93 died fighting.
If the Islamists -- those seeking to transform Islam from a religion into an expansionist, messianic, violent, political movement -- gain ascendancy in the Middle East, then the suicide bomber "will become a metaphor for the whole region," as the historian Bernard Lewis has put it. Islamists cannot be negotiated with, mainly because their demands, that we become Muslim or we die, are impossible to meet.
Currently the most dangerous Islamist is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's apocalyptic-minded president who is holding the West hostage with his quest for nuclear weapons. Right now the world is scared, yet still hoping Mr. Ahmadinejad will turn back to the airport, so to speak.
Very soon we will have our United 93 moment and realize this is one airplane we'll have to land ourselves.
Leonard Stern is the Citizen's editorial pages editor.
Precisely. The flaw in the article is his obligatory and politically correct assertion that this group of terrorists had changed Islam from a religion to a political movement. Islam, as Roccus says, has always been violent and has always aimed to subdue.
Recognize that islam is a form of government. We outlawed communism for years because it entailed the overthrow of our Republican style of government.
OUTLAW ISLAM
:)Easy Does It:)
It certainly has not become clear to most Americans, certainly not to our leadership, that a long time ago, someone said "Capitalism will sell us the rope with which to hang it"
This current problem is clearly a variation of the same concept:
"'Free' societies will give us the legal and procedural means to kill them".
Apparently, in the unenlightened Victorian age this country had seen the threat clearly: Islam was outlawed by law. I have not been able to determine if this was the case in one or several states, or on a national level. I have not been able to determine if these laws were ever repealed.
Neither have I been able to find the causes for passing the law, or the debates that resulted in their adoption.
Can any one help with this?
Worth repeating. And I think it's still going to work.
And let's not forget the Brits, Aussies, Poles, Italians, and others including even the Spanish who provided, or are providing, real help and made real sacrifice.
Ahmadinejad will not turn back to the airport. The pattern of his and his country's behavior is already crystal clear. If we don't proceed toward nipping those who have chosen and threatened our extermination, all we're doing is drawing lines in the sand that we know they intend to cross and will directly cost lives of our citizenry, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions at a time.
Our civilization has only partly been the direct result of liberals and conservatives duking out governmental policies. More directly, our ability to see the necessity of military force and committing to use such force has kept us from speaking German and shouting, "Seig, heil!" or bowing to the Japanese Emperor.
The decision to use military force against this enemy has already been taken. Where dealing any with country X implies negotiation, Iran's hand has been clear and consistent since the days of Jimmah Kottuh. The only impetus they have toward negotiation is to run some more of the clock while they complete their supply operations and train troops. We dare not wait until their interest in negotiation has truly ended, for that is when they will be ready to strike. And we already know of their fanatical desire to strike against American and Israeli interests.
Since they are no match for our military, we have been forewarned that they will strike at non-combatants and soft targets, with maximum killing effect.
How must the US be provoked beyond the provocations we've seen thus far? They've taken military volunteers to the tune of 40,000 troops to be suicide bombers against the West. Their president has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. They've long collaborated with Syria and against Lebanon to have an avenue of access to Israel via the Bekaa Valley, funding and training fighters to kill Israelis. Since they know they'd never get away with a million man march across Iraq to strike at Israel, and that a substantive threat won't come from their new technology buzz-bombing amphibious aircraft, a credible threat can only mean nuclear, which--gee--they've coinkydinkly been working at 24/7, claiming it's only for civilian energy purposes, even as they sit on one of the mid-east's greatest oil stockpiles of cheap energy, which can already overflowingly fulfill their every energy need. No, their nuclear intentions are for military use, just as certainly as Ahmadinejad intends to bring forth the 12th Imam--it won't just be his choice, it's why he thinks he's alive.
Ahmadinejad has learned the box cutter lesson of using the weaknesses of the West's defenses against them. Western civilization is not so war-mongering as to strike at an enemy unprovoked. Except for that nasty bit of so-called "pre-emption" against Saddam (though jveritas has shown it was well-founded and correctly responsive, if our CIA could have had proper intel), we've otherwise always let ourselves take the first blow.
How many lives will it cost to take the first blow? Will taking the kind of first blow Iran has planned for us irretrievably cost us our civilization over time, even beyond the death toll? I think it a strong possibility.
Their militant mullahs and millions of their raised-as- cannon-fodder adherents intend for the world to be dominated by Islam--in their lifetimes. The ones on a shorter fuse we call Islamists, and the ones who are comfortable enough for the time being and can wait a while, we call those "moderates." (Those running interference we call CAIR.)
Knowing their full intention is to go nuclear on us when the time is ripe, the question for us is whether we wish to require (!) some number of us die a horrible death at their hands and probably let our civilization decline if not die, or do we put a firm stop to the loss of everything our grandparents, parents and dead-soldier uncles sacrificed for? Our response to Iran's threatening the West's destruction in nuclear conflagration should be the turnabout of what Flight 93's terror pilot had in mind for us (and which they implicitly see as a legitimate strike): cap their government.
HF
We are losing the real war bigtime. Islamic creap and migrant invasion will be our demise.
If we are to survive we must retain our sovereignty and restore our Republican(Rule of Law) government.
:)Easy Does It:)
We fight the values not the faith i.e. if you want to believe Mohammed is your prophet fine, but if you want to live here you have confess that the parts of the Koran permitting lying and violence to nonbelievers are wrong, outdated, passe, no-longer-applicable, should not be in the book etc.
Further, we have to reject any attempt to give special treatment to Moslems like allowing veils in driving license photos or multiple wives or beating wives.
Further, we can pass laws aimed not at religion but keeping social order -- like prohibiting masks in public during normal business hours.
Further, we can require reading and understanding -- not acceptance -- of the New Testament for new citizens.
Further, we can take the offensive in pushing Moslem states to allow distribution of the Bible and proselytizing of other religions.
The Dutch are trying something like this -- showing potential immigrants nudity and depictions of homosexuality -- but I think that will backfire in that "tolerance" can never be an absolute value and we need to declare absolutes.
I have thought about this :-)
Reserve our Constitutional rights exclusively for non-fraudulent American citizens and non-fraudulent legal residents, particularly the right to demonstrate or dissent; Mexican law on this subject is a good template.
Outlaw the admittance of muslims into our country for any purpose whatsoever, including diplomatic purposes. Certainly, no education or "tourism" whatsoever.
Deport immediately any illegal alien found "demonstrating" in the United States against American laws.
Demonstrating against the United States and its laws by presumed "legal residents" is prima facie proof of fraudulent and subversive residency.
The trillions of dollars saved not having to seal the leaky bucket of domestic security can be partly used to raise the minimum wage, or any of a thousand moonbat or socialist causes... at the cost of no additional lives domestically or elsewhere.
:)Easy Does It:)
Haven't seen it yet. What did you think about it overall?
WTH?
Masks should never be allowed for any reason during any demonstration of any kind at any hour!
I'm not out to ban Halloween :-)
You've never seen the "No Fear" gear sported around certain minority neighborhoods?
Halloween is not a political demonstration --- yet.
I prefer not to touch that one; the subject here is "islam".
Check my first post. I was basically referring to veils and not letting someone have the right to wear them while driving a car, entering a bank or convenience store and such.
Whatever happened to the apple and tree concept, or did he suffer a public school and liberal college education?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.