Im posting in here because i fear the movie "America?" is going to get blammed.
Thats what i've been saying. And it pisses me off. Its America's governments fault that the several thousand innocent people died. People are getting patriotic and wearing the red white and blue, but If the government handled stuff differently this would not have happened. People should help out those injured and find out a way to stop this from happening again besides killing people. Our government fucks us over all the time, We as a whole get little say in actions it takes. Did we ask to back Israel? No, i didn't. Please don't blam this, let his/her voice be heard. It's a tragedy that this happened, but don't support the government, support the people.
America?
1,189 Views | 16 Replies
At 9/13/01 08:11 PM, beneric wrote: Im posting in here because i fear the movie "America?" is going to get blammed.
Thats what i've been saying. And it pisses me off. Its America's governments fault that the several thousand innocent people died. People are getting patriotic and wearing the red white and blue, but If the government handled stuff differently this would not have happened. People should help out those injured and find out a way to stop this from happening again besides killing people. Our government fucks us over all the time, We as a whole get little say in actions it takes. Did we ask to back Israel? No, i didn't. Please don't blam this, let his/her voice be heard. It's a tragedy that this happened, but don't support the government, support the people.
I am going to post here my review for that movie, because it made me quite angry. If someone is going to speak out against the American government, that is fine, but they better damn well back it up. That movie, besides being just a bad movie is littered with misspellings and the unsupported banter of an idiot. Here is my review:
I am so sick of this bullshit faux-punk ranting and raving about the corruption in our government that always seems to lack a SINGLE example of what exactly is corrupt. You throw out these bullshit catch-phrases like "This is Freedom? ""This is Democracy?" You probably don't even have a clue what the fuck you are talking about. You don't even have the fucking slightest clue as to what it means to live in a "fascist state". You listen to a few pissed off punk rock bands and think you know everything about how the world works. Well guess what? They are just as biased in their views as teh people they rail against. They are the opposite end of the spectrum. I mean for christ's sake, you can't even SPELL! And furthermore you can't even make a decent argument: You speak of lies, but can name none; you speak of corruption, but list no incidents; you call this a fascist state, but I CHALLENGE you to show one credible piece of evidence to prove it. The ultimate irony is you and the other "pop radicals" are exactly what is wrong with this country. Not because of your views, the fact that people are allowed to have dissident views is what makes this country great. It is because you don't really understand the ideas, concepts, and beliefs that you espouse, and are too lazy, or hell, just plain worried that your little revolutionary spirit might be less righteous than you think, to even bother looking into them. You just let a musician/songwriter do the thinking for you, and as a musician/songwriter I can tell you that is a fucking dangerous thing. I don't want you to blow this off...I want you to think...to learn...to come to an actual understanding of the issues you "tried" to raise with this movie, because until you really come to a full understanding of what the FUCK you are talking about, whether your opinion changes or not, you are cheapening the lives lost in this tragedy.
At 9/13/01 08:19 PM, TheUnknownJobber wrote:At 9/13/01 08:11 PM, beneric wrote: Im posting in here because i fear the movie "America?" is going to get blammed.I am going to post here my review for that movie, because it made me quite angry. If someone is going to speak out against the American government, that is fine, but they better damn well back it up. That movie, besides being just a bad movie is littered with misspellings and the unsupported banter of an idiot. Here is my review:
Thats what i've been saying. And it pisses me off. Its America's governments fault that the several thousand innocent people died. People are getting patriotic and wearing the red white and blue, but If the government handled stuff differently this would not have happened. People should help out those injured and find out a way to stop this from happening again besides killing people. Our government fucks us over all the time, We as a whole get little say in actions it takes. Did we ask to back Israel? No, i didn't. Please don't blam this, let his/her voice be heard. It's a tragedy that this happened, but don't support the government, support the people.
I am so sick of this bullshit faux-punk ranting and raving about the corruption in our government that always seems to lack a SINGLE example of what exactly is corrupt. You throw out these bullshit catch-phrases like "This is Freedom? ""This is Democracy?" You probably don't even have a clue what the fuck you are talking about. You don't even have the fucking slightest clue as to what it means to live in a "fascist state". You listen to a few pissed off punk rock bands and think you know everything about how the world works. Well guess what? They are just as biased in their views as teh people they rail against. They are the opposite end of the spectrum. I mean for christ's sake, you can't even SPELL! And furthermore you can't even make a decent argument: You speak of lies, but can name none; you speak of corruption, but list no incidents; you call this a fascist state, but I CHALLENGE you to show one credible piece of evidence to prove it. The ultimate irony is you and the other "pop radicals" are exactly what is wrong with this country. Not because of your views, the fact that people are allowed to have dissident views is what makes this country great. It is because you don't really understand the ideas, concepts, and beliefs that you espouse, and are too lazy, or hell, just plain worried that your little revolutionary spirit might be less righteous than you think, to even bother looking into them. You just let a musician/songwriter do the thinking for you, and as a musician/songwriter I can tell you that is a fucking dangerous thing. I don't want you to blow this off...I want you to think...to learn...to come to an actual understanding of the issues you "tried" to raise with this movie, because until you really come to a full understanding of what the FUCK you are talking about, whether your opinion changes or not, you are cheapening the lives lost in this tragedy.
Alright he couldn't spell and his movie lacked some real content, but the basic message was right.. Also, people going against commands and popular ideas were the ones who lived in the second WTC building. The lives in that building did die for no reason, and could have been avoided. People saw it coming, the US government didn't correctly prepare for it. They were too busy to think that terrorists could do anything. Well they did. And it is sad, and the lives are not cheapened because of discussion of the US government.
Alright he couldn't spell and his movie lacked some real content, but the basic message was right.. Also, people going against commands and popular ideas were the ones who lived in the second WTC building. The lives in that building did die for no reason, and could have been avoided. People saw it coming, the US government didn't correctly prepare for it. They were too busy to think that terrorists could do anything. Well they did. And it is sad, and the lives are not cheapened because of discussion of the US government.
I find it ironic we are told not to rush to judgement about who did this horrible act, yet everyone is quick to rush to judgement about whether the government knew this was coming. Why is it unfair to rush to one judgement with limited information but fine for the other? The primary principal of terrorism is to strike without warning with devestating results and that is what happened. And I stand by my assertion that the lives lost are cheapened by this kind of unsupported rhetoric because it is using the worst human tragedy in the history of america to try to support the otherwise unsupported claims of the individual who made the movie and his uninformed, thoughtless, one dimnesional political agenda.
UJ
At 9/13/01 08:13 PM, beneric wrote: And now more people are going to have to die in the “the first war of the 21st century,”
Fuck
yeah, what the fuck is going on here!?, FIRST OF ALL, the Government COULD of stopped the plane from piling into the World Trade Center, how? how fucking not!, they KNEW that it was being hijacked what the plane was going off course to New York, they could of shot it down and saved thousends of peoples lives, and killed a couple (wich still died by the way), but they could of indeed prevented it, they were just asleep that day, they werent thinking, so what happends as a result? a 2 multi-billion dolar builings are dystroyed, and meny people are dead.
And now their saying to have war and kill EVEN MORE PEOPLE, wich is retarded. but hey, at least we'll have stories for our grand children. i guess that makes it all worth it huh, fuck no, this government should look at what the people are saying, WHO THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR, NOT what they think should happen.
At 9/13/01 08:35 PM, TheUnknownJobber wrote:Alright he couldn't spell and his movie lacked some real content, but the basic message was right.. Also, people going against commands and popular ideas were the ones who lived in the second WTC building. The lives in that building did die for no reason, and could have been avoided. People saw it coming, the US government didn't correctly prepare for it. They were too busy to think that terrorists could do anything. Well they did. And it is sad, and the lives are not cheapened because of discussion of the US government.I find it ironic we are told not to rush to judgement about who did this horrible act, yet everyone is quick to rush to judgement about whether the government knew this was coming. Why is it unfair to rush to one judgement with limited information but fine for the other? The primary principal of terrorism is to strike without warning with devestating results and that is what happened. And I stand by my assertion that the lives lost are cheapened by this kind of unsupported rhetoric because it is using the worst human tragedy in the history of america to try to support the otherwise unsupported claims of the individual who made the movie and his uninformed, thoughtless, one dimnesional political agenda.
UJ
uh, Osama bin Laden, he's been officially blamed and had previously threatened a series of attacks on the US.
uh, Osama bin Laden, he's been officially blamed and had previously threatened a series of attacks on the US.
Yes, at this point it is clear who is responsible. I was referring to the moments immeadiately after the attack. Much like Oklahoma City we assumed it was foreign terrorists. This time we were right, last time we weren't. My POINT was that it's not all right to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions, i.e. until there is real evidence that the U.S. "knew this attack was coming" it is not fair to claim they did.
At 9/13/01 08:47 PM, TheUnknownJobber wrote:uh, Osama bin Laden, he's been officially blamed and had previously threatened a series of attacks on the US.Yes, at this point it is clear who is responsible. I was referring to the moments immeadiately after the attack. Much like Oklahoma City we assumed it was foreign terrorists. This time we were right, last time we weren't. My POINT was that it's not all right to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions, i.e. until there is real evidence that the U.S. "knew this attack was coming" it is not fair to claim they did.
Attack before on WTC. threatens to attack again. Plane off course flying to New York... But really im not saying the US did know this exact thing would happen, but should have been more alert than that. Those people didn't have to die like that.
Attack before on WTC. threatens to attack again. Plane off course flying to New York... But really im not saying the US did know this exact thing would happen, but should have been more alert than that. Those people didn't have to die like that.
Oh please. Present to me one reasonable scenario that could have stopped this. Noone has ever done anything like this before. This plane hijacking ended differently than any before it. Bottom line, the blame for this belongs in one place only, the people who executed and organized the attack.
UJ
Sorry, but the only person making valid points is Jobber.
When has America ever shot down a hijacked plane? If you do not know it is intending to fly into a huge building, why would you shoot it down? It is not common practice to hijack a plane and fly it into things.
America saw this coming and didn't stop it?
I would like to see your explanation of how this could have been avoided. Not a bullshit explanation, a well-thought out, researched, viable option. Then I want to hear how you would accomplish this without foreknowledge, a limited budget, and numerous other tasks that at the time take priority over a possible terrorist assault.
I would also like to hear you define fascist without looking in a dictionary and give examples of such governments.
At 9/13/01 09:38 PM, fourchinnigan wrote: Sorry, but the only person making valid points is Jobber.
When has America ever shot down a hijacked plane? If you do not know it is intending to fly into a huge building, why would you shoot it down? It is not common practice to hijack a plane and fly it into things.
America saw this coming and didn't stop it?
I would like to see your explanation of how this could have been avoided. Not a bullshit explanation, a well-thought out, researched, viable option. Then I want to hear how you would accomplish this without foreknowledge, a limited budget, and numerous other tasks that at the time take priority over a possible terrorist assault.
I would also like to hear you define fascist without looking in a dictionary and give examples of such governments.
Not help fight against palestinians. Not ignore threats. Settled things with the terrorists (which is not procedure but, maybe woulda helped?). Pay close attention to a hijacked plane going towards the wrong destination away from any landing areas. Saw the plane flying really low in the city.
Also an odd side note. I have previously heard those buildings could withstand hits from 737's.. Seems a bit odd to me that they would consider that, eh?
Not help fight against palestinians. Not ignore threats. Settled things with the terrorists (which is not procedure but, maybe woulda helped?). Pay close attention to a hijacked plane going towards the wrong destination away from any landing areas. Saw the plane flying really low in the city.
Also an odd side note. I have previously heard those buildings could withstand hits from 737's.. Seems a bit odd to me that they would consider that, eh?
A.) We haven't been fighting against the Palestinians. No American troops have killed ANY Palestinians. The U.S. has been the single country making an effort for years to broker peace between Palestine and Israel.
B.) I am sick of hearing that we "ignored threats", like someone called the White HOuse on Tuesday morning and said "Hey we're going to hijack some planes and fly them into important American buildings". There was a vague threat of an attack from Bin Laden months ago and this is the farthest thing anyone could have imagined would happen.
C.) "Settled things with the terrorists"? What the hell does that mean? You need to be clearer about this. No demands were made, this was a concisely executed attack, not a hostage situation.
D.) Once again I will point out that NOTHING like this has EVER happened before. So I'm sorry, but the only person who can be blamed for not knowing exactly what was gonna happen the minute that plane changed paths is "Call Me Now" Ms. Cleo.
And as far as your last comment, the Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable.
UJ
At 9/13/01 10:33 PM, TheUnknownJobber wrote:Not help fight against palestinians. Not ignore threats. Settled things with the terrorists (which is not procedure but, maybe woulda helped?). Pay close attention to a hijacked plane going towards the wrong destination away from any landing areas. Saw the plane flying really low in the city.A.) We haven't been fighting against the Palestinians. No American troops have killed ANY Palestinians. The U.S. has been the single country making an effort for years to broker peace between Palestine and Israel.
Also an odd side note. I have previously heard those buildings could withstand hits from 737's.. Seems a bit odd to me that they would consider that, eh?
B.) I am sick of hearing that we "ignored threats", like someone called the White HOuse on Tuesday morning and said "Hey we're going to hijack some planes and fly them into important American buildings". There was a vague threat of an attack from Bin Laden months ago and this is the farthest thing anyone could have imagined would happen.
C.) "Settled things with the terrorists"? What the hell does that mean? You need to be clearer about this. No demands were made, this was a concisely executed attack, not a hostage situation.
D.) Once again I will point out that NOTHING like this has EVER happened before. So I'm sorry, but the only person who can be blamed for not knowing exactly what was gonna happen the minute that plane changed paths is "Call Me Now" Ms. Cleo.
And as far as your last comment, the Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable.
UJ
Alright, im getting a little tired of arguing this but i wanna clear up some stuff. US did help<<< not actually kill but backed Israelites. Shouldn't threats be taken seriously? They are taken very seriously on airplanes, in schools.. Threats against the safety of the American people i think should be taken seriously. Shouldn't we pay more attention to the plane that completely change paths?
I was just noting the irony of buildings stated to withstand a 737 and actually being hit by a 767.
At 9/13/01 10:33 PM, TheUnknownJobber wrote: A.) We haven't been fighting against the Palestinians. No American troops have killed ANY Palestinians. The U.S. has been the single country making an effort for years to broker peace between Palestine and Israel.
beneric's poinst is that no, we haven't been personally fighting the palestinians, but we have been providing Israel with our support and our weapons, and since Israel is Palestine's enemy, they see us as helping the enemy, just as we see Afghanistan harboring Bin Laden as helping the enemy.
The U.S. might at the same time try to be making peace between the two countries, but you got to realize that basically what we did at the end of WWII was take away some of the Palestinian's home to give to the Jewish, then gave them weapons to protect themselves with it. I saw an excellent analogy for this elsewhere in this BBS that goes like this. Imagine your friend just got your house burnt to the ground and has no where to live. Now the government steps in and takes YOUR house and gives it to your neighbor to make up for his house being taken from him. On top of that, the government also gives him weapons to protect this house that was taken from you in case you tried to take it back. Would you feel fucked over by this government if that happened? Would you be pissed? I bet you would be, and this is no different than what happened to the Palestinians.
B.) I am sick of hearing that we "ignored threats", like someone called the White HOuse on Tuesday morning and said "Hey we're going to hijack some planes and fly them into important American buildings". There was a vague threat of an attack from Bin Laden months ago and this is the farthest thing anyone could have imagined would happen.
Answer me this. How come the media was there in helicopters to tape the tragic incident of the first plane crashing into the WTC in enough time to catch the second plane crash into the WTC as well when the military is nowhere to be found? If the media can get there that fast, then I expect the military to be able to get there at least 30 seconds sooner, or else we don't have adequate defense for this country. Now, if they were able to get there at least at the same time that the media got there, don't you think it'd be possible for them divert the plane (I don't know how, probably by shooting it down I'd wager) before it crashed into the WTC? Yeah I'd think they could do SOMETHING. Like, make it crash into a smaller firm a little ... a little off to the side there, causing a few thousand less deaths...yeah... hey I didn't say it was perfect, just that they could have done something.
C.) "Settled things with the terrorists"? What the hell does that mean? You need to be clearer about this. No demands were made, this was a concisely executed attack, not a hostage situation.
The terrorists obviously have something against America, and I'm sure you won't deny that. I think what he means is we should have somehow settled are relations with them beforehand like people in the CIA have been recommending for years now. Really all the terrorists want is for us to do is to stop picking on them. We've backed them in a corner and they're lashing out because they're desperate. Big guy picking on little guy=little guy resorts to anything to even the odds.
D.) Once again I will point out that NOTHING like this has EVER happened before.
Okay, his point was that the WTC was built to withstand a crash by a 737. If they were going to even consider that a plane might hit their building, then they must assume that ANY plane could hit their building, therefore they should have made the structure able to withstand a 767, which is what hit it. If this is not possible, then I don't know why they were bragging that they could withstand these crashes, as it only made the terrorists take this into account when attacking :)
Also, we've had hijackings many times before. We've also had kamikaze pilots taking their planes into large structures before (i.e. Pearl Harbor). It doesn't take a genius to use their reasoning skills and consider that sometime a kamikaze hijacker might take the plane into a large structure now, does it?
At 9/15/01 04:23 PM, cableshaft wrote: Answer me this. How come the media was there in helicopters to tape the tragic incident of the first plane crashing into the WTC in enough time to catch the second plane crash into the WTC as well when the military is nowhere to be found?
The only footage of the first plane crash was caught from the ground by a freelance photographer. This did not make it on the air until much later. The media was not there in helicopters taping it. Most stations rarely use helicopters anymore. What they did do was use the many cameras they have mounted to the tops of buildings and towers to tape this. These cameras can be controlled from the television station. They are used daily for traffic shots. It is much more effective and cheaper than using helicopters. Trust me on this, I work at a TV station and we do this daily.
Okay, his point was that the WTC was built to withstand a crash by a 737. If they were going to even consider that a plane might hit their building, then they must assume that ANY plane could hit their building, therefore they should have made the structure able to withstand a 767, which is what hit it.
When these buildings were constructed, there was no such thing as a 767. There may have not even been a 737. These were OLD buildings.
