I usually don't go to movies, but for this one, I will. It's certainly something that should never be forgotten, especially that there are still people out there who think that crashing a jetliner full of innocent people into a civilian target is a religious act!

Unfortunately, the people still responsible for that event, Osama and his group, are still at large, not yet caught by our military and intelligence forces. It'll be interesting to see how they treat Mark Bingham's role in the events of that day as well...

That was actually a smart thing to do...hmmm...I'll probably go buy it when it comes out on DVD...I don't see too many opportunities coming up to have the time to watch a movie...Robert and I haven't even watched the last two West Wings or 24's.

I usually don't go to movies, but for this one, I will. It's certainly something that should never be forgotten, especially that there are still people out there who think that crashing a jetliner full of innocent people into a civilian target is a religious act!

 

Unfortunately, there are way too many people that think that.

 

As for the movie, it was based completely on the flight recordings they could recover and the calls. Many of the flight controllers, and the FAA guys were the ones that were actually on duty. They weren't actors.

 

It is something classically American. They knew they were going to die. They were determined not to let the terrorists kill anyone else in another building. They improvised a plan and went with it. It almost saved them.

 

It is a hard movie to watch. It brought back all the rage I felt that warm September morning.

Have you been following the debate over the flight 93 monument? Some utter lunatic (and I'm being charitable) who submitted a design, and equally insane government administrators who approved it, were going to build it in the form of a crescent (symbol of Islam)! That IMHO makes about as much sense, and shows as much respect for the heroes of 93, as building a holocaust memorial in the form of a swastika! ARGH! Thankfully, protests from the families and others caused some rethinking, but the mere fact that it almost happened disgusts me.

Sorry for the rant (I'll understand if it's deleted due to being too political) but things like that really, really piss me off.

I hope the movie is popular, as it's one heck of an important message, and those passengers who fought, and gave their lives to save strangers, should never be forgotten.

Incidentally, they just might have saved far more than a thousand or so innocent people on the ground. If that plane was indeed targeted on Capitol hill, it probably would have hit it's target. Laura Bush was in the building at that time, meeting with several members of congress.

What would the President's reaction have been, had his wife been among the dead? Could any man be expected to think rationally under such circumstances? But in this case, this man has nuclear launch authority. Sure, there is a two-man rule requiring verification of a launch order, BUT, that rule does not apply if the US is under attack (and 9-11, especially the attack on the Pentagon, would easily qualify).

The problem is what the Russians would have done upon seeing a US launch. The flight paths for targets in Afghanistan or in the Middle East would have passed over Russia, had we decided to use ICBM's instead of Submarine Launched SLBM's (flight path for those would vary depending on launch point). With SLBM's, the initial trajectory might also have looked like it was heading for Russia, especially during boost phase. They also knew we were ramping up the DEFCON status, which did make them very nervous. Given the extremely degraded state of Russian early warning and launch detection/tracking capability, they could very easily have assumed that they were the target of our attack. They also still have a large supply of ICBM's on alert, and have come close to launching based upon far lesser threats. So, IMHO, the heroes of flight 93 might possibly have saved millions of lives, in addition to those on the ground whom they surely did save.

*cough* Touchy-feely, weak-brained, politically correct Liberals, typically Democrats, don't want to offend our enemies. (they could give a shit about offending the majority of Americans). They tried the same thing with the WTC memorial. Multicultural bullshit.

Regarding the proposed WTC abomination, I really can't call it "multicultural BS" as I feel that is far too charitable. I call it Treason and disrespect for the dead (plus a whole slew of four-letter words). I can't even think of it without becoming enraged.

I can't accuse all Liberals for thinking that, way, though, as I know many who don't. Unfortunately, though, those that don't are usually complicit by their silence regarding those that do.

I wouldn't be crying any tears if we wiped out all nations with the terrorist religion as a majority. Even our "ally" Turkey. The real problem in the world is Islam. The religion calls for the subjugation of all people under it. Religion of Peace my ass.

But Myr, it really is the religion of peace: Death is peaceful, isn't it?

Or, it's actually the religion of piece, as in "chop the infidels into pieces..."

Seriously, I encourage everyone, whatever their opinion on the matter, to sit down and actually read the Koran and Hadiths, and see for yourselves what they actually contain. Pay special attention to the parts of the Hadiths that show the Prophet Mohamed behaving in a holy manner, such as raping a 9 year old girl (which he did) or marrying a six year old! There is the treatment of women as chattel, and a host of other abominations. I can't say this strongly enough: everyone, especially those who believe the whole "religion of peace" line, need to read the Koran and Haddiths!

I've been hearing some Americans claim that Bin Laden and Al Queda only want "to be left alone". For anyone who thinks that, please, please read Bin Laden's Letter to America

where he lists his demands. One of which is that America become an Islamic nation!

I might not fully agree with Myr regarding Turkey, as I feel that Turkey has behaved far more honorably than many of our erstwhile allies (Take a look at the book "Treachery" by Bill Gertz for disgusting examples), but I do agree regarding the majority of the Islamic world. When I mentioned the nuclear war on 9-11 scenario, my only regret about it occurring would have been if it had caused a Russian attack on the US.

There has been nothing but conquering and war since it came to be.Take a look at the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, or take a decent Middle East History Class. (I've done both). This whole "we don't want to offend bullshit" is going to really hurt us in the long run.

I agree with the above, but I don't tend to trust college professors to teach an unbiased class (too many members of the loony left in that profession IMHO) so I strongly encourage everyone to read for themselves the Koran and Haddiths and see for themselves what we are facing.

History, though, is something that IMHO both Republicans and Democrats could do with studying. The Republicans in Congress seem hell-bent on repeating the pork-barrel big spending and fiscal irresponsibility that the Democrats were long notorious for, and which caused the Democrats to lose control of the House and Senate. On foreign policy, I feel that Islam is less of a threat (slightly) than China. Yet, both parties seem hell-bent on building up China's economy via trade and economic relations. That has two results: one is to give China the high-tech economy to build a modern military and become even more of a threat, while at the same time causing resource shortages such as we see every day at the gas pumps (high prices). China, due to it's enormous population, also has the capacity to surpass the US economically: If that even comes close to happening, they will become the dominant military power on Earth. There also seems to be a dangerous (and perhaps fatal) misconception that economic trade fosters friendship and prevents war. Unfortunately, the opposite is usually the case. Take a look at economic data for August of 1939: Germany's largest trading partner was France, followed by the UK. On Dec 6th, 1941, Japan's largest trading partner was the USA.

I don't usually comment around here a lot, but reading some of the things that were said in the last two posts on this blog made me sad, especially the part where the prospect of Bush using nuclear weapons on the Islamic world was seen as a good thing, as long as the U.S. wasn't harmed. And I feel that they can't be left to stand as they are without a reply, and since no one else has done it yet, I'm going to.

Sparrow, the offensive bits were mainly mine, so I just wanted to clarify my statements a bit, as I was unclear and off-topic, at least.

My original comment about Bush possibly using strategic nuclear weapons was part of speculation regarding what might have happened had flight 93 hit the Capitol building (where his wife was attending a meeting at the time). I was merely speculating that, like any man whose partner had just been murdered, Bush might have lashed out in anger. I was trying to highlight the fact that the heroes of flight 93 might have saved far more than any of us realize.

As for nuclear weapon use in the middle east, let me clarify: I wasn't advocating strategic nuclear wepons against population centers. However, I did (and do) support tactical nuclear strikes against terrorist centers such as training camps.

I was in favor of this due to the fact that nuclear weapons are mainly political in nature: their use would have signaled, clearly and unequivicably, that America would stop at nothing.

As for Islam, I don't by any means condemn all Muslims. I do however believe that the problem is far from confined to the Whahhabist sect (which is Sunni). The Shia have their own radical factions, such as the mullahs in power in Iran, and there are many other radical sects in both Shia and Sunni Islam.

Regarding my feelings toward Islam: My comments were that everyone should read the Koran and Haddiths and make up their own mind. I ought to have added Sharia (Islamic) law to that, but I stand by my original comments: I urge everyone to read these texts, and make up their own minds. For what it's worth, I have an approximately equal disdain for Christian "fundamentalism", and often compare the two (especially their reprehensible treatment of women).

OK, I'm rambling again here, so I'll cut to the chase: I stand my my thoughts and comments, BUT, I was WAY out of line to make them here.

This area is a personal blog, so the Blogger (Myr in this case) has far more leeway in what they can say than visitors such as myself do. It's the same as being a guest in someones home: They have far more leeway than I, the visitor, do. So, in my own opinion, I put my foot in it by taking this conversation off-topic (flight 93 movie) and by over-stepping the bounds. In brief, I was wrong, and I should have abstained from making this political. I hereby apologize to Myr for, in effect, making a bad scene in his living room, and to anyone I offended by doing so.

CJames, thanks for clarifying your position with regards to the use of nuclear weapons. I have my doubts as to the humaneness and usefulness of tactical nuclear strikes, but not being a military expert I can't comment. I am just glad you clarified what effect you intended they should have and I appreciate it. My main problem with your and Myr's comments on Islam was that it seemed to me that they both equated Islam with a monolithic timeless entity that was a religion of death. That kind of inflammatory talk always makes me nervous. My point was that 'Islam' is much more complex than that, and more than even the sum of its radical factions. I don't think that it can even be as simple as reading the Qur'an and the Haddiths and making a judgment about whether or not it is a religion of peace or death. Islam isn't either and it also isn't a problem, anymore than Christianity is a problem, it is just a tool. We can only judge the individuals who use it.

That is my opinion. But, as I am also a guest and off topic, I will shut up now too.

To be a devote Muslim, you must have a religious, no freedom, all oppression hate-filled government. Period.

Further, when you have an act of terror by say, a orthodox Jew with a grudge, every Jew within 10 miles of a microphone runs with best speed to it to denounce the crazy Jew and saying that they don't believe in blowing up innocent people. You NEVER hear any Muslims doing such. Not in the Arab world and not in the USA.

These two statements are simply not true. Although there are some who might agree with you, many people who self identify as Muslim would not agree with the first statement. You have to recognize that Muslims vary in the level of their devotion and that there is a great deal of internal debate within the Islamic community as to the role religion should play in government and to the interpretation of Islamic law. As for the second, I can provide you with many examples from the media, as well as from personal acquaintances, of the condemnation of terrorist attacks by the Muslim community in the US and the Middle East. Here are a few that come up in a quick google search:

http://www.al-islam.org/dilp_statement.html#1

http://www.mpac.org/home_article_display.aspx?ITEM=876

http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/?p=310

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm

Muslims execute gays. They don't just try to pray at them... they hang them.

Some do. I agree that there is a difference in scale. I am just as upset about the lack of action on the part of the US about human rights abuses by the government in Iran, especially towards gays. My point was that there are other reasons for the difference than something inherent in Islam itself because the potential to use Christianity in the same way is also there. The causal link you suggest between unrest in the Middle East and Islam isn't there.

My main problem with your and Myr's comments on Islam was that it seemed to me that they both equated Islam with a monolithic timeless entity that was a religion of death. That kind of inflammatory talk always makes me nervous. My point was that 'Islam' is much more complex than that, and more than even the sum of its radical factions. I don't think that it can even be as simple as reading the Qur'an and the Haddiths and making a judgment about whether or not it is a religion of peace or death. Islam isn't either and it also isn't a problem, anymore than Christianity is a problem, it is just a tool. We can only judge the individuals who use it.

I am indeed guilty of overly generalizing. I was wrong to imply that all of Islam was as described. What I did was much akin to saying Republicans are X or Democrats are Y, when there are of course individual differences.

I do however believe that very large segments of Islam, such as Islamic fundamentalists, Wahhabists, several of the Shia sects (such as that of the Guardian council of Iran), and many others, are exactly as I described, as it is part and parcel of their doctrine. Wahhabisim, for example, is far from just a Saudi phenomenon: The Saudis have exported wahabbisism for decades via establishing and funding Wahhabist medresses (Islamic schools) throughout the Middle East and beyond, where children are indoctrinated in fanatical beliefs and actions (such as becoming suicide bombers and other forms of jihadists.). This problem has been centuries in the making: It's worth remembering that Wahhabisim is not just the official religion of Saudi Arabia, but that the government of Saudi Arabia has been for over two centuries a coalition between Wahhabist clerics and the House of Saud.

There is also the problem that for any devout Muslim, they must, by definition, support the imposition of Sharia (Islamic) law, with all it's horrors, on everyone. This is the reason why both the present Afghan and Iraqi constitutions incorporate Sharia law as the supreme law of the land, and all major parties in both countries insisted upon this (and the US, unwisely IMHO, consented). I therefor feel that mainstream Islam (Islam as practiced by the majority of the world's Muslims) is as antithetical to freedom as Catholicism was during the inquisition. Sharia law simply cannot co-exist with freedom, and the imposition of Sharia is central to the vast majority of Islamic beliefs. Therefor, while it is inaccurate to condemn all if Islam for this, it is quite appropriate and accurate to condemn the majority of it.

There are indeed many Muslims who follow a far more moderate set of beliefs, including belief in the equality of women, but they are far from a Majority. I have a Muslim friend in the UK who has had death threats and other harassment because she has dared to speak out against some Islamic practices (especially the treatment of women as property). Even in the UK, she put her life at risk by exercising her freedom of speech. She still considers herself Islamic, but freely admits that in most of the Islamic world, she would be put to death for her words. Take a look also at the mainstream (not just the fanatics) Muslim reaction to the cartoons published in Holland. It hasn't stopped merely at calls for the heads (literally!) of everyone involved, but of war against any nation that has allowed the press to publish them! There have indeed been a few very courageous Muslim critics of this view, but they are few and far between, and put their lives at risk by even opposing, in principal, this attack on freedom of speech. It's also well worth noting that by far the most offensive cartoon, one portraying Mohammad with the face of a pig, was NOT one of the original cartoons, but was created by Islamic clerics (!) and passed off as one of the originals, for the sole purpose of further inflaming the situation!

The problem is that we simply don't have centuries to wait for moderation to occur. Another big problem is that there really was no major explicit scriptural basis for the inquisition, but there certainly are explicit Koranic and Hadith passages in support of the Islamic fundamentalists.

Incidentally, I consider Christian and Islamic fundamentalists to be very similar, as many of them share many traits, including the subjugation of women, hatred of gays, the penchant for terrorism, and both a desire and an effort to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

I support anyone's right to believe in any faith they wish, but I will always oppose those who believe that they have the right to force their faith on others, and that puts me as firmly against the majority of Islam (and Christian fundamentalists, too).

Islam isn't either and it also isn't a problem, anymore than Christianity is a problem, it is just a tool. We can only judge the individuals who use it.

There is much truth in that, but it's equally true that you can apply the same statement to Nazism. Not all Nazis were responsible for, or even aware of, the holocaust, or the other horrors committed by what we generally refer to as "The Nazis", an all-encompassing statement similar to classifying all of Islam as monolithic. The problem is that enormous segments of both (Islam and Nazis) are (or were) culpable, and indeed similar, including on their policies regarding Jews. Therefor, both tend to be referred to as monolithic entities, however inaccurate it is to do so.

To be a devote Muslim, you must have a religious, no freedom, all oppression hate-filled government. Period.

Although there are some who might agree with you, many people who self identify as Muslim would not agree with the first statement. You have to recognize that Muslims vary in the level of their devotion and that there is a great deal of internal debate within the Islamic community as to the role religion should play in government and to the interpretation of Islamic law.

I think you might be discussing slightly different things here. Myr specifically said devout Muslims. Devout Muslims, by definition, support the imposition of Sharia law (and thus the oppressive, hate-filled government Myr mentioned).