re-evaluation after 9/11?
-
zeta1983-1 — 17 years ago(January 04, 2009 06:43 PM)
I just saw this last night and was thinking this was made in 1998! It seems far ahead of it's time now. Fortunately we don't have martial law but if there was a large enough terrorist attack I could definately see something like this happening.
-
howard_w13 — 17 years ago(January 06, 2009 11:04 AM)
I saw the film back a few months after the Abu Gharib & Gitmo prison scandals came to light. I probably would have been one of those that say that the end justifies the means pre-9/11. But seeing how it played out in the real world; it is truly disturbing to see how far some people will go to break the law in order to preserve it..
-
at7000 — 17 years ago(January 09, 2009 07:21 PM)
This is not great film-making, however, it is of great significance post 9-11.
Absolutely creepy, in what could only be described as a "prophesy" of some sort. Right down to the fact that the 9-11 group subsisted on mostly pizza. Other errie-ness re: 9-11
A known terrorist gets into the country. It was discovered he "scammed his way in" on a student visa. Sound familiar?
It showed the inter-agency "fighting" that helped to enable 9-11, and catch us off guard. This entire Homeland Security agency thing, was put into place to correct this syndrome.
Debated if terrorism is best handled as a criminal act, to be solved via the court system and police, or "an act of war" to be fought militarily.
Brought up the fact on how little the President at the time(Clinton), understood the mid-east/arab world/terrorism. (This would be taken to an entire new level with Bush's ignorance and arrogance)
The Benning character described how we are fighting a new enemy, the way the cells were becoming structured, independent and with no central command- You can destroy one cell, and the others continue.
I guess to sum things up- Our government and FBI knew that these types of cells existed, were plotting something big, terrorists were able to sneak in with student visas, etcHow on earth did our Govt let 9-11 occur?
I think it is almost mandatory viewing, for any individual wanting to study current issues related to terrorism, and to get a glimpse of pre- 911 thinking. I don't find it racist at all, it is clear the enemy is the terrorists, not arabs in general. Denzels 'right hand man' is an arab himself. I think there is a lot of racism and stereotyping of muslims and such, but I did not find it in this film. I suppose the politically correct thing would have been to show more "positive arab role models" and such. I'm glad this film did not succumb to that type of PC B.S. -
roamingbrit — 17 years ago(January 20, 2009 02:24 AM)
Great post at7000.
This film in its original pre-21st century context is a simple entertaining yarn about a topic, which although interesting, many people bore little attention to pre 9/11.
Watching it now however in a completely different context is very interesting.
I guess back in 2001 the people in power were too stupid and/or inept at their jobs to realistically accept and prepare for something that was put on our screens by Hollywood. -
Scotty7617 — 15 years ago(August 25, 2010 11:05 AM)
"9-11 was set up thoroughly on Clinton's watch."
You forget that Clinton's watch was also the watch of the Republican controlled Congress that fought Clinton every which way on anti-terrorism, refusing to pass or watering down his counter-terror bills, many of which were the SAME ONES that were passed after 9/11, like the increase in airport security or ones making it easier to track terrorist funding.
Not to mention, how back in 1998, Clinton mentioned Bin Laden and Islamic extremism many times. Of course it was right in the middle of that ridiculous Monica Lewinksy scandal, which the GOP insisted remain the top issue. Whenever Clinton brought up Bin Laden, the Republicans did their little "wag the dog" routine, accusing Clinton of just trying to distract the public from the scandal.
"Ninja monkeys are meeting as we speak, plotting my demise." -
DP_IL — 15 years ago(August 31, 2010 07:36 AM)
Oh yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Reagan Doctrine, which funded, trained, and armed the very same people who would form al Qaeda.
It had nothing to do with Bush routinely ignoring any and all intelligence related to terrorist attacks. "Bin Laden determined to attack the United States" was the title of an intelligence report that Bush did nothing with. Clinton warned him. Richard Clarke warned him. And he did nothing.
Read Ghost Wars and learn about who really ignored the warnings of 9/11. -
MariMcCabe — 16 years ago(June 21, 2009 03:06 AM)
I guess to sum things up- Our government and FBI knew that these types of cells existed, were plotting something big, terrorists were able to sneak in with student visas, etcHow on earth did our Govt let 9-11 occur?
Continuously ignoring presidential briefs that warned 'BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE US' during the summer of July 2001. -
pocomarc — 16 years ago(August 11, 2009 07:02 PM)
Bill Clinton turned down THREE offers to have bin Laden delivered into the hands of the US.
What do you think Sandy Burglar was doing at the US Archives stealing Clinton's papers and taking them home and burning them (and then getting no jail time).
Sandy was sent there to destroy the evidence in Clinton's own handwriting that he rejected the offers from Saudi Arabia and the Sudan to deliver bin Laden into the US's hands. -
rlarose — 16 years ago(August 18, 2009 03:54 AM)
You're making many claims and attempting to pass them as fact when they're simply assumptions.
Left-Wingers = Moral conscious of the planet. Bill Clinton is not a left winger and neither is the Obama admin for that matter. -
Scotty7617 — 15 years ago(August 25, 2010 11:02 AM)
"Bill Clinton turned down THREE offers to have bin Laden delivered into the hands of the US."
Sorry. Did not happen. MYTH. One that the right loves to keep spewing out.
Bill Clinton was not by any means a perfect president, but it was a load of crap that he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and turned him down.
Reality-In 1996, Bin Laden was taken into custody by the Sudanese government, who then offered to turn him over to either Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Both governments refused to take him. The Sudanese then released Bin Laden, and yes, our government did have a chance to take him then and turned it down. Why? Because they couldn't. It was 1996. Bin Laden hadn't committed any terrorist acts against the US yet.
"Ninja monkeys are meeting as we speak, plotting my demise." -
mypcforums — 16 years ago(August 24, 2009 05:23 PM)
It was known by our government that these types of cells existed in order to blame the Obama regime for the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Did the US know of it in advance? With US intelligence, how could it not? I believe the US government and agencies knew of it in advance and allowed it, maybe even supported the horrific event. I no longer put anything past our government and government agencies and I no longer vote. I've lost faith in our government . . . it's as corrupt as the mafia. It used 911 to put the American people under its thumb and it's keeping us there. How well I remember when the US opened up the Mexican border for trade with the US and the American people had no say in it. I saw the downfall of the US middle class. How many millions of people lost their jobs because of it? We've been brought to our knees by the American government for corporate gain, and who knows whose hands are in that pot, maybe the same gain that was brought about by the attack on the World Trade Center towers.
-