Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Cage and Stone to make a true adventure story of heroism at the World Trade Center in the aftermath of 9/11!

Hey folks, Harry here... Got this press release today. Here we have a film that has the potential to be the single most talked about film the year it is released. Will Oliver Stone make a film honoring the courage and sacrifice and heroes of 9/11? The events of that day are single most defining iconic imagery of the times we live. Every politician conjures the memory of the day, the emotion of the day and the various meanings of that day. But there's one thing that neither political party can claim as their own, that no terrorist act can taint. And that's the heroism of those that threw themselves bodily into the very path of danger... all in the hopes of saving the lives of their fellow man, women and children. If Stone handles this right he'll create a film that clearly and cleanly places the mantle of hero - not on the politicians speaking in the days following the events - but on those that truly define heroes. Those that saved and died saving others' lives. This film could lead to something great.


Film is Based on the True Story of September 11 Rescue Operation

LOS ANGELES, CA, July 8, 2005……Academy Award®-winner Nicolas Cage will star in and three-time Academy Award®-winner Oliver Stone will direct an untitled World Trade Center project for Paramount Pictures. The film, a dramatic motion picture based on the true story of the rescue of two Port Authority police officers from the collapsed World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, will be produced by Double Feature Films’ Michael Shamberg and Stacey Sher and former InterMedia Films chairman Moritz Borman. Debra Hill will also be credited, posthumously, as a producer. Andrea Berloff wrote the original screenplay. The film will be distributed by Paramount Pictures.

The film is the heroic story of the last two men, John McLoughlin and William J. Jimeno, rescued from the collapse of the World Trade Center. It follows the story of two Port Authority policemen who are trapped in the rubble during the rescue efforts. It also focuses on their rescuers and their families, who are attempting to find out what happened to the trapped men. The film is a portrayal of how the human spirit rose above the tragic events of that day.

Sgt. John McLoughlin, one of the two trapped officers, said, “I feel someone had to tell the story of the people who were in the Trade Center before and after it collapsed. It needs to be told how this horrific tragedy brought Americans and the world together to help those in need. The people involved in putting this movie together are truly making an extraordinary attempt to tell those stories and the stories of those who are no longer with us.”

William J. Jimeno, Ret. Port Authority Police Detective, added, “As a survivor of 9/11, I want people never to forget those that died from my department, the Port Authority Police of NY/NJ, and those from my fellow departments, the NYPD and FDNY, as well as all of the EMT’s and the civilians in NYC, in Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. I know that with the talented cast of people that have been brought together by Double Feature Films to bring this film project to life, they will never be forgotten. It will also be a tribute to all those that gave everything they had to bring people home to their loved ones.

This film is also a testament to the good that we as human beings are capable of. I have all the confidence in the world that with such a great script that was written by Andrea Berloff and having one of the world's greatest directors Oliver Stone, who has served his country and knows the price of freedom, this film will be one that will live on for generations to come, not only in America but the world!”

Brad Grey, chairman and CEO of Paramount Pictures Motion Pictures Group, said, “This is a moving, personal story of courage and perseverance. The individual heroism and the collective human spirit portrayed in this project is storytelling at its finest. We feel fortunate, proud, and an enormous sense of responsibility making this movie at Paramount.”

Grey previously produced the award-winning documentary “In Memoriam: New York City, 9/11/01.”

Gail Berman, president of Paramount Pictures, said, “Nicolas Cage is a gifted actor who’s shown a special ability to connect with audiences everywhere with brilliant performances that always draw us into the inner lives of the characters he portrays. With a director of Oliver Stone’s caliber, the humanity of Andrea Berloff’s words will come to life. The combination of their talents is perfect for this incredibly poignant story.”

Oliver Stone said, “Andrea Berloff’s screenplay is one of the best that’s ever come to me out of the blue – I guess like that day. It walloped me – and many others – with its emotion and simplicity. Clearly, it’s a work of collective passion, a serious meditation on what happened, and carries within a compassion that heals. It’s an exploration of heroism in our country – but is international at the same time in its humanity.”

Cage plays Sgt. John McLoughlin, a Port Authority police officer. Brad Weston and Pamela Abdy will oversee the project for Paramount Pictures.

Shamberg and Sher, the Academy Award®-nominated producers of “Erin Brockovich,” “Pulp Fiction,” and “Garden State,” among many others, specialize in films about the times we live in. Borman served as executive producer of “The Quiet American,” and producer of “Alexander,” and many other films.

Paramount Pictures is currently developing plans for charity organizations working with the victims and heroes of 9/11 to benefit from this project.

Paramount Pictures is a part of the entertainment operations of Viacom, Inc., one of the world’s largest entertainment and media companies and a leader in the production, promotion, and distribution of entertainment, news, sports, and music.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 9, 2005, 5:34 a.m. CST

    First, right?

    by freak2thec0re

  • July 9, 2005, 5:35 a.m. CST

    by freak2thec0re

    as long as they don't try to tie in a romantic sublot I'll be happy

  • and Nic Cage? Come on!!

  • I am sure that the kids that died "had it coming", or those in wheel chairs that could not get down the stairs of the WTC "had it coming", right? Hate Bush, democracy, Blair, capitalism, Fox News, Ann Coulter, and humanity all you want, but DO NOT SAY that innocent people "had this coming"!! Shame on you!!! That being said, there is a pompous SOB profesor in Colorado, Ward Churchill (who lied about being Native American by the way) that I am sure would be a great mentor for you.

  • July 9, 2005, 5:49 a.m. CST

    terabaap that a some funny, fucked up clip

    by white owl

    shaking my head as I laugh. I was kinda hoping 'they' would wait at least ten or fifteen years for the dust to settle(no pun intended) before attempting a recreation film of 9/11. Like a widescreen cnn recap I guess. Without the titles. And the current lead action stars. And U-boats and clowns and bongwater. I give up. We've got another "Alexander" on our hands.

  • July 9, 2005, 5:51 a.m. CST


    by DiscoDougie

    just cause its a good laugh to make fun of 'middle-easterns'. nobody ever makes movies of the British bombing dams in Germa........ well, at least nobody made a film about the events in Vietna..... hmm, well at least there's no films making money out of the civil rights moveme......... dammit! 2009 - Release of 'Panic On The Streets Of London', all about the london bombings, Ratner to direct, and bring in Chan and Tucker to recreate that scene on the bus they had



  • July 9, 2005, 6:07 a.m. CST

    yes.. because movies and the internet are so deeply rooted in Am

    by white owl

    that is is considered AMERICAN culture. Shut up wyntrz.

  • July 9, 2005, 6:13 a.m. CST

    I swear, I knew this would happen.

    by dr_dreadlocks

    The ONE person ripe to exploit 9/11 for box office dollars would be Oliver Stone. Now, if they're truly great people I want to see every nickel this movie makes in the black to go to charity... Let's see if that happens, ahem, yeah right.

  • First, the 9-11 guys were not "Camel jockeys", and calling an Arab that is as snide and offensive as saying "nigger, spic, honkey, dink, or chink". Second, terrorism is not new, and its start precludes the birth of the US. The fighting and killing that has gone on in areas like Jammu and Afghanistan are not so easy to simplify as you do. Third, many Americans new about the Taliban well before 9-11. They blew up old Buddha statues carved into the side of mountains, much to the dismay of historians and archaeologits. They willingly allowed Bin Laden to set up shop there, but the Clinton Administration was not able to get him. Read Dick Miniter's book "Losing Bin Laden", it describes a lot of the events in detail. The US did not support the Taliban, and did not support Musharraf after his coup in 1998. Fourth, India is not the close ally to the US that you assert. During the Cold War, they remained staunchly non-aligned (thanks to Nehru), and have made great strides to show that they are a power in their own right, as was displayed after the December tsunami in which they refused to accept aid from the US. The government in New Dehli NEVER made any overt or covert calls to the US to "bail them out" as you would assert. Also, both India and Pakistan were on the US' shit list in 1998 when they tested nuclear weapons, effectively increasing the stakes in a South Asian "Cold War". To call India powerless to fight terrorism, and to say that they depend on the US, is not true.

  • July 9, 2005, 6:23 a.m. CST

    dead mens balls

    by klag

    ollie and nicholas suck the sweat off dead mens balls

  • July 9, 2005, 6:31 a.m. CST

    I lost my cousin on 9/11

    by Paul_in_CT

    If Stone doesn't get preachy, I don't know..maybe it could be good. But why make a movie on something so new and painful? By the way, TeraBaapKaGaan, I wish I knew where you lived, I would love to come over, show you some movies about how wonderful my cousin was and how his children will never have their father around as they grow up. All this because a bunch of animals took it upon themselves to attack us. You know, I hate paying taxes, but you don't see me strapping a bomb to my chest and taking out an IRS building do you? Every single man, woman, and child should be held accountable for his/her own actions. I'm sick of the blame the U.S., blame the West, blah blah bullshit. You define yourself through your actions, just as those animals did on 9/11, in Bali, in London, in Madrid. They chose that path, no one chose it for them. People who try to put the blame on someone else for their own actions are cowards. People like TeraBaapKaGaan make me sick, and if I decided to dislocate TeraBaapKaGaan's jaw, I would be the one responsible, not him, as I chose to cock my hand back and thrust it into his fat face, cracking his teeth in two. Wow, that sounds fun.

  • July 9, 2005, 6:41 a.m. CST

    TeraBaapKaGaan=Michael Moore's lubed up tent boy

    by classyfredblassy

    One of the reasons everyone made a big deal about 9/11 was that is was the "World Trade Center" that got hit. Not a bunch of people at street market. Not the washington monument. It was the center of international trade and finance. So in other words, it was a strike at everyone that enjoys open, capitalistic markets. The very system that allows fags like to get money from your momma to by a packerd bell computer and make those gay little videos in your basement. For an example of the global economy would look if the Islam-facist have there way, take a look at Afghanistan when it was ruled by the Taliban. Wow that was the hub of innovation, economic strength, and personal freedoms.

  • Thats all there is to it.

  • The bipolar world of 1945-1991 was dominated by one conflict, the Cold War between the US and the USSR. BOTH SIDES used nations as proxies to one up each other. The US has done a lot of bad foreign policy things in the PAST, but that does not change the fact that those in power now had nothing to do with events 40-50 years ago!! And saying that people are getting "butchered" is true, but from the other perspective. The last time I checked, it was extremists using knives to decapitate people on Al Jazeera, not the Multi-National Forces!! Things like Abu Ghraib, prisoner abuse, and the deaths of innocent civilians caught in firefights is tragic and sad, but by judging the actions of the whole on what a few did, well, it does not make sense. Politicians are products of their time; had JFK survived, Americans would not have the romantic recollections of him that they do now; no Great Depression, no FDR using the New Deal to get the US back on its feet; no Civil War, Lincoln is a quiet, unassuming President from Illinois, never to be the "Great Emancipator". My point is that past events determine current events, and the world we have inherited is ours to fix or destroy. You can do two things. One, blame all your bitter hatred on the West, and do nothing positive to contribute to the world, of two, provide solutions on how to fix the issues facing the world. I am pretty sure that Dr. Emmitt Brown is still far from designing the Flux Capacitor so you can go back in time and fix the globes problems, so until then, you need to look forward, NOT BACK!!!!

  • July 9, 2005, 6:57 a.m. CST

    i bet its not as funny

    by white owl

    when stock footage of the circus is played to syrupy dramatic piano tunes.why can't the funny be made sad but sadness be so easily comical as shown here.

  • July 9, 2005, 7 a.m. CST

    If Stone throws some bullshit conspiracy theory in this

    by vikingkitty

    He'll end up being the most hated man in America. Ward Churchill and the rest of the America hating whackjobs will be quickly forgotten.

  • July 9, 2005, 7:19 a.m. CST

    In all seriousness, I hope TeraBaapKaGaan dies a painful death

    by vikingkitty

  • You seem strangely desperate for people to download that video. You've been pushing it on two threads just on AICN alone. If I was a paranoid man, I'd think this was some kind of evil Islamic plot to download catastrophic viruses onto geeks' computers all over the world. It isn't even funny enough for the effort. Fellow Talkbackers, JUST SAY NO!

  • July 9, 2005, 7:31 a.m. CST

    Fuck you Terabaapkagaan

    by algram

    @TeraBaapKaGaan Did you know every victim from the 911 attacks? did you you fucking twisted bastard, did you know all fo their feelings and thoughts? yes the ameican GOVERNMENT has fuked up at times, yes they have the power to help much more than they do, but it is wrong and sick to take pleasure on other people

  • July 9, 2005, 7:33 a.m. CST

    by algram

    I made some grammar mistakes, sorry, it

  • July 9, 2005, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Hey, TeraBaapKaGaan.

    by dr_dreadlocks

    Hell is waiting for you, I hope it's warm... Bring shorts.

  • July 9, 2005, 7:40 a.m. CST


    by LucienPierce

    Let's be honest here. Terrorists are a bunch of cowards. Wet in the pants cowards. 9/11 shouldn't have happened. The bombings in London shouldn't have happened. The millions of deaths due to starvation and other man-inflicted reasons on the African continent shouldn't still be happening. But it is. The US' foreign policy does indeed leave much to be desired but to be fair so do most other countries that have humans running them cause as we know most government officials are human and all humans are corruptible. As a species we all still have a long ways to go but hey look at where we were 500 years ago and see that we are heading in the right direction. In terms of a 9/11 movie...well there's so much cloud over what actually happened that personally I think it'd be best to allow the understandable emotion pass so we can find the truth of things beyond the obvious. While Fahrenheit 9/11 was obviously very biased it does prove that there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions hmmm? We'll be ready for it in about...I dunno, 20-30 years...

  • your vitriolic hate does nothing for you, and furthermore, it is easy to say these things when you are warm cozy in an Internet cafe, posting away, insulated from the world you claim to contempt so much. . .what did the US , or better yet, INNOCENT people do to you raise such hate? Did your student visa get revoked? Did some drunk American tourist spill beer on you? Your silence is very telling.

  • July 9, 2005, 7:49 a.m. CST


    by mascan

    I refuse to click on that link, because I think I know what it is . . . footage of the trade center collapsing with the Benny Hill theme or some other wacky music playing in the background?

  • July 9, 2005, 7:56 a.m. CST

    I was right

    by mascan

    I couldn't resist . . . and I was right. Even got the exact music right . . . Benny Hill. Just to let this douchebag know, I know what you were going for here (there's something funny about tragic clips with funny music), but you took the bit in the wrong direction . . . the original clip has to be something worthy of ridicule in order for it to work.

  • July 9, 2005, 8:03 a.m. CST

    As long as this movie isn't some sentimental cheesy crap, it

    by moviemaniac-7

    But one wonders... Where the fuck is Jack Bauer during all these terrorist attacks? Day off?

  • July 9, 2005, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Ahhh, piss off....

    by GrandMuffTarkin

    I say put a moratorium on all development projects associated with 9/11 until the 10th anniversary, how's that sound?

  • July 9, 2005, 8:30 a.m. CST

    Is This Going To Be About the Heros Who Actually Did Something?

    by ZombieSolutions

    remember how after 9/11 EVERYONE on earth was called a hero? it was like anyone who died, anyone who lived, anyone who watched it on tv from a safe distance was instantly declared a hero. anyone who waved a tattered flag or displayed it inapropriately was a hero. meanwhile, President Donkeyboy Dubya was cowering in an elementary school basement, peeing himself and trying to figure out which one of his mercenaries did this. he too, of course, was a hero. yes, in the weeks after 9/11 it was impossible not to be a hero, unless, of course, you happened to point out the geo-political factors and dirty dealings of the Dubya Regime, and how they created this mess in the first place. then, you were no longer a hero, you were a terrorist! now, we have a new tragedy in London. the people dust themselves off, make some bold statements, and get back to work. nobody is called a hero, it's just another day to get through. in short -- Brits are tough and realistic. Americans are pussies and live in a bizarro mediated fantasy world. also: we're going to lose the Endless War, just like we lost Vietnam. 'nuff said.

  • HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!Take a class in Western Civilization or World History before you say tripe like that!!!! Clinton was President when Al Qaeda was planning 9-11 NOT BUSH!!!! And I love the "Americans are pussies" line. Obviously you have not seen "Team America"!!!! WE'RE DICKS!!!! THAT'S RIGHT!!! AND THE FILM ACTORS GUILD, ARE PUSSIES!!! AND KIM JONG IL, IS AN ASSHOLE!!!!

  • The EU can't agree on shit, the French and the Dutch said "Fuck all" to the EU Constitution, Gerhard Schroeder is politically dead, the EU trade bloc is not working as it was intended, many in the UK don't consider themselves European, they have a slowly birthrate, and they have a major issue with increased immigration from North Africa/Middle East. They want no part of Turkey in the EU (though that would probably help bridge the East-West divide), NATO is a paper tiger, and most of all they know that countries like Brazil, India, Japan, China, and South Africa are steadily exerting more global influence than they are. THAT is why the French hate the US. THAT is why communist reporters like that Italian chick (who lied about Americans trying to kill her) make up shit about the US. THAT is why the Eastern Europen countries don't give a flying FUCK about Germany or France!!! Their relevant power is waining!!! The Brits know this, and that is why many of them want NO PART of the EU. Who do you blame when the chips are down, OF COURSE, BLAME AMERICA!!!!!

  • I'd be up for a 9/11 film, but only if Stone depicts it as the inside job that it was and how it was scapegoated onto Al Qaeda.

  • July 9, 2005, 8:54 a.m. CST

    Krullboy, Please, Don't Embarass Yourself

    by ZombieSolutions

    the Clinton Administration (Benny Hill-like as it sometimes was) was actively trying to get Al-Queda until Dubya took over, after which the order came down from Darth Cheney and Donkeyboy Dubya to cease the hunt. this was becuse their main priority at the time was starting a war with Iraq by any means necessary. (yes, way, way before 9/11. and yes, it is documented.) oh, and remember the mountains of intelligence that came in saying that "Al-Queda is planning an attack involving airplanes in New York" very soon? and how the Dubya regime ignored it? this was ONE MONTH before the attacks. remember also that Osama, Al-Queda, et al, were FUNDED AND TRAINED by the CIA under, you guessed it BUSH 1. also: Saddam Hussein was a close ally and friend of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush 1 up until they decided he needed to "get disappeared." again, he was a guy funded with billions of OUR TAX DOLLARS to fight Iran. in short, krullboy, go back to school, and don't forget to get a latepass. step.

  • July 9, 2005, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Here are my thoughts on the FUCKING MOVIE!

    by Cartagia

    Ok, I don't post in talkbacks often, and the bullshit in here right now is the exact reason why. I think the FILM could work only one way and that is the style of "War of the Worlds", but without the tripod sized plotholes. Have the story follow the two port authority members throughout the day. Let us see what they see, nothing else. Get us some great actors for the parts (great, not good... this means kicks Cage's lame ass out). Make it intimate, give it emotion. If it is anything like the first attack during "War" then it should be fan-fucking-tastic. Hell it'd probably make me cry like a 12 year old girl watching "Armageddon". That's what it needs. And I *think* Stone could pull it off, though Stevie or Ridley Scott would probably be better suited.

  • If Clinton really wanted to get him, he would have done so after the USS Cole was bombed in September 2000 (months before Bush 2 was in office, mind you). And what "mountains of intelligence" are you referring to? The FBI field agent Memo from the Phoenix Office? Do you comprehend the size of the Bureacracy between a FBI field agent and the President? And if the Bush Administration knew of an "imminent attack", they would have had the FAA cease all commercial air traffic!!! Also, I know for a FACT that Bin Laden was neither trained or funded by the US. He was a millionaire and funded himself!!! The Afghans that the US trained were those that would become the Northern Alliance, not the Pashtuns of the South!!! There is a reason why the "Lion of Pansheer" was killed by Bin Laden 2 days before 9-11, because he knew the US had long standing ties to him!! Next, private US businesses sold arms to Iraq; the US government did not just give Saddam shit. Read up on the military-industrial complex of the Cold War era, and you will know what I am talking about.

  • July 9, 2005, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Face it, America Can't Win

    by Darkfyre

    When we intervene in conflicts around the world, we're condemned for meddling. When we do nothing, we're blamed for letting it happen. We give more aid and provide more assistance than any other country on Earth--yet we're the most despised. Fuck the rest of the world. BTW, I think this movie will blow.

  • July 9, 2005, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Thanks brobdingnag

    by krullboy

  • July 9, 2005, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Absolutely frikking awesome. Par ignores the media and supports

    by watashiwadare


  • July 9, 2005, 9:45 a.m. CST

    "If Stone handles this right"

    by Phloton

    I'm sorry, but when's the last time Stone handled something right? It's been about 14 years since JFK, which is the last one I enjoyed. That was just before the cocaine ate the last bit of his sanity. I'm sure this film will be just as full of poignancy and integrity that Windtalkers was, by focusing on someone else rather than the true subject matter.

  • I have to ask, would you like to spin a big wheel with the name of every country in the world on it and assign to the winner all the power that the US has? In other words, things could be a lot worse.

  • it will only be when his life is personally affected by terrorist assholes (which, even though he has pissed me off, I would not wish on anyone) that he would see my point of view. He has probably never been to the Middle East; I have. I lived there for almost year, and yes, there are plenty of people there that are civil and good, and like Americans. They did not agree with all of our policies, but they could separate political platforms from the common citizen. Al Qaeda fails to and chooses to not do this. My girlfriend is Lebanese, I speak some Arabic, and my degree is in Middle East policy, so Zombie Solutions, yes, I think I am qualified with some of things I say. There are plenty of Muslims that hate terrorists as much as I do. Prominent clerics in Spain issued a fatwa against Bin Laden, Afghanis ALWAYS hated Bin Laden's crew, and Zarqawi is wanted by just about everyone. He is killing other Muslims in Iraq, to include Arab diplomats.

  • July 9, 2005, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Feel good movie of the year?

    by Rupee88

    I'm sure not going to see this although I really like Oliver Stone. Maybe in 10 years, but the wounds are still too fresh. Plus, Alexander was really crappy and maybe Stone has lost it in his advanced age..

  • July 9, 2005, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Of all the directors

    by JediStryker

    Oliver Stone, the anti-american, conspiracy-theorist wacko was just about the worst choice for a film that must inevitably be patriotic. And didn't Stone come out and say that he thought that the government had perpetrated the attacks a few years ago? I'll have to see if I can find the story. Anyway, he's a piece of shit, so this sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

  • July 9, 2005, 9:59 a.m. CST

    @krullboy: Europe is alive

    by omahabitch

    hi krullboy, i agree to most of the points you made, except for the "Europe is ripping itself apart thing". First, the French and Dutch did not vote "non" or "nee" on the constitution because they opposed the idea of the constitution itself, but they wanted to damage their own gouvernement (Chirac in France and Balkenende in the Netherlands) because they were not satisfied with them and the referendums were the perfect opportunities to show the politicians. of course its a problem that the constitution failed but so what, we`ll need a second try then, there were many things that should be improved in another try, anyway... So the Brits don`t want to be European? Yeah... maybe... funny thing is that they have no problem with taking part in the free European market, benefiting from rebates, subventions and other advantages. i`m sure that one day they`ll see that it`s a lot better for to be a full EU member (and that includes joining Euroland) from an economic perspective. Schr

  • July 9, 2005, 10:04 a.m. CST

    ZombieSolutions=Glue Sniffing Baggy Pants Hot Pocket eating pun

    by classyfredblassy

    Most people who get help to kick invaders out of their country would be thankful and grateful. Not Osma Bendover and his crew. This just goes to show what slimmy, two -timing pricks they really are. Its funny, because pricks like you critize the U.S. for the "void" they left when they helped Afghanistan kick out the Soviets, and didn't stay to help them rebuild. But now those same people want us to leave Iraq right now. So tell me ZombieSolutions, have you found any pimple cream that works? I know some other 14 years that would be interested in your advise.

  • July 9, 2005, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Omahabitch, das ist kein problem. Ich spreche Deutsch so-so

    by krullboy

    I appreciate your clarification on some issues. You are correct in that countries like Germany have tough choices to make, especially considering the demographic trends that are going on. I was in Frankfurt last summer, and I was amazed at all the Turkish political stuff up everywhere before the elections. What do you see as the ultimate end state of the EU? How far have you strayed from the foundations of the Maastricht Treaty? My point about Chirac and Schroeder is what there legacies will be? Forgive me if I am wrong, but he won almost soley because he opposed the war in Iraq. I am happy to see that a woman may become the next Chancellor, but I do not know enough about her to make an informed decision, other than that she is an "Ossie" by origin. I don't hate Europe. Most Americans are fascinated by its history, and we as Americans are vestiges of European colonial vestiges. That being said, it upsets me that as much as we have in common, we are drifting further and further apart, in ways unimaginable during the Cold War. Schade.

  • July 9, 2005, 10:40 a.m. CST

    The Power of Nightmares

    by KID AB

    Has anyone seen this? A programme that claims that Al-Qaeda does NOT exist. Are these claims true? What's with the media now saying that Al-Qaeda is now "defeated", while saying that the people behind the London bombing are an Al-Qaeda inspired cell. Is this the media saying what the British and American governments want us to believe, that they are "winning" the "War on Terror"? Any answers? I'm confused.

  • July 9, 2005, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Please take your political "blogs" somewhere else

    by Mister Man

    By the way, Cart, "Stevie" stated that a 9/11 feature should NEVER be made. Of course, "War" is his own version, "infinity."

  • July 9, 2005, 10:43 a.m. CST

    That Sudanese offer might be untrue

    by Shan

    I heard that the Sudanese didn't have Bin Laden to offer to the US. Supposedly there was one guy there who claimed he could have arranged to have Bin Laden captured by the US and they looked into it and found it was an unsubstantiated claim and nothing came of it. I'll have a look around and see.

  • July 9, 2005, 10:44 a.m. CST

    You want answers in HERE???????

    by Mister Man


  • July 9, 2005, 10:46 a.m. CST

    ... ... ... ... well... somebody's coocoo for poopoopuffs...

    by Neosamurai85

    We all knew this was coming. I wish I could say I was optimistic... but I'm not. I've tried and tried, but I don't like Stone, and even if he might give me what my political view might want from a 9/11 film... I DON'T WANT A FUCKING 9/11 FILM! The only way I could get even remotly behind this is if a big ass chunk of the money it makes goes to charity. Otherwise this feels so wrong and dirty I want to bathe with lye. I know a few years have gone by, but it still feels to soon. That's just me though. Peace.

  • July 9, 2005, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Make of this what you will.

    by Shan - Hannity repeated lie that Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton Lanny Davis to Hannity: "That's a lie" On June 21, FOX News Channel co-host Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused an offer from Sudan to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States in 1996, even though the 9-11 Commission found no "reliable evidence to support" the claim that Sudan made such an offer. This false claim originated in a 2002 article by the right-wing news site that distorted a 2002 statement by Clinton. Lanny J. Davis, former White House special counsel to Clinton, pointed out that Hannity was lying, but Hannity persisted. From the June 21 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: Here's what bothers me. Is Bill Clinton gave a speech and he said "I couldn't take him [Osama bin Laden] for legal reasons, so I tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato." He admitted to the Sudan offer. DAVIS: No. That's a lie. HANNITY: He offered it. It's not a lie. I have the tape, Lanny. DAVIS: It is. HANNITY: Lanny, I have the tape of the speech. DAVIS: And I've heard tape. You've played it for me. He never refused, never refused to take Osama bin Laden. HANNITY: How can he offer -- "I asked Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato" -- how can he offer bin Laden to them if he doesn't have him? The truth is that Clinton never offered Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Hannity distorted a remark Clinton made in a speech to the Long Island Association's annual luncheon on February 15, 2002, in which Clinton said that he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States. Hannity's mention of "the tape" is a reference to a video of this speech. obtained a video of the speech in 2002 and began hyping the supposed Clinton "admission" (see transcript and listen to the audio). In fact, Clinton did not "admit" to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else. Here's the relevant portion of Clinton's remarks to the Long Island Association: CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan. Furthermore, during his June 20 interview on 60 Minutes with CBS anchor Dan Rather, Clinton categorically denied that such an offer was made: "'There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us,' says Mr. Clinton. 'As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that.'" No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5," issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim: Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim. Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all. Nonetheless, Hannity picked up the claim in his book, Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism (released in February by ReganBooks), and he repeats it regularly on Hannity & Colmes (cf. 12/19/03, 3/23/04, 3/26/04, 4/19/04).

  • Seriously, do you believe every conspiracy theory you see? And the media has been practically hyping up on how Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are making a comeback.

  • July 9, 2005, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Oliver Stone, the anit-american, conspiracy theorist wacko--

    by Batutta

    WHO SERVED FIFTEEN MONTHS IN VIETNAM!!! He wasn't even drafted, he went voluntarily. Just because you're critical of the United States Government and the people in power doesn't mean you hate America. In fact, if you didn't love America on some level you wouldn't care enough to be critical of the direction its heading...Anyway, I don't think the terrorists hate us for our freedom per se. More than anything they're threatened by our culture. The fundamentalists see their children influenced by the violent, sex-filled movies and music our country doles out to the rest of the world and it drives them bananas. On top of that, our expansionist policies make them feel physically threatened, so of course they strike out...This whole war isn't about fighting terrorism. That's just a slogan the government uses to get young men and women to fight behind. In fact, that's what most -isms are. This war is about the stabilization of markets. In order for corporations to continue to grow, more new stable markets have to be created. The ultimate goal is that the whole world is just a giant marketplace in service to the corporations. Will this lead to global harmony?...It actually might, but in the meantime the world's going to suffer some severe growing pains. For us, 9/11 was one of those pains...I personally would rather Oliver Stone do an expose on the Iraq War than a rah, rah story of heroism. Even if I didn't agree with it, it would be more interesting to watch.

  • Serously, it took me all of 5 seconds looking at to see it's obviously a left wing spin site. How about a site I can take serously?

  • July 9, 2005, 10:51 a.m. CST

    I think it's too soon to be making a movie about 9/11.

    by Tinfang

    The wounds are still deep and it (movie) will never be called anything else but a cheap opportunistic moneymaker. As for Clinton taking out AlQueada and Osama before 9/11; can anyone honestly say that the US would've been behind Clinton moving on Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11? C'mon, look how he got beat up by the right for intervening in Kosovo to protect the Muslim population from the Serbs ethnic cleansing. There would've been no support from either the Congress or American citizens since everyone was focused on Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. I am in no way apologizing for Clinton but if you folks think he would've been supported then you're in denial of the truth. It takes a direct attack on the US itself to provoke that sort of response. Should Osama have been captured in those earlier episodes? Yes, of course but that's using a large chink of hindsight to say that he was Public Enemy No.1 before 9/11 and that we should take on Afghanistan (the Taliban). Be honest folks, it just wouldn't have happened. It TOOK 9/11 for the US to finally get rid of his (at the time) most secure base. By the way, not only is she not singing but The Fat Lady hasn't even begun clearing her throat in Afghanistan. Yes, perpetual twilight war until some terrorist makes a hit on the US that would dwarf 9/11...nukes. God help us all after that because it will invite retaliation in like kind and as a nephew put it concerning Iraq, "Well SOMEBODY had to pay for 9/11!!" Pretty stupid, I know, but there are plenty of folks who think that way and some of them are the ones that can push, you know, ...The Button.

  • July 9, 2005, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Reading these talkbacks reminds me why talkbackers need to stay

    by TomPalpatine

    And the hell away from making movies.

  • July 9, 2005, 10:59 a.m. CST

    If profits go to Charity and if the Stars work for free

    by antonphd

    THEN they can make this movie without it being a slap in the face of a tragedy. Of course... it won't be a new thing to exploit 9/11... just watch the news when it happened... you could see terror in some reporters eyes and excitement in others. It was pretty aweful. BUT as an example of how good the movie could be... just watch Rescue Me.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Hmmmmm. we're fucked (this goes a bit off topic, but then ev

    by citizenhunter

    as for Europe-US... hmmm, well, i'm European, British, Scottish, and yes, I think in some time there may very well be a war between these 2 continents, or in fact pretty much the whole WORLD and the US, some day. Maybe not for 100 years or so. Probably around the time that fossil fuels truly run out and America realises it's in the shit. Of course by that time the sea levels will be starting to rise immeasurably and America will be geting smaller, as will all the land masses. We're heading for disaster and right now, anyone with a braincell can see that nobody, but it has to be said, especially the US is not helping in this cause. Poverty in Africa and global terrorism (which is blown way out of proportion) are absolutely nothing compared to the global climate disaster just beginning to be unleashed. Just cos it doesn't affect your lives now, unless you plan on ending all your family lines now, then you should be concerned for your kids and grankids lives cos we will be forced to wipe each other out for the last remaining resources left. Just imagine the chaos of a major power cut on a global scale. Instead of pushing each other to get to the water bottles, we'll be nuking each other to clear the land and save the resources left for those who 'deserve it', obviously Americans of course :p. Hmmmm, we're fucked.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:04 a.m. CST

    While the loss of innocent lives was so tragic, America is entir

    by performingmonkey

    While America didn't orchestrate the attacks, they deliberately left themselves open for any attack so they could use it as an excuse to go to war. It's all written down in black and white, clear as crystal, and nothing can change that. Of course, they never expected an attack of that magnitude. They fucked themselves over, shot themselves in the foot. And look, thousands of innocent lives lost (not just American lives, I might add). That should NEVER have happened, it COULD have been prevented. Such a huge sickening atrocity, and everyone who wasn't affected by that day should think themselves lucky. YES, there were acts of heroism on that day, and hopefully they'll be realistically reproduced on film. But NOTHING will ever be able to capture the pure horror, REAL horror, not something out of a movie, REAL. There is a huge difference between the 9/11 attacks and what happened in London on Thursday. I'm not just talking about the number of people killed or the devastation, I mean the aim of the attack. The 9/11 attacks were carried out to create war. Sure, the attackers didn't give a fuck about innocent people, but their motives were way beyond the slaughtering of innocents. What happened in London was about killing innocents.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:16 a.m. CST

    LIVE8? Anyone else feels this was a bunch of thunder and shite b

    by Negative Man

    I all seemed like self-important musicians acting self-important and inviting their self-important celebrity friends to be on stage to remind everyone how self-important they were and that they could 'make a difference' just by showing up at the same place at the same time. Then when the obvious happens, they toot their horns and talk about how important it was that they were around to make a difference. Not to anyone else feel like the whole 'celebrities who care' thing is ridiculous because they are the rich that they say we should hate? They have security to check you out to make sure you're not a crazy stalker or make sure you just don't get to close, but if a public official does it...well, that's an invasion of privacy? Just wanted to throw this out there since it seems everyone is getting all political and stuff. Oh! And in the end...Chirac seems the closest to a facist ruler of a major country I've seen. Bash Bush all ya want (like him or not, he's booted in a few years), but he's never said that a Sikh Turban, Star of David or Buddhist robes should not be worn in public schools. Just sayin'... Flame on and enjoy! P.S. A 9/11 movie still feels way to soon. Pearl Harbour could be done quicker simply because no one (aside from those there) saw it unfold 'live' as millions did on TV. The wounds of 9/11 run deep for anyone with a sense of humanity and decency. A movie like 'Team America' was only funny because it was unreal in the sense of using marionettes (a stroke of sheer genius), but done would have been horrendously unfunny and offensive. With any luck, this won't see the light of day for a decade. P.S.S. War of the Worlds is impossibly more boring on a second veiwing.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:16 a.m. CST


    by Shan

    I was just going to post the part from the 9/11 commision but then I thought it would be better to post the entire lot so everyone could see where I got it from. It was the first article which had in the description from google a statement which I could clearly see said that it wasn't the case that Sudan had Bin Ladin to offer. I wasn't going to spend all day sifting through stuff but there is some information in there, if anyone's interested, they can use that to look for more references. I mean some people claim Clinton wanted to go after Al-Qaeda hard but Bush and co ignored the problem, other people claim the reverse ... how would I know? I could find sources for and against but I can't prove anything about who's correct.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Nicholas Cage should retire.

    by Mr. Profit

    I tried watching National Treasure and his toupee was so distracting.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Agree with you 100% GoatZinger.

    by Tinfang

    Afghanistan had to be done but when I heard this administration was going into Iraq, I just couldn't believe it. Good lord, we're talking AFGHANISTAN here folks! No nation on earth had ever had a completely succesful military campaign there. BUT NOOOO...the Bushies were full of "victory disease" just like the Japaneese after Pearl Harbor. I hope Iraq doesn't turn out to be our Battle of Midway.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:19 a.m. CST

    There should be a law...

    by Apathetic

    you have to wait a certain amount of time (at least 10 years?) before you can make a dramatic retelling of a tragedy of this magnitude...AND profit from it

  • July 9, 2005, 11:22 a.m. CST

    The Power of Nightmares

    by TonyWilson

    I saw it. Was a great documentary although I wouldn't agree with all of it. I liked it's comment about the media and how fear is often used to control. ID cards and the Patriot act for example. I wouldn't say it was left wing. It doesn't take a political stance like that. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this. Anyway if Stone has a good script that he doesn't fuck with too much then fair enough. Platoon, Fourth of July, Nixon, JFK, Salvador. I can see this film sitting in that line up quite comfortably. I'll just sit back and wait for the obligatory "well those films all sucked too".

  • July 9, 2005, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Responsibility for your actions

    by kafka07

    I sympathize for your loss, Paul in CT. 9/11 was a horrible, painful tragedy. But I do not think that people are blaming the US so much as they blame our rulers and their corporate ties with the oil industry. Since the 1940's the US has done all it can to have control in the Middle East because of its oil reserve (it has 2/3's of the world's oil supply). And when I say it has done all it can, that includes supporting torture, assasination, ethnic cleansing, overthrowing a democratic governments to install dictatorships, etc. The Americans who died on 9/11 did not deserve to die. And the method of which the terrorists have chosen was barbaric. But long ago the US had chosen a path that was also barbaric and bloody. Just an example, for decades the US has been giving billions in military aid to Israel to help us have a strategic oil-controling ally in the Middle East, and the consequence of that has been the butchering and torture of thousands of Palestinians. Do the average Americans of today deserve to feel the repercusions of that? NO. But our current leaders need to make it a priority, for the sake of our security and our environmental health, to move away from this oil dependence that has caused so much geopolitical instability in the world. The Oil-men are the ones benefiting from this dependence (and this war), and they are the same ones who are leading our country. It insults me that they (i.e., George Bush) use instances of American experience, which are real and poignant experiences of tragedy and bravery, to sell us their war.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:25 a.m. CST are exactly that. Hope whoever 'fed&#

    by Negative Man

  • July 9, 2005, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Many "New Yorkers" are not real New Yorkers

    by Mr. Profit

    People from here, born here, and raised here are generally nice. It's the silly folk from small towns and other places who come over here have their heads full of negative stereotypes about this city that act all weird. Im sure many NY'ers were not heroes. Some probably never even left their beds. But no one should generalize people from New York. Not that we are the safest place in the world, but our crime rate is low for a major city. During 9/11 no one pushed me or shoved me. Everyone was cool but in shock. Sure there must have been people acting like asses, but you know what, I walked many blocks with hundreds of people and we all comforted each other. I know it sounds silly but it's the truth. And when we were finally able to board a subway uptown, no one was mad that we were all crammed on each other like sardines. I am tired of the stereotype that my city is uncaring and we dont give a fuck about anyone or anything. As for the film, I dont think anyone should make a 9/11 film so close to 9/11. It's just dumb anyway, because no matter what you do, the film will seem stupid and inaccurate to those who witnessed the real thing.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:27 a.m. CST

    @krullboy: we are actually not straying apart that much

    by omahabitch

    hi krullboy let me try to answer some of your questions. You are right that the Europe of today is totaly different from the Maastricht treaty`s programme, but that was intended in the first place. Maastricht was meant to create a foundation for a peaceful and wealthy europe. I thing Europe did suceed in that. It`s the world`s strongest economic area just after the US and the economic power is increasing. But to me, the most import effect is the peace that has been created by the Union after WWII. Take France, England and Germany for example. They were enemies for centuries, fought many bloody wars, and today, they are allies and friends because the EU provides a platform to solve political differences in a peaceful manner instead of just sending out each country`s troops and starting a war. without the EU, who knows what the realtion between the European countries would be like today. I can`t judge on chirac`s political heritage because i am not very familiar with french politics, but Shr

  • July 9, 2005, 11:35 a.m. CST


    by Frank Black

    I don't think it is inappropraite to make movies of 9/11, but I do get concerned that it will amount to more propaganda. My problem with these talkbacks and my country, (America,) is that people beat the same argument and spew the same rhetoric over and over again, blaming a political party for this or that. It is possible to love your country, but not trust your government. Neither party represents a view that is in the interest of the common citizen. Corporations and Government, (and now organzied religion more than ever,) are ruining America and people enjoy being policed rather than being outraged. America is still an awesome country, but are people are so caught up in fighting each other over political parties that they don't realize those parties are the same and that their freedom is being stolen. The lazier, fatter, and less informed people are, the more likely it is that no one will question all of the crimes and lies. You can critiize Clinton all you want, but don't do it in the same breath of defending Bush because the guy is a huge crook and he hasn't mentioned or done anything to solve real problems here at home that don't involve his agenda. Wake up sheep! Maybe we are all to blame for not being more active in personally educating ourselves and doing a little more to help our neighbors and fix this broken world ourselves. Let's stop being so loyal to these parties and their talking heads. These guys aren't heroes. Bush isn't a hero, but rather a bad actor in a horrible script, (just like Clinton.) I'm running in 2008 under the "Get Back Some Common Sense" ticket and the "Mind Your Own Business" ticket. Vote for me! I'll do the job for free.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:37 a.m. CST


    by El Borak

    9/11 was the most media covered tragedy of all-time. people like me watched most of it live on t.v. there NEVER needs to be a movie made about it. NEVER.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Who hired TeraBaapKaGaan piss in the liberal well?

    by Neosamurai85

    I don't want to get in this debate, but sicking that guy to make leftys look nuts is playing some fine ass dirty poker. It is really messed up that we in the US really don't care alot about Terrorists before 9/11 (cough-cough OCB cough-cough) and the the general lives of people who die elsewere... Actually I think we're getting better with that... but anyway. It is messed up that we have not paid attention to a lot of things and that we act like 9/11 is the first REAL tragedy the way we, or at least some of us, do, when it is very true that this kind of thing has gone on for a while and in some cases with much higher death tolls. THAT SAID, people like TeraBaapKaGaan bitching at people for careing about those that died in 9/11 is counter productive. We should be careing more about these kind of things, all over the world, including at home. We should be aware of more of it, but honestly I'm not the guy to be preaching that. Anyway, I really don't want to get dragged into this. I just wanted to say that extream counter -reactions to a wrong can often lead to the same eneffective rut. Peace.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Omahabitch, I appreciate your civility. Viel Dank

    by krullboy

    I do remember the German floods in 2002. I have had professional encounters with the Dutch and German, and I agree that things are not gloomy. The problem is basically that in the post-modern world, 24 hour news, and globalization, it is nearly impossible to create uniform policy on anything. Nations political-economic interest are vastly different, and things like uniting to fight hunger/AIDS/terror suffer because of it. And yes, there are stupid Americans that associate all Germans with Nazism, but they are in the minority. And I DO appreciate the German troops currently in Afghanistan. Few people realize that it is a German-Czech led mission there. I admire the fact that you are level headed. Now if only the G-8 could be as productive. . .

  • July 9, 2005, 11:44 a.m. CST

    The Mind Your Own Business Party?

    by Mr. Profit

    Sign me up. I'm tired of these religious fanatics who are all crazy about certain issues and give normal people who believe in God a bad name. I was raised Catholic, I do believe in a higher power, yet I am pro-choice. With the government there should totally be a seperation of church and state and there really isn't. Not to sound silly, or to get in a huge stupid back and forth argument with someone who thinks that their opinion is ultimately the correct opinion, but what you do with your body is your business. In the end people dont have to answer to me.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Back to 9/11, no film should be made, and if it's made, Nick

    by Mr. Profit

  • July 9, 2005, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Hey krullboy....

    by Shaner Jedi

    ...don't worry about it turning into a "Bayesque inaccurate portrayal of history". With Stone at the helm, he'll be certain to turn it into a "Stoned version of history". ;)

  • July 9, 2005, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Right on Mr. Profit!

    by Tinfang

    I know many good folk from NYC and I can't see them standing by and doing nothing. Quite the contrary. I'm from the south and I know all about stereotyping. Yeah, we're all just a bunch of beer swilling KKK racist

  • July 9, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST

    You are right, Shaner Jedi, somehow in Stone's version it wi

    by krullboy

    While that is going on, Woody Harrelson will star as Mohammed Atta (BTW, what the FUCK is Woody doing now anyway?), and instead of "Any given Sunday", Stone will call it "Any given Tuesday". George Soros will lap it up, will shoot copius amounts of gizz all over it, and Walmart will have a "buy Fahrenheit 911, get Stone's 911 for half price" sales everywhere.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Spielberg and 9/11

    by Shaner Jedi

    He was right. Say what you want about WOTW, but at the most it's allegorical. Tolkien understood it right after WW2. Lucas understood it after Watergate, and Spielberg did with WOTW. Stone intends to make a literal commentary. BIG mistake. It's too soon pshycologically for people.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:08 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    ...did I really type pSHYcologically? LOL.

  • Everything either side does is in the best interest of their political party more than the best interest of the country. Nothing that comes out of the Democrats mouths is meant to do anything but hurt Bush, and visa-versa. The 2 party system isn't working in this country, simple as that.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Shaner Jedi

    by Tinfang

    Please don't tell me you think the Lord of the Rings was an allegorical tale about WWII. It wasn't, never was and never will be.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Will Angelina Jolie play Nicolas Cage's Mom? And Hate on WOT

    by Mr. Profit

    It still doesn't erase all the good in the movie.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Oliver Stone should retire

    by Doc_McCoy

    If this was 1980s Oliver Stone I'd be excited no matter what movie he was gearing up to do. But the sad truth is he hasn't made a remotely good movie in over ten years. He's clearly gone off the deep end, and whatever fueled the creative genius of his early career has been tapped out.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:26 p.m. CST

    WotW was already an allergoy for the pointless nature of war, ma

    by Negative Man

    Spielberg/Koepp/Cruise made it about a Hollywood cardboard, divorced, Bluecollar, emotionally distant jerk of a father that is faced with the task of 'learning the lesson of family' in the face of an alien invasion 'a million years in the making' and sings 'Little Deuce Coupe' to his daughter because he doesn't know any lullabies. It tore the very guts out of a classic story in order to 'modernize' it and make it seem timely. In essence, exploite current events (i.e. 9/11). Face it people, WotW was the biggest 'could of been' movie of the past decade. It could have been poingniant, but ended up being...well...lame. Not bad or good...just lame.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:26 p.m. CST


    by Neosamurai85

    On that voice of reason I think I'm going to leave this talkback board. I can't really think of much more to discuss even about the film. Peace.

  • You know this to be true...

  • July 9, 2005, 12:28 p.m. CST

    I second that NOOOOOOOOOOO!

    by jimmy_009

    Not because it's a movie about 9/11. I think it's time people start to carefully and thoughtfully make films about it. It's because it's freaking Nic Cage and Oliver Stone attached! This is far from careful and thoughtful. The only thing that would be worse is Oliver Stone and John Travolta. Oh man, I hope this turns out to be a fake story.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Shaner Jedi, Tolkien wrote LotR during World War has no

    by Negative Man

    1898 to be exact. Well before The Great War (1914 to 1918). Just sayin'.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Anchorite, you sure about that?


    The London bombing which kiled a meager 50 people doesn't seem like the worst thing to hit them since WWII. Didn't they go through a long period of bombing my the IRA killing hundreds of people? The shitty part about your statement is that right-wing zombie patriots will pick up your "fact" and repeat it until it is true, like they did with every single slimy Bill Clinton rumour.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:47 p.m. CST

    They should make a 911 videogame!


    where you play as George W Bush and the object of the game is to do as little as you can to prevent the attacks, then start over and try to beat that record!

  • July 9, 2005, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Can Stone do this?

    by CountVonGroovy

    First of all, my initial reaction resembled that of Tinfang: "It's too soon." But I'm not sure of that. From my admittedly comfortable neutral perch in every conservative's third or fourth favourite liberal/socialist bogeyman-nation, Canada, I've watched Republicans and their neocon cohorts exploit 9/11 for their political gain, to work hard to insert ideology into tragedy. Karl Rove's recent comments are only the tip of the iceberg. So, to me, anyway, every time Bush or Cheney or anyone around them references the events of 9/11 and how they changed everything as they talk about foreign policy or the economy or abortion (Bush advisor Karen Hughes did this once, likening pro-choicers to terrorists, it was despicable), a little bit of the resonance of the tragedy is lost, a little bit of its meaning. Even though I'm not American , I sat glued to the TV on 9/11 with a sick feeling in my gut, like anyone else in the 50 states. I'm not entirely sure what 9/11 "means", if a crippling tragedy with extraordinarily complex undertones of international social, political and racial issues can be said to "mean" anything in any simple way. But I know how I felt that day, and I know that people even close to the events felt something deeper and much more true than what I felt. This tragedy wasn't about realpolitik or ideological agendas or racism or anything like that, at least for the people at Ground Zero and the people who cared about them. If Stone can get that, this might be special. But I have my doubts. Look at "Alexander". Never mind that it's a piece of shit, it's a spectacular piece of shit. If Stone goes spectacular, if he dares to try to recreate those images that are burned into the collective memory of everyone who was alive on that day, then he'll go wrong. If it's just Nic Cage running around in the WTC, panicked, confused, determined, human... then it could work. Could really work. Most of the true art that has been made in direct response to 9/11 (not Spielberg's "Arab killers are like alien killers" nonsense) has been in theatre and literature, off-Broadway plays or novels by people like Jonathan Safran Foer that delve into the way that people involved in the events thought and felt. That's what this film could be. Should be. But I don't know where Stone is going to find that film, with his abilities. Differ from me if you will, but that's what worries me. I remember well the post-9/11 Onion headline that read "American life turns into bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie" or something like that. The images of that day were too real, hyper-real, even, that no movie could attempt to recreate them. Here's hoping that Stone does "A Night to Remember" instead of "Titanic". Intimate human drama, not shootouts and special effects. My twenty cents...

  • July 9, 2005, 12:53 p.m. CST

    You douche bags who are blind to history and defend the most pow

    by Forestal

  • July 9, 2005, 12:54 p.m. CST

    "it tried to promote the death of faith and religion in America

    by HypeEndsHere

    and what the fuck is wrong with that?

  • July 9, 2005, 12:55 p.m. CST

    What Woody Harrelson is doing

    by cornstalkwalker

  • July 9, 2005, 12:55 p.m. CST

    MOMERATH, it's the worst single coordinated attack since WWI

    by Negative Man

    And to say 'meager' in relationship to the loss of those 50+ lives... Well, call me a right-wing zombie or whatever you want, but you should be a little more sensitive or at least a bit more reserved.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Further more, there shouldn't be a movie about 911


    because the media and the propaganda spewing fatcats in Washington simply won't let us take a fuckin rest from the goddamn event. Every five minutes I have to hear about 911 and the part that pisses me off the most about it is that it is being used to further sick anti-American agendas. I'm tired of politicians using 911 for political gain. They want to turn us all into a bunch of hypnotized amchines ready to do their will at the slightest mention of freaking 911. Social Security plan sucks? dial 911. Looking bad in the polls? Viva 911! Karl Rove caught putting our nation's security in imminent danger by outing a covert CIA operative? Remember 911! These fuckers are unaccountable and until we stop responding to what happened on Sept 11 with zombie-like flag waving, they will always get away with everything.

  • July 9, 2005, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Mr. are correct sir

    by Hiawatha Smalls

    As a New Yorker (who was uptown when the first tower was hit), I can say that I don't need to see the recreation of the slaughter of thousands...starring Nic Cage's hair-piece

  • July 9, 2005, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Points of Order

    by TonyWilson

    Ok, first up; Tolkien never ever intended the films to be allegorical, he's on record as stating this a number of times. He was trying to create a British Mythology to rival the Vikings or Greeks. You can use some critical theories on his writings if you want. But whatever you glean from them will be culturally and personally biased. Secondly, the london attack is the worst single attack since WWII. The IRA used to phone and warn police ahead of the bombs so thay could prevent a massive loss of life. These attacks were not really about killing people (obviously there was that too), the attacks were designed to cause mass transport disruption, it's our weak spot afterall and to cause alot of panic. Third, Stone is one of the few US directors, who, when firing on all cylinders and sticking to someone elses script, can make this anything more than exploitation. TonyWilson out.

  • July 9, 2005, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Negative Man : 50 deaths is MEAGER


    That's how many old people bite it when their casino bus crashes because their driver falls asleep. People die in much greater numbers every single day on this planet and nobody cares. Now, look, I absolutely hate reeligious fundamentalists of all faiths and I wish we could just create a nuclear bomb that kills only them and no good people, but what the hell. 50 deaths anywhere in the world is weak. It's nothing. As a result of our leaders' inaction at the G8 conference, hundreds of people in Africa will die tomorrow and every day thereafter. All because we don't hold Afican leaders like Mugabe and the Sudanese government accountable because they aren't sitting on any oil. So, what is it about the 50 deaths that manke them more important than any other 50 deaths? They are white? Seriously, what is it?

  • July 9, 2005, 1:04 p.m. CST

    All the profits

    by Hiawatha Smalls

    should go to speeding up whatever they're doing to the giant hole in the ground next to Century 21...cuz it's starting to turn into a tourist attraction instead of a memorial-nothing like going to mourn a loved one while hearing some teenagers going "HOLY SHIT! THAT MUSTA SUCKED!"

  • July 9, 2005, 1:08 p.m. CST

    anchorite, in the book the church falls as well, but it was as a

    by Negative Man

    There is a clergyman that has gone quite mad and believes the invasion is of demons but not martians. He thinks that the invasion is to punish man for his sins, but he becomes preoccupied on the idea of his own sins and punishment. The Narrator (main character) represents mans freedom of and faith in religion, just not a set one for all. And, in the end, when all faith seems lost, the invaders are defeated by the "...tiniest creatures that God and his wisdom put upon this earth." A greatly important theme lost in this movie version.

  • July 9, 2005, 1:09 p.m. CST

    re: anchorite on WOTW and religion

    by CountVonGroovy

    You did see the movie, and hear Morgan Freeman postulating at the end that GOD was essentially responsible for saving his miserable creations, whether they drink cheap wine, confess their sins to child molesters, or mutter sweet holy nothings under their breath or not? As entertained as I was by much of WOTW, I think it's a mess as an allegory or as a comment on post-9/11 America. I agree that there would have been more religion (by which you mean, of course, Christianity, since no other religion has any place in American life to a WASPy conservative) in a "realistic" portrait of post-tragedy America, but I doubt Hollywood is out to corrupt any of our poor souls because Spielberg cuts open a church and Scientologist extraordinaire Cruise fails to pray. The sad fact is that religion in America is now indistinguishable from American politics: all about the mudslinging, the ideological poison darts to the opposition's necks. I feel sorry for the people who truly believe, for whom religion brings some light and hope into their lives (which may very well include yourself anchorite, and if so, more power to you). Their beautiful belief is being tarnished by agenda-driven zealots for whom devotion and piety is less important than segregating homosexuals. Sad times...

  • July 9, 2005, 1:19 p.m. CST

    MOMERATH, it's about plain decency and regard to those who l

    by Negative Man

  • July 9, 2005, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Memo to Paramount: a 9/11 movie released this soon is equivalent

    by JohnnyTremaine

    If a filmmaker really, really wants to make a 9/11 film, I suggest they take a page from Steven Spielberg and make an analogy-genre film like War of the Worlds, um, only better. But I think very few people right now want to see a 9/11 film. There are already a few existing documentaries available, such as the one that aired on CBS which was filmed by the two French brothers, if one wants to look at the events of that day again. But please, no big-movie-star-Hollywood-SFX-Access -Hollywood-publicity version of September 11. It was bad enough that Michael Bay turned the attack on Pearl Harbor into a brainless comic book...

  • July 9, 2005, 1:26 p.m. CST


    by Tinfang

    As an American, may I just say that I find your perspective to be entirely accurate. I've been a Christian (I didn't say devout) for most of my 50+ years and a strong supporter of the military but that which you describe sickens me as well. I never, ever thought I would've entertained the notion of immigrating to another country but if this right-wing fanaticism (sorry Dubya, I honestly don't remember a big booming voice proclaiming you to be divenly chosen) continues to grow, I will be applying for citizenship to Canada. I believe Karl Rove is the anti-Christ.

  • July 9, 2005, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Oops, make that "US citizen" instead of "American."

    by Tinfang

    Sorry Count, didn't mean to suggest that you too aren't a American.

  • July 9, 2005, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Negative: Understood...But


    The difference between US and the UK is that people in the UK will go on with their lives ASAP. They will not use the deaths of 50 people as a political carte blanche to allow Tony Blair to do whatever the fuck he pleases. I did my sensitive thing yesterday and now I am moving on to the accountability part. I shouldn't be expected to have to prove my sensitivity to you or anyone else publicly because I've already done it privately. That is how Brits have reacted to the event: Ok, it happened, we're sad, now piss off and let us get back to work so we can hit the pubs after. Contrast this with our American victim machine run by our media. They will be stewing us in sympathy for months on this instead of talking about real issues that affect our world. On FOX News, they have already used it to justify anti-French sentiment and Brit Hume waxed greedy about it, revelling in the fall of futures prices as a result of these 50+ deaths, saying "Hmmm, looks like it's time to buy!" That is what I am complaining about here. Our leaders and our media commentators don't have any sensitivity to these deaths. They see them as opportunities to become richer and more powerful. The more we wallow for days on end in cheap sentimentality, the longer they go on unabated.

  • July 9, 2005, 1:31 p.m. CST

    A story about about Americans giving their all for the good of t

    by lettersoftransit

  • July 9, 2005, 1:33 p.m. CST

    ...and Americans will be forbidden to work on it

    by lettersoftransit

  • July 9, 2005, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Tinfang, Negative Man

    by Shaner Jedi

    I'm not talking about the experiences Tolkien drew from for inspiration, but the timeframe in which they were released: less than a decade after WW2. The public accepted those tales because, even if they were mythological, not literal. And I was speaking of Spielberg's WOTW Negative Man, not when HG Wells wrote it. My point was a movie with those depictions of destruction works so soon after an event you might be referring to if you couch it in allegory and myth. It doesn't work if you tell it literally. Just look at Fahrenheit 9-11. That film just polarized people immediately. Myth is much more subversive.

  • Isn't Canada great!

  • July 9, 2005, 1:42 p.m. CST


    by DrLektor

    Oliver Stone was once asked would he ever direct a movie based on the Desert Storm conflict, his reply was right on the money, "what's the point? CNN have already done it." Mass media coverage filled with propaganda indeed. So what's changed his mind? It's true he's Pro American, it'd be fair to call him a patriot. 9/11 hit every American close to home, regardless of who was to blame, suddenly the ideals and way of life that every US citizen take for granted are put at risk. Everyone's a potential terrorist. It's in Stone's blood to make a film symbolising the heroism of the people that day. But it'll all be in vain if he keeps the proceeds. He'll win the oscar, I'd wager cash on that now before even one frame of film has been shot. Not just because he's contiuning to make the movies he's best at (Platoon, JFK) and will create a wonderful piece of work. But because every American will watch and die inside when they see those towers collapse again. You want something else to cut the meloedrama? Get Mel Gibson to direct it instead, that way he can blame Blair and maybe show that no-one really died that day, it was all a dream, the towera still stand. Or Lucas, GL, he can do a piece of unemotional shit with the attack lovingly rendered in CGI. Finally, don't call the death of 50 people a meagre thing, that's idiotic. Watch your friend die in front of you and tell me it's okay because "hey, people die all the time! I bet while you're bleeding to death right there 20 Ethiopians just died of starvation" Just because you don't know the 50, doesn't make them worthless. And it's bombings, plural, as in multiple attacks. Talkback sickens me sometimes.

  • July 9, 2005, 1:49 p.m. CST

    I live In London, two of the bombs were a short walk from my hom

    by Dog Of Mystery

    And I blame the US government. Also Blair. And all religion. And to a lesser extent, the stupid fat brainwashed US public that would rather stuff themselves with feel-good pap about heroism on 9-11 than educate themselves by watching the excellent 'Power Of Nightmares' documentary.

  • July 9, 2005, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Side note, but...

    by CountVonGroovy

    Am I an American? Are "Americans" American? It seems like an odd term, considering the word could be used to describe anyone living anywhere from the tip of Alaska to Tierra del Fuego (which is a kickass place-name, by the way). Why does the US get to use it? Though I suppose it's better than "Statesers" or something like that...

  • July 9, 2005, 1:54 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    ...your jab at Lucas is unwarranted at this time because we have no idea how Stone intends to depict the disaster. He may well use fx. This whole excercise is pointless. Doing a literal re-telling of this immediately polarizes people, regardless of its own merits(or lack thereof).

  • July 9, 2005, 2:06 p.m. CST


    by DrLektor

    I was merely using Lucas' Star Wars movies as an example of cliched filmmaking, the prequel trilogy of course, where everything is flash and CGI friendly with almost zero emotional impact and horrible acting. He's an easy target forgive me. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Stone didn't even show the attack or collapse of the towers, he'd cut to something else like people's reactions.

  • July 9, 2005, 2:12 p.m. CST

    "And I blame the US government"

    by DocPazuzu

    You fucking cretin.

  • July 9, 2005, 2:12 p.m. CST

    You guys

    by Hiawatha Smalls

    are being glib. All it does it mask the problem. You don't know the history of Oliver Stone. I do. There's no such thing as a chemical imbalance....and so on and so forth...

  • July 9, 2005, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Did terrorists just blow some shit up? Yeah! And it's the

    by Hiawatha Smalls

    US government? WTF?

  • July 9, 2005, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Karl(I'll sell out CIA agent for political gain)Rove is the

    by Cod Profundity

    Damn fucking right whoever said that.

  • July 9, 2005, 2:21 p.m. CST

    DrLektor, 50 deaths are still meager


    I wasn't talking about Ethiopians starving. I was talking about Africans being know, by murderers like Mugabe. You know what? They die right in front of people too. I am not trying to be morally relative here. Read my post entitled "Negative: Understood...But" to see where I am coming from on this. Our leaders and news media elites see these deaths as cynical tools for their own aggrandizement. If they can't use a death to further their anti-abortion laws (Lacy Peterson), make white Americans scared of foreginers (Natalee Holloway), or to frighten Americans into making laws against pedophile strangers - even though the vast majority of child abuse happens at the hands of someone close to the victim (any number of cases)...they don't friggin cover it. There is no reason to be selectively maudlin about one person's death over another. There is no reason to obsess about Jennifer Wilbanks's disappearance when thousands of American women go missing every day for various reasons (meaning there is no major societal cause that must be addressed). Cherry-picking 50 deaths to care about just make yourself look like a better person does nothing to help you, us, or anyone else who will die soon unless you take real action about something. Just saying you care is not enough. Supporting the war in the U.S. is not the same as fighting it in Iraq. Putting a yellow ribbon on the back of your SUV is not the same as volunteering at a veterans' readjustment center.

  • Cuz that's the flick I wanna see!

  • July 9, 2005, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Anchorite, relax.

    by JohnnyTremaine

    If you want to see religion in WOTW, just rent or buy the original George Pal version with the scene of the crowd of people praying in a cathedral. Spielberg didn't include it in his version because he probably wanted to concentrate on making WOTW into one long action sequence, which it is. It's basically the first T-Rex attack/introduction sequence but with aliens and stretched out over 2 hrs. Also, I don't think S. Spielberg is somehow anti-religion; in fact, I'm guessing he's just the opposite. It's common knowledge that he is a follower of the Jewish faith; but many also forget that he filmed on of the most moving and lyrical versions of the Christ story. It was a scene in Amistad where Djimon Honsou's character is told by another slave the Jesus story through his interpretation of an illustrated New Testament. It's a great scene.

  • July 9, 2005, 2:51 p.m. CST

    "we don't hold Afican leaders like Mugabe and the Sudanese g

    by classyfredblassy

    WTF? The places we go into, we are meddling, imperialistic war mongers. The place we don't it's are fault for not going in there to save them. God, listen to yourself you dick-head. 1) Why don't you blame Mugabe and the Sudanese goonsquads THEMSELVES for the violence THEY create? 2) Did yo know that since 1963, the US has give over 500 billions dollars to of aid to Africa alone, not include the recent pledges of the G8 summit? 3) How about some accountability for all that money being wasted and funneled to Islamic warlords? Why do you think people were starving in Somalia went there was plenty of aid being sent there? 4) I don't have debts, but is banks were will to pay them all off, I sure would starting ringing some up.

  • July 9, 2005, 2:54 p.m. CST

    I was following Krullboy

    by Right Bastard

    until you mentioned "Losing Bin Laden". That bood has been debunct so thoroughly that I'm surprised they don't display it in the "Fiction" section of book stores.

  • July 9, 2005, 3:09 p.m. CST

    of course

    by DrLektor

    You write well and make a few good points but that still doesn't change what you implied, that the deaths in the WTC collapse and Thursday bombings aren't important because people die all over the world every day. Every death is as equally sad and every one is a tragic waste of human life, no amount of hypothesizing or criticising of political leaders will change that. You sound almost like you're desensitized to certain types of suffering, it matters not if the death of an innocent happens in another country due to some regime or other, "it means more because I'm a member of [insert causes or charities you support here]" or whether the death hits closer to home, "it's all (insert name of hated politician here) fault anyway, I'm sick of the media blowing it out of all proportion"

  • July 9, 2005, 3:11 p.m. CST


    by aceattorney


  • That's geographically speaking, of course. So, yeah, we're "Americans" right along with the Central and South Americans. But last I heard, the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist only have a beef with the United States of America. Now, I have to get back to work for the Imperialist U.S. War Machine!

  • July 9, 2005, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Recreation or not?

    by sagaz99

    Is Stone going to start the movie with the planes hitting the tower or after the attacks started? What would be a better start point?

  • July 9, 2005, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Islamic fundamentalist terrorist only have a beef with the Unite

    by classyfredblassy

    Oh yeah?: They also attack and bomb in these countries: ALGERIA, The Caucasus and Russia, EYGPT, INDONESIA, INDIA, PAKISTAN, KOSOVO, NIGERIA, SUDAN, and the PHILIPPINES.

  • July 9, 2005, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Fictional movies about 9/11 are inevitable

    by FrankDrebin

    The first ones will be patriotic and respectful, but the later ones will be standard action movies. 20 years after the horrors of WWII, there was HOGAN'S HEROES and "Springtime For Hitler" (THE PRODUCERS). 10 years after Vietnam, Stallone was exploiting it for RAMBO. So I guess 5 years is right on schedule for Hollywood to start trying to cash in on 9/11. The writer of Stone's movie may have wanted to honor the dead, but Hollywood's ultimate goal is still to make money. After the success of PASSION OF THE CHRIST, remember how many quickie Biblical tv movies there were? Everything gets exploited eventually. I'm not saying it SHOULD, just that it WILL.

  • July 9, 2005, 3:34 p.m. CST

    God lord classyfredblassy.

    by Tinfang

    The Good Count and I were discussing the American continent, NOT the entire world. Islamic terrorist have entered the US from Canada (and probably Mexico). If you don't pay attention, I'm going to have to declare Talkback Jihad on your ass! And if you don't that as a joke then you need to get out and go see a good comedy.

  • July 9, 2005, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Lead to something great?

    by ReelPoster

    What in the fug are you talking about, Harry?

  • July 9, 2005, 3:58 p.m. CST

    TeraBaapKaGaan can go f**k himself.

    by wordman12

    I was just heading to work on the 59th floor of the North Tower on 9/11/01. I survived, but I've been a changed person ever since. America may not be perfect but show me one instance when the U.S. specifically staged an attack were the ONLY goal was to cause as many CIVILIAN casaulties as possible. I'm sorry to see anyone die in any country, but to say "we had this coming," is precisely why it will take decades for the world to get its shit together and realize no one is better than anyone else. I didn't fucking have this coming you dick.

  • July 9, 2005, 4:10 p.m. CST

    FrankDrebin, the difference.....

    by Shaner Jedi that WW2 was a military action. The attacks on the WTC were against civilians. I didn't see many movies coming out in 1950 showing the Dresden bombings.

  • July 9, 2005, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Guys just buy a ticket to BATMAN BEGINS and sneak in to see this

    by fried samurai

    That way the fatcats dont profit from this tragedy..peace :)

  • July 9, 2005, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Stoned again?

    by lindyboy

    I note by the comments here that 9/11 remains a flashpoint for many, Oliver Stone's name even moreso. Stone has never shyed away from controversy, but that's about the onlty positive thing I can say about him as a film maker. His obsession with psychedelic -inspired coloring of the pan, filming with different types of film, and more recently MTV like attention span editing has been more nauseating than rewarding and that's even before we get to the director's severely warped (and I might add obsolete) world view. Stone pretty much answers the question what if Noam Chomsky became a film maker. That said, I shall be VERY surprised if his 9/11 comes across as anything close to the real event. My expectations are so low that so long as he doesn't blame the attacks on either a) us b) Mossad or c) a combination of the both I'll go watch this and TRY to enjoy it as perhaps Stone's golden opportunity to redeem himself...but whom I kidding? He'll probably use Richard Clarke and Michael Moore as consultants...

  • July 9, 2005, 4:25 p.m. CST


    by Tinfang

    there was the firebombing of Tokyo and, of course, the nuclear bombings of Horishima and Nagasaki. You have to understand the difference; these bombings were part of all out global warfare. TOTAL war where you have to eleminate (or at least degrade) the enemy's capacity to produce more arms, butterbeans and soldiers. In total war, there really is no such thing as a civilian. Terrorist attacks are not the same....civilians (and military, sometimes) are targeted to produce a political effect and not defeat an enemy militarily. Of course, to the people killed, it's a moot point. But I agree, it's not the same and ALL sides in WWII targeted civilian populations. The Japaneese military was ready to sacrifice every one of their countrymen just to salvage some stupid "honor." I don't know if that's any more ridiculous than thinking you're going to nail "77 virgins" by becoming a suicide bomber. Probably on the same level as the Crusaders killing for Christ. Now THAT is a textbook oxymoron if there ever was.

  • Then it will be shown that the Evil Democrats (ALL of them hateful left-wing dope smoking Kommie loving fags) actually created Osama binLadin from the charred remains of Adolf Hitler. Then, the Evil Dem's, through genetic manipulation, derived from Evil Stem Cell Research, created mindless but programmable Arabic looking men and taught them how to fly airliners into buildings. All of this, natch, was started in the Clinton administation ( and you thought James Carvelle only knew how to win elections!) in an attempt to throw the hounds off the scent of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Yep, Hillary was the brains behind it all. Sorta like Sauron being the brains behind Morgoth's E-V-I-L machinations! Wow, i cna't wait!

  • July 9, 2005, 5:03 p.m. CST

    Ban This!

    by Shaner Jedi

    Stone knows....about the aliens. He knows. LOL. This is all such a bad idea. TinFang, yeah there is a difference between Dresden during total warfare and what happened at the WTC. It's even worse what happened at the WTC because they were innocent targets. My point was that they didin't even touch the civilian atrocities during WW2 DURING war. So why should Paramount try to do a depiction of the civilian massacre at the WTC during peacetime? I say it's worse than if someone did a movie in 1950 about Dresden, Nagasaki, firebombing of Tokyo, etc. I just can't think of a way that Paramount and Stone could do this at this time, in a literal fashion, and not screw it up and themselves.

  • July 9, 2005, 5:13 p.m. CST

    They better do it right.

    by Cabron

    They better.

  • July 9, 2005, 5:13 p.m. CST

    please make it stop

    by whatyoufear

    the madness.. how many times a day are we reminded of 9/11? be it in news broadcasts or news websites, people's blogs, etc.. it's like it's still going on. it's never stopped. going to see this movie in theaters would be like going to see a movie about waking up and going to work everyday... WHY FUCKING BOTHER?! YOU DO IT EVERYDAY ANYWAY!!! fucking hollywood.

  • July 9, 2005, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Tinfang, I curse you!

    by classyfredblassy

    May you die a thousand deaths , with pain and suffering, as all mighty and merciful Allah directs a swarm of sandflies to bite your penis over and over again. Akubalah Akubar. Le le le le le Le le le le le Le le le le le Le le le le le Le le le le le Le le le le le

  • July 9, 2005, 5:24 p.m. CST

    Well, I didn't say you were a Christian, anchorite...

    by CountVonGroovy

    I simply provided for the possibility that you might have been, thus attempting to avoid the sort of knee-jerk taking of offense that is so common on talkbacks. Which, of course, happened anyway. I also never said science was the grand answer to everything. Hell, I never said a thing about science at all. Isn't WOTW sort of an anti-science parable anyway? The aliens are scientifically advanced and they're still nasty and bloodthirsty, and no measure of human science can stop them. I also resent the implication that a film must necessarily represent the practice of religion and if it doesn't then it's an atheistic attempt to supplant faith with science. I, personally, don't put a whole lot of stock in science to save the world, nor do I put a lot of stock in faith to do so. They're both essentially wishful thinking. But, as Jeff Tweedy sang, what would do without wishful thinking? Religion and science are both belief systems, systems that a many would like to believe are diametrically opposed (like, say, many would like to think Democrats and Republicans are) but really aren't. I throw my hat in with people, not systems. I trust them (us?) enough to get things right eventually, systems be damned...

  • July 9, 2005, 5:47 p.m. CST

    For everyone's arguing and feuding, I'd just like to poi

    by Cod Profundity

    Even RepubLIEcans know he is the Anti-Christ. He's a COCK JUGGLING THUNDERCUNT. ***********************************And yes that bit between his name was a direct quote from Rove himself.

  • July 9, 2005, 5:57 p.m. CST

    I just don't get people anymore. This entire talkback makes


    First of all: Yes, the real heroes of 9/11 - OF WHICH THERE ARE SEVERAL - deserve to have their stories told. Should it be in a Hollywood film five years after the events occured? Time will tell, though my vote is "Probably not." Yes, it does feel like a bold first step in the exploitation of a national disaster. It could be very inspiring and uplifting, not to mention theraputic to the nation, in a way, but that's all in the eye of the beholder and with somebody like Oliver Stone at the helm, who has a notable history of actually taking a political/philisophical stance with his films, many eyes will behold an anti-American statement behind the project. Hell, the news isn't even 24 hours old and look how many people have raked Stone over the coals just on this talkback. Am I a Stone-hater? Actually, no. I love about 90% of his work. His only movies that I don't like are the ones I haven't yet seen. But even I can say he himself will probably taint what the message of the film is supposed to be. Whether he intends to politically skew the story or not, there are millions in this country who will say he did. But the actual project aside. . . this Talkback illustrates exactly why we're not yet ready to accept a film like this. This guy hates liberals, that guy hates Bush and Cheney, that dude hates America, these guys hate everyone outside America. . . my question for everyone here is this: Why have communication and discussion been traded in for argument and blame? Don't you people realize that the answers to who did what, why they did it and how it came to happen are out there, but everybody's too fucking busy pointing fingers at someone else to learn any real information? You know what? I always liked Clinton and I can't stand Bush, but I'm here to tell you they both fucked up! Neither one is any kind of angel and it's time people stopped pretending "My side good, your side bad." It solves NOTHING. If the people bickering back and forth on these matters could spend half as much time listening to information coming from someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum as they do simply repeating their own side's rallying cries, they might actually LEARN a thing or two! Problems can be solved. Arguments can be settled. What's necessary to do such things is to actually communicate. And I'm not simply saying, "Can't we all just get along?" Of course it's worth getting fired up about and it's impossible not to take a side in matters as heated as these. But what good do you do your side if you're not focused on learning the truth of the matters? This isn't sports, people! It isn't about scoring one for your team. It's about cutting through the bullshit that doesn't matter - the party politics and self-centered nationalism - and trying to make things better for everyone. Why doesn't anybody get that?

  • July 9, 2005, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Only reason libs hate Rove is...

    by Shaner Jedi

    ..because he's not working for them. That's the only reason.

  • July 9, 2005, 6:04 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    ..I don't think this movie will necessarily be a left-right issue. I think it may have more to do with people directly involved with the WTC attack. I don't think it will really fall down along left-right political lines. This is different.

  • July 9, 2005, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Shaner, first of all man, great first post.

    by Cod Profundity

    Second of all, and I don't speak for all liberals here, I hate Rove because he is fucking pond scum from his first forays into electioneering back in his college days, you know, petty larceny, slander, defamation, ditry tricks. The man has a sick sick sick lust for power, hell he even managed to gain access to the pentagon and security organisations by manipulating bush, to his betrayal of CIA agents and the average American, the man is sickfuck albeit a very fucking clever one. Now why do I personally thinkf he is the Anti-Christ? Because he uses the truth to lie. Read the bible, read other parts of christian lore. The Devil lies with the truth, he spins is and he turns it. He uses zealotry to further his own aims and subverts to Christianty for power. Rove and the Devil, in action they are interchangeable.

  • July 9, 2005, 6:27 p.m. CST

    I don't know, Shaner...


    Don't forget, last summer we saw Liberals complaining about "Passion of the Christ" being a Republican movie and Right wingers referring to "The Day After Tomorrow" as "liberal propaganda." I think if someone so much as sets a bowl of fruit on a table, people will ascribe political values to it.

  • July 9, 2005, 6:35 p.m. CST

    We must recommend our advertisers remove content from this websi

    by legalatNYUSA

    Please follow through. This is OUR form of free speach.

  • July 9, 2005, 6:38 p.m. CST

    We must recommend our advertisers remove content from this websi

    by legalatNYUSA

    Pardon my spelling - pardon our anger.

  • July 9, 2005, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Nicolas Cage Is a Movie Actor. 9/11 Is Still Too Real. The Two S

    by Flim Springfield


  • July 9, 2005, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Why is The Passion a Republican film? That is fucking stupid.

    by Mr. Profit

    I am not Republican, am Catholic, saw The Passion and liked it, and I am pro choice. Seriously, this Christian Conservative "Movement" is annoying. Why must everything be so fucking political. Politics and Religion should be seperate.

  • July 9, 2005, 7:08 p.m. CST

    I'm not even going to touch this discussion...

    by oisin5199

    but I did want to say the best depiction of 9/11 situations I've seen is on Rescue Me. When the one fireman was reading his poetry to the support group and then realized they weren't even in New York at the time, let alone lost anybody, how he went off on them was great. And a drunken Denis Leary whipping it out and pissing on the vendors who were selling the 9/11 merchandise: priceless!

  • July 9, 2005, 7:27 p.m. CST

    At least you know stone will treat it with respect and show it i

    by doobieflixx

    He's not a perfect director but this is his fortay. As for Cage, this will make him a real actor again.

  • July 9, 2005, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Darkfyre I agree

    by Roger Thornhill

    "When we intervene in conflicts around the world, we're condemned for meddling. When we do nothing, we're blamed for letting it happen." This is exactly what happened with Bosnia and Kosovo. When Clinton was reluctant to get us involved in Bosnia the world was outraged that we did nothing to help at first. When we got involved in Kosovo right off the bat with military power the world was outraged that we were being bullies. America really has a no win situation no matter what happens. The world despises us no matter what we do. Let's see how they like a superpower communist regime like China as numero uno in thirty plus years. Maybe sooner? The world sure as hell doesn't like a democratic superpower.

  • The paranoid made up conspiracy shit he did with JFK was the sole fucking reason everyone to this day rolls out the same tired old "yeah, the goverment did it" line. He just made up shit that he later admitted was bullshit, now we have to look forward to the horror of him doing an action film about 9/11?fuck all that.

  • July 9, 2005, 8:12 p.m. CST

    And thus,

    by YouInRawbIns?

    Aside from me borrowing (read: stealing) Chicken George's sign off, LucienPierce hits the nail right on the head. He has the most intelligent post in this whole thread so far. I can see where Tera is coming from, I'm American and I can't fucking stand the phrase "Proud to be an American." What the fuck is that supposed to mean? It's called jingoism folks, when someone can hear a minor complaint about their country and be personally offended. The U.S. is not always correct, and those that blindly follow the president's words single-handedly lower our gene pool's quality. Think everything out for yourselves. That being said, not one person in 9/11 deserved to die. There was no single person that died in that attack that had instigated it, and when Tera speaks of them in a foul light he loses my support completely.

  • July 9, 2005, 8:55 p.m. CST

    anchorite RE: God in War Of The Worlds

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    The final line speaks of the microbes being placed on Earth by "God in his infinite wisdom". For a film which you assert is trying to replace religion with science, which would only be a great thing if true, the filmmakers have failed in their alleged goals. Don't worry your head your baseless fairytales are under no threat from fact-based theories. God's place in the public consciousness is assured. Unfortunately.

  • July 9, 2005, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Funny story...

    by Code6idiot

    I remember one time, there was this guy that continually peddled this video (apparently of hundreds of instant deaths to Benny Hill music) and it didn't work. It makes me laugh. (true story)

  • July 9, 2005, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Code6: Call me paranoid, but I think What's-his-name's l


    The guy professed total hate for Americans and peddled his little video clip after every sentence. He wanted people to download it big time. My security warning said something about the file being corrupted or altered in some way. . . hell, I just bought this computer. I take no chances!!

  • July 9, 2005, 10:27 p.m. CST

    Some crazy man on the religious channel said the world will end

    by Mr. Profit

    Is that the release date for this movie?

  • July 9, 2005, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Call Me Crazy, But I Love Oliver Stone

    by Roger Thornhill

    Although I haven't seen Alexander yet, I'm a big fan of his. He's easily one of the best living American directors who (used to) experiments with the medium to create extraordinary films like JFK and Natural Born Killers. I know he tends to portray sinister conspiracies like in JFK, but I think it's works great in JFK simply because he creates a sense of total paranoia. Few films are as amazingly paranoid as JFK. In any event, I guess I'm in the minority here about him shooting a film about 9/11. I don't think he's exploiting it since the Republicans and Bush II have been doing it for years. They've exploited it about as far as you can go by basing a war on it that had nothing to do with the actual event. Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox before I get flamed by the neocons that hound these talkbacks in between watching Fox News and masturbating to pictures of Ann Coulter.

  • July 9, 2005, 10:51 p.m. CST

    What really happened

    by Budden02

    I hope the movie shows what really happened during 9/11. The Twin Towers were NOT destroyed. Everybody knows David Copperfield just made them disappear. It is all just an illusion. It was all part of a Zionist conspiracy. SUV owners, Catholics, members of the Detroit City council, and the actor Willem Dafoe, all help hide the TRUTH. The TRUTH is that the Scientologist led Americans are creating an oil pipeline in Luxembourg. CNN had the story but it was banned by kilt wearing Scottish-Mexicans. They needed a diversion so they had David Copperfield perform the majic trick. I know this to be true because the back up key grip in an Alec Baldwin movie told me. And since she is in hollywood she must know because people in hollywood are better people.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:12 p.m. CST


    by Roger Thornhill

    "Not to mention rewrite a bit of history so that Americans don't look like they were bitchslapped so hard. Ie. Pearl Harbour... and just about every American WWII film." That's quite a bit of a generalization don't you think? How many American WWII movies have you seen? Which ones? Have you seen war films from other nations (besides Das Boot)? If so, then you'd probably notice that most war films from any nation distort facts for the sake of drama. Sometimes they go overboard like U571 did by giving Americans credit for capturing the enigma machine when it was the British that did it. A wonderful Korean War film produced by South Koreans called The Brotherhood of War distorts the reality of the war to some degree, but it's still an effective film. HBO's Band of Brothers (while a mini-series) is extremely faithful to its source material as is Black Hawk Down. Some are more factually correct than others. Coppola famously said that Apocalpse Now "is Vietnam." I know it's a Vietnam War film and not a WWII film, but Apocalypse Now, like many war films, is not based on any actual events; yet Coppola said it is Vietnam. That it somehow encapsulated what is what like to be a grunt in that awful war. If so, then why did my father and other Vietnam Vets say that his film paints a different picture than the one they saw. For example, the rampant drug use in the film suggested that a majority of soldiers/sailors were stoned out of their mind. Many vets, my father included, said that most guys they knew didn't touch drugs. And my father said he didn't even notice the drug use until he was about to head home in late 1968 after fighting for a year on the DMZ. In fact, my father thinks Full Metal Jacket and We Were Soldiers are more accurate representations of the war. But you know what, who cares? Apocalypse Now is a brilliant war film that does an incredible job of taking Hearts of Darkness and adapting it to the Vietnam War. It doesn't matter if the film's presentation of the war is completely distorted because the film itself is remarkable. Bottom line is people shouldn't get their history from films, they should get it froms books written by credible sources. And making blanket condemnations of American WWII films does not do justice to the great American WWII films like Patton, They Were Expendable, The Story of G.I. Joe, Battleground, Sahara, The Big Red One, A Midnight Clear, and When Trumpets Fade. But I doubt you've seen any of these, well, except maybe for Patton.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:35 p.m. CST

    Stone's Revisionist Garbage.

    by mechashiva

    Hmm...I wonder what we can expect from the man whose Vietnam movie made it seem as as though all American soldiers are child-killing rapists. As much as everyone here is jumping on JFK for its unreality, I'd think someone would have brought up the absurdity of Platoon. I'm not saying no soldier went after a civilian, but come on. Maybe in this one we'll get a scene where George Bush orders Rumsfeld to take down the towers then laughs maniacally, or one where Republican firefighters are pushing people back in to the building to up the body count. I can't f-ing wait.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:39 p.m. CST

    anchorite, God is a useless concept created by simpleminded huma

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    The burden of proof is on YOU God-boy. God's continued presence in the light of NO evidence of proof, not a jot, nothing, is truly the major factor holding mankind back from the search fro real answers. Red-State morons railing aghainst Darwin's Evolution theories by sticking "Just A Theory" stickers on Biology textbooks is hilarious considering our best theories are based on found evidence and facts not fantasy and lies. Whilst science deals in theories which attempt to explain the natural world based on the evidence found within it zealots like yourself deal in magic and bullshit (this is a technical term) for which there exists NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER in the physical world which is the only world we can even speculate on. Believe whatever supernatural crap you want but don't expect me to look for evidence to contradict your fairies. Theories trump fairies every time. Logic not magic is what we should concern ourselves with.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:47 p.m. CST

    wow that should be for and against

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    not fro and aghainst, everything else is fine. I will also state that nothing that someone believe in by faith alone can ever be disproved. The less evidence there exists for something the more impossible that thing is to even test. Since there exists NO EVIDENCE for God except faith and personal belief it can never be tested let alone disproved and so science will not waste its time on the conjecture about this nor how many angels can fit on the head of a pin nor if we are all brains in jars. These issues are left to the philosophers an d THEY have done a marvellous job of applying logical arguments to the discussion of the existence of God and I suggest you open ANOTHER book and find some real answers not just the bullshit that calls itself The Book Of Truth.

  • July 9, 2005, 11:51 p.m. CST

    Silly little Atheists

    by Budden02

    I love when atheists say they can prove there is no "God" because when they were 7 they prayed for a new bike and 10 minutes later they didn't get one so therefore there is no "God." Atheism is a Faith like everything else. You have faith that there isn't a God. You cannot prove there isn't a "God" just as you cannot prove there is a "God." And saying that you don't have to proove anything and that the burden is on the other side is such a pathetic cop out.

  • July 10, 2005, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Imagine what would happen if . . .

    by SpikeZoft

    America just decided to say "Fuck the world" and withdrew from all global affairs. You'd have America and then just a bunch of Third World countries killing each other off. I'd think that everyone else would miss the billions in defense and aid that come their way.

  • July 10, 2005, 1:11 a.m. CST

    by oisin5199

  • July 10, 2005, 1:15 a.m. CST

    hey regicidal: "I refuse to prove I exist," says God

    by oisin5199

    "Because proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway," says Man. "It proves you exist, therefore you don't. QED." "Oh, I hadn't thought of that," says God and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "That was easy," says Man who goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing. - the genius that is (was) Douglas Adams.

  • July 10, 2005, 1:15 a.m. CST

    "Imagine what would happen if . . . "

    by Thirteen 13

    Actually that would be very funny watching all the countries screaming "death to America" and "Down with Capitolism!!!", and then watching the look of shocked horror on their faces when they find out they are losing their billions in meal tickets, trade, and technological aid. Of course it will never happen. Liberals, Socialists, Trotskyiests, communists, Leninists, and every other group ending with an "ist" will make damn sure that will never happen seeing how they have this mentality that we NEED Europe for some reason, and that we NEED to be friends with Arab dicatators who slaughter their women for going to school, and that we NEED to keep pouring money into Africa so the African Warlords can collect the cash and withhold it from their starving people. Great idea, but it will never happen. Bush doesn't have the balls for that, and the last liberal that actually had balls was JFK (who is spinning in his grave right now seeing what has happened to the Democratic party over the last 20 years)

  • July 10, 2005, 1:52 a.m. CST

    "All you need is love-

    by Forestal

    Love is all you need."

  • July 10, 2005, 2:07 a.m. CST

    First post ever!

    by Ush

    Reading all these opinions and debates inspired me to create a User ID and post my first ever talk back! The other day, I think it was on CNN, I saw a map outlining countries that harbored the most terrorist groups, and what I found were that these were the countries that were denied true democratic governments and were the most separated from world trade and globalization. I was never a fan of the justifications of the war in Iraq, but the more I hear about terrorists and extremists, the more I believe that we need to destroy dictatorships that keep their countries from flourishing culturally and economically. Now I'm sure some will read into that statement as "Americanizing" the world, but I assure you that is not what I mean. I believe that education is truly the key to success on both a small and large scale. Teaching religion and being a religious state is not the issue, for a country can be religious (ex: Israel) and still be civilized. I'm talking about true education and civilization. The countries that produce terrorists have the worst, most censoring governments, where quality of life is horrible for citizens. OK, now I feel like I'm blabbering, kinda losing my point here. I think I'll just send this and see if it makes any sort of coherent sense..

  • July 10, 2005, 2:15 a.m. CST

    OMIGOODENESS Budden02 you're such an idiot.

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    You are right that atheist is a faith just like religion but your comprehension skills are way down as I never mentioned atheism in my posts. If you must label me I am a hardline agnostic, ie I am utterly unconcerned with things that cannot be proven one way or another. Your God bothers me not one whit as His existence is untestable and therefore not worthy of even casual ponderance. And how exactly is it a copout to say that the burden to prove something that cannot be proved is on you who have asserted its existence and not I who am unconcerned with fairytales? What a fool you are.

  • July 10, 2005, 2:32 a.m. CST


    by keepcoolbutcare

    Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City. The IRA. The gas attacks in Tokyo. Hell man John Brown would've been labeled as a terrorist back in the day. This isn't a flame, I dig your point about education, I'm just sayin...

  • July 10, 2005, 2:34 a.m. CST

    Titanic was too soon.

    by slumper

    It made my great grandma cry and she choked on some popcorn

  • July 10, 2005, 3:15 a.m. CST

    Thankyou Agent Alonzo I do look good in leather pants.

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    And I'm not pondering His existance anymore than I would ponder the existance of your social life because neither concerns me. But I do like arguing with the faithful, it's so reassuringly circular.

  • July 10, 2005, 3:37 a.m. CST


    by keepcoolbutcare

    Now see this is why I joined talkback. See to me, god, yahweh, Allah they are all "unknowable". I'm trying to make some sort of theory as to "god" being the quantum state...we never know where an electron maybe, so it's everywhere in it's path. But it is neat that all cultures have this sort of deity, just goes by different names. I dig Gaiman's fiction in that WE create our gods and they die cause we stop believing in them. I just think that there is an architect of it all, it would certainly avoid our rather pedestrian lives to do WHATEVER THE FUCK IT WANTS TO DO!!!

  • July 10, 2005, 3:46 a.m. CST

    a verbatim press f**ing release ??!?!?!!

    by eraser_x

    What the hell is AICN doing posting an entire, run-of-the-mill press release from a major studio? Has AICN no pride? No journalistic integrity? When did AICN become just an industry mouthpiece?

  • July 10, 2005, 4:01 a.m. CST

    "They should make a 911 videogame!" They already have...

    by scumbag

    It was called Microsoft Flight Simulator

  • July 10, 2005, 5:16 a.m. CST

    Movie is such a bad idea

    by andrew coleman

    I don't think that many people will even go see it. Oh and for all the hate. I have one question to all those who are so mad at the US. Like the bombers and everyone who blames the US for this and that. Why don't they do something? Instead of using all their money to make bombs and make plans to use them, why don't they use the money and time to build schools and help rebuild societies in the middle east? Because they are fucking ass holes. I laugh reading all the US bashing and blah blah blah because in a little over ten years when China is the world power and kicking everyone's ass hard. People will be crying for the good times when the US was in charge. China rules peace out!

  • July 10, 2005, 7:08 a.m. CST

    That clip is not even remotely funny....

    by Mr Chuff

  • July 10, 2005, 8:04 a.m. CST

    Wha...? I'm certainly not watching this video you keep posti

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    I hope you're kidding about finding that kind of sick humour funny. Where's the empathy for the victims? This kind of sick shit is inhuman.

  • July 10, 2005, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Off Topic

    by John-Locke

    I just made this, Nothing to do with 9/11.

  • July 10, 2005, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Stone will probably make a villain outta this guy

    by Mister G

  • July 10, 2005, 9:38 a.m. CST

    "Yakety Sax" is by Boots Randolph, an AMERICAN - not that limp-w

    by Mister G

    So there!

  • July 10, 2005, 11:11 a.m. CST


    by Roger Thornhill

    I'm glad you respect American Vietnam War movies for their decidely anti-war stance (although We Were Soldiers is different), but I still think you're generalizing about American WWII movies. "WWII is different, where everyone has been brainwashed to believe in this momental victory for good against the pure evil of the Nazis. That's fantasy." Well naturally there are a slew of Hollywood WWII films that paint the Germans as pure as utter evil. Even Saving Private Ryan did that. But what about A Midnight Clear where the American and German soldiers attempt to hold a truce? What about Cross of Iron? An American WWII film that is about German soldiers on the eastern front. The Germans are not painted as sadistic murderers under Peckinpah's direction, but rather, men fighting and suffering just as allied soldiers did. So clearly there are examples that are contrary to your blanket condemnation of an entire sub-genre. "It's also fantasy that Americans believe it was their intervention that ultimately won the war. They were only a small, late inclusion." Any American that thinks the war was solely won by them is obviously an uneducated idiot. But I wouldn't call Americans contribution "small" because we certainly played a decisive role in the ETO and were the main force fighting against Japan (although Brits and Aussies along with other nations helped). "And the common American soldier did some pretty horrible things (though not nearly as bad as the Reds, but certainly their behaviour was worse than the Germans)." This is a rather absurd statement that is not backed up by any factual evidence. You're suggesting that US soldiers behaved worse that German soldiers during the war. The same German soldiers that raped and brutalized Russians as they made there way through that country. The same German soldiers that would often execute POWs for a variety of reasons. Now I'm not saying that Americans never shot POWs, but there certainly was no raping or pillaging on the scale of the German army during the invasion of the Soviet Union. Come on, that comment makes little to no sense and if you said that to an American WWII veteran he would certainly take offense. If American soldiers behaved worse than the German soldiers during the war, than so did Austrailian, Canadian, British, Free French, Free Polish, and Free Czech soldiers.

  • July 10, 2005, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Apparently the battle lines have already been drawn....however..

    by Da'Moose

    Whether it be political or personal, tragedy is tragedy. Whether you believe "America had it coming" or that we were innocent victims is immaterial, the fact is that many many people died in the attack on the WTC on Sept. 11. Many people who had nothing to do with the international policies of our government, many people who were just going about their daily lives unaware that they were about to take their last breaths. Many of the people who perished were killed in the midst of doing mundane tasks, sweeping floors, sipping coffee... and many more were in a panic, running for their lives. WTC did not only have an effect on those killed, but also on the people surrounding the scene of carnage before them. Schools were evacuated, people were scarred both mentally and physically. Why all this preamble? Because the real focus of this film will not be political, it will be one of human drama and as Steven Ambrose called it, Undaunted Courage. When talking about those who died, and further those who risked their own lives, without forethought for their own safety the abandoned selfishness in the pursuit of not glory, not recognition but for the simple very human need to protect and serve one another. Regardless of your political persuasion, your belief system or your historical perspective take the event out of the context of the political sphere and see the beauty in those who without regard for what they might lose, rushed headlong into hell and extended a hand to those in desperate need, the cops, firemen and civilians who worked together to save themselves and others form harm. Put aside reservations and hope, as I do, that Stone tells this story. And stop bickering about politics and see the humanity of those who perished, they are not to be worshiped or revered but held as examples of the selflessness that we all can aspire to. Mr. Stone, you have my blessing to create a film that transcends boundaries and shows us what we all can aspire to. Good luck, and godspeed.

  • July 10, 2005, 11:57 a.m. CST



    JOIN ME IN CHANGING THE SUBJECT ON THIS THREAD FROM THE CRAZY HATE WAR THATS GOING ON TO: WHAT WAS YOUR FAVOURITE "POLICE ACADEMY" MOVIE? I personally really liked "POLICE ACADEMY 3:BACK IN TRAINING" although I felt Guttenburgs performance was a little soul-less that bit near the end where 'Hooks' goes "DON'T MOVE DIRT BAG" was comedy gold! and lets not forget 'Jones' making those hilarious noises when the Commandant Mauser was trying to speak. WHATS YOUR FAVOURITE POLICE ACADEMY MOVIE??? Too much anger people. Not enough Police Academy!

  • July 10, 2005, 12:11 p.m. CST


    by Da'Moose

    LOL, Steve Guttenburg....where ...are...Youuuuuuu? And I don't believe there is a hyphen in hijack, but I could be wrong ;) I agree people need to lighten up a bit, annon. name calling is so tough....grrrrr

  • July 10, 2005, 12:15 p.m. CST

    30.000 / 50.000 people...

    by MrNelson

    ...die every day so WE can use our credit once again on a lavish meal at McDonalds. So what are 2000 / 3000 Americans on one day in september 2001: peenuts.

  • July 10, 2005, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Since 9/11...

    by MrNelson

    ... 43.800.000 people have died of Aids, Hunger and other poverty related issues, I hope Stone hits the nail like Spielberg will with his '72 picture on so called terrorism.

  • July 10, 2005, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nelson

    by Da'Moose

    I agree that it is tragic that people die daily, what I would hope is that, at least metaphorically, this film makes us appreciate the life we do have and be more compassionate towards others in the process. Sept 11 was a stab in the heart at so many things we take for granted, our saftey, our simple routines, our families and our lives in general. What came before and what came after are of no concern to me when thinking about it in context. I would think that if all the chest-beating and rhetorical name calling would clear people could allow themselves to see that. Every tragic event, great or small in some small way has an effect on us all, we can choose to hate or to be more compassionate, and as long as we make that choice I think we still have the capacity to get away from the political bullshit and see this story for what it is, a lesson in humanity.

  • July 10, 2005, 12:39 p.m. CST

    You know what!?

    by MrNelson

    I LOVE the U.S.! I admire everything the constitution stands for: it's all about equality, freedom, challenges and community. BUT it is the government that time and time again shows us that the dollari (read U.S.) are more important than anything else. 40.000 people a day killed by hunger and aids is... so not necessary...

  • July 10, 2005, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Kicking buttski. Making you laughski. The Academy is backski!


    Yeah......i'll spell "Hi-jack" any damn way i want! (but damn you...your hyphen) But dont mess with me or i bring out the big-guns....."MISSION TO MOSCOW"

  • July 10, 2005, 12:47 p.m. CST


    by Da'Moose

    Stop're killing me!!! Just giving you a friendly ration over the hyphen issue :)

  • July 10, 2005, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Johnsons as far as the eye can see.


    All is forgiven Da'Moose! I'll buy you a drink at the "Blue Oyster" bar....dont worry. Nothing much happens down there....mostly dancing! :)

  • July 10, 2005, 1:19 p.m. CST

    the "Blue Oyster" bar

    by Da'Moose

    I hear there is also a "cult" surrounding that bar, and a heavy metallic taste to the Guinness there, a salty creamy head. And Dammit, I don't dance... well in the ruins I do, but I cant find my mind is shot.

  • July 10, 2005, 1:21 p.m. CST

    9/11 and the world stage.

    by UltimaRex

    I read in a satire book a few years ago about a 9/11 movie in 2025 or something like that. Just couldn't wait huh? As for politics, I don't mind saying that I've had enough of it. All of it. We need (not want, need) to kill it and put something better in it's place before it kills us.

  • July 10, 2005, 1:31 p.m. CST

    The new police recruits. Call them slobs. Call them jerks. Call


    "put something better in it's place before it kills us." maybe ......A NEW POLICE ACADEMY MOVIE?!?!? sweet. The continuing zany adventures of Carey Mahoney,Moses Hightower,Eugene Tackleberry and Larvell 'motormouth' Jones would get America (maybe even the world) back on track!

  • July 10, 2005, 1:51 p.m. CST

    A Prayer for the Dead

    by RetroActive

    This makes me very sad. Unless every dime that is made from this movie goes to all of the families that lost a part of themselves forever on that day, it will all be a terrible shame. The fact that people continue to cash in on others' misery is appalling to me. They can all say how it's "for the families", how the "real life script" is so "amazing" and "true to life", but it won't change the fact that it has nothing to do with the victims, and everything to do with their own perception of what happened and how it will line their pockets, while turning them, in their own minds, into the "other heroes of the REAL 9/11 story". Please. The families of the friends I lost, even now, are trying hard enough to continue their lives with just a hint of normalcy, almost four years later. And Oliver Stone, Nicolas Cage, and their investors, with their bloated egos and personal views of what really happened are the last ones to help them find closure. The wounds have not yet healed. Let's not pretend to miraculously heal them with bandages made from $10 movie ticket stubs.

  • July 10, 2005, 2:24 p.m. CST

    It's only because "Alexandar" bombed

    by Funmazer

    that Stone's doing this. A sure-fire hit, or at least something to raise controversy. And it's WAY too soon. Someday, when we're all old and gray and all the fallout from 9/11 has gone its course we'll be able to look back and see it in the context of its time. Something like, we wasted so much time going after terrorists and shopping at Wal-Mart that after killing them all and spending a trillion bucks we woke up to find China in charge. Or something. With WW2 and Vietnam we can now see the final effect, with this, who knows? Granted I'm sure Stone is on too thin of career ice to stick "the government planned it" conspiracies in this thing but still, it's too soon.

  • July 10, 2005, 3:01 p.m. CST


    by Forestal

    turn off your blinders. Look headlights: ()() BAHHHHHHHHHH!

  • July 10, 2005, 3:21 p.m. CST

    THIS IS AWFUL! I've got to do something!!!But there is nothi


    I also liked Police Academy 5: Assignment: Miami Beach. But i wasn't that sold on Sgt. Nick Lassard (as the Guttenburg replacement). But for me the movie was saved when 'Tackleberry' told the shark to "GET OUT OF THE WATER NOW MISTER" pure genius. and didnt 'Jones' teach a parrot to call Harris a dork? YEAH! Im totally with that last makes me SICK that you guys aren't taking this seriously. Now.....who would win in a fight between 'Streethawk' and 'Knightrider'?

  • Apparently there were military exercises being conducted about bombing the underground in the same places on the same day at the same time. Similar to how there were plane hijacking simulations being run by NORAD on 9/11. Also coincidentally the camera that should have filmed that bus that blew up and whoever was on it etc. just happened to not work. And it seems doubts are being brought up over whether it really was Alqeada that did it and now other claimed 'terrorist organizations' are claiming responsibility. There's news that that Israeli financial minister was warned prior to the attacks and that Israeli intelligence knew there were bombs ahead of time letting Scotland Yard know and now the reports are denied and Israel has ordered it's people to stop talking to the press. And here's the kicker. It turns out that whatever eyewitness accounts and camera footage aren't showing any signs of your traditional 'Muslim terrorists' so the cops are taking a lead that perhaps Al Qeada hired a mercenary group or local gangs inside the country to pull this off. What the fuck? This is actually real news! Something's definately fucked up here and I ain't talking Muslim terrorists....

  • July 10, 2005, 3:54 p.m. CST

    ALEXANDER 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by d8cam

  • July 10, 2005, 4 p.m. CST


    by Hamish

    I couldn't even be bothered reading all the post titles, nevermind the actual posts.

  • July 10, 2005, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Johnno, where did you read this?

    by TonyWilson

    Seriously mate I'm in london and I haven't heard any of what you said. Do you have a link to this information?

  • July 10, 2005, 4:38 p.m. CST

    That's Right Johnno, Blame the Jews

    by Roger Thornhill

    "There's news that that Israeli financial minister was warned prior to the attacks and that Israeli intelligence knew there were bombs ahead of time letting Scotland Yard know and now the reports are denied and Israel has ordered it's people to stop talking to the press." Big surprise here...they're blaming the Jews. Israel has supposedely had knowledge of every single terrorist attack that's ever happened. There's even rumors that Israel was behind the tsunami because they were trying to destroy an underwater terrorist cell. Unfortunately, the American made nuclear weapon happened to set off a horrific tidal wave. Did you hear the one about Israel starting the Vietnam War by talking to some guy named Ho Chi Minh?

  • July 10, 2005, 4:42 p.m. CST


    america was never interested in countering terrorism untill it struck home,infact a nice chunk of change was donated to the IRA to fund attacks on the UK so now you have had a taste of what we have had to put up with it doesnt feel to good does it? now terrorism is the number one issue and must be stamped out,if it wasnt so sad it would be funny.

  • July 10, 2005, 5:21 p.m. CST

    surprise surprise

    by reckni

    Mr. Stone's filmography is quite checkered of late, I hope he doesn't misfire, because a misfire on this sort of subject matter could be devastating. Maybe a little cocaine will help. When the hell did he make his last Great movie anyway? Been at least a decade.

  • July 10, 2005, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Easy there Ban This!

    by classyfredblassy

    Believe it or not, people tend to get a little mad about being blown up on the way to work, or playing with their family, just because they are not muslims. Hey they was just another bombing in Turkey. The target? Foreign tourists. How wonderful.. wonder who did that.

  • July 10, 2005, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Benny Hill music always works

    by Bong

  • July 10, 2005, 7:03 p.m. CST


    by Da'Moose

    Could your language be any more jingoistic? LIEbrals? DEMONcrats? Dude, relax! I am a Liberal, I am quite Liberal in fact, yet I do not subscribe to every crackpot theory that comes down the pike. You treat Open mindedness like its a disease, a cancer to be extricated, well I hate to tell you this but if you have already made up your mind you are a part of the problem, not a patriot but a closed minded buffoon. I like Stone, Moore and all the Libs you love to hate, I also believe in the 2nd amendment, the right to express your views (as fucked up and misinformed as they are) and would gladly die to see that your rights are protected. I don't believe all Conservatives or those on the right are Demons, want to destroy the country or are racist. I do something that many ideological ditto heads on both sides of the fence neglect to do I THINK FOR MYSELF, imagine that? Ban, substantiation is a good thing. Having an internal bullshit detector is also a good thing, I applaud you for having the latter and wanting the former.

  • July 10, 2005, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Blair's Alliance with Bush Bombed

    by Saladin

    "If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in a recent videotape, "we will bomb yours."' It was clear Britain would be a target ever since British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to join President Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G-8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day. Just before the U.S. presidential elections, bin Laden asked: "Why do we not attack Sweden?" Lucky Sweden. No Osama bin Laden there. And no Tony Blair.

  • July 10, 2005, 7:33 p.m. CST

    Collateral Damage in London?

    by Saladin

    Well, apparently, we are at War. That's what we've been told over the last four years anyway: we are at War with Terrorism. Now, most people I know, protested against this "War". We didn't want to be a part of it, we didn't want our soldiers to fight it, and we didn't want the politicians that wanted to fight it. We still don't want to be in this "War". Now as I understand it, unless I'm very much mistaken (and that would be highly unusual), quite a lot of civilians on the "other side" of this War have been killed since it began. We don't know exactly how many, because apparently our politicians don't count civilian dead, or as they referred to the individual human lives destroyed and mutilated by this War: Collateral Damage. We suspect it to be in the high thousands, and some estimates put at above a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, killed by the "War on Terror". However many it is, it's a lot of Collateral Damage. And now, on Thursday, some civilians on "our side" of the "War on Terror" were killed. Not hundreds of thousands, not thousands, actually somewhere around 50, with several hundred more seriously injured. And you know what? I suspect we'll get to learn the names of every single Londoner killed on Thursday, because by the sounds of things, they are going to be counted very carefully. Because of course, by the standards of the Western protagonists of the "War on Terror", apparently Thursday's dead Londoners were not Collateral Damage. Being the actual target, rather than incidental targets is morally so much worse. Apparently, 50 Western civilians killed deliberately is much worse than 10,000 Arab civilians killed accidentally, not least of all because of the despicable methods used to kill them. What would make the "other side" in the "War on Terror" more morally acceptable, apparently, would be if they lined up in uniformed ranks, and fought regiment to regiment, division to division, army to army. You know: a fair fight; a man's fight; an honourable fight. Because all this using whatever tactics and opportunities that are available to those opposing the greatest military power the World has ever seen, is just downright unsporting. It's not cricket; it's not playing the White Man; it is Evil. Apparently... Of course, by now, we're well into Ultra-Vicious Circle territory. If those on the "other side" of the "War on Terror" actually used conventional, contemporary methods of warfare, they would no longer be labelled "Terrorists", and would no longer be the targets of the "War on Terror"; and so wouldn't have to fight at all. But they have been targeted; and they are fighting back; and they are using the only methods that stand a chance of penetrating the kind of cigar-smoke-thick fog of irrational "resolve" possessed and paraded by politicians in the U.S. and the U.K. And because they are using those methods, they will continue to be targets of the "War on Terror". Because they will continue to be targets of the "War on Terror", they will continue to use the methods they do on the other targets in the "War on Terror". And throughout all of this, civilians in the Middle East and in the West (at least in those countries actively promulgating the "War on Terror") will continue to be converted into Collateral Damage. You know what? Whatever the death toll in Iraq since 2003, caused by our invading troops, I reckon we Londoners got off pretty lightly. Civilians are being turned into the same Collateral Damage numbers in Iraq as were created in London on Thursday, every day. And so, Londoners aren't feeling aggrieved. Londoners aren't feeling outraged or hysterical. That's not the London way. Londoners are having the same feelings we've felt every Time in the last 1,000 years that our Dear Leaders have decided to risk turning us into Collateral Damage by taking us to War. We have never expected the "other side" to take all the death we've so nobly dispatched to them, without sending at least some of it back our way. What happened on Thursday was an inevitable consequence of Tony Blair's decision to back the United States in the "War on Terror". I suspect our Dear Leader's response to Thursday's attacks however, will be to encourage his Capo di Tutti Capo in Washington to create even more Collateral Damage, over there on the "other side". And from thence, well, I refer you to the Ultra-Vicious Circle above. No-one in London is outraged by Thursday's attacks; because every Londoner is streetwise enough to know that if you're going to give it, you've got to expect to take it. We Londoners can take it

  • July 10, 2005, 7:47 p.m. CST

    i'm not a fan of Conservatives

    by SirBiatchReturns

    i find them hypocritical and frankly, detrimental to society. the same conservatives talking about "do God's will", "abortion is totally evil" and "teen sex is evil" are the same mofos who own major music labels that put out garbage. I also don't like the whole idea of seperating people into "liberals" or "conservatives". i'm mostly liberal myself, but thats because i've defined what i think makes sense, not because i want to be part of the Liberal party.

  • July 10, 2005, 7:49 p.m. CST

    feels like there's been "just enough time"

    by deadyounglings

    someone probably already said this, but i hope hollywood realizes it's shit like this that makes everyone hate us. only five years after the fact, we pump out a big budget tear-jerker to puff out our chest and show everyone how great we are.

  • July 10, 2005, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Forget Benny Hill music

    by classyfredblassy

    Forget Benny Hill music for comedy. Sample these quotes about the London bombing by muslims living in England. Maybe the French did it because they didn

  • July 10, 2005, 9:09 p.m. CST

    The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA

    by Saladin

    Fundamentalism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise Last year I attended a conference in the US about security and intelligence in the so-called war on terror and was astonished to hear one of the more belligerent participants, who as far as I could tell had nothing but contempt for religion, strongly argue that as a purely practical expedient, politicians and the media must stop referring to "Muslim terrorism". It was obvious, he said, that the atrocities had nothing to do with Islam, and to suggest otherwise was not merely inaccurate but dangerously counterproductive. Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in any conflict. We cannot hope to convert Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology; our priority must be to stem the flow of young people into organisations such as al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by routinely coupling their religion with immoral violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have convinced too many in the Muslim world that the west is an implacable enemy. We need a phrase that is more exact than "Islamic terror". These acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance than Christianity. Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se. We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings "Catholic" terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US. In the Muslim world, too, where the European nationalist ideology has always seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms are often more about a search for social identity and national self-definition than religion. They represent a widespread desire to return to the roots of the culture, before it was invaded and weakened by the colonial powers. At our conference in Washington, many people favoured "Wahhabi terrorism". They pointed out that most of the hijackers on September 11 came from Saudi Arabia, where a peculiarly intolerant form of Islam known as Wahhabism was the state religion. They argued that this description would be popular with those many Muslims who tended to be hostile to the Saudis. I was not happy, however, because even though the narrow, sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism makes it a fruitful ground for extremism, the vast majority of Wahhabis do not commit acts of terror. Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser in 1966. Almost every fundamentalist movement in Sunni Islam has been strongly influenced by Qutb, so there is a good case for calling the violence that some of his followers commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb urged his followers to withdraw from the moral and spiritual barbarism of modern society and fight it to the death. Western people should learn more about such thinkers as Qutb, and become aware of the many dramatically different shades of opinion in the Muslim world. There are too many lazy, unexamined assumptions about Islam, which tends to be regarded as an amorphous, monolithic entity. Remarks such as "They hate our freedom" may give some a righteous glow, but they are not useful, because they are rarely accompanied by a rigorous analysis of who exactly "they" are. The story of Qutb is also instructive as a reminder that militant religiosity is often the product of social, economic and political factors. Qutb was imprisoned for 15 years in one of Nasser's vile concentration camps, where he and thousands of other members of the Muslim Brotherhood were subjected to physical and mental torture. He entered the camp as a moderate, but the prison made him a fundamentalist. Modern secularism, as he had experienced it under Nasser, seemed a great evil and a lethal assault on faith. Precise intelligence is essential in any conflict. It is important to know who our enemies are, but equally crucial to know who they are not. It is even more vital to avoid turning potential friends into foes. By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the seemingly intractable and increasingly perilous problems of our divided world.

  • July 10, 2005, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Catholic terror was never used about the IRA

    by classyfredblassy

    Maybe. How about this thought: How come every time "Blown Away" or "The Devil's Own" is shown on tv, they don't have a disclaimer telling us that not all Irish people are terrorists, like Arab Muslims made "24" do?

  • July 10, 2005, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Here's the problem with calling all this bullshit "war"

    by I Dunno

    We're not at war with Iraq. We're occupying Iraq. We're supposedly liberating the people of Iraq and helping them elect their new leader. We're not at war with Saudi Arabia, even though OBL is from Saudi Arabia. We're actually very good friends with the Saudis this week. We're not even at war with Islam or the mid-east. We're at war with "terror". That means precisely dick. That's like declaring war against "people who suck". Long story short (too late) is that by declaring a war on terror, we can invade, occupy, kill, arrest, detain, interrogate, torture and perform holy book defecation on whoever we like without having to adhere to annoying things like the Geneva Convention and international law. But in being in bed with Israel for so long, we're very used to that.

  • July 10, 2005, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Just like Stan when Mr Garrison asked butters to get Lemmiwinks

    by Hervoyel

    Seriously, anyone here know that scene from South Park? Garrison has Mr Slave bend over and drop trou, shoves a bunson burner tube up his ass, and then asks Butters to bring him Mr Lemminwinks, the class hamster. Stan's the only one who seems to get what's about to happen and all he can say is "No, no, no, no". That the exact same thing that came out of my mouth when I saw "9/11" and "movie" in the same sentence. I'm disgusted that someones even considering doing this. Fuck Hollywood for wanting to make this.

  • July 10, 2005, 10:31 p.m. CST


    by Da'Moose

    I see your point totally. Waring against an ideology is a losing battle from the start. I find it very telling that conservatives who have used this same logic against the "war on poverty" cannot see this in its proper context. I do not abhor conservatism or conservatives I do abhor the inability to see beyond ideology. The inability to see the whole picture for what it is, and what it is may be uncomfortable but thats how we learn. If we do not allow this we are doomed to live in a box.

  • July 10, 2005, 10:34 p.m. CST

    "...their military arm "Sein Fein" ? WTF?

    by Hervoyel

    Figure out who the players and what they do before posting. Less talking out of ass and more insightful commentary will follow. I suggest a trip to Wikipedia for some IRA studying before you try to look clever again.

  • July 10, 2005, 10:47 p.m. CST

    How long until we can drop the touchy-feely and make a Titanic l

    by caipirina

    It will happen, probably still in my life time ... it is interesting to see how the industry is approaching this holy cow. Great material for movies, but very very touchy .. so, include some mention of benefit orgs in you PR and you are ok ... I think this could be a great movie ... but I would still love to see it done as a complete disaster flick with love triangle story ... don't get me wrong, I was there in NY on that day ..

  • July 10, 2005, 10:50 p.m. CST

    anchorite, you are so full of shit. can you shut your filthy sti

    by KongisKing

    If you don't calm down, i'll come after you and ram you dirty little white ass. You'll chill out afterwords, guaranteed!! I bet you never got a Kong's dick up your's all waiting for you, baby.

  • I find 9/11, the attacks in Spain, the London bombings... totally incomparable to the collateral damage suffered by Afghanistan and Iraq. For one thing, I contribute the blame for the Muslim casualties not on the United States, but on the Terrorists themselves. It is they that attack us and then shield themselves with civilians. It is they that crouch behind their women and children and dare us to attack. It is they that take refuge in Mosques and holy sites. The terrorists gamble on our compassion. They assume that we, the civilized society that we are, are unable to use barbaric tactics as they do. They assume that we can't stomach the loss of innocent life to the extent where we won't defend ourselves. War is ugly. Thousands of civilians die. But I don't understand why there isn't the same cry of outrage by the Muslim community for these extremist that imbed themselves into their society. In fact, I compliment our military for their efforts in trying to reduce the collateral damage. Every time marines enter a hostile town rather than destroying the are with air strikes, they put their lives on the line to reduce that collateral damage. Sure, there are air strikes, because there is a limit to the amount of risk that our troops should be subjected to. Just to clarify, this is not a pro/anti war in Iraq post. Everything that I am discussing is about post war. Right now, the only reason for Americans to be in Iraq is to create stability. If our troops pulled out tomorrow, then there would be complete and utter chaos, which is what these insurgence are aiming for. Once again, I think I may be rambling.. what do you guys think?

  • July 10, 2005, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Ush, u are rambling...go to bed!

    by KongisKing

  • July 10, 2005, 10:55 p.m. CST


    by Ush

    haha.. sorry, still new to the postings..

  • July 10, 2005, 11:10 p.m. CST

    Talkback of the Year

    by Boxcutter

    Brilliant thread. Best shite I've read on this site in ages. Passionate, informed (well, some of it), pithy, trenchant. Pity it took the announcement of a terrible fucking idea coinciding with yet another mass-murder to fuel it. I lost friends at the Towers, and had a few injured in London. A 9/11 movie? Hervoyel is dead on: it's a huge no-no. OK: let Stone, Cage, the cast, the crew and the studio give all their wages and profits to the Red Cross or the emergency services. Christ! Don't we get it yet? These horrid industry cunts will try to make product (i.e. money) out of ANYTHING.

  • July 10, 2005, 11:23 p.m. CST

    abomination, fucking abomination

    by josh_strapp

    we don't need a fucking movie about fucking 9/11. we still haven't healed from the fucking wounds yet. fuck oliver stone

  • July 11, 2005, 12:48 a.m. CST

    Saladin and I Dunno raise interesting points.

    by oisin5199

    Don't kid yourself - so much of this so-called "War on Terror" is rhetoric. Using that terminology, throwing around words like "liberty" and "freedom" only after it serves our purpose. And to say that the fact that the GOOD Muslims are not stopping the BAD Muslims shows that ALL Muslims are bad is an entirely ridiculous point. I can't stop the idiocy of the Religious Right in this country - does that mean I'm one of them? One last point on Sinn Fein (not Sein Fein) - it's very complicated. Sinn Fein wasn't the military branch, but originally the political front of the IRA. They went legit and became an important party. Unfortunately, they never fully cut their ties, and recent events (like that bank robbery) have called into question their legitimacy again. As far as perceptions of Irish in this country - you can't really compare them to the treatment of Muslims. The Irish have integrated to become powerful in American society (see "How the Irish Became White") - cultural stereotypes persist with the drunken Paddy thing, but Americans never really had first hand trouble with the IRA like the Brits did. In fact, the origin of the Fenian movement was highly supported by American Irish. Besides, there's a big difference in perception between white Irish Catholics or Protestants ("they're so much like us" and Middle Eastern Muslims, who seem so totally "Other" (religiously, culturally, ethnically) to typical White Americans. So it's a difficult comparison at best.

  • July 11, 2005, 1:07 a.m. CST

    kudos to the NOOOOOOOOOOOO's!

    by kemosabe

    cant wait for nic cage to do the same glum look he always does (ie the Family Man and the new poster for The Weather Man) for a 9/11 movie. and 20 years early! right on, nic! way to go paramount! there's a special place in hell for you both. i'm going back to watching She Spies. oy vey.

  • July 11, 2005, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Mixed feelings

    by bib fortuna

    While 9/11 was one of the most significant events in history and while movies have already been made about it, I'm not sure I want to see a big budget hollywood action film about such a tragedy. That said, I guess it's similar to the way veterans would feel about Vietnam and WWII movies. I'm in no way comparing watching something on TV to actually being there, but we all were there, in a sense.

  • July 11, 2005, 2:32 a.m. CST

    fuck it all

    by ao33

    fuck 9/11 and fuck the london bombings and fuck whatever other tragedies have befallen first world nations. i sympathise of course, and I obviously would more so had I been directly affected. The thing is i'm sick of hearing how tragic these minor (and by minor i mean in terms of actual casualties) attacks were from people who don't regard other attacks, of equal or much much greater loss, on the same level. There's a mini bombing headline every single day, 10, 20, 40, 100 casualties, whatever. It's only enlarged by Westerm Media when an american is killed, or it happens in a flourishing country. fuck that. fuck that. a life lost is equal to a life lost and i'm sick of being told who I should feel more sympathy for

  • July 11, 2005, 4:23 a.m. CST

    Oh joy, Powermetal1 is back ...

    by Shan

    Lando ... who has to have been Powermetal1 who was 10 or more previous incarnations. Better stealth job this time though ...

  • July 11, 2005, 4:55 a.m. CST

    The Terrorist who flew the planes and Blew up the underground a

    by Cod Profundity

    "Why aren't muslims rooting out the terrorists" THEY ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDS. All over the news everyday muslim denounce the acts of terror, they are muslim working for the security agencies, there are muslims informing on others they believe to be involved in terrorism. These terrorists don't hide within the muslim community as terrorists they are secretive, keep themselves to themselves and don't let on to anyone what they might be up to. In the UK the police are constantly working with the Muslim community to catch these people. Last year many of the ricin plot terrorists were cought by intelligence from muslim sources.

  • July 11, 2005, 6:11 a.m. CST

    Some of you Yanks really are in denial that you'v e murdered

    by Dog Of Mystery

    You seriously expect Iraqis or fellow muslims to think 'Well it is ok for the americans to target civilians with air-strikes because this will make it easier for them to occupy our country and Saddam was bad." Own your shit.

  • July 11, 2005, 6:31 a.m. CST


    by keepcoolbutcare

    I dig how all the 'Brits have a more enlightened sensibility 'bout these things than we do. Must be BBC News. Better education. No guns. A history of actually being bombed. Saladin and others bring up a different view, a new angle, points we could/would/should debate but then they go and get roasted over the coals for it. "The terrorists hate our freedom...I hate our freedom, seeing what we've done with it." David Cross. Laugh a little once in a while people.

  • July 11, 2005, 6:46 a.m. CST

    Dog Of Mystery=Mongrel that should be put down

    by classyfredblassy

    If the U.S. really just wanted to kill innocent victims in Iraq, they would not spend days tip-toeing around a mosque that was being used to launch mortars. They would have carpet bombed the whole country and be done with. In fact, for being reluctant to use overwhelming force because of the civilian deaths it would cause, it ends up putting their soldiers in greater danger. Target cilvians? If you have rocket-proppeled grenades, AK-47s, amd you spend your time blowing up street markets and funerals, you ain't a fucking civilian. Where are you from, Australia? Shouldn't start getting pissed off about Indonesia? You sent millions of dollars and tons of people to help clean up after the Tsunami, and they frame that pretty young girl for dealing drugs. And I recall seeing the Bali bomber laughing and smiling in court as he talked about blowing 300 of your people in a night club. Own That.

  • July 11, 2005, 7:48 a.m. CST


    by BrainFart

    if the rest of the world thinks that every brit and american sat down one day and voted for or against going to iraq, etc.., your sadly mistaken. Same goes for muslims and planning terrorist attacks. And speaking of voting, why is it called voting in america if they use the damn electoral college system. American people arnt to blame for anything , their just in it for the ride. the majority of americans dont support their leader, polls have proved this and the only reason Bush won the second election is because of poor voter turnout, which says democrats have better shit to do on election day. They figured that it wouldnt matter, it was supposed to be a landslide victory. But who wouldve guessed that droves of brainwashed chuchgoers would flock to the boothes. Republicans are not the majority of america, you watch next election it wont be close (and somewhat close is all the evil of electoral college needs to swing like a pendelum)

  • July 11, 2005, 8:36 a.m. CST

    by Mister G

    England swings like a pendulum do, Bobbies on bicycles, two by two, Westminster Abbey, the tower of Big Ben, The rosy red cheeks of the little children. Mama's old pajamas and your papa's mustache, Falling out the window sill, frolic in the grass, Tryin' to mock the way they talk, fun but all in vain, Gaping at the dapper men with derby hats and canes

  • July 11, 2005, 9:41 a.m. CST

    links to KA-RAZY conspiracies? from johnno

    by Johnno

    Sorry I didn't log in in 3 hours... didn't know there was some limit, well don't know what sites you like or not, I'm not particular, anything random does it for me... because I'm just some whack job jew hating guy... right? Anyway to list some...

  • July 11, 2005, 9:44 a.m. CST

    bombing exercises taking place day of real attacks

    by Johnno

    I guess this oen counts as a conspiracy site, is this the same guy doing the documentary everyone's talking about?

  • July 11, 2005, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Anchorite, moral indignance is jealousy with a halo.

    by HypeEndsHere

    H.G. Wells said that. You're an ass. I said that.

  • July 11, 2005, 9:49 a.m. CST

    Does Al Qeada recruit mercenaries and local criminal gangs?

    by Johnno

  • July 11, 2005, 10:24 a.m. CST

    "The bold first step...

    by Childe Roland the exploitation of a national disaster," as someone so sanctimoniously portrayed this film above, was actually taken when Bush's administration decided to use 9-11 as justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. Whether you agree with the ultimate need to build an oil pipeline out of the Middle East or not, you have to admit that the 9-11 tragedy was masterfully spun to further a well-documented pre-existing agenda where the current administration's Middle East policies are concerned. They wanted a friendly/controllable government in Afghanistan, they got it. They wanted to invade Iraq, they did. Whatever role the U.S. played (or failed to play) in allowing the attacks to happen, the people running it at the time wasted no time in turning the stiuation to their personal advantage. And those same people are playing up the 7/7 bombings for the same effect. And for the aceattorney who so proudly put forth the FACTS that all of the people who carried out the terrorist attacks in question were allegedly Muslim, what exactly is your point? Because some terrorists are Muslim, all Islamic people are evil or Islam itself is evil? Just trying to follow your "logic." Perhaps a diagram would help.

  • July 11, 2005, 10:33 a.m. CST

    Why Nicholas Cage??

    by MrDolarhyde

    Dear God no. He's not right for this movie. Ruined before it begins.

  • July 11, 2005, 10:49 a.m. CST

    plans for Afghanistan were in motion before 9/11

    by HypeEndsHere

    the attack on NY was just a catalyst for the invasion. a just invasion. Now, Iraq on the otherhand....massive fuckup.

  • July 11, 2005, 11:05 a.m. CST

    ironically, those that don't believe in an afterlife value l

    by HypeEndsHere

  • July 11, 2005, 11:13 a.m. CST

    anchorite is a fucking dumbass

    by Cod Profundity

    he thinks the people dancing around cheering about the attacks are terroroists. They are bastards for sure but no more than someone who wishes we could bomb the country of birth of any terrorists. So shall we go and blow Ireland up? or what about the US? as timothy mcbeigh was born here You are a cunting simpleton my friend. Oh and did you read the rest of my post? You'll notice I talked about muslims in the security services and those that informed the UK police about the ricin plot. Hahaha your stupidity is amusing, it would be scary if you actually controlled something but i doubt you even control your bladder.

  • July 11, 2005, 11:26 a.m. CST

    "Ban This!" Read This

    by Hervoyel

    Thank you very much for your kind words "BT". I don't want to make it sound like I'm bragging or that I've done anything special so let me just say that being able to go to online and find FACTS is a power we all have. Yes, even you BT. I'm good at telling people to go to Wikipedia but sadly you don't seem good at following directions. If you were then you would know what the relationship was between the IRA and Sein Fein. I didn't give you any real facts because I hoped you'd make the effort to go find them yourself once I'd given you a place to start. I guess it was just too much to ask. Sein Fein is the POLITICAL arm of the IRA BT, not the military arm. They're known for pointing out that they aren't terrorists (That's the IRA according to them) but that they are instead a legitimate political organization. Now that may or may not be true. Honestly I think it's a load of shit but that's just me. Know what you're talking about before you toss out examples.

  • July 11, 2005, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Hey Cod

    by Quin the Eskimo

    there is no mcbeigh there is TImothy McVeigh. Invest in an education.

  • July 11, 2005, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Based on previous inferences by Harry, up until now one would ha

    by Prince of Space

    Harry, I respect you reviews, insight, and perspective in regard to movies but why do you continue to sully and contaminate your sight by frequently littering your reviews with references insinuating that the US was indirectly responsible for 9/11 since we "frequently and roundly target middle easterners for human rights violation." I'm sorry, but I don't recall the US being in Iraq prior to 9/11 nor in Afghanistan. I do remember, however, Clinton in 1998 ordering the bombing of an Aspirin factory (killing innocents), and the launching of cruise missles against Iraq (during the Lewenski affair) and Afgahnistan terrorist training camps (both of which also resulted in significant civilian casualties). And I really don't have time to discuss the litany of offences committed by the Balkan campaigns during the Bosnian/Serbian conflict--Oh, did I also mention the Clinton administrations relentless and systematic gutting of the collective intellegence services during his eight year tenure. My problem, Harry, is that even in regards to reviews that bear no political connection to current events, you seem obligated to through in a gratuitous insult or wry remark denigrating this current administration which has actually succeeded in curbing terrorism in the US (note: no coordinated, successful attacks have been achieved since 9/11) and is now taking the fight to the extremist muslims from Syria and other anti-Western (that are not just anti-American, but appear so since the US is the premier seat from which Western ideals and values radiate) governments.

  • July 11, 2005, 11:51 a.m. CST

    "note: no coordinated, successful attacks have been achieved sin

    by HypeEndsHere

    I've got a rock that keeps tigers away. wanna buy it?....specious, brother.

  • July 11, 2005, 11:51 a.m. CST

    those that compare the American Christian Right

    by Quin the Eskimo

    to Muslim terrorists are just as ignorant as those who say all Muslims are terrorists. Billy Graham never encouraged any ethnicity be driven into the sea.

  • All you people talk about is the freakin' aspirin factory in the Sudan as if Bill Clinton himself actually gathered the intelligence and programmed the targeting coordinates in the cruise missiles himself. Oh yeah, I can see the reaction if he had announced that the US was going to war with Afghanistan to boot out the Taliban (and the hand that was up their leaders ass, ol' bin Laden hisself!), "We're not the policemen of the world!" People like you who can't seem to get over partisanship are a big part of the problem in the US today. And since this TB has fallen to petty bickering and name calling, let me continue in that vein and wish that Ann Coulter would bury her entire head right up your stupid Red State ass. YOU, and your ilk, are the reason so many otherwise decent Muslim's hate our guts. That smirking shit-for-brains president of yours and the Neo-incompetents have managed to stick our butts in another quagmire that could've easily been avoided. BUT NOOOOOOOOO!! Now, please proceed with your Party Catechism's on How to Abuse Your Fellow Americans by Calling Them LIBERALS!! Snooozzzeee.....

  • July 11, 2005, 12:02 p.m. CST

    That was some seriously funny shit...

    by Childe Roland

    ...HypeEndsHere. You should sell that rock to the DOD for, like, a billion dollars. They've apparently got the available budget for it. I'll help you sell it for a taste of the action. We'll just explain that, if you look at where Tigers mostly hang out, you'll clearly see that there is oil... er... there are weapons of mass destruction... um... the terrorists are in those regions. Yeah! That's it. So buy this rock. It's grrreat!

  • July 11, 2005, 12:05 p.m. CST


    by Quin the Eskimo

    Saddam Hussein had mass graves full of his dead citizens

  • July 11, 2005, 12:09 p.m. CST


    by Quin the Eskimo

    Saddam Hussein advertised that family of a suicide bobmber (primarily the P.L.O) would have approximatly $35,000 dollars in compensation.

  • July 11, 2005, 12:11 p.m. CST


    by Quin the Eskimo

    Saddam Hussein regularly used gas and chemical weapons on his pwn citizens. Kurds to the North in particular.

  • July 11, 2005, 12:15 p.m. CST


    by Quin the Eskimo

    Saddam Husseins sons raped, tortured, and killed people, particularly women, on a whim. There was a particularly tragic story about a schoolgirl who was kidnapped because she didn't want to sleep with one of Saddmas sons. She was held for a week, then found dead.

  • July 11, 2005, 12:24 p.m. CST

    One death is a tragedy

    by Quin the Eskimo

    thousands become a statistic. WMD's aside. People deserve too pick there own form of government. The reason that democracy is seen as evil is because it is portrayed as an evil western instittution by those that have a vested interest in the status quo, as an evil exstention of western decadance. This I know.. 1. Norman Non-Murdering people should not live in fear of the government killing them for any reason, race in particular 2. ANY leader that has has Mass Graves filled with there own citizenry should be removed, put on trial, then promptly executed. 3. People that look on this situation through Bush hater lenses will regret there stance when history shows what a truly evil man would have been free to continue his evil acts.

  • July 11, 2005, 12:30 p.m. CST

    By the way

    by Quin the Eskimo

    thank God it the stone isn't Sharon

  • July 11, 2005, 12:39 p.m. CST

    yawn...Saddam = bad guy.

    by HypeEndsHere

    FACT. WE GOT IT. seems to me if Saddam were truly so terrible, Iraqi citizens wouldn't have killed almost 2,000 'liberators'. they'd be kissing their feet. but sometimes i think crazy thoughts.

  • July 11, 2005, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Hype, how many Iraq citizens needed to die to fill your quoata

    by Quin the Eskimo

    how many more mass graves should be filled? It's not your family so you don't care. FACT: It's not all Iraq's citizens killing soldiers, it's anyone with an anti-America blind hatred. Undermining the cause that soldiers are fighting for bye the way encourages them. They do have the internet. It's your right to say whatever you want. It's the thinking man thats responsible with it.

  • July 11, 2005, 12:50 p.m. CST

    "long irritated exhalation kinda noise"

    by ao33

  • July 11, 2005, 12:54 p.m. CST

    by ao33

    some of you people are really stupid. you've just taken this political convo and turned it into "look what I can quote from quality news sources"... I could google most of your seemingly thoughtful responses and it wouldn't shock me when I found someone already said that word for word. when you retards (NOT ALL, BUT A FAIR PORTION) stop thinking for yourselves and start spewing something you saw, read heard, you really just make yourselves look stupid

  • July 11, 2005, 1 p.m. CST

    if you mean 'quota', i'll tell you.

    by HypeEndsHere

    how many more mass graves SHOULD be filled? obviously, the answer comes there none. but apparently that's not a choice. there are going to be mass American and Iraqi graves or mass Iraqi graves alone. if given the choice, i'd prefer the latter. and terrorists do not need encouragement. they'll find reasons for their violence no matter what. I in no way undermine the soldiers' cause. It's a noble cause. A futile one. But noble. PS, sorry to mention 'quoata' but you busted someone's chops for 'McBeigh'.

  • July 11, 2005, 1:20 p.m. CST

    anchorite, seems like you only listen to the sound of your own y

    by oisin5199

    Did I ever say that the Christian Right was comparable to Muslim terrorists? No. I was using an analogy, trying to follow your asinine and racist logic about blaming ALL Muslims for terrorism. And you obviously seem to forget the thousands of years of Christians killing (others and each other) in the name of religion, especially in the Middle East. Um, remember the CRUSADES? Sure, times have changed (with the secularization of the West). Sure, acts of terror are a different story. But hate is hate, no matter how you slice it. Now don't get me wrong, I blame no one but the terrorists. But I do fault the US government for exploiting the 9/11 situation to push their agenda (thanks for a sane reminder, Childe Roland). NO ONE was talking about "freedom" and "liberty" until the WMD thing was debunked, and their primary justification for going to war was proven false. Then the Orwellian machine in D.C. decided to rewrite history and claim we we were doing it for democracy all along. Come on. Now every time a politician wants a knee-jerk response of support they invoke 9/11 and Bush is the worst one. If it wasn't for 9/11, Bush would have been crushed in his re-election, by anyone who ran. And Prince of Space, you must have a pretty bad memory. You don't recall us being in Afghanistan or Iraq before? Are you kidding me? How about the 1st Gulf war? Which never quite ended, since the removal of Hussein was never achieved. Let alone our support of Saddam against Iran in the 80s. Or trying to get the Russians out of Afghanistan during the same time period? To ignore the fact that we have had a long history with both of these countries, and believe that we just out of the blue, altruistically decided to give these countries "democracy" is hopelessly naive. There's always a deeper agenda, and no, I'm not saying it's about oil either. Terrorism is awful, despicable and wrong and every effort should be made to stop it. No doubt. But Governments are not innocent in their reaction to it, period. However, I'm sure one of you, probably anchorite, will accuse me of being "for the terrorists" while spouting more racist and jingoistic propaganda.

  • July 11, 2005, 1:22 p.m. CST


    by SputnickCameltoe

    They better donate all the money made from this film. I find it inappropriate to profit from a tragedy like this so soon after it happens

  • July 11, 2005, 1:23 p.m. CST


    by Da'Moose

    Notice the apostrophe! I was ENUMERATING not expounding on the previous statement shit for brains. I very well know the second amendment is the right to bear arms. I was contrasting MY views with the views of the so-called typical liberal, now reach back and take your head out of your ass.

  • July 11, 2005, 1:33 p.m. CST

    just say no to 9/11 movie

    by trevorfactor

    The story of 9/11 is a heart renching american tale that doesn

  • July 11, 2005, 1:36 p.m. CST

    I Love you guys! Even Hype!

    by Quin the Eskimo

    I want to buy the world a coke!

  • July 11, 2005, 1:39 p.m. CST

    You're going to end up like Peter Boyle

    by Quin the Eskimo

    On Everybody Loves Raymond if your not care..full!

  • July 11, 2005, 1:44 p.m. CST

    I say we take off and nuke this talkback from orbit...

    by Roger Thornhill

    It's the only way to be sure.

  • July 11, 2005, 1:50 p.m. CST

    And another thing before I exit behind Ban...

    by Da'Moose

    Landoasskissian, I've dealt with your type before and I'm sure I shall again, but my "mental retardation," keeps me plugging along. Fuckwad, you don't know me, you have no idea where I stand politically yet you ASSUME so much. I know the Constitution very well, just how well you need not know. I can go toe to toe with you on nearly any aspect of it and surely embarrass you in the process, but is it worth it? I think not. I am no fan of communism and I am NOT a socialist, I have a pretty well developed political philosophy gained through many many years of hard work and study, in school and on the street. Your incendiary and ludicrous claims to know what I'm about are not nearly as laughable as your ditto-head reactionary responses. You will learn soon enough, my friend that the world is what it is and not what you imagine it to be. So now I'm going to step away from the computer, have a swim and avoid getting anymore of your pathos on me. Despite your hatred for me, I have none for you, only pity that your mind is locked shut. Have fun on the library tower, hope your gun doesn't jam.

  • July 11, 2005, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Tell ya what anchorite, comma,

    by Tubba-guts

    I'll learn to use commas when you learn how to use a dictionary and look up the word "objective." Then maybe genius's like you can learn how to talk to the rest of us without sounding like such know-it-allan asswipes. More later, comma.....

  • July 11, 2005, 1:55 p.m. CST

    anch, i was referring to 2,000 American soldiers in Iraq

    by HypeEndsHere

    not to the events of 9/11 in that post.

  • July 11, 2005, 2:11 p.m. CST

    I thought Osma didn't have wide spread support in the MOOSLI

    by classyfredblassy

  • July 11, 2005, 2:24 p.m. CST

    now you've made yourself clear

    by HypeEndsHere

    you're wrong. but clear.

  • July 11, 2005, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Once again, you've missed my point.

    by oisin5199

    I didn't say we shouldn't move forward. Of course, we've made mistakes with who we've allied ourselves with. My problem is with the way that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al NEVER admit they made a mistake and rewrite history to make themselves look correct. The Iraq war was SOLD on Hussein's threat, the WMDs and a supposed Al Quaeda connection. Don't try to pretend it wasn't. Then, after the fact, the side reason for "freeing the people" suddenly became the main reason. It's all political spin to save face. My main point, however, is that the situation is WAY more complicated than simplistic "USA #1 - we're right, they're wrong" attitudes would have us believe. We should move forward, yes, but not blindly and stupidly ignoring historical and cultural context. As I've said before, understanding does NOT mean forgiveness, it means being smart. "Let's blow 'em all up" is not a strategy, as your diatribes would have us believe. It's foolish and childish.

  • July 11, 2005, 2:39 p.m. CST

    I can add one thing BT

    by Hervoyel

    I could have probably pointed that out without being such an ass. I probably should have. My mistake.

  • July 11, 2005, 2:42 p.m. CST


    by optimist008

    I doubt Americans, especially New Yorkers like myself, are ready for any Sept 11th films. Just like Vietnam movies, it will take time before anybody wants films about Sept 11th.This film will likely be a boxoffice dud for that reason.

  • July 11, 2005, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Hype, actually you're wrong on that...

    by Quin the Eskimo

    Iraq is the residence of choice for terrorists with an axe to grind. From ALL countries. Don't just try to end hype for the sake of ending hype, but be informed.

  • July 11, 2005, 2:53 p.m. CST

    please get this critical information into the right hands

    by HypeEndsHere

    i don't know why you're wasting time on a movie news site when apparently you have information that the government doesn't.

  • July 11, 2005, 2:59 p.m. CST

    Hey Quin ever heard of a spelling error?

    by Cod Profundity

    Oh and ancorite, while i was fucking your daddy in the shower this morning he told me you never give reach arounds. Shame on you. As for the rest, well no the people dancing and cheering on the attacks are not terrorists you dumbfuck, the people in the training camps are, and the actual bombers are. Why aren't the muslims kicking the radical clerics out of mosques?? Hmm well the muslims who arent trying to do it are either scum like the clerics or they don't know it's happening. I have at no point said every muslim is good. But I've heard plenty of ingnorant fucktards on here calling for whole muslim countries to be bombed and the stupid "well not muslims are terrorist, but all the terrorists are muslim" ....Mm Yeh. So what. Plenty of religions have bigots and zealots. I'll restate my early point. The general muslim population in the UK and in the US,in every western country are against these attacks. Now as for arab states, You still have muslims helping catch terrorists. And just one more point, should we be blaming all catholics and Irish people for not weeding out the IRA??? When you have learnt to stop being hypocritical, arrogant, unbelivably stupid men and women then please comeback and argue your case, until then fuck off back to the kiddies table.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:02 p.m. CST

    It's accepted as general knowledge....

    by Quin the Eskimo

    perhaps YOU should read up on all this instead of dwelling on talking points... I'll get you started or maybe this is more you're speed.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Cod Profundity

    by Quin the Eskimo

    Are you upset daddy left mommy or what? Grow up kid.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:08 p.m. CST

    You know, anchorite...

    by Childe Roland

    ...I've read all of your posts in an effort to get the gist of what makes you tick. Now I'm kind of tired of that, so I'll just tell you why your "logic" doesn't work. Just because a lot of people repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true. Sure, some of the dead Middle Easterners who turn up in the wake of U.S./insurgent clashes in Iraq are going to be non-Iraqis (your "vast majority" is an intriguing claim... am I to assume you've seen and counted the bodies yourself, verifying each one's identity and point of origin, or is this what you've been told and chosen to believe?). If your next-door neighbor was being attacked by a foreign power, despite your opinion of him personally, what would your reaction be? Would you leap to his aid, reasoning that what was best for the neighborhood (even if he does reside across an imaginary jurisdictional border from you) was best for you and for the concept of "freedom" in general as you both have understood it to that point? Or would you hide in your basement and wait for the invading army to knock on your door with a tank barrel? I don't present this as a completely fair or balanced representation of events in Iraq and the Middle East (things, as you should know, are far more complicated than that), but for the purpose of illustration. Because you can be sure that even some of those whom you label "terrorists" have a rationale for their actions that goes beyond some feindish desire to undermine the concept of freedom as you understand it (come to think of it, how does our definition of freedom take precedence over another culture's definition of freedom?). Was the U.S. talking about "bringing freedom to Iraq" even before the first Gulf War? Absolutely there were factions within the government and lobbying forces which advocated that course of action. From a purely political and economic standpoint, it makes great sense for the U.S. to try and ensure a friendly (or puppet) government is in power in that part of the world. Was there a reason it didn't happen, even after the top was popped on the six-pack of whup-ass that was Desert Storm? Well, since we're back there now, you kind of have to figure that, yes, there was a reason. It's because overthrowing the Iraqi government didn't seem like a good or justifiable idea to the majority of people with decision making authority (you remember, the ones who questioned Bush senior about his motives after we were already there). When did invading and occupying a decapitated Iraq start to seem like a good idea? More than ten years later, after the average American had been exposed to what they were told was the average Middle Easterner's violent opposition to the American way of life (and if you think that was the motive for the attack on the World Trade Center, you should really look at what that attack acheived without the help of U.S. spin doctors... specifically the global economic implications). It was only after a sparsely dotted line could be drawn between 9-11, Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan (and look back to see just how six-degrees-of-Kevin Bacon any evidence linking that nation to the actual attacks was) that the majority of U.S. citizens, looking for some sort of catharsis (and someone to hit back), backed an invasion of that nation (something the folks in the Bush administration had advocated for political and economic reasons prior to the attacks). Afghanistan is only thought to have been a good idea in retrospect because it wrapped up rather quickly and in what could be characterized as a decisive victory (something the U.S. people wanted). Never mind that it brought us no closer to the actual culprits behind the 9-11 attacks. It gave the Bush administration the balls and momentum it needed to seriously re-pose the idea of invading Iraq to overthrow a dictator who had been effectively neutered and successfully contained for more than 10 years. And even then they needed to fabricate reports of Weapons of Mass Destruction to garner the popular and political support they needed (this was because most folks could hear the reports of atrocities and mass graves in Iraq and weigh that against the fact that the U.S. backed Saddam's rise to power and set him up to be an ally against Iran, complete with the training to torture and murder and coerce his people into compliance). So, if you're capable of following without frothing, you can see that the fact that the Iraq invasion was thoroughly premeditated doesn't change the fact that manipulation of the facts and of people's emotions was necessary to make it even seem like a good idea at the time. You and the many other Bush supporters on this site can call anyone who doesn't agree with your plan for global democracy a terrorist. Our government is essentially doing that now (how many different ways does Bush have to say "get on board or get run over" before people see that he is not a very complex problem solver?). But don't try to paint your very spun world view as the only logical conclusion based on an objective review of the facts.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Quin I'm upset your mummy and daddy bith left me with out gi

    by Cod Profundity


  • July 11, 2005, 3:14 p.m. CST


    by Quin the Eskimo

    ....of course there were plans to Invade Iraq. There's probably a plan for every country should it become hostile. Having the plan and implimenting it are two entirely different concepts.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:15 p.m. CST

    if it's "accepted knowledge", then you agree that invading I

    by HypeEndsHere

    it seems that your solution to having your cake and eating it too was to buy two cakes.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:15 p.m. CST're so articulate

    by Quin the Eskimo

    once again grow up kid.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Quin you insult me I insult you. I think we both a tad immature

    by Cod Profundity

    Ignorant, arrogant, idiots who blindly follow what their leaders tell them are the people who really need to grow up. As for being articulate...LOL. You asshole I'm posting on a fucking talkback not presenting a case to the courts. LOL. Articulate?!?! ROFL. Man thanks for making me laugh.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Invading Iraq was the right thing to do

    by Quin the Eskimo

    not easy, but right. we should have finished the job under Sr. but we didn't. And Cod insulting and name calling are different. One takes skill...Hype has that...You call names, which a parrot or monkey taught ASL could do.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Congratulations, Quin!

    by Childe Roland

    You managed to understand part of the point of my post... that having a plan for something doesn't necessarily make it the clear and imminent course of action. Oh, wait. You weren't parroting... you thought you were actually telling me something new. I guess that means you didn't really understand any of what I typed after all. Never mind. Good luck with that signing monkey, though. Just don't make eye contact with it.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Quin, just so we understand each other. I don't give a good

    by Cod Profundity

    I can talk rationally and articulatly or I can insult you and call you names. Seems like you repubLIEcans and CUNTservatives could do with a little taste of what it's like.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Aren't the insurgents in Iraq...

    by Roger Thornhill

    A mixture of foreign fighters and angered Iraqi Sunnis? Every once and awhile you get a shiite Iraqi like Sadr inciting his followers to arms, but I thought it was a mixture of foreign fighters and Iraqi sunnis? I'm not sure which group is larger than the other, that is, the foreign fighters or the Iraqi Sunnis, but I would suspect it's the latter if only because they live there and many allow the foreign fighters to hide amongst them.

  • July 11, 2005, 3:52 p.m. CST

    To everyone who thought I was behaving like an asshole for my la

    by Cod Profundity

    I was, I was acting like Landoasskiss/Powermetal1, so, next time that goon comes on here with his bullshit can we all remember, no matter whatside of the political divide we are on, that people like that are just twats.

  • July 11, 2005, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Yeah....I'm childish and you think....

    by Quin the Eskimo

    you're Chompsky and Carlins bastard child. The more victriolic the tone you take the more alienating you and your politics become to the average joe. The guy that laces up his boots wants nothing to do with the howling baboon that is Cod. I could have sworn Bush was going to lose the election, but he didn't and for that I thank you.

  • July 11, 2005, 4:10 p.m. CST

    Quin, buddy. I was acting like that to make a point.

    by Cod Profundity

    "The more victriolic the tone you take the more alienating you and your politics become to the average joe." *******************************Exactly right. Just wanted to show the "right" how stupid that man is.

  • July 11, 2005, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Although I have read some Chomsky. And Carlin is a funny guy.

    by Cod Profundity

    So anyway, I'm not in the habit or acting like a rabid asshole. ~hugs Quin~

  • July 11, 2005, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Is that Why Can't We Be Friends on the Radio

    by Quin the Eskimo

    Why yes it is! Can we at least agree on how hysterically funny that Howard Dean yell was? ---hugs back---

  • July 11, 2005, 4:20 p.m. CST


    by TonyWilson

    Cod, you had me, I really was thinking, "oh god he just made everyone on the left look like a complete arsehole." Thank fuck you were kidding. Anyway I only wanted to add one thing; why, when I am arguing with my rightwing friends do none of them ever suggest blowing up and entire country. They never even say "I wish we could do that it would make life simpler". Yet on here I see lots of people with those same disgusting ideas, and they seem to be deadly serious about it. Is this because we are more polite in the UK and they don't want to hurt my feelings? Or is it that they are more intelligent than some of the sick bastards on here? Answers on a postcard please.

  • July 11, 2005, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Right ON, Childe Roland

    by oisin5199

    that's all I'm sayin'

  • July 11, 2005, 4:24 p.m. CST

    I understood the point

    by Quin the Eskimo

    but come on, hows circular logic working out for you? ---goes back for hug seconds-- now I'm done. And I didn't cuss once!

  • July 11, 2005, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Admittedly it was not the most brilliant stratagem.

    by Cod Profundity

    But I was just so fucked off with both the man himself and all the idiots who so blindly agreed with him because he sounded like he was on their side.

  • July 11, 2005, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Anchorite, that was a great post.

    by TonyWilson

    I feel, almost, that to take issue with that very fairminded post is to behave somewhat churlishly. Having said that (you knew there was going to be a 'but' didn't you?), There are alot of Iraqis who have seen and heard about Abu Grahib and have witnessed certain US/UK soldiers or patrols brutalize fellow Iraqis. I've made the point before that to create a civil democratic society in Iraq we must behave like that ourselves. In the UK we have reports about our soldiers behaving reprehensibly and US soldiers acting like that too. Saddam did a great job on brainwashing a lot of Iraqis in to beliving that the west is pure evil. They have had to live with the effects of the sanctions we imposed on them. It was the avergae Iraqi affected by those not Saddam. He made countless TV appearances and announcements to say that if the US really cared about the ordinary citizens of Iraq they would do whatever was in their power to stop lift the sanctions. So the US has not been seen as liberators but as invaders only interested in power. If you ask Iraqis what they want many of them say they want the US to leave. We need to be waging a psychological and social campaign in that country not just a military one. Posted with all due respect Anchorite.

  • July 11, 2005, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Well, Quin...

    by Childe Roland

    ...since circular logic was what I was criticizing in my admittedly lengthy post, I'd say I'm working out for it (or at least it's forcing me to exercise my brain more than the usual talkback fare). And now I'll engage in a nother set of reps. You see, I don't really have very strong feelings one way or the other about the fact that we're at war in Iraq. What is, is. I tend to analyze, adapt and deal. I'd even go so far as to say that, now that it's a question of our soldiers getting killed or whoever it is we're fighting (be it locals, foreign nationals, terrorists or kikds armed with broken bottles), I'd prefer to see our brothers, sisters, fathers, sons, mothers and daughters come home safe (success in their mission being an implied but, to me, ultimately unimportant variable which the current administration has mandated as a conditional for this to happen). What I do have strong feelings about are a lot of retroactive rationalizations to try and paint a pretty face on what's going on. The purveyors of half truth and misinformation seem hell bent on covering up the fact that the administration assumed people were too stupid or emotionally immature to comprehend why going to war might make sense from a certain point of view (the administration's and its private interest backers'). Instead of being up front and explaining that it might be politically and economically advantageous to replace Iraq's then government with a more U.S. friendly government, the administration lied about intelligence it had supposedly gathered on that government and capitalized on the suffering of thousands to further an agenda that had otherwise been proven unpopular. And now the administration has convinced half the nation (yourself included) to help sell the other half on the idea that the lie was truth or at least that it can be justified in a greater, until now somehow less important context. Will it honestly help anyone to sleep better at night, thinking that the primary motivation for our being in Iraq isn't a combination of positioning in a global game of Risk and oil-based economics 101? You've thrown "grow up" around pretty casually on this board, Quin (and Bob Dylan would beat you to death with his guitar if he heard the rhetoric you're spouting under that name). I think you ought to take your own advice and start looking at the world through grown-up eyes. "Right" and "wrong" are completely relative to time and space, at least in the way our nation has always interpreted the concepts. And our constitutionally guaranteed right (whether you believe it's God-given or not) is our ability to question not only the decisions of our government but the definitions of the concepts they use to try and rationalize, justify or spin those decisions. I urge you not to sacrifice that right, which is also the responsibility of any truly "free" person. And that, Quin, is one to grow on.

  • July 11, 2005, 5 p.m. CST

    Dang, Childe Roland made all my points!

    by Tubba-guts

    Though far more eloquently and with proper comma usage and all that. Good on ya mate but I would argue that Afghanistan was entirely necessary. Other than that, I agree with your assessment 100%. Interesting, I heard a radio news report today where the reporter was interviewing members of the Muslim community in London. All of the clerics and older men were appalled at the methods that the terrorist, supposedly acting in the name of Allah, used to make their political statements. The younger men, however, were the complete opposite and supported the recent bombings and the methods used by alQuida and other terror groups. Maybe the world should start a

  • July 11, 2005, 5:11 p.m. CST


    by Childe Roland

    ...while I respect that you are remaining relatively respectful in stating your position, you are either deliberately misinterpreting my point to make one of your own or there is a great miscommunication going on here. My point is not contingent at all on the identities of those the U.S. is fighting in Iraq. In truth, I believe it is a mix of people who are rising up against what they believe to be an unjustly invading army and a fair number of opportunists who see this as a chance to force the U.S. into a long and costly engagement (a tactic that is working, by the way). Call them terrorists or insurgents (although those two terms are really about as fundamentally different from one another as you can get in definition, since the former is typically trying to alter the status quo through violence or the threat of violence and the latter is typically trying to preserve the status quo through armed resistance), it really doesn't matter. My point is and has always been that the U.S. government was not up front with its people about its motivation for going to war and that the U.S. government capitalized on the suffering of its own people to further a political and economic agenda. For you to talk about some of the beliefs of the culture we now find ourselves at odds with as if your own nation does not engage in practices other nations perceive as uncivilized or even atrocities is extremely ethnocentric. Take some time and google the stats on the number of people who die from exposure, starvation, or complications arising from malnutrition or inadequate access to health care. To nations which take steps to prevent these types of deaths among their poor, America seems callous... perhaps even evil. Would those nations then be justified in invading our soil and overthrowing our government because our definition of freedom doesn't match theirs? More importantly, under these circumstances, would the countless thousands of people who would doubtless rise up and take up arms against them be wrong? Mind you, I'm not saying those countries would be right either in their perception or their actions, but I am saying that what we are doing now in Iraq is not all that different from the scenario I just described. Think about it.

  • July 11, 2005, 5:23 p.m. CST

    "These people are killing their own kind."

    by Tubba-guts

    No they're not, it's Sunnis killing Shites with the aid of foreign fighters. Collateral damage (dead civilians) during an active military campaign is one thing but you don't want to make that policy during an occupation. Not to mention that some of them (those who participate in setting up a roadside IED, for example) are just paid to do it. Look at the British experience during the thirty years or so that they occupied Iraq (Mesopotamia) and you can see what a heavy handed occupation can produce. Sure, there are plenty of averge Joe Iraq's who support the US being there but anyone bristles at the notion of a foreign army on their homeland. It's a natural human reaction and the terrorist are also playing on that.

  • July 11, 2005, 5:26 p.m. CST


    by TonyWilson

    Indeed we have done many things to help the Iraqi people. But to bring it down to a more emotive level if I may. We also conducted an extremely brutal "shock and awe" bombing campaign. As technologically advanced as our weaponry is we still killed maimed and orphaned thousands upon thousands of people. Iraqis find themselves caught between a myriad of ideals. Should they remain loyal to Saddam, thank god the people who think that are dwindling. Should they be loyal to a invasion force that killed their friends and families but did it to ultimately prevent death? Should they listen to the clerics who take advantage of a terrifed populace and use Islam to further their own nefarious goals. It's hard to be objective when you see your family killed. You may just want revenge or justice for them. I don't think that (vengeance) is a particularly sensible or good thing to want but I would not be thinking clearly had I just lost a loved one. Neither would anyone I hasten to add. I know civillian death is part of war, but that is small comfort to the man holding his childs torso.

  • July 11, 2005, 5:34 p.m. CST

    All this talk of who's right and/or wrong reminds me of a f

    by Lost in Uranus

    It goes down the same as the thousand before... No one's getting smarter No one's learning the score... Your never ending spree of death and violence and hate Is gonna tie your own rope Tie your own rope Tie a rope... Yeap, its gonna be a fun millenium. Think about it...

  • July 11, 2005, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Well it's about that time.

    by TonyWilson

    I'm off to bed people. Last thought? It's nice to debate with Anchorite and people like him instead of the usual mindless drivel on here. Oh and as this is a movie site I should say I saw Gregg Araki's Mysterious Skin today. That was an excellent film. It said so much about the subject and connected in so many ways with the victims of child abuse. We should all go watch it. That and The Last Supper. TonyWilson out.

  • July 11, 2005, 6:05 p.m. CST


    by Quin the Eskimo

    you are a gentleman and a scholar.

  • July 11, 2005, 6:07 p.m. CST

    To specifically rebut you, anchorite...

    by Childe Roland

    ...why do you presume that one nation's ability to invade and impose its will upon another is dependant upon its ability to "contend with their own inadequacies?" It certainly didn't stop us. And Bush had fresh information concerning the supposed WMDs (and the materials that were never procured by Iraq in Africa) prior to addressing the nation about his raationale for going to war. He or his speech writer refused to act upon that fresh information specifically because it would have undermined the point of the speech and because the pre-existing information you mention existed. As for your suggestion that I educate myself on the histories of Muslim nations, I recommend you educate yourself on the history of your own. I've studied enough of world history and politics to know that even the most "barbaric" Muslim cultures are on a par with the most heinous actions of Christian-influenced governments throughout history. While the colonies that would become the U.S. were beginning to realize their "manifest destiny" by routing the indigenous peoples of North America, whom the colonists and their imperialist string-pullers correctly identified as inconveniently settled atop resources that the colonies and thier founding nations wished to exploit, there were logically amusing trials going on in Salem which clearly demonstrated the elusive nature of moral superiority and the ability to manipulate a populous through the use of government sown fear. These are not theoretical or fanciful scenarios. And they didn't occur all that long ago here in the land of the free and the home of the brave (in fact, the effective destruction of the myriad Native American cultures continued well past the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the drafting of the Constitution). So you might want to dismount that moral high horse of yours before riding into the next frontier you wish to subjugate. Sitting that high up with a head that swollen tends to make one a very appealing target (sorry if that seems uncivil, but the tone of your last post felt rather unwarrantedly condescending when all I asked you to do was consider a different point of view).

  • July 11, 2005, 6:12 p.m. CST


    by Quin the Eskimo

    Sir, I respectfully think you could not be any more wrong when you state that "Right" and "wrong" are completely relative to time and space" There are things that will always be wrong, and things that will always be right" You Sir are allowing for much justification of much heiunous evil when you allow right and wrong to be based on time and space. And that brings up another argument, as old as time that I'm pretty sure will not be solved today.

  • July 11, 2005, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Now I have to try to procure some late

    by Quin the Eskimo

    season Angels tickets so I bid you good day.

  • July 11, 2005, 6:40 p.m. CST


    by Forestal

    "anchorite" IS A DOUCHE BAG. THAT IS ALL.

  • July 11, 2005, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Johnno .. Tiny URL Please

    by docfalken

  • July 11, 2005, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Thank you, Whanahara...

    by Childe Roland

    ...for standing up for the ideas upon which this nation was founded (even if those ideas weren't universally followed by its inhabitants and, as concepts, were subject to much interpretation... particularly the concept of "fair treaty"). I certainly didn't mean to imply that Americans have been twisting their moustaches from the beginning. I merelymeant to suggest that even the best of intentions can be grossly mishandled in execution and the most noble ideas can be corrupted to suit geedy ends (as even the esteemed anchorite alluded to in an earlier post). I love my country, specifically for those ideas and for the free thought they encourage... even if that atmosphere allows for the sort of evil we often see (abuses of the system and its dependence on public perception by both sides of the political coin we've minted). To you I offer the same words I offer anchorite now, but for different reasons: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Cliched, yes, but fitting. Put more simply: How can we hope to see where we're going if we don't know where we've been? And while I'm hesitant to even try and explain the concept of moral relativity to Quin (because, I fear, the effort will be wasted), here goes: Who defines what is morally right and what is morally wrong? God? Which version? The old testament? The new testament (some pretty glaring contradictions between those texts, particularly as they address the concept of intra-neighbor conflict)? The Koran? What makes the rules you choose to live by any more "right" than those another person half a world away chooses to live by? Because America is the most powerful nation in the world and Might makes right? Because your mom told you so? Sorry if any of that sounds trite, but that's what it amounts to. Bottom line, We The People of the United States of America have changed our collective position on what's right and what's wrong so many times that we've had to employ an entire branch of the government to keep it straight as we make continuing changes to the living, breathing document that is the Constitution. And there are enough people scattered throughout this very country who don't agree with one interpretation or another within that document or the many modeled after it that our prisons are full to bursting. And there are even folks who have remained in prison for years after the crimes that put them there had been legislated to the other side of the "right/wrong" divide. Times change, circumstances change and the behavior that society deems appropriate and acceptable certainly changes. And that's just within one society that's existed a scant 229 years. Now think about the differences that inevitably come into play between different societies in different parts of the world, some of which have been functioning as they do now without U.S. interference for more than a thousand years. To attempt to destroy or assimilate those cultures, when they pose no real threat to our own (unless you honestly believe that Muslim terrorists could successfully crush the American way of life if we weren't engaged in the war we're currently involved in, which doesn't speak very strongly of your confidence in the Darwinian superiority of our way of life), is an act of ignorant, cowardly violence. Sounds kind of like the way many have described the 9-11 attacks and the recent London bombings, doesn't it. I hate to keep quoting Ben Kenobi on a serious subject, but that manipulative old bastard had at least one thing right: Many of the truths we cling to are dependent on a certain point of view. And what impacts your personal point of view more than where and when you stand in the world? I suppose some could argue that what you're told about things can color your point of view, but in an age where so much information is available to anyone with half an inclination to seek it out, I would hope we are all a little more self-directed than that. Sorry if that upsets your apple cart, Quin... but even the rules governing what we all perceive to be the physical world have been known to change from time to time.

  • July 11, 2005, 9:22 p.m. CST

    The site looks good, Harry.

    by Vampire's rock

  • July 11, 2005, 10:42 p.m. CST

    I hate terrorists as much as anyone...

    by John Anderton

    ...however, the one thing I don't call them is "cowards." Delusional - Fanatic - Being Redemption - FUCKED UP - OFF THE CHAIN - FOOLS - whatever, but not cowards. Let's see you sacrifice yourself for what you believe in. Not all terrorists are multimillionaires like Bin Ladin, hiding out in caves with his 30 wives, ordering the deaths of his underlings in fruitless suicide bombings. Bin Ladin is the coward. Let's be real here and stop with the propaganda.

  • July 11, 2005, 10:54 p.m. CST

    The "War on terrorism" is a battle of identities

    by Octaveaeon

    The war on terrorism is not so much a war as a battle of identities, and the perceptions that result as a consequence. Discussing who did what, or who

  • July 11, 2005, 10:59 p.m. CST

    fuck... beyond

    by John Anderton

    beyond redeption. Sorry.

  • July 12, 2005, 12:21 a.m. CST


    by Roger Thornhill

    I must commend you on the thoughtfulness and intelligence of your recent posts. Your refusal to resort to tired name calling also makes your posts engaging. One thing though, you discussed moral relativity and how it's arrogant for one side to consider it morally superior to another. I understand your point but I cannot help but feel that the moral standards that Western societies hold are not superior per se, but I think, more open minded if you will. Western societies (currently) allow women to vote, respect the rights of all religions, protect minorities rights, and (for the most part) protect freedom of speech. In many Muslim nations these rights do not exist. Moreover, the treatment of women and homosexuals is deplorable. I'm not saying Western societies are morally superior, but they try to be respectful of all races, genders, and sexual orientations. And that my friend, has to count for something. However, it doesn't mean we should invade them to impose our moral standards on them because many of them would not be compatible with their culture. I'm reminded of that wonderful line in The Quiet American where Michael Caine and Brendan Frasier's characters are discussing Vietnamese politics. Frasier insists that Vietnam must hold democratic elections if it is to become a successful nation. Caine retorts that you can give the Vietnamese free elections, and they'll elect Ho Chi Minh. A great example of Westerners not understanding a foreign culture. Why would they elect a dictator like Minh? Our moral standards are different than the Vietnamese. Just like ours are different than those in the Arab Muslim world. We gave the Iraqis free elections and our "boy" lost and instead a conservative Shitte religious party won most of the votes. I went on a bit of tangent here...sorry.

  • July 12, 2005, 1:36 a.m. CST


    by FNORDcinco1

    Just No..

  • July 12, 2005, 4:03 a.m. CST

    Sorry, but we didn't create Saddam

    by Pynchon6

    We merely supplied him with limited satellite intel during the war with Iran. Your whole argument collapses when you push that tired lie.

  • July 12, 2005, 4:23 a.m. CST

    Moral relativism

    by Pynchon6

    It's fun in college, but it just doesn't work outside a group of your nodding liberal pals who all nod when you talk. To deny that in the nuclear age that Islamic terrorists with nuclear materials (gotten from non-US sources--I know, I know, the US is the source of all evil in the world, except when it's not) could not knock out several major cities and cripple our way of life is the sign of someone who's spent too much time reading books recommended by one's "The US As Evil Empire" prof. The real world isn't about moral relativism--that's an academic judgment. In the real world, a soldier is fighting to survive because he's been put in a situation where he has a goal--to destroy an enemy who's also been sent into a situation with a goal. To say that situation can be compared with someone who blows up innocent people to make a political point only makes me chuckle sadly. Moral relativism is a luxury of those who can look at these situations as theories, as textbook material. To say that the US--which defeated Japan and Germany and REBUILT them and gave them back to the defeated; which is doing the exact same thing to a country which had connections to Al Qaeda (NOT to 9-11, but to Al Qaeda--read the commission report, NOT your favorite commentator's spin on it); which has more freedom for minorities and women and homosexuals than Islamic nations ("open minded"? Bullshit--BETTER) --is not BETTER except in some imaginary "point of view" way, is simply nuts. The self-justifying "everything is anything from a certain point of view" crap neglects REAL WORLD realities, as opposed to imaginary "alternate" realities. The US (The eeeevil Bush) gives tons of $$$ to Africa--that's a bloody fact, and it's a good thing; Islamic Wackjobs blowing up themselves and innocents--that's a bad thing. One can sip white wine and drop Noam Chomsky's name all one likes, but you will be pointed at and laughed at if you attempt to live your life doing whatever you like and thinking you can survive because it's all from a certain point of view. Sure, we progress and we realize our mistakes, as we move closer to ideals which have existed as long as humanity has been around--that's not "changing" what's good and bad, that's getting closer to the realization of those ideals. Look at the classics--everything that makes a good person is THERE, and of course there are flaws even in those early building blocks of humanity (slavery), but that's because they were at the beginning, so of course we've worked out some of the errors and sins. It's not being a "great patriot" to say that leaving Saddam in power was the thing to do; while he was 'penned in" he killed thousands and was working towards the day he could get free of the UN Oil for Ambassadors restrictions and re-arm--even the inspectors who found no WMD said that! (And how could we have "armed" Saddam AND invented the "lie" that he had no weapons? We gave him all these weapons...and then knew he'd thrown them out? Because the UN inspectors didn't find a lot of stuff.) It's curious how the anti-Iraq War folks casually ignore the recent Iraq election, and how everyone wants in on the new government; the (slight) expansion of rights in Saudi Arabia; the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon; Khaddaffi's disarmament, etc. That would have happened without our invasion? Only in the dreams of the moral relativists (who must be against our entering WW2 in Europe, because how could anyone seriously think some former artist could ever hurt the US? Damn I have too much caffeine in me, isn't this a movie site?

  • July 12, 2005, 4:29 a.m. CST

    Something for the relativists and Oliver Stone

    by Pynchon6

    "I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Tony Blair and George W Bush. Fighting your government is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with totalitarian forces which are far worse than your government, the easy solution is to blame your government for them. But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West - and a racist one to boot. The unavoidable consequence is that you must refuse to support democrats, liberals, feminists and socialists in the Arab world and Iran who are the victims of Islamism in its Sunni and Shia guises because you are too compromised to condemn their persecutors. Islamism stops being an ideology intent on building an empire from Andalusia to Indonesia, destroying democracy and subjugating women and becomes, by the magic of parochial reasoning, a protest movement on a par with Make Poverty History or the TUC. Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows." - Nick Cohen, writing Sunday in London's Observer.

  • July 12, 2005, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Yes, I believe in the "real" world too.

    by Tubba-guts

    But maybe folks should also drop this liberal/conservative simple mindedness. I've rarely met any true "liberals" but it sure seems the right can see them behind every bush. Subsequently, I don't know many who voted for Bush that really want to hoist a swastika over the White House. I'm sure binLaden gets a good laugh every time he reads an American periodical just to see how much we fight amongst ourselves. Yeah, keep it up with the demagoguery folks and we

  • July 12, 2005, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Patronising Pynchon

    by TonyWilson

    Hey my friend, you like to be one of those condescing superior types don't you? I think we all like to do that from time to time. But it's a dangerous thing to do it when talking about these situations. I read all of Nick Cohen's piece and he, like you makes a good deal of valid points. Definitely ones for some people to mull over. But I think sticking with Bush and Blair over all this is just as dangerous as beliving them to be evil power hungry warmongers. Bin Laden has many reasons for his war against the west. Power is one that springs instantly to mind. He may believe he is spreading the wording of Allah but he's just another tool of Satan. Now the impression I got from your posts and Cohen's comment was that Islam is some sort of "messianic death cult". That's just as much of a generalisation as thinking liberals sit around drinking white wine quoting Chomsky at each other and confirming each others opinions. Ha. As if liberals are so insular. Maybe theres a few like that but as anyone who has a good mix of friends can tell you. Most liberals debate with conservatives while they both drink white wine and quote PJ O'Rourke at each other. Again you have oversimplified the situation to benefit your views of liberals and democrats. No one, (liberal, conservative, neo con, anarchist, realist, neo realist) worth their salt doesn't try and get a dialogue going with another group. No one here wants to talk with the terrorists, no-one here thinks what they did was justified in the slightest (ok some fucking idiot nut jobs do, but then you have idiot nut jobs who just want to nuke the middle east. I think we can safely assume there are idiots on both sides of the debate). But that's not to say that certain conditions that led to so much support for bin laden haven't been created by the wests attitude to the middle east. The average person be they jew or christian or muslim or hindu wants, safety, health, a good job, and a good education for their family. Certain actions by the UK and the US have meant these things are not possible in the middle east. We are to blame for this situation. Not as much as bin laden is or as much as repressive regimes are. But we still have to take some responsibility like any adults would. The sooner we realise we have made mistakes and awful decisions the task winning the hearts and minds of the average Iraqi or muslims becomes a lot easier and by default the task of defeating bin laden does as well.

  • July 12, 2005, 7:59 a.m. CST

    With Spielberg doing 'MUNICH'...

    by NoMoreNails

    ...are we set for a year of mainstream cinema poking it's nose into injuries and topics too fresh or relevant to be maturely handled by their audience? I have no doubt, as we've read on AICN, that Spielberg is going to the greatest pains to make sure nobody, either Palestinian or israeli, gets too pissed off with the content of Munich; and, as vitriolic as Stone can be, I'm sure he's hardly going to have Nic Cage launching bazookas into downtown kebab shops from the roof of the WTC...but one has to ask if these films are playing with fire. Obviously, if these films are handled right, I think their impact will be invaluable to the public, in the same way Schindler's List was for a whole new generation coming to the Holocaust with a fresh and horified perspective. But at a point in time where Allied troops are looking forward to a future in Iraq with no date as to when they can fully pull out and come home, these films, mixed in with the recent bombings in London, might serve only to drum up public interest in keeping them there indefinetly - a very bad thing as I'm sure we can all agree. I understand that the very fact that the topics covered by both of these films are "fresh or relevant" means that the stories deserve to be told and heard, but did the messages in 'Platoon' or 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Shindler's List' get lost in the decades after the relevant theatres of conflict ended? Spielberg's got Indy IV sitting on his shelf and probably a hundred other projects, and I'm sure Oliver Stone has too; why tell these stories now in such turbulent times? I only hope the final product, in both cases, helps to keep everyone's feet on the ground, and really show the human cost of such conflicts, not what they mean polictically or statistically, but to the people who get caught up in them - but, to quote some sage-like dude, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I'll follow the progress of both with great interest; but hindsight could serve up some terrible questions for Spielberg and Stone in the weeks and months following theire release. (P.S. I know these topics are severly volatile ones, and I hope I've not caused anyone too much disgruntlement in my handling of them. Feel free to call me a fucking plum if they have)

  • July 12, 2005, 8:37 a.m. CST

    to the moral crusaders...

    by Octaveaeon

    Like I said earlier, going on about "western values" and how they are better than arab, or middle-eastern, values or whatever label you're using to demarcate the "other", only shows your own narrow thinking. This war - whether from "our" side or from the terrorists side, nevermind the casual civilian victims caught in the crossfire - has never been about us exporting, or them destroying, our "western ideals", but geo-strategic interests and the perceptions these have created due to the confluence of particular world-views and struggles for identity - normal arabs against despotic regimes, despotic regimes against other despotic regimes, aided by inscrupulous regimes, within a context devoid of moral standards, even western, by all parties, including western governments who have meddled in an intrusive and arbitrary way, thereby rescinding any moral claims to superiority. Anybody interested in defending the moral superiority of "western" values has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the sort of discourse our "leaders" have laid out so as to divert you from their real concerns, and unfortunately, those are more mundane than all the flowery prose about "freedom", "democracy", "human rights", "elections", or whatever; all red herrings that so many eat up without even bothering to look behind the carefully chosen words and media spectacles that dazzle us with their vacuity. But in the end, the US, Europe, China, India, Russia, Japan... all these countries are thinking of one thing.... the need to secure their national interests, which in this day and age means securing the resources necessary to keep their economies churning at full speed, which in turn helps them remain influential in the world stage (notice how important China became once its economy got going? One reason: money... they are economically very damn relevant, and about to supercede the U.S., if not already) and also to fund their military needs (based on geo-strategic perceptions). Oil, water, raw materials, trade markets, access to shipping routes, cheap labor, trade and credit balances, ... all these are higher on the priority list of our dear "leaders" than the need to extend our values. This smokescreeen is all the more laughable when you realize that the middle-east is not inimical to many of our so-called "western" values, such as free-speech or democracy. That is just our arrogance and prejudice talking, no thanks to the black and white thinking passed on by media pundits and goverment spin-doctors. Many people in this region have been struggling for the right to live their lives according to their traditions and aspirations, in freedom, just as long as anyone else, and this continues to be the case. The Kurds are an example, and they've been thwarted by Hussein, the Turks, and be extension the West, for decades now, but I don't see us sending troops to Turkey. No, what you guys prefer is to focus on the token "symbols" thereby relegating contradictory examples to the further recesses of the collective conscious, which is easy to do since the news anchors don't mention these either. Good thing, propaganda, no? That way you can walk proudly about all the good that we stand for, even while we fight for these on other people's back yard... god forbid that happen here... we are too sensitive for such havoc... Our dead civilians count more than [place ethnic group here] deaths, and we demonstrate that by how we depict these in the news. You can go on about how great we are... but try on the other shoe for size, and see whether your grandstanding has any legs... this problem is more than just apologists vs moral relativists.

  • July 12, 2005, 9:02 a.m. CST

    Pynchon, I am truly sorry...

    by Childe Roland

    ...that you are incapable of seeing and appreciating the complexities that result from interactions between vastly different cultures in a relatively small world with limited resources. The "real world" as you so condescendingly refer to it, isn't as simple as you seem to wish to paint it. It's incredibly messy. Lots moving parts that don't fit together neatly. Yet it has functioned that way for millions of years (thousands, only, I suppose if you start counting from the time man became self aware and arrognat enough to record his own history). Suddenly the U.S. sees a problem with the way a nation halway around the world does its internal business and takes it upon itself to correct the problem? What gives the U.S. the right to make this decision? Power? The "white man's burden?" Clearly you believe that it is our right and responsibility to "liberate" this particular corner of the world. Yet you advocate the "let's make 'em jest like us" approach (they're free to do whatever they want in their country as long as they hold democratic elections and elect someone the U.S. can deal with or control). If your answer to every human problem is to try and make everyone the same, then I pity you, and your children and anyone unfortunate enough to fall under your influence. Because, in terms of evolution and development, homogeny breeds stagnation. That's really all I can do for you, because you have callously dismissed any attempt at reasonable discourse in favor of your apparently more comfortable pre-molded stereotypes about liberals, democrats, muslims and terrorists. And since you and your ilk are bent on war as the ultimate solution, at least take the time to read Marcus Aurelius and Sun Tzu. The wisest warriors have always known that you cannot possibly hope to defeat an enemy you don't even bother to try and understand.

  • July 12, 2005, 10:05 a.m. CST

    anchorite: "Ask them if they would rather be back under the oppr

    by Octaveaeon

    Thanks for clarifying that it is the ENTIRE middle-east that acts and thinks this way (fundamentalism). Obviously, those women that you are referring to were imported from the West... Please, I'm willing to discuss this topic, so how about keeping the personal vitriol to a minimum, mmmkay? Moral posturings don't hold much sway with me, unless I am confident that the person mouthing these sentiments is truly morally inclined, by which I mean someone willing to look critically at his own world-view and beliefs. Moral absolutists can go take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned (don't worry, I'll throw a lifesaver). Anyways, I'm going to go and enjoy the beautiful sunshine and later to a Bright Eyes concert, so till then keep the mud-slinging to a minimum (at least that directed to me). I'll respond later, if there's anything meriting a response.

  • July 12, 2005, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Is there a grassy knoll in Manhattan?

    by Brit Pop

    Its not like Oliver Stone to make a fact based film about the plight of the American dream, is it? Personally, I think making a film about 9/11 should wait for at least 22.3 years, and I definitley dont think studio execs should pocket any money from it - because it will undoubtedly make a fortune. Morbid facination will always rule and get these films made - but I think it should be restricted to documentary. Whats next... Jerry Bruckheimer presents... THE WAVE - tsunami x-treme!! or maybe Tragedy on the London Underground... wait.. thats already been made - Creep with Milla Jovovich!

  • July 12, 2005, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Go to the Aslan Talkback...It's getting FIERCE!!!!hahahahaha

    by The True Priapic

  • July 12, 2005, 10:51 a.m. CST

    "Gimme the money Lebowski! Gimme the fucking money shithead!"

    by NoMoreNails

    I think money going from the 9/11 film to the familys tied into the disaster is a nice treat from Hollywood, and maybe Spielberg will do the same (with his "I love philanthropy" baseball cap on all the while) but at the end of the day such acts smack of penance payments for making megabucks out of such tragic source material. On a tsunami tip though, I'm with the Simpsons-stealing 'H2-Whoaaa'

  • July 12, 2005, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Or if it's a black-and-white watery weepy, how about 'H2

    by NoMoreNails

  • July 12, 2005, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Bright Eyes are...

    by NoMoreNails

    Connor Oberst, a cute little emo-folkster who does it for those with a shoegazing mentality. I'm sensing a theme

  • July 12, 2005, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Christian (0_

    by Orphu of Io

    Wells was a Darwinian Atheist and Socialist. Why the hell would a movie based on WOTW made by a Jewish Filmaker promote Christianty?

  • July 12, 2005, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Bright Eyes isn't emo.

    by TonyWilson

    Surew he whines a bit, but it's about morality and governments and corruption, not that his girlfriend left him for the football player. Yes I like Bright eyes, but not that much. Emo on the otherhand should go hide in a cave in afghanistan. Sorry was that harsh?

  • July 12, 2005, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Again, anchorite...

    by Childe Roland pose some interesting questions. But, also again, you seem to be reading what you want to read in my posts rather than what I'm actually saying. I was most certainly being facetious when I referred to the U.S.'s power and position in the world being a justification for its current actions. That's been an underlying point of every argument I've made here. Things change and the civilization on top today may not be so tomorrow... so who's to say the views and morals that civilization espoused will remain the most widely accepted? Should we ask the Romans that one, as well? You'll note that I refer to multiple civilizations in the previous illustration. That's because civilization is not a singular entity. There is no one all-encompassing definition for what is civilized. Again, you fall victim to an inherent ethnocentricity. For example, your comparison of the War in Iraq to the American Revolution could easily be approached from another point of view, one where the U.S. is the imperialist power asserting its will over a people who, while certainly being mistreated, were being mistreated by a home-grown dictator (whom, admitedly, the U.S. cultivated and fertilized, but he was Iraqi). In that scenario, the insurgents become more like the colonial revolutionaries and we are the redcoats... but I know how much you dislike that perspective, so I won't make you dwell on it. I'm simply pointing out that your example is not very clear cut. And your other examples of instances where the U.S. has intervened in the affairs of foreign nations have some very important distinguishing factors as well. Specifically, we were asked to the dance in World War II and in Bosnia. In World War II, we were attacked by the Japanese, a declared combatant and ally of Germany, which finally motivated the U.S. to lend Churchill the aid he'd been requesting all along in Europe. In Bosnia, we were implored by the U.N. - which represents a multitude of "civilized" nations - to take action. Noticing the trend here? Both times, the U.S. reluctantly agreed to step in at the behest of others. We acted as heroes traditionally do. The motivation for our involvement in WWII was a combination of compassion and clear cut self defense (the planes attacking Pearl Harbor were boldly marked, making the responsible party easy to identify). In Bosnia, it was out-and-out compassion. Our involvement in Iraq - BACK IN 1990 - could have been argued to have been a response to a call from aid from Saudi Arabia. But when we went back this time, it was on our own initiative. First, we were led to believe, it was because Saddam had or was making Weapons of Mass Destruction in violation of UN sanctions - but we've all heard the reports that indicate the administration knew the information they acted on was incorrect. Then they tried to tell us it was because Saddam was directly linked to the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center. But we now know that claim is completely unsubstantiated. Then it was because he sustained a terrorist-friendly national environment. When you consider that the U.S. bred the likes of Timothy McVeigh, the sheer ineptitude of this argument becomes pretty evident. So the current line of rhetoric is that we really went in to free those people from that Evil regime. Meanwhile, the corporate contractors get richer and the U.S.'s true interests in the nation remain unclear (unless you recognize the potential strategic and economic benefits of our maintaining at least a shadow presence in the region). People continue to die because the U.S. unilaterally decided it should determine the course of political events in a foreign land and has discovered that the native people of that land are not comfortable with that idea. Sound familiar? And to answer your question about whether I would like to see America fall from its position of power, I'll give you an allegory from the real world. I have a brother who was a real prick. He was handsome, relatively intelligent and physically sure of himself. He felt these things gave him the right to do whatever he pleased and, because he held a position of influence in his community, he got away with it for a long time. Now he's my brother. I love him. But when he finally got his ass handed to him for acting the way he acted, despite the fact that it pained me to see him physically hurt, I recognized that the lesson he learned in humility was a necessary one. And since he recovered from that beating, he's actually become a man I'm proud to know. Right now, I love my country... but I'm not proud of it. And I know that the best thing for it would probably be a good ass kicking. So, complicated as this may be for you to grasp, I will experience no personal satisfaction or joy when America inevitably falls from its current position of power and influence (much of which was won through acts of good will, not shows of force). But, if the nation itself survives - and if we respond as Americans are capable of to the ensuing adversity - I will take great pride in being an American afterward. I just hope we all live that long.

  • July 12, 2005, 4 p.m. CST

    anchorite continues to amaze us with his witty vocabulary.

    by Forestal

  • July 12, 2005, 4:10 p.m. CST

    Hello moviemack

    by killing joker

    Good to see you back........bit wrong about Batman Begins weren't you?

  • July 12, 2005, 4:34 p.m. CST

    The world's a fine place and worth fighting for... I agree w

    by Brit Pop

  • July 12, 2005, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Well, I see you're back on your high horse...

    by Childe Roland

    ...anchorite. Just as well. You don't do well down in the dirt with the rest of us. Once again you've derived your own very special meaning from my post. If that works for you and the preservation of your fragile, dangerous world view, keep at it. For the record, though, Sadaam Hussein was the vice president of Iraq when Hassan al-Bakr resigned and ascended the presidency in a pretty traditional fashion. He was then courted by the U.s. as a potential ally against Iran, during which time his country was given pretty fantastic deals on arms and armaments as well as training in their use and the counsel of special U.S. envoys who helped him hone his interrogation techniques. Again, take some time and do some research. No one in the U.S. government will deny this. They will justify it as standard procedure given the circumstances... in other words it seemed like the right thing to do at the time in that place (like how that theme keeps coming back to bite you?). And when did I ever say I wished this country or its citizens harm? I seem to recall explicitly stating in an earlier post that I wish exactly the opposite, even going so far as to say I don't care who else gets hurt (be they insurgents, terrorists or children armed with broken bottles) if it means bringing our fighting men and women home safely (go ahead and scroll up to verify this... the world won't wait, but you couldn't possibly fall any further behind). I merely acknowledged that by embracing the policies of the current administration, our nation is setting itself up for a major fall not only from grace in the eyes of the rest of the world but also in the overall economic rankings (China is poised to make us look pretty stupid). You seem to think the only sorts of falls or slips we should worry about involve physical harm or bloodshed (and I'm not ruling out the possibility that we might overstep our bounds so far as to warrant that sort of retaliation), but that's a pretty simplistic view. Wait a minute I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. Simple is the way you like things. In that case, don't make me laugh with your feeble attempt to psychoanalyze me. Whether I am lucky or blessed, I've always been just fine with who I am and what I have. That shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand. Take your level of supreme confidence in your bveliefs and way of life... the confidence that makes you so certain that yours are the right ways and the ways that all other nations and people should adhere to... and tone it way down until you're really just talking about things you have some concept of. Then you and I might be able to converse meaningfully. Until then, you're really just what I pegged you as in my first post to you: another grandstanding, propoganda-spewing blowhard trying to paint your opposition as bitter malcontents who wish harm on their homeland. And in overplaying your hand with that last desperate witch-hunt of a post, you've officially become dreadfully boring.

  • July 12, 2005, 5:37 p.m. CST


    by keepcoolbutcare

    disagree with your opinions but that's neither here nor there ("You were there, I was here")...but HOW FUCKING DARE YOU TAKE THE NAME OF THE GREATEST WRITER AMERICA HAS EVER PRODUCED and then not have posts devoted to smoking weed, paranoid (or not) conspiracy theories, physics, meta-physics, songs...CHANGE YOUR FUCKING SCREEN NAME LIKE YESTERDAY YA CUNT!

  • July 12, 2005, 7:54 p.m. CST

    Keepcool & Pynchon.

    by TonyWilson

    LOL. Keepcool I love that post about Pynchon. I already had too muh to say to him about his posts so I didn't mention how annoyed the real Thomas Pynchon would be with him. Anyhoo did you know that Radiohead's postal address is W.A.S.T.E I damn near peed myself when I realised what that was all about. TonyWilson out.

  • July 12, 2005, 8:19 p.m. CST

    A Question....

    by Roger Thornhill

    Do you guys think that if the US stopped supporting Israel, withdrew from Iraq and Afganistan, no longer needed to rely on oil because an alternative was found...that Islamic extremists would end their jihad? It's an open question, I'm not trying to suggest either way. Seriously, do you think they would be satisfied and go back to their homes and do something productive besides devising ways to commit mass murder?

  • July 12, 2005, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Here's hopeing we get something real and not fucking history

    by TheGinger Twit

    like how people were very orderly on the day and taking care of each other. I hope we get Bush sitting around doing nothing and then telling the press how he saw the first plane hit the tower and thought "Wow, there's a bad pilot"

  • July 12, 2005, 8:37 p.m. CST


    by TonyWilson

    Not at all mate. What I am suggeting (and I don't speak for anyone else on here.) is that if the US had not supported Israel so much, or not suported many corrupt regimes for oil or to keep the russians out, that much of the support for bin laden by what were average muslims would be lost. As for leaving Iraq, that's a different matter. Undoubtedly we have created more potential terrorists and/or insurgents by our bombing campaigns and total lack of respect for the avergae Iraqi. But I do believe that whatever our motives (which I hardly think were noble) we now have the oppurtunity to do some good. But that it will require more dialogue and less killing of regulat Iraqis.

  • July 12, 2005, 8:39 p.m. CST

    If star wars had fox news...

    by TheGinger Twit

    The Emperor would be a great man of will and peace. The Jedi would be good for nothing hippies. And everyone who didn't support the empire and the clone troops would be seperatists and renegades to be hunted down. Just saying is all.

  • July 12, 2005, 9:48 p.m. CST

    anchorite... think before you post

    by Octaveaeon

    No, what you did is reduce the whole middle-east, including those women you seem to be worried about, to the ideology, and repression, exerted by arab regimes. As you yourself pointed out, "I specified the fundamentalist regimes, and that isn't each and every Islamic country." Yes, so why did you feel the need to react to my statement: "This smokescreen is all the more laughable when you realize that the middle-east is not inimical to many of our so-called "western" values, such as free-speech or democracy"... ?? It's pretty obvious what I'm saying, and it certainly doesn't reduce the whole middle-east to the actions of some despotic regimes. Yet you seem to have an issue with this. Why? If the entire middle-east were in fact inimical to "our so-called 'western values'", as you seem to hold, otherwise you wouldn't have disagreed with me, then how can you defend the fact that there DO exist people, like your Iraqi house wives (sniff, sniff), who identify with these values? I would add, if I may oh wise and benevolent one, that there are more people who not only now, but also in the past, have identified with values we seem to hold as our own creation... the struggle for freedom... (like the Kurds, which I mentioned) and I would add that not only have they fought to bring these to fruition, for reasons and in ways that you may or may not agree with, but that nonetheless have been thwarted not only by internal repression from their regimes (which we sometimes tolerated, if not aided), but also by outside intervention (e.g. Western countries), for reasons you may or may not agree with. But to claim, as you seem to do, that the struggle for freedom is "inimical" to the middle-eastern mindset, seem to me, if I may be so bold as to state oh compassionate and sagacious one, a bit racist. So no, I don't know what you mean by saying that I couldn't "refute [your] argument" simply because I couldn't discern an argument to begin with. I just got the impression of somebody reacting to something they couldn't agree with, or maybe couldn't understand, but couldn't argue with either, so just ended up with some silly statements and some silly snide remarks.

  • July 12, 2005, 10:54 p.m. CST

    Don't worry anchorite, apologies accepted...

    by Octaveaeon

    ... but I hope you realize that my comments hold for the Muslim world as well. After all, those muslim women (apologies for bringing them up again, but you did first) are also muslim. You see, it may be argued, like the arab scholar Bernard Lewis (with whom I don't completely agree with), that Islam as a movement stagnated once Christianity and Western humanist values (combined with other traditions, much thanks to the Muslim world, who not only produced much intellectual and scientific achievements, but stored much that had been lost of the Greek and early Roman era) gained the upper hand, but this does not mean that Islam as a religion (in general, because just like any religion, there can be different perspectives and interpretations, some more "progressive", some more "conservative", or even "fundamentalist", or whatever) is incapable of expressing itself in ways that may be isomorphically complementary to what we identify as struggles for freedom. Now, if you advance as the only alternative a secular organization, then you need to ask yourself how far your claims for "freedom" extend. Not to mention the fact that many even in the U.S. would like to see more religion in their government... But ultimately, what we cannot forget the innocent lives that are paying for these moral posturings. You may not wish any hurt to befall those you care for, in this case primarily american lives, and I would share that sentiment as well. I'm not american but I grew up in an american environment thanks to my schooling (in international settings), so identify much with those 'values' and the culture from whence it stems from (and I owe much to it as well), but even if this had not been the case I would still not wish any harm to any american. But I extend this sentiment, and respect, to all people, in equal measure, and I do not hold my own compatriots to any higher standard. That is why I disagree with what is going on in Iraq. I see a country that decided to justify a necessary incursion (in their view, guided as they are by 'national interests') by claiming these high moral values which don't stand the test of the most cursory inspection. That's not to say that you or others do not believe these to be capable of withstanding any scrutiny whatsoever, I'm just saying that you can't expect others to do so. But before you and your government continue insisting on this course of action, wouldn't it be best to leave the decision up to the Iraqi people? I mean, that is the only way we can end this stupid debate... after all, who are we to decide what is best for the Iraqis? So why don't we hold an election or a referendum asking whether they either a) prefer having the U.S. army stay and act as a beacon for every terrorist with a statement to make, though potentially act as a counter-balance to sectarian violence, if not outright civil war (and Kurdish independence), with oil production secured but nonetheless unstable, or b) have the americans out, risking the consequences of political and tribal chaos. Now, I think b is unfeasible, without military prescence from an international coalition. However, if (a) were to occur, that would draw the rug underneath the terrorists, who cannot claim to be fighting for the Iraqi people. Either way, I believe the US has a duty to help in the redevelopment. I just don't think this process can really begin until the resistance movement continues. And this cannot desist until its "raison d'etre" is removed. So, let Iraqis decide, with full international backing either way (US pays extra for all the destruction and lives lost it has caused, including Britain, France, Russia, etc.). I don't think I have the right to choose for them. I hope you don't think so either.

  • July 13, 2005, 12:05 a.m. CST

    You really are a one-trick pony, anchorite...

    by Childe Roland

    ...which is amusing for a guy who rides as high a horse as you do. You may not want to perceived as a jingoistic neo-conservative (probably because you feel that would lend your "argument" some weight), but the ship sailed on the possibility of anyone in this forum suspending their disbelief concerning your objectivity several posts ago (about the time you thought you'd definitively "won" this argument by incorrectly labeling me as anti-American. Your cards have all been laid clearly on the table (I thought you couldn't have been anymore heavy handed or transparent than you were with that jealousy bit, but your last post really portrays you as out of intellectual options). Hmmm... let me see... why would a guy like you, desperately searching for flaws in my logic, be so eager to climb inside my head? Perhaps to find potential fodder for some other ad hominem attack instead of sticking to the issues (where your position comes off as little more than willful ignorance)? Don't bother. You'll just hurt yourself. You've already demonstrated a complete inability to see things from any point of view other than your own. Trying to understand the way I see the world would likely make your head explode. I will gladly respond to the most recent rhetoric you spouted, however. Hussein was indeed the number two man and next in line for the seat of power in Iraq at the time he took over (the same time all that trouble was brewing in Iran, if you are even old enough to recall). Your own sources (which you are trying to depict as impartial?) confirm this fact. You used the word "acceptable," immediately assigning a value judgment to the situation. The only thing I've passed value judgments on in this talkback are the quality and substance of arguments... mostly yours (which have mostly been found lacking). In reference to the transition of power in Iraq, I merely said it was " a pretty traditional" transfer. Why don't you do a little more research about how power has historically and traditionally changed hands in that region? Oh... that's right... you're tired of history. And even in your selective quoting of my answer to your question about whether I'd like to see America fail, you do not have me saying that I wish America or Americans physical harm. Go back and read what you quoted again. You know why you couldn't find me saying that I wanted to see Americans hurt? Because I never said it. I was mildly curious as to why you would make such a ready leap to images of death and destruction from my statement about the U.S.'s inevitable fall (go back and read that yet again if you have to... try to distinguish in your mind between the allegorical story of a proud man that was physically shamed and a proud nation that could be shamed in any number of ways), especially after acknowledging the many other precipices upon which our culture is currently perched (and I'll ask you again, if the United States is so precariously positioned, what right does it have to dictate the best course of action for any other nation?). You were the one who suggested I wished physical harm on Americans after I specifically outlined in one of my first posts on this subject that physical harm to Americans is what I hope to discourage by advocating a speedy evacuation of U.S. forces from Iraq. You want those Americans to stay there and ensure that the natural order of things (that is, the way that culture has evolved without U.S. interference) stays subverted long enough for Western values to take root, even if it means the lives of those Americans (good lord, man, if you believe so strongly that the cause is just, why aren't you there?). You are your own worst logical enemy, anchorite, and - while it was momentarily amusing watching you run in tight little circles trying to prove your point (which, to sum up, remains that Western values are the best values and should be imposed on the rest of the world whether they like it or not), your all-too-eager shift to the offensive with your repeated attempts to paint me as a hater of America who wants to see its citizens hurt is unimaginative, contrived and - as I stated earlier - incredibly boring. So keep on keeping on. I have no more patience for you, your fear, your ignorance or your intolerance. Peace... or war, I suppose, if that's what you prefer.

  • July 13, 2005, 4:16 a.m. CST

    the real thomas pynchon

    by keepcoolbutcare

    "Kekule dreams the Great Serpent holding its own tail in its mouth, the dreaming Serpent which surrounds the world. But the meanness, the cynicismn with which this dream is to be used. The Serpent that announces, "The World is a closed thing, cyclical, resonant, eternally-returning," is to be delivered into a system whose only aim is to VIOLATE the Cycle. Taking and not giving back, demanding that "productivity" and "earnings" keep on increasing with time, the System removing from the rest of the World these vast quantities of energy to keep its own tiny desperate fraction showing a profit: and not only most of humanity-most of the World, animal, vegetable and mineral is laid to waste in the process. The System may or may not understand that it's only buying time. And that time is an artificial resource to begin with, of no value to anyone or anything but the System, which sooner or later must crash to its death, when its addictions to energy has become more than the rest of the World can supply, dragging with it innocent souls all along the chain of life." " can get pretty fascist in here..." Gravity's Rainbow

  • July 13, 2005, 11:43 a.m. CST

    uh, right

    by lopan

    i can't believe i actually just spent 30 minutes reading the astute political commentary of a bunch of film dorks who think they're suddenly history experts. the whole matter is so infinitely's impossible to say you are 100% right or you are 100% wrong. why bother arguing about it...there is no possible way that me or any other dork here can know enough about religion, politics and history to justify some of the shit i'm reading in here. let's just talk about fucking movies instead...that is why we're here after all.

  • July 13, 2005, 12:34 p.m. CST

    No, anchorite...

    by Childe Roland wrote that I wish America ill. Several times, even though you could not point to one instance where I did. Because you are clearly desperate to discredit me and preserve your fragile world view. The only piece of personal information I've given you about me has alredy been clumsily weilded against me in an effort to do just that (Cain and Abel... please). Should I keep enabling that sort of ridiculous behavior? The only thing I will keep doing is correcting you when you deliberately misquote or misrepresent what I've typed. And in that vein, when did I ever rebuke the U.S. for aiding or dealing with Saddam Hussein in the 80s? Is the knowledge that we did so shameful to you that the mere mention of the fact stings your ears? Sorry, anchorite, but you're playing with the big boys now. Toughen up. The U.S. has collaborated with murderers in the past when it suited the nation's interests at the time. Look into the use of Nazi science and scientists by the U.S. after WWII if you have the stomach. Are you naive enough to believe the U.S. would have tried to climb into bed with a guy like Saddam without checking him out first? We knew what kind of a person he was, and that he had killed alleged communists. That may well have scored him extra "good guy" points in the books of Reagan's advisors, given the world climate at the time. Does this kind of understanding disturb you? Or is it just that I can discuss such things relatively dispassionately and without the sanctimonious bluster that you believe lends your arguments so much weight? The fact of the matter is that the U.S.'s moral ground is shaky, at best, and certainly not a stable platform from which to speculate about the moral or ethical implications of the inner workings of the Iraqi government. It is all fine and good to establish laws that govern your own society. And it is even better when you can convince the majority of people living within that society to obey those laws and equate that behavior with what is morally "right." Makes things relatively easy (with the exception of all those criminals we've locked away). When you establish the rules (becoming the "ruler"), that is your right and responsibility. We do not make the rules for the rest of the world. The closest thing we have to a body that does that is the U.N., and we all know how they feel about our presence in Iraq. Of course, the Bush administration isn't too fond of the U.N. I don't imagine you are, either. So should we cue the Tears for Fears song now and warm up the crowd for your return rant or are you just going to acknowledge that you and I will never see eye to eye? Before you answer, know that I will never get tired of correcting you if you persist in misrepresenting me. I'm a real dick that way.

  • July 13, 2005, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Weigh Anchor!

    by Brit Pop

    Shame you were'nt so apologetic on the other talkback Anchor... hey everyone... look what anchor's got to say on the Jesus talkback about 25 posts ago... its good!!!

  • July 13, 2005, 2:43 p.m. CST

    new yorkers ?

    by slkboxrman

    i really have to ask, are any of u even from new york city ? i live in nyc and personally i want to see a movie, any movie, actually ive heard of another one called "103 minutes" supposed to cover the rescue effort from the time the first tower got hit to the first tower dropping... this movie needs to be made, the sooner the better. we cant keep hiding 9/11 away, bad enuf us ny'ers have to deal with that abomination of a building they want to put up where the trade center stood.... sure leave 2 big holes in the ground..... thats fcking retarded..over 90% of us that live in the city, many right on top of ground zero, wanted the towers put back up, but do they put it to a vote? no...that was the longest day of my life and i was a couple of miles away....smoke was everywhere on the one wants to have 2 big holes where the towers were 'cept for the babies that cant let the past go....did they leave the wall down at the pentagon where that plane crashed, no. and can we please stop saying how great this country is when it continually lies to its citizens, personally i hope stone shows very graphic scenes, and as for conspiracy theories,would love to see him show how the plane that crashed in PA was actually shot down by the U.S. military.. too many people i know, whenever 9/11 is mentioned dont wanna watch or read anything about it...i feel its time to relive it, to get it out of our systems once and for all...we cant keep taking images out of movies and stuff because someone out there cant handle it, i miss the towers, i want to see em. so if u dont live here , dont flap ur gums about how they shouldnt make a 9/11 movie.... just shut the hell up. and for all that dont know it, we practically built al quaeda. we funded and financed bin laden for years when he was fighting the russians, even built him that fancy cave complex we lost him in...he wasnt a threat till he became a threat...we didnt care about car bombs and blowing up barracks...we didnt hardcore start chasing him till after he killed nearly 3000 people on 9/11...... please make a 9/11 movie...make lots of em.

  • July 13, 2005, 6:19 p.m. CST

    anchorite, you know I saw the bodies of the dead being brought o

    by TonyWilson

    you are a filth. No sensitivity, no compassion, and limited cognitive skills by what you have written on here. If you can't agrue construstively or at the very least in a comedic light, sign off and go to bed.

  • July 13, 2005, 10:43 p.m. CST

    So, anchorite...

    by Childe Roland

    ...if making yourself look like a self-righteous, ethnocentric, simple-minded ass is such a chore, why do you keep doing it? For my amusement? I don't dispute any of the quotes that you just posted from me. You basically restated my arguments with some highly judgmental color commentary thrown in to make you feel better about yourself (although if you think everything before the "but" in that one statement was meaningless and I only got to what I was really trying to say afterward, you're even thicker than you seem). Where I and anyone else who reads your idocy takes issue is in your inability to comprehend what you quote. Being down on what our nation (the U.S., in case you've lost track already) is currently doing, both in Iraq and at home, and believing that the only way it will realize the error of its ways is to overextend itself in one regard or another is a far fucking cry from wanting to see American people hurt or killed, you ignorant twat. And it is ENTIRELY possible to both love and be disappointed in something at the same time. For example, I love the way you've painted yourself into this intellectual corner where you don't even have a fucking clue what it is you're arguing for or against anymore, as long as you come off unconditionally supporting your man in the white house (don't fool yourself into thinking you're supporting America or the American way of life... you're supporting the agenda of a few wealthy men looking out for their own immediate futures). But I'm ashamed of myself for helping put you in this position. It's been far too easy. If you feel leaving Iraq would be the equivalent of the U.S. tucking its tail between its legs, there's no chance in hell you'll admit that you are a boorish, imperialist blowhard without a shred of thought that hasn't been spoonfed to you. So you just keep spinning your wheels and making yourself look the ass (that ridiculous parallel you tried to draw between the UN and Congress was precious). Like I said, it's fun to watch and even more fun to feed.

  • July 14, 2005, 4:14 a.m. CST

    Umm, I wasn't making jokes at christ, I was poking fun at pe

    by TonyWilson

    I don't think making jokes about suicide bombings is a good way to score points on the internet, or anywhere else.

  • July 14, 2005, 8:08 a.m. CST

    This thread isn't long enough

    by Mister G

    I think I'll post a link to it on and some other Bushbot neocon forums. Then anchorite will be able to get some rest.

  • July 14, 2005, 11:30 a.m. CST

    So, to sum up...

    by Childe Roland

    ...anchorite posits that the U.S. should not only impose its morals and values on Iraq, but on any nation the current administration (or he personally... the two entities apparently share the same brain on matters of "defense" and foreign policy) deems to be contributing in any way to international terrorism (a concept he believes is somehow less nebulous than poverty or the drug trade, despite the myriad motivations for terrorism the world over and the fact that not all terrorists are Muslim or even religously motivated). When faced with arguments that clearly point out the inherent flaw in his position (which is predicated on the U.S. being some sort of wizened authority in the area of timeless and incontrivertible morals and values when, in fact, the U.S. has embraced the concept of moral relativity under both Republican and Democratic administrations, often supporting and collaborating with those who have done evil in the eyes of its citizens when such alliances have proven convenient or beneficial), he immediately shifts tactics to try (and fail miserably) and undermine the credibility of the person presenting those valid opposing viewpoints. Congratulations, anchorite. You are a perfect living, breathing example of everything that the current administration has done and continues to do wrong. You've also provided the perfect example of how not to structure an argument, neglecting the points raised to counter your position in favor of attacks on the character and reliability of your opposition (look up ad hominem under logical fallacies... hell, look up logic... you'll feel like even more of a jackass). I am only sorry that it took this long for you to fully demonstrate your value as a teaching tool (psychological emphasis on that last word). Everybody look at anchorite: that's how not to do it. In the immortal words of Ms. Hoover: "The other children are right to laugh at you, Ralph." I think you should apologize to slkboxrman and any other New Yorker who clicked on this talkback for, once again, trying to spin the terrible tragedy of 9/11 into propoganda for the current administration's campaign of hypocrisy and falsehoods.

  • July 15, 2005, 8:07 a.m. CST

    Anchorite? Are you still...

    by Childe Roland

    ...typing? Didn't you clearly state that you weren't going to post here again? And yet, there you are. So at least one act of hypocrisy and falsehood is clearly traceable to you in just the last three posts. Yet you have not pointed out one falsehood or instance of hypocrisy on my part. The best you've done is successfully accuse me of shorthanding history in my description of Saddam Hussein's rise to power. Other than that, you've certainly tried to imply that when I say I love my country I actually don't and therefore my opinions regarding its current actions should be suspect. Sorry, but even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that you have completely failed to support your initial argument (or your diversionary one), and now you have made yourself a liar (instead of the confused, inable to comprehend the meaning of statements individual you've come off as up 'til this point) as well. Good work. As asshats go, you're a real overacheiver. Care to try a different tactic?