United 93

by Niall Flaherty Sun Jun 04, 2006 18:06 flahertyniall at eircom dot net

Films are only historical documents in as far as they depict how a culture responds to and documents it's history in film.

This film takes the official version of events as gospel and creates an intimate fiction about how that version may have played out...

Does it really need to be said in this day and age, and in this media aware forum that films aren't real?

It is no more real then Ken Loach's recent 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley', no more real than Neil Jordan's 'Michael Collins', but describes historical events from the perspective of the filmmaker for an audience that pays for what it enjoys.. and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

We don't know what happened on this flight, whether it was shot down by the Air Force, or brought down in an organic act of self determination by a motley band of american patriots, (maybe the pilot ditched?) but we do know that the people who write positive reviews of 'flight 93' will write negative ones of 'the wind that shakes the barley', because these writers don't write for a free-media, their opinions are handed to them by their publishers, and push their publishers political agenda only.

I'll probably go to see this film, or more likely catch it later on dvd... after all, Paul Greengrass is a great story teller, a filmaker not an historian.

btw, it's guilt not innocence that has to be proven, the obligation to prove being that of the accuser not the accused.

by Ulrich Sun Jun 04, 2006 18:37

The dialogue in the film is based on the flight voice recorder recovered from the crash site - the recording of air traffic controllers, telephone conversations from the passengers to their families, interviews with members of the passengers families who flesh out the personalities of their loved ones through reminisces.
One of the men on the plane was an experienced pilot with light aircraft and another was retired airtraffic controller and a plan may well have been hatched to take back control, others were martial arts experts, one was a rugby player and another a judo champion.
From piecing together the evidence a sequence of events emerged:

There were four hijackers were armed with knives and a mock up bomb.
They stabbed both pilots, an air hostess and at least one first class passenger.
Todd Beamer and the others spoke to their relatives asking of information and then discussed how they were going to storm the cockpit. Air hostesses boiled a kettle of water to use as a weapon while a foot cart was used as battering ram to smash down the door of the cockpit. Beamer said words such as "Let's Roll" or "roll it!".There were fire extinguishers on board and it is logical that these were also used.
It is certain that the door was breached and the passengers may well have got inside because a struggle continued for several minutes between someone inside the cockpit and Said Jarrah, the terrorist pilot before the plane hit the ground.

There is one pure fictional scene where Jeremy Glick breaks a hijackers neck in an armlock which is based on a vivid dream that his widow experienced shortly after his death in which she felt she was communicating with her dead husband. Many other relatives also had vivid spiritual experiences linked with the trauma - but since the terrorists would have trained in martial arts at training camps in Afghanistan before coming to America it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Glick a judo champion would have had to resort to a lethal headlock.

Apart from some physical dissimilarities between the actors and real people- the events protrated are entirely as they happened.

by Lars ulrich Sun Jun 04, 2006 19:25

"The people of Europe recoiled in shock and horror on 9/11 and today many of them would advocating cutting and running, making peace with the terrorists and apologising for existing to primitive barbarians while criticising America was responding with sanity - exterminating these rats!

Al-Qaeda are an inhuman enemy who deserve to be crushed without mercy or apology."

Oh dear ... I suppose it was too much to expect your article to conclude without a hysterical rant like that. If you can find anyone in Europe who advocates face-to-face negotiations for a peace deal with Bin Laden or any of his co-thinkers, I'll be very interested (of course, you won't be able to, because they don't exist). I can't say I've noticed any Europeans "apologise for existing" either, but maybe you can enlighten me. And if you can find anyone who believes the invasion of Iraq has done anything but strengthen the ideology of the jihadi networks and provide them with fresh recruits, you've merely found a liar or a fool.

by Shannon Mon Jun 05, 2006 04:15

As one of the previous responders posted, there is a lot of documentation backing the historical authentisity of this film. No, we don't have any witnesses from on board the plane to substantiate what actually took place up there, as they are all dead. What we do have are the calls to loved ones from the passengers. These testaments, when pieced together, resulted in the movie. If you are looking for something more to this, you might want to try reading the book "Lets Roll", written by Todd Beamer's wife.

As for the idea that the military shot down the plane goes...it would have been understandable under the circumstances, but eye-whitness accounts from on the ground don't support that suggestion at all.

by Donnchadh Tue Jun 06, 2006 19:28

Looks like the film did the job its makers wanted it to do. No doubt it didnt make any mention of why people would feel so aggreived with the USA that they would be willing to blow themselves up. If you take an event out of its context you can put any spin you want on it. Of course the suffering of the victims of this plane hijacking was and is very real - but its not more real than that of the victims of US weapons in the Middle East. Dont expect a Hollywood film about their suffering any time soon.

by Shannon Wed Jun 07, 2006 03:45

The film looks at one small bit of history, and portrays it fairly accurately. The fact that I am willing to stand up for the film, and it's historical background is by no means an indication of my feelings about my country's involvement in Iraq. I believe I have been fairly vocal in the past on this site about that issue.

Your right, there probably won't be a movie on all of the mistakes and lies told to convince the right people that we needed to go to Iraq. Nor will you see one portraying how quicky this "war on terror" is getting way out of control thanks to a president who seems to think he is a dictator rather than an elected president.

My feelings on the war on terror do not diminish or ignor the suffering of those left to deal with the tragety of 9-11. I have just seen too many young men and women who signed up because of 9-11, and are now fighting the wrong war in the wrong country.

by Righteous Pragmatist Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:54

The US military if fighting Al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists in Iraq.
If the US pullout then these savages are going to follow you to the US.
Would you rather they were fighting Al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists on the streets of New York?
How about a 9/11 every Tuesday?

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Jun 07, 2006 13:12

The interim Iraqi PM al-Maliki announced yesterday (Wednesday) that 594 prisoners had been freed "unconditionally". He promised 1,400 more would be freed from Iraq's most notorious prisons, including Abu Ghraib, in an effort to ease anger among Sunnis over "allegations of arbitrary detentions and mistreatment of prisoners". The government said these are prisoners "whose cases have been reviewed " and will be released in batches of about 500.

Iraqi officials have also said there is 'an agreement' [between whom and whom?] to release up to 14,000 detainees once their cases have been reviewed. A U.N. report last month said there were 28,700 detainees in Iraq. Omar al-Jubori, a member of the Iraq Islamic Party, the largest Sunni Arab group in the governing coalition, said the agreement came after negotiations with U.S. Embassy and military officials and street demonstrations.

A simple question: What's the English word, beginning with H, that denotes the arbitrary and indiscriminate detention of [14,000] people? The H - word is usually associated with another word beginning with K and ending with G. And how do these words relate to people who have committed no crimes, have been charged with no crimes, have never been to trial and whose cases "will be reviewed" by their liberators? We're talking about Iraq here...leave aside, momentarily, the arguments about Guantanamo, rendition flights, torture etc

These are people who are experiencing daily their own version of 9/11. And did that head-the-ball above use the word 'savage'?

by Righteous Pragmatist Wed Jun 07, 2006 17:17

War sucks.

Even the most hawkish American does not want to be fighting in Iraq.

I am a hawk and I would love if there was world peace tomorrow.

But we MUST fight.

If the US pull out of Iraq there will be no boots on the ground to fight Al-Qaeda.

The ONLY reason there has not be a 9/11 style attack on American soil since 2001 is due to the Patriot Act, the ruthless crackdown on global terrorism, the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq.

Cinton responded to the bombing of the African embassies by firing salvoes of cruise missiles at targets in Afghanistan and Sudan - the cruise missiles missed their targets because we simply had no eyes or boots on the ground. The cruise missiles fired into Sudan hit a baby milk powder factory.

Thousands have been killed by American troops since 2001 and quite a few of them have been Anti-American jihadists blown to kingdom come by daisy cutters and B-52 strikes or Iraqi insurgents rubbed out by the Marine Corps in the battle of Fallujah.
Thousands more were unfortunate civilians we didn't want to kill in the crossfire.
In World War 2 America killed tens of thousands of French in aerial and artillery bombardments as they rolled up the Wehrmacht and pushed the Krauts back to the ruins of the Reich.

The Al-Qeada fighters and Iraqi insurgents are not going to stop if they manage to undermine American morale for a protracted counterguerilla war.
They will take control of Iraq, consolidate their position through mass genocide of the Iraqi people who voted for democracy, seize control of the oil fields and develop WMD. Then they will link up with a nuclear armed Iran and come after us all both Europeans and Americans.

The European Muslims victorious in Iraq will return home and pursue jihad against ordinary street cops in European cities such as Paris and Berlin and Dublin rather than heavily armed US troops in Baghdad, Fallujah and Al Anbar provence. They will succeed in establishing Islamic enclaves within European cities and attempt to seize power. They have the numbers at the moment and if jihad succeeds in Iraq they will have the motivation and most importantly the expertise of living breathing terrorists who will share their veteran experience.

America will not be able to stop a new Taliban in Iraq using punitive aerial bombing raids or cruise missile strikes. These terrorists will have proven America is a paper tiger and will launch future devastating terrorist attacks.

Either the fight is won now or a real clash of civilisations will indeed emerge as governments friendly with the US throughout the Middle East will collapse as Al-Qaeda terrorises its way to power.

If these savages are appeased by people like yourself then you can forget about democracy, free speech, civil liberties, women's rights, gay rights, rock and roll, sex, drugs, alcohol, movies, holidays, laughter, happiness. They will be no more.

All you will able to hope for then is submitting to Allah or death.

Compared to kneeling toward Mecca, I prefer being called a war junkie by suckers like you.

by Shannon Fri Jun 09, 2006 04:39

I stand by what I said with this being the wrong war in the wrong country. We went into Iraq after being told that they had weaponds of mass destruction. That turned out to be a huge lie. At the same time Iran is openly persueing development of WMD's, and we are threatening sanctions. Sorry if I'm a bit confused here, but didn't we invade Iraq on the mer belief that they had WMD's...using that logic, we should be invading Iran at the moment, but were not...

As for pulling out of Iraq now...I agree there's no way that's possible. We've created too big of a mess to pull out now.

Other's have argued that despite the fact that we didn't find any WMD's in Iraq, it's still a good thing that we invaded the country and liberated the people. I wonder what they say about the smaller countries in Africa where ethnic clensing is still practiced? Going by the arguement that we are saving the people, shouldn't we be doing something there as well?

I'm not a military expert or anything even remotely like it, and yey, I do prefer living in peace, were I don't have to worry about something remotely like 9-11 happening. After 9-11, I wouldn't have been a bit displeased if I had to watch Afganastan blown off the face of the earth. At the same time, I hate seeing my friends being sent, and returning to over and over again to a country in which we started a war on the premis of lies. And while I don't believe there is a good way to solve the issues being faced in Iraq, it doesn't mean that I have to like it, or change my opinion about this being the wrong war in the wrong country.

by Dec - none Mon Jun 12, 2006 18:20

This movie United 93 serves very little purpose only to crystalise US patriotism. It is important that viewers of the movie realise this. It takes a very poynant situation and uses it to further justify the war in Iraq.

We are only around the corner from the US mid-term elections so it's very important to get the electorate back on the governments side.
The killing of the Al Queda leader in Iraq was another boost for an ailing US Government. Then the patriotism oozing from this movie will push support of the Bush administration further!

What happened was awful, but what has happened since is catostrophic. Thousands of civilians slaughtered since the invasion of Iraq. No real peace in Iraq, No potential for peace in Iraq. I'd say if you asked an Iraqi they would be have prefered to be dictated to than to be in the middle of a civil war.

I've not seen the movie nor do I intend to! I find US propaganda very difficulte to consume at the moment.

No matter what way these events are viewed, it has enabled the US to do as it sees fit and this is just another tool that is being used to justify it!

It is terrible to think that someone would us this story of heroism for political goals but that's how it appears from here!

by Paul MacGiolla Bán Mon Jun 12, 2006 20:44

Shannon: "As for pulling out of Iraq now...I agree there's no way that's possible. We've created too big of a mess to pull out now".

The US presence is worsening the mess. That's why the US needs to pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis make decisions about Iraq. US claims to be trying to sort out the mess have no credibility or legitimacy. They are compounding the problem with their war on terror. What hawks such as Righteous Pragmatist are unable to comprehend is that the execution of the war on terror is a radicalising force within Islamic societies, which marginalises pro-democracy forces and moderates. The US presence in the Middle East is exacerbating the al-Qaeda threat by making their Islamic fundamentalism appealing.

This is not an apologist approach - al-Qaeda need to be targeted strongly, but the current way of targeting them is far too broad in scope, resulting in 'collateral damage' and other euphemisms for the murder of innocent civilians.

Shannon again: "After 9-11, I wouldn't have been a bit displeased if I had to watch Afganastan blown off the face of the earth"

The attacks of September 11th were appalling, but they were not carried out by the state of Afghanistan. The state of Afghanistan included millions of innocents - blowing the Taliban off the face of the earth means blowing plenty of innocents of the face of the earth also. I suggest you reconsider the logic of your statement.