Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
September Tapes offers post-9/11 cautionary tale
In the post-9/11 world, many people have developed a fascinating interest in telling people "why we fight".
Many people treat it as a foregone conclusion: "We fight. This is why." Rarely is the matter even treated as a question.
2004's The September Tapes -- think of it as The Blair Witch Project meets Babel in wartime Afghanistan -- presents Don Larson (George Calil) as a documtary filmmaker in Afghanistan intent on witnessing the capture of Osama Bin Laden by American troops. His Afghan-American guide Wali Zarif (Wali Razaqi) leads Larson deeper and deeper into the dangerous world of Afghanistan's ethnic conflicts.
As he does so, Larson is drawn deeper and deeper into the conflict, eventually sacrificing his role as an observer and non-combatant for that of warrior, as he pursues the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks with a fierce doggedness that quickly escalates into outright obsession.
As the movie progresses, it quickly becomes obvious that Larson has taken the events of 9/11 very personally. It turns out that he actually has ample cause -- something the viewer doesn't learn until the film's conclusion.
But the film offers a cautionary tale about 9/11 and about the war on terror that it has spawned.
The United States and its allies -- including and especially Canada -- cannot allow the war on terror to be about revenge. The United States and its allies cannot allow the war on terror to become about revenge.
It's impossible to argue that the response to 9/11 shouldn't be considered personal. The country attacked on that dark day certainly took the event personally. Frankly, it's hard to blame them.
As Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) notes in 2004's The Punisher, "revenge is not a valid motive. It's an emotional response." Any response to 9/11 based purely on emotion is one that is certain to fail.
Frank Castle is a character incapable of dealing with his own internal (emotional and psychological) problems in the wake of his family's murder. Instead, he focuses his efforts on the destruction of external enemies. When he finally manages to kill the man who ordered his family's murder, he takes to the road in search of other enemies to fight.
Likewise, Don Larson is a man seemingly incapable of dealing with his own (again, emotional and psychological) problems in the wake of 9/11. Instead, he focuses his efforts on witnessing American soldiers bringing the man who masterminded the attacks to justice. When it becomes apparent that this will not happen, he takes up arms and pursues Bin Laden on his own.
The loss of his allies along the way doesn't deter him. In the end, the conclusion of the film is a foregone conclusion. In fact, it's divulged at the start of the film -- Larson disappears, and his tapes are eventually recovered by American soldiers.
Don Larson the man has vanished. He may be dead, or he may be hunting Osama Bin Laden still.
As the world stops to commemorate the seventh anniversary of 9/11, one wonders about the ultimate fate of the country south of the 49th parallel. Has it learned how to deal with its own internal problems (psychological or emotional, or economic or political), or will it continue to hunt for enemies?
Will it focus on the very real enemies that exist -- terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, the states that choose to harbour them and, ultimately, the conditions that breed them -- or will it again expand its crusade to threats that, if they even exist at all, are far from pressing? (One fears that talks about an eventual invasion of Iran are not as far-fetched as they may seem.)
The question is not if we will fight. The question is why. And, yes, it is a question.
As Canada and other countries continue to ally with the United States in the global war on terror, we must come to grips with the fact that the motives for which the United States fights will, in one way or another, impact upon us and be our motives as well.
We must continue to ensure that the United States is not fighting for revenge, but for the betterment of the world as a whole, and in the promotion of global security. If we witness the United States straying from this path again -- as it did when it chose to invade Iraq to confront non-existent weapons of mass destruction -- we must ensure that Canada does not follow them there.
That is why we fight. Not for revenge, as Don Larson eventually does, but for the betterment of all. For justice. For reason.
But never revenge.
Normally, the pressure has been to keep partisanship to a bare minimum on this day every year.
But with this year's anniversary of 9/11 -- the seventh year since that infamous day -- falling during not one but two North American elections, 9/11 will almost certainly become a topic of some importance today.
Particularly with an American election in which no incumbent can be returned to the White House, the question of 9/11 and how another such attack can be prevented will be a pivotal issue. In 2004, voters knew first hand President George W Bush's views on how to avert terrorist attacks. In 2008, they don't have that luxury in comparing the anti-terrorism plans of John McCain and Barack Obama.
But to truly understand the events of 9/11, and truly understand how another such attack can be prevented, it's important to understand how the event unfolded in the first place.
As such, today The Nexus presents (with brief commentary) the documentary Inside 9/11: Zero Hour:
It's remarkable how ineffective pre-9/11 security was at detecting the 19 terrorists, even when a number of them were selected for additional security. The very rules set by the FAA actually facilitated the hijacking by allowing the hijackers to carry their weapons on board.
It's also disconcerting how, even after the hijacking was known, the eventual disaster was still unable to be prevented.
The FAA's inability to communicate effectively with F-15 fighter jets that had been scrambled to track American Airlines flight 11 and the literal impossibility of fighting a fire at the height in question point to the obvious ill-preparedness of the American transportation infrastructure, military and civil authorities to deal with the events of that day.
One would almost excuse ill-preparedness to deal with events previously considered almost unimaginable. But on the very day of the events in question, novelist John Grisham told CNN that he had proposed events remarkably similar to 9/11 as a national security scenario to Pentagon officials.
The events of 9/11 weren't as unthinkable as we may like to believe.
The detail with which the film portrays the events of 9/11 is shocking, but underscores the reality of the event -- and reminds us why a repeat of that catastrophe must be averted.
Confusion began to set in as the FAA and air traffic controllers literally lost track of which planes were still in the air, and which planes had already reached their target.
Particularly chilling is the deception the hijackers employed with their passengers. Knowing full well that they were all going to die upon reaching their target, one can't help but treat the deception -- and the false hope it promises -- as unnecessarily cruel.
Then again, perhaps it could be said that any hope in the heart of a suicide bomber is false hope indeed.
Part of dealing with any event such as 9/11 requires a response plan -- something evidently lacking on that date in 2001. It pains any rational person to criticize the response of emergency services -- men and women doing their jobs under extremely difficult circumstances.
But there is little question that their jobs were made unacceptably more difficult by the lack of a response plan. When building a 100-plus story building, it isn't unreasonable to expect that civil authorities will plan for a possible evacuation of that building in the event of a catastrophe -- particularly when that building has been the target of a terrorist attack before.
The lack of a realistic plan to deal with fires such as those burning in the WTC becomes immediately apparent. The film notes that the average firefighter takes an hour to climb 25 stories, meaning the firefighters being sent to fight the fires -- each carrying 100 pounds of equipment -- would take four hours to reach the fire.
The fires, meanwhile, were beginning to soften the support beams, which had been stripped of their fire-proofing by the impact of the planes.
The lost four hours could have potentially prevented the collapse of the towers -- if there were a plan in place to help get firefighters to the impact floors in a reasonable amount of time.
Only the determination and dedication of the firefighters in question served to avert further loss of life that day where disaster planning effectively failed.
The film also presents some of the smaller human tales amidst the tragedy, such as that of Usman Farman, a Muslim man who a Jewish man helped escape from the debris cloud following the WTC's collapse.
Zero Hour also imparts on the viewer the culpability of basic human hubris for the loss of life that occurred on 9/11. Individuals less fortunate than Pasqual Buzzelli who were instructed by building security to remain in their offices despite the fires raging so far above died simply because of the apparent inability of WTC security staff to comprehend the inherent mortal hazard of the situation unfolding.
Once again, a complete evacuation should have been part of any disaster response plan. That there was no evacuation is simply a tragic testament to the lack of an effective plan.
The film also briefly addresses the policy shift following the attack -- explained by talking head David Frum -- and the policy and administrative failure in the lead-up to the attack.
"We were shocked at the carnage, but we certainly weren't surprised," explains J Coffer Black, a CIA analyst.
"I don't think anyone who worked on this problem expected anything less than what happened on 9/11," explained Michael Scheuer. "If the policymakers expected anything less, than shame on them."
There's a disturbing irony in the chirping of the firefighters' electronic locators -- devices once used to find a firefighter in the midst of a blaze, instead marking their graves amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center.
Even seven years after the event, the losses on that day stagger the imagination.
The film concludes with a brief summary of the events following 9/11: the invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Kabul, the invasion of Iraq -- basically, the rest of the story thus far. It outlines the continuing challenges of the post-9/11 world.
With elections underway in both the United States and Canada, it will be hard to keep the legacy of 9/11 separate from the political and partisan considerations at the very heart of these contests -- even if one agrees that it should be kept separate.
If the legacy of 9/11 really is to be dragged into the middle of either election -- and for the record, this author prays it won't be -- we will owe it to those lost on that day to postulate wisely on the topic, and ensure that it leads somewhere constructive.
To do anything less would trample their memories.
But with this year's anniversary of 9/11 -- the seventh year since that infamous day -- falling during not one but two North American elections, 9/11 will almost certainly become a topic of some importance today.
Particularly with an American election in which no incumbent can be returned to the White House, the question of 9/11 and how another such attack can be prevented will be a pivotal issue. In 2004, voters knew first hand President George W Bush's views on how to avert terrorist attacks. In 2008, they don't have that luxury in comparing the anti-terrorism plans of John McCain and Barack Obama.
But to truly understand the events of 9/11, and truly understand how another such attack can be prevented, it's important to understand how the event unfolded in the first place.
As such, today The Nexus presents (with brief commentary) the documentary Inside 9/11: Zero Hour:
It's remarkable how ineffective pre-9/11 security was at detecting the 19 terrorists, even when a number of them were selected for additional security. The very rules set by the FAA actually facilitated the hijacking by allowing the hijackers to carry their weapons on board.
It's also disconcerting how, even after the hijacking was known, the eventual disaster was still unable to be prevented.
The FAA's inability to communicate effectively with F-15 fighter jets that had been scrambled to track American Airlines flight 11 and the literal impossibility of fighting a fire at the height in question point to the obvious ill-preparedness of the American transportation infrastructure, military and civil authorities to deal with the events of that day.
One would almost excuse ill-preparedness to deal with events previously considered almost unimaginable. But on the very day of the events in question, novelist John Grisham told CNN that he had proposed events remarkably similar to 9/11 as a national security scenario to Pentagon officials.
The events of 9/11 weren't as unthinkable as we may like to believe.
The detail with which the film portrays the events of 9/11 is shocking, but underscores the reality of the event -- and reminds us why a repeat of that catastrophe must be averted.
Confusion began to set in as the FAA and air traffic controllers literally lost track of which planes were still in the air, and which planes had already reached their target.
Particularly chilling is the deception the hijackers employed with their passengers. Knowing full well that they were all going to die upon reaching their target, one can't help but treat the deception -- and the false hope it promises -- as unnecessarily cruel.
Then again, perhaps it could be said that any hope in the heart of a suicide bomber is false hope indeed.
Part of dealing with any event such as 9/11 requires a response plan -- something evidently lacking on that date in 2001. It pains any rational person to criticize the response of emergency services -- men and women doing their jobs under extremely difficult circumstances.
But there is little question that their jobs were made unacceptably more difficult by the lack of a response plan. When building a 100-plus story building, it isn't unreasonable to expect that civil authorities will plan for a possible evacuation of that building in the event of a catastrophe -- particularly when that building has been the target of a terrorist attack before.
The lack of a realistic plan to deal with fires such as those burning in the WTC becomes immediately apparent. The film notes that the average firefighter takes an hour to climb 25 stories, meaning the firefighters being sent to fight the fires -- each carrying 100 pounds of equipment -- would take four hours to reach the fire.
The fires, meanwhile, were beginning to soften the support beams, which had been stripped of their fire-proofing by the impact of the planes.
The lost four hours could have potentially prevented the collapse of the towers -- if there were a plan in place to help get firefighters to the impact floors in a reasonable amount of time.
Only the determination and dedication of the firefighters in question served to avert further loss of life that day where disaster planning effectively failed.
The film also presents some of the smaller human tales amidst the tragedy, such as that of Usman Farman, a Muslim man who a Jewish man helped escape from the debris cloud following the WTC's collapse.
Zero Hour also imparts on the viewer the culpability of basic human hubris for the loss of life that occurred on 9/11. Individuals less fortunate than Pasqual Buzzelli who were instructed by building security to remain in their offices despite the fires raging so far above died simply because of the apparent inability of WTC security staff to comprehend the inherent mortal hazard of the situation unfolding.
Once again, a complete evacuation should have been part of any disaster response plan. That there was no evacuation is simply a tragic testament to the lack of an effective plan.
The film also briefly addresses the policy shift following the attack -- explained by talking head David Frum -- and the policy and administrative failure in the lead-up to the attack.
"We were shocked at the carnage, but we certainly weren't surprised," explains J Coffer Black, a CIA analyst.
"I don't think anyone who worked on this problem expected anything less than what happened on 9/11," explained Michael Scheuer. "If the policymakers expected anything less, than shame on them."
There's a disturbing irony in the chirping of the firefighters' electronic locators -- devices once used to find a firefighter in the midst of a blaze, instead marking their graves amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center.
Even seven years after the event, the losses on that day stagger the imagination.
The film concludes with a brief summary of the events following 9/11: the invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Kabul, the invasion of Iraq -- basically, the rest of the story thus far. It outlines the continuing challenges of the post-9/11 world.
With elections underway in both the United States and Canada, it will be hard to keep the legacy of 9/11 separate from the political and partisan considerations at the very heart of these contests -- even if one agrees that it should be kept separate.
If the legacy of 9/11 really is to be dragged into the middle of either election -- and for the record, this author prays it won't be -- we will owe it to those lost on that day to postulate wisely on the topic, and ensure that it leads somewhere constructive.
To do anything less would trample their memories.
Anti-Israel Green candidate will stay on ballot
In the immediate aftermath of Green party leader Elizabeth May's decision to allow the candidacy of Qais Ghanem to stand, one question remains on the mind of those observing the Green party during this 2008 federal election:
Why, exactly, was John Shavluk's nomination scrubbed?
We've heard the official explanation: Shavluk's apparently anti-semitic remarks were "not consistent with Green party philosophy".
Meanwhile, Ghanem -- a physicist and immigrant from Yemen -- who along with Sylvie Lemieux, Paul Maillet and Akbar Manoussi (collectively, they are known as the "Ottawa group of four"), to sponsor a resolution entitled simply "Palestine". The resolution "calls upon Israel to end its forty-year occupation of all Arab lands without preconditions."
Ghanem has caught flack within the Green party for using a Green party message board to post messages that were "one-sidedly anti-Israel".
For his own part, Ghanem insists that I do not have to record the opposite point of view to every quotation I dig up, for the sake of so-called 'balance,'. The Israeli point of view is voiced non-stop by the North American media which is controlled by a small oligarchy."
Of course, it would be hard to pretend that when Ghanem refers to a "small oligarchy", he isn't referring to media owners such as the Asper family, who own and control Canwest Global.
So long as he doesn't refer to "a small Jewish oligarchy", it would seem, he's treading on safe territory.
Apparently, Ghanem can counter-factually claim that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected despite the fact that Iran has barred nuclear inspectors from its facilities.
So long as Ghanem restrains himself from posting bizarre references to Jewish bankers online, it seems, he's safe, even if such sentiments in his comments seem only thinly veiled.
There is, of course, one other element in play: Ghanem didn't mention 9/11 in the course of his comments.
Of course, he has voiced some rather remarkable views regarding 9/11 on his campaign website:
(Interestingly, he can't quite seem to come to grips with the Taliban's harbouring of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan.)
Meanwhile, Kevin Potvin wrote an editorial wherein he cheered Bin Laden's escape ("Go Osama go!"), and encouraged Vancouver-area 9/11 "truth"ers to meet with him to discuss the matter. His nomination was rejected.
John Shavluk posted a comment implicating the Americans in a terrorist attack on their own soil upon "[their] shoddily built world bank headquarters", and his nomination was turfed as well.
Meanwhile, Qais Ghanem writes a blog post endorsing the 9/11 "truth" movement and advances resolutions that deny Israel's right to exist, and somehow he's still "within [Green] party policy."
While there's clearly a strong 9/11 "truth" movement within the Green party, it may seem that Elizabeth May really isn't trying to excise that particular demon at all.
From any mainstream party, this would be shocking. Fortunately, this is the Green party we're talking about here. One thing about being a fringe party is that eventually you have to embrace fringe politics, in one way or another.
In the immediate aftermath of Green party leader Elizabeth May's decision to allow the candidacy of Qais Ghanem to stand, one question remains on the mind of those observing the Green party during this 2008 federal election:
Why, exactly, was John Shavluk's nomination scrubbed?
We've heard the official explanation: Shavluk's apparently anti-semitic remarks were "not consistent with Green party philosophy".
Meanwhile, Ghanem -- a physicist and immigrant from Yemen -- who along with Sylvie Lemieux, Paul Maillet and Akbar Manoussi (collectively, they are known as the "Ottawa group of four"), to sponsor a resolution entitled simply "Palestine". The resolution "calls upon Israel to end its forty-year occupation of all Arab lands without preconditions."Ghanem has caught flack within the Green party for using a Green party message board to post messages that were "one-sidedly anti-Israel".
For his own part, Ghanem insists that I do not have to record the opposite point of view to every quotation I dig up, for the sake of so-called 'balance,'. The Israeli point of view is voiced non-stop by the North American media which is controlled by a small oligarchy."
Of course, it would be hard to pretend that when Ghanem refers to a "small oligarchy", he isn't referring to media owners such as the Asper family, who own and control Canwest Global.
So long as he doesn't refer to "a small Jewish oligarchy", it would seem, he's treading on safe territory.
Apparently, Ghanem can counter-factually claim that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected despite the fact that Iran has barred nuclear inspectors from its facilities.
So long as Ghanem restrains himself from posting bizarre references to Jewish bankers online, it seems, he's safe, even if such sentiments in his comments seem only thinly veiled.
There is, of course, one other element in play: Ghanem didn't mention 9/11 in the course of his comments.
Of course, he has voiced some rather remarkable views regarding 9/11 on his campaign website:
"2001-Sept-11 The Big Event!This is in the course of a post entitled "What are we doing in Afghanistan?"
Hijackers were Saudis with box cutters, NONE were Afghans or Iraqis.
2001-Sept-12: (ONE day later) Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz declared that Iraq should be attacked!
Here is a list of questions that need answers:
Why was the FBI investigation of hijackers shut down?
Why were military response stand down orders issued?
Why were distracting war games set up on 9/11 of all days?
Why did building 7, not attacked at all, collapse like controlled demolition?"
(Interestingly, he can't quite seem to come to grips with the Taliban's harbouring of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan.)
Meanwhile, Kevin Potvin wrote an editorial wherein he cheered Bin Laden's escape ("Go Osama go!"), and encouraged Vancouver-area 9/11 "truth"ers to meet with him to discuss the matter. His nomination was rejected.
John Shavluk posted a comment implicating the Americans in a terrorist attack on their own soil upon "[their] shoddily built world bank headquarters", and his nomination was turfed as well.
Meanwhile, Qais Ghanem writes a blog post endorsing the 9/11 "truth" movement and advances resolutions that deny Israel's right to exist, and somehow he's still "within [Green] party policy."
While there's clearly a strong 9/11 "truth" movement within the Green party, it may seem that Elizabeth May really isn't trying to excise that particular demon at all.
From any mainstream party, this would be shocking. Fortunately, this is the Green party we're talking about here. One thing about being a fringe party is that eventually you have to embrace fringe politics, in one way or another.
