of course it's from the perspective of a fireman... they can't make a hollywood film without a "hero".
Its tough to make any film without at "hero". Don't see where you're going with this...
In all fairness to Crossings though, there are plenty of films without an archetypical construction of a "hero" - at least not in the Joseph Campbell sense of the term.
Then again, I think Crossings is being far too kneejerk about two films he knows nothing about.
of course it's from the perspective of a fireman... they can't make a hollywood film without a "hero".
Its tough to make any film without at "hero". Don't see where you're going with this...
In all fairness to Crossings though, there are plenty of films without an archetypical construction of a "hero" - at least not in the Joseph Campbell sense of the term.
Then again, I think Crossings is being far too kneejerk about two films he knows nothing about.
Yeah, I didn't really think we were talking about some avant garde film or deconstructionist style shit. I should have rephrased- Its rare to see any film without a hero, or at least lead character.
i was totally against this movie when i heard about it, but it sounds like it's supposed to be really tastefully done. the filmmakers got approval from all of the family memebers, and i think the fact that there are no big name actors in it shows that it's not about making money[/b], but really about letting everyone feel what those passengers felt and to celebrate their act of heroism. i'm going to go see it.
sorry Maru, but this is called spin, image and publicity; a Hollywood staple
you promote your film in the best way you can to make the most money you can. Getting support from family members helps you justify the film so that some may think well hey this isn't such a bad idea after all and feel ok about dropping $10 for a ticket and $8 on a popcorn and large Dr. Pepper. Truth is this is a money project, no matter how you spin it it all comes back to the American ideal of cashing in on anything the public may be interested in paying for. As far as being "tastefully done" thats really in the eyes and minds of the viewer. I will not let a critic determine whats tasteful. as far as I'm concerned a film critic should let you know how enjoyable a film is but not how you should react when it comes to the potential offensiveness.
I stand by what I said before about this being a cash in on the most bold American[/b] tragedy of our lifetimes. I have no doubt that this film was an emotional one to participate in for all involved in shooting and editing but that does nothing for me in terms of the disrespect I feel this gives the American people[/b] who have had to endure the trauma of this attack and its after effects.
Im pretty sure NEITHER film is really designed (or at least, intended) to do that. You're conflating.
i'm under the impression that these movies are only coming out in an attempt to gain support for "the war" that has been going on ever since 9/11. our ignorant nation which seems to believe everything we see on the news on tv or read on some online news site has grown tired of supporting a war that never should have started in the first place. and since the bush administration is nowhere near done tearing this country a new asshole and making us look even worse on a global level, they need something like this to "remind" people that we have a "war to fight". it's fucking pathetic... and the whole controversy is just an attempt at free publicity. the news showed the actual footage nonstop for months on end... believe me, it's not even shocking to watch anymore. now they just need to spice the story up and add in all the fictional parts where we actually have someone to blame and therefore can go to war... movies like this make us look pathetic as a nation on a worldwide level.
i will not watch this piece of shit... and fuck oliver stone too.
just my 2 cents.
True, United 93 isn't intended to do that. At least I don't think it is. But then again, a lot of right-wingers have seized on the movie and made its existence (and, of course, going to see it) a political statement, that statement being, as Crossings pointed out, "We have to remind people we're at war! The lessons of 9/11!"
Im pretty sure NEITHER film is really designed (or at least, intended) to do that. You're conflating.
i'm under the impression that these movies are only coming out in an attempt to gain support for "the war" that has been going on ever since 9/11. our ignorant nation which seems to believe everything we see on the news on tv or read on some online news site has grown tired of supporting a war that never should have started in the first place. and since the bush administration is nowhere near done tearing this country a new asshole and making us look even worse on a global level, they need something like this to "remind" people that we have a "war to fight". it's fucking pathetic... and the whole controversy is just an attempt at free publicity. the news showed the actual footage nonstop for months on end... believe me, it's not even shocking to watch anymore. now they just need to spice the story up and add in all the fictional parts where we actually have someone to blame and therefore can go to war... movies like this make us look pathetic as a nation on a worldwide level.
i will not watch this piece of shit... and fuck oliver stone too.
just my 2 cents.
True, United 93 isn't intended to do that. At least I don't think it is. But then again, a lot of right-wingers have seized on the movie and made its existence (and, of course, going to see it) a political statement, that statement being, as Crossings pointed out, "We have to remind people we're at war! The lessons of 9/11!"
Eh, yeah...but, they weren't the first side to use a 9/11 movie to try to spin their side of the story and try to teach the lessons of 9/11. I believe that honor falls to Michael Moore...
I'm gonna chill out on the internet arguing for a sec, having had my fun in the Bonds/Steroids thread and this one. And, god knows I won't be going to see this movie. In the end, though, remember- vote with your wallet- that is what it comes down to. If you think it is inappropriate, don't go. And, if you think it is appropriate go.
Eh, yeah...but, they weren't the first side to use a 9/11 movie to try to spin their side of the story and try to teach the lessons of 9/11. I believe that honor falls to Michael Moore...
True indeed. I guess the main difference I see is that Moore actually did try to extrapolate some lessons from 9/11--that was one of the main points of his film. United 93 is just dramatizing something a lot of people aren't really inclined to want to relive. But depending what you think "the lessons of 9/11" are and how steeled you are against reliving 9/11 and all that stuff, this difference may be purely semantic.
Eh, yeah...but, they weren't the first side to use a 9/11 movie to try to spin their side of the story and try to teach the lessons of 9/11. I believe that honor falls to Michael Moore...
True indeed. I guess the main difference I see is that Moore actually did try to extrapolate some lessons from 9/11--that was one of the main points of his film. United 93 is just dramatizing something a lot of people aren't really inclined to want to relive. But depending what you think "the lessons of 9/11" are and how steeled you are against reliving 9/11 and all that stuff, this difference may be purely semantic.
I mean, to an extent, I agree. I think that Moore's film was intended to look at something more than that day- lessons from 9/11, incompetent leadership following, loss of civil liberties, fear mongering, the subsequent war, etc. Whether you think he acheived that or not is a whole other 5 pager.
The thing is, though...Apparently, a lot of people want to relive United 93. I know it is easy for us to say it is too soon, and a lot of people don't want to relive it, but the fact of the matter is that many people are reliving it, and really, there is nothing wrong with that. It is not for me, or the Soulstrut collective, to judge them for wanting to relive this on film.
Making a film is a massive, financially complicated, considered, and time consuming endeavor--not an emotional one.
Danny Dan is pretty much talking out of his ass here. film making is very emotional and subject matter like this could only magnify the types of emotions that go on in making a film.
Eh, yeah...but, they weren't the first side to use a 9/11 movie to try to spin their side of the story and try to teach the lessons of 9/11. I believe that honor falls to Michael Moore...
True indeed. I guess the main difference I see is that Moore actually did try to extrapolate some lessons from 9/11--that was one of the main points of his film. United 93 is just dramatizing something a lot of people aren't really inclined to want to relive. But depending what you think "the lessons of 9/11" are and how steeled you are against reliving 9/11 and all that stuff, this difference may be purely semantic.
I mean, to an extent, I agree. I think that Moore's film was intended to look at something more than that day- lessons from 9/11, incompetent leadership following, loss of civil liberties, fear mongering, the subsequent war, etc. Whether you think he acheived that or not is a whole other 5 pager.
The thing is, though...Apparently, a lot of people want to relive United 93. I know it is easy for us to say it is too soon, and a lot of people don't want to relive it, but the fact of the matter is that many people are reliving it, and really, there is nothing wrong with that. It is not for me, or the Soulstrut collective, to judge them for wanting to relive this on film.
Just to note - a lot of the basic ideas being clashed around here could just as easily apply to the debates over rebuilding the WTC and what "purpose" it's supposed to have. Issues around grief, greed, patriotism, etc. are all implicit in that debate as well.
I think America, as a whole, hasn't figured out what to do with 9/11 yet either. Maybe "United 93" will only complicate that question, maybe it offers one possible SMALL part to finding resolution. But, cynical as I may be, I think it's stirring up a conversation that's worth having.
Just to note - a lot of the basic ideas being clashed around here could just as easily apply to the debates over rebuilding the WTC and what "purpose" it's supposed to have. Issues around grief, greed, patriotism, etc. are all implicit in that debate as well.
I think America, as a whole, hasn't figured out what to do with 9/11 yet either.
I think under this administration and current state of the media its hard for individuals to deal with deep psychological scarring like this.
considering we've invaded 2 countries under the banner of this incident and its still thrown into many-a-presidential speech that is supposed to be persuasive it's hard to really say what 9/11 means to Americans as a collective
It'll be years (maybe even decades) before we as a nation are able to come to terms with this.
Just to note - a lot of the basic ideas being clashed around here could just as easily apply to the debates over rebuilding the WTC and what "purpose" it's supposed to have. Issues around grief, greed, patriotism, etc. are all implicit in that debate as well.
I think America, as a whole, hasn't figured out what to do with 9/11 yet either.
I think under this administration and current state of the media its hard for individuals to deal with deep psychological scarring like this.
considering we've invaded 2 countries under the banner of this incident and its still thrown into many-a-presidential speech that is supposed to be persuasive it's hard to really say what 9/11 means to Americans as a collective
It'll be years (maybe even decades) before we as a nation are able to come to terms with this.
It was such a traumatic and far reaching event that it would have taken years and decades no matter what; what happened afterward, and its rampant exploitation for a war that had nothing to do with it, will only make that process harder.
(parenthetical note: I have a harder time decrying the invasion of Afghanistan. It probably isn't the decision I would have made, but given that we had been attacked, their government was supporting those who claimed responsibility and harboring them, that is a response that I can at least justify given what had happened and the climate at the time. Now, abandoning that country after destroying what little they had and moving on to another one to do the same thing...that I have real problems with.)
I don't know man - if the point was to punish the people responsible, then I don't know why Osama is still out there, getting some homemade movies on. I have no fucking love for the Taliban but given the re-entrenchment of similar forms of Islamic fundamentalism in parts of Afghanistan, it's not like conditions have improved that dramatically - especially for women, which was one of the main selling points.
I think this belief that America NEEDED to do something on the level of invading countries and regime change has far more to do with how 9/11 was a blow to our collective sense of invulnerability, aka American exceptionalism. I think most other countries out there have a more pragmatic sense of justice and retribution because they've simply had to deal with this kind of shit more often than America has. We've lived in this insulated little bubble and 9/11 popped our egos and not surprisingly, the country has overresponded.
I don't know man - if the point was to punish the people responsible, then I don't know why Osama is still out there, getting some homemade movies on. I have no fucking love for the Taliban but given the re-entrenchment of similar forms of Islamic fundamentalism in parts of Afghanistan, it's not like conditions have improved that dramatically - especially for women, which was one of the main selling points.
I think this belief that America NEEDED to do something on the level of invading countries and regime change has far more to do with how 9/11 was a blow to our collective sense of invulnerability, aka American exceptionalism. I think most other countries out there have a more pragmatic sense of justice and retribution because they've simply had to deal with this kind of shit more often than America has. We've lived in this insulated little bubble and 9/11 popped our egos and not surprisingly, the country has overresponded.
I don't know man - if the point was to punish the people responsible, then I don't know why Osama is still out there, getting some homemade movies on. I have no fucking love for the Taliban but given the re-entrenchment of similar forms of Islamic fundamentalism in parts of Afghanistan, it's not like conditions have improved that dramatically - especially for women, which was one of the main selling points.
I think this belief that America NEEDED to do something on the level of invading countries and regime change has far more to do with how 9/11 was a blow to our collective sense of invulnerability, aka American exceptionalism. I think most other countries out there have a more pragmatic sense of justice and retribution because they've simply had to deal with this kind of shit more often than America has. We've lived in this insulated little bubble and 9/11 popped our egos and not surprisingly, the country has overresponded.
As I said above, I don't think I would have made the decision to invade Afghanistan; but it was not a move that I could step up and get angry about. I would like to say that I'm a pacifist (I've tried; couldn't do it) but when a totalitarian government is harboring and supporting people who have just attacked us, I don't think it is totally out of line to counter-attack.
And, make no mistake: it was a counter attack. I know that we were not attacked by a country or government on 9/11; but the Taliban aligned themselves with the terrorists, making themselves a target.
BUT, I never said that our abandoning Afghanistan was a good move; in fact, I said the exact opposite. Hell, 're-entrenchment of Islamic fundamentalism'- try 'entrenchment'. We never took half those people or the various warlords out of power positions in the first place. We did such a half-ass job trying to institute a new government and new way of life it is appaling.
And, I while I'm not a believer in American Exceptionalism, I don't know if I agree with you that other countries wouldn't have reacted the same way. China? Russia? Hell, ANYONE in the Middle East? I bet if you commandered three planes, flew them into the biggest high rises in Israel, and stood up to say "We are hiding and supporting the people who did this," you would be done in 6 days or less. 9/11 was a blow to the ego, sure. But, at the time, there was a government with a history of Religious Fascism, torture, and terrorism (no, that wasn't ours at the time; my how things changed) that claimed to be harboring and supporting the people responsible. I can't lose sleep over the fact that our leaders made the decision to depose that government. The execution of the action? Deplorable. The after affects? Shameful. The Initial decision? Justifiable, given the circumstances. Not the decision I would have made, but justifiable.
I'm sure as hell not going to see it, no one in my family is. Actually, no one even talks about it being released. I'm able to mentally push things like this aside pretty easily.
I'd be interested in reading Motown's review though.
of course it's from the perspective of a fireman... they can't make a hollywood film without a "hero".
My brother's body was recovered with a small asian woman in his arms that he was either carrying out of the building or protecting from the collapse, no one knows but I doubt he was using her as an impromptu practice tackling dummy. Both of them were pretty banged up, actually we had to bury him twice since they found more pieces of him (bone pieces of various sizes) after the initial recovery and burial. If they got out I imagine she'd call him her hero, and she'd avoid the bitchy quotation marks.
of course it's from the perspective of a fireman... they can't make a hollywood film without a "hero".
My brother's body was recovered with a small asian woman in his arms that he was either carrying out of the building or protecting from the collapse, no one knows but I doubt he was using her as an impromptu practice tackling dummy. Both of them were pretty banged up, actually we had to bury him twice since they found more pieces of him (bone pieces of various sizes) after the initial recovery and burial. If they got out I imagine she'd call him her hero, and she'd avoid the bitchy quotation marks.
I was going to post the sonned graemlin but I think it would be disrespectful to make a joke in response to your post.
Mr. Sween I respect and admire you. Youre generosity during Katrina and your bravery in dealing with your families personal 9/11 tragedy is something I keep in mind when I feel down.
of course it's from the perspective of a fireman... they can't make a hollywood film without a "hero".
My brother's body was recovered with a small asian woman in his arms that he was either carrying out of the building or protecting from the collapse, no one knows but I doubt he was using her as an impromptu practice tackling dummy. Both of them were pretty banged up, actually we had to bury him twice since they found more pieces of him (bone pieces of various sizes) after the initial recovery and burial. If they got out I imagine she'd call him her hero, and she'd avoid the bitchy quotation marks.
Your brother is a TRUE hero.....usually a hero is someone who forges ahead when others give up.
I lost a childhood friend, James Suozzo in the WTC.....and I'm sure many people here had friends, family and loved ones who were touched by this tragedy.
While I don't believe I want to see this film, I have no problem with a film that depicts those Americans who WERE heros when facing the evil and dangers of that horrific day.
While I don't believe I want to see this film, I have no problem with a film that depicts those Americans who WERE heros when facing the evil and dangers of that horrific day.
I don't think anyone does, the problem lies in cashing in on it.
I don't know man - if the point was to punish the people responsible, then I don't know why Osama is still out there, getting some homemade movies on. I have no fucking love for the Taliban but given the re-entrenchment of similar forms of Islamic fundamentalism in parts of Afghanistan, it's not like conditions have improved that dramatically - especially for women, which was one of the main selling points.
I think this belief that America NEEDED to do something on the level of invading countries and regime change has far more to do with how 9/11 was a blow to our collective sense of invulnerability, aka American exceptionalism. I think most other countries out there have a more pragmatic sense of justice and retribution because they've simply had to deal with this kind of shit more often than America has. We've lived in this insulated little bubble and 9/11 popped our egos and not surprisingly, the country has overresponded.
I didn't and still don't have any problem with the act of invading AFghanistan. As KK has pointed out, after we invaded we basically left and it's been crap since then. #1 heroin producer in the world again, no central government ouside of Kabul, warlords taking over just like it use to be, etc. etc. It was a foreshadowing of the crappy job the Defense Department would do with Iraq.
That being said, Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was helping prop up the Taliban government with huge money donations. The government in turn was giving them safe harbor and letting them do whatever they wanted as brothers in arms. Some kind of strategic strike might have had a better chance at perhaps capturing Bil Laden but it wouldn't have wiped out Al Qaeda. As long as the government supported them, they could survive bombings, raids, etc. because after that short attack, Al Qaeda would come right back or simply move to another part of Afghanistan with full government support. The invasion and defeat of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban also caused a deep psychological blow to the armed Islamist movement. Islamic websites were full of discussions about how could they have lost if they were fighting for God. It was a completely demoralizing defeat, which I think is a big victory because you can't defeat them simply through armed means. Not only that it did effectively disrupt the centralized command of Al Qaeda, which still hasn't fully recovered. For all of these reason I believe the invasion itself was a good thing. The problem was that Rumsfeld and the neocons didn't care about what happened afterwards just like in Iraq.
Comments
Its tough to make any film without at "hero". Don't see where you're going with this...
In all fairness to Crossings though, there are plenty of films without an archetypical construction of a "hero" - at least not in the Joseph Campbell sense of the term.
Then again, I think Crossings is being far too kneejerk about two films he knows nothing about.
where's the movie about us blowing up saddam's palace for no reason?
Yeah, I didn't really think we were talking about some avant garde film or deconstructionist style shit. I should have rephrased- Its rare to see any film without a hero, or at least lead character.
sorry Maru, but this is called spin, image and publicity; a Hollywood staple
you promote your film in the best way you can to make the most money you can. Getting support from family members helps you justify the film so that some may think well hey this isn't such a bad idea after all and feel ok about dropping $10 for a ticket and $8 on a popcorn and large Dr. Pepper. Truth is this is a money project, no matter how you spin it it all comes back to the American ideal of cashing in on anything the public may be interested in paying for. As far as being "tastefully done" thats really in the eyes and minds of the viewer. I will not let a critic determine whats tasteful. as far as I'm concerned a film critic should let you know how enjoyable a film is but not how you should react when it comes to the potential offensiveness.
I stand by what I said before about this being a cash in on the most bold American[/b] tragedy of our lifetimes. I have no doubt that this film was an emotional one to participate in for all involved in shooting and editing but that does nothing for me in terms of the disrespect I feel this gives the American people[/b] who have had to endure the trauma of this attack and its after effects.
True, United 93 isn't intended to do that. At least I don't think it is. But then again, a lot of right-wingers have seized on the movie and made its existence (and, of course, going to see it) a political statement, that statement being, as Crossings pointed out, "We have to remind people we're at war! The lessons of 9/11!"
Eh, yeah...but, they weren't the first side to use a 9/11 movie to try to spin their side of the story and try to teach the lessons of 9/11. I believe that honor falls to Michael Moore...
I'm gonna chill out on the internet arguing for a sec, having had my fun in the Bonds/Steroids thread and this one. And, god knows I won't be going to see this movie. In the end, though, remember- vote with your wallet- that is what it comes down to. If you think it is inappropriate, don't go. And, if you think it is appropriate go.
True indeed. I guess the main difference I see is that Moore actually did try to extrapolate some lessons from 9/11--that was one of the main points of his film. United 93 is just dramatizing something a lot of people aren't really inclined to want to relive. But depending what you think "the lessons of 9/11" are and how steeled you are against reliving 9/11 and all that stuff, this difference may be purely semantic.
I mean, to an extent, I agree. I think that Moore's film was intended to look at something more than that day- lessons from 9/11, incompetent leadership following, loss of civil liberties, fear mongering, the subsequent war, etc. Whether you think he acheived that or not is a whole other 5 pager.
The thing is, though...Apparently, a lot of people want to relive United 93. I know it is easy for us to say it is too soon, and a lot of people don't want to relive it, but the fact of the matter is that many people are reliving it, and really, there is nothing wrong with that. It is not for me, or the Soulstrut collective, to judge them for wanting to relive this on film.
Danny Dan is pretty much talking out of his ass here. film making is very emotional and subject matter like this could only magnify the types of emotions that go on in making a film.
still doesn't mean it was right to make though
I concur.
I think America, as a whole, hasn't figured out what to do with 9/11 yet either. Maybe "United 93" will only complicate that question, maybe it offers one possible SMALL part to finding resolution. But, cynical as I may be, I think it's stirring up a conversation that's worth having.
Doesn't mean I'll spend $10 to see it though.
I think under this administration and current state of the media its hard for individuals to deal with deep psychological scarring like this.
considering we've invaded 2 countries under the banner of this incident and its still thrown into many-a-presidential speech that is supposed to be persuasive it's hard to really say what 9/11 means to Americans as a collective
It'll be years (maybe even decades) before we as a nation are able to come to terms with this.
It was such a traumatic and far reaching event that it would have taken years and decades no matter what; what happened afterward, and its rampant exploitation for a war that had nothing to do with it, will only make that process harder.
(parenthetical note: I have a harder time decrying the invasion of Afghanistan. It probably isn't the decision I would have made, but given that we had been attacked, their government was supporting those who claimed responsibility and harboring them, that is a response that I can at least justify given what had happened and the climate at the time. Now, abandoning that country after destroying what little they had and moving on to another one to do the same thing...that I have real problems with.)
I don't know man - if the point was to punish the people responsible, then I don't know why Osama is still out there, getting some homemade movies on. I have no fucking love for the Taliban but given the re-entrenchment of similar forms of Islamic fundamentalism in parts of Afghanistan, it's not like conditions have improved that dramatically - especially for women, which was one of the main selling points.
I think this belief that America NEEDED to do something on the level of invading countries and regime change has far more to do with how 9/11 was a blow to our collective sense of invulnerability, aka American exceptionalism. I think most other countries out there have a more pragmatic sense of justice and retribution because they've simply had to deal with this kind of shit more often than America has. We've lived in this insulated little bubble and 9/11 popped our egos and not surprisingly, the country has overresponded.
Very well put.
I have no desire to see this movie.
As I said above, I don't think I would have made the decision to invade Afghanistan; but it was not a move that I could step up and get angry about. I would like to say that I'm a pacifist (I've tried; couldn't do it) but when a totalitarian government is harboring and supporting people who have just attacked us, I don't think it is totally out of line to counter-attack.
And, make no mistake: it was a counter attack. I know that we were not attacked by a country or government on 9/11; but the Taliban aligned themselves with the terrorists, making themselves a target.
BUT, I never said that our abandoning Afghanistan was a good move; in fact, I said the exact opposite. Hell, 're-entrenchment of Islamic fundamentalism'- try 'entrenchment'. We never took half those people or the various warlords out of power positions in the first place. We did such a half-ass job trying to institute a new government and new way of life it is appaling.
And, I while I'm not a believer in American Exceptionalism, I don't know if I agree with you that other countries wouldn't have reacted the same way. China? Russia? Hell, ANYONE in the Middle East? I bet if you commandered three planes, flew them into the biggest high rises in Israel, and stood up to say "We are hiding and supporting the people who did this," you would be done in 6 days or less. 9/11 was a blow to the ego, sure. But, at the time, there was a government with a history of Religious Fascism, torture, and terrorism (no, that wasn't ours at the time; my how things changed) that claimed to be harboring and supporting the people responsible. I can't lose sleep over the fact that our leaders made the decision to depose that government. The execution of the action? Deplorable. The after affects? Shameful. The Initial decision? Justifiable, given the circumstances. Not the decision I would have made, but justifiable.
I'd be interested in reading Motown's review though.
My brother's body was recovered with a small asian woman in his arms that he was either carrying out of the building or protecting from the collapse, no one knows but I doubt he was using her as an impromptu practice tackling dummy. Both of them were pretty banged up, actually we had to bury him twice since they found more pieces of him (bone pieces of various sizes) after the initial recovery and burial. If they got out I imagine she'd call him her hero, and she'd avoid the bitchy quotation marks.
I was going to post the sonned graemlin but I think it would be disrespectful to make a joke in response to your post.
Mr. Sween I respect and admire you. Youre generosity during Katrina and your bravery in dealing with your families personal 9/11 tragedy is something I keep in mind when I feel down.
you really are an inspiration
Your brother is a TRUE hero.....usually a hero is someone who forges ahead when others give up.
I lost a childhood friend, James Suozzo in the WTC.....and I'm sure many people here had friends, family and loved ones who were touched by this tragedy.
While I don't believe I want to see this film, I have no problem with a film that depicts those Americans who WERE heros when facing the evil and dangers of that horrific day.
I don't think anyone does, the problem lies in cashing in on it.
I didn't and still don't have any problem with the act of invading AFghanistan. As KK has pointed out, after we invaded we basically left and it's been crap since then. #1 heroin producer in the world again, no central government ouside of Kabul, warlords taking over just like it use to be, etc. etc. It was a foreshadowing of the crappy job the Defense Department would do with Iraq.
That being said, Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was helping prop up the Taliban government with huge money donations. The government in turn was giving them safe harbor and letting them do whatever they wanted as brothers in arms. Some kind of strategic strike might have had a better chance at perhaps capturing Bil Laden but it wouldn't have wiped out Al Qaeda. As long as the government supported them, they could survive bombings, raids, etc. because after that short attack, Al Qaeda would come right back or simply move to another part of Afghanistan with full government support. The invasion and defeat of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban also caused a deep psychological blow to the armed Islamist movement. Islamic websites were full of discussions about how could they have lost if they were fighting for God. It was a completely demoralizing defeat, which I think is a big victory because you can't defeat them simply through armed means. Not only that it did effectively disrupt the centralized command of Al Qaeda, which still hasn't fully recovered. For all of these reason I believe the invasion itself was a good thing. The problem was that Rumsfeld and the neocons didn't care about what happened afterwards just like in Iraq.
Competing films about slain Wall Street Jounalist Daniel Pearl
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12693442/