United 93

[Troll King]

Deputy commander of the US Army III Corps when they were in Iraq in 2004, was Brigadier-General Walter Natynczyk, on loan from the Canadian Armed Forces. Not only does Canada have a military, it has produced officers trusted enough by the US to place one second-in-command of 138,000 troops.

Now stop with the Anti-Canadian attacks. Not only has it been greater than any Anti-American comments in this thread, it's making other Americans ashamed of you.

[Epinephrine]

I just saw the movie last night. Wow... what a chilling movie. I remember how I felt on that day, and this movie just brought it all right back. It was interesting to see now from hindsight how naive everyone was. In a way it's like looking at WWII and wondering why no one saw the Holocaust coming. Why was there a hijacking and no one immediately brought up terrorists? The world was a very different place before 9/11 west or not. I like how the movie did not try and politise anything nor did it judge anyone. It just presented things as they probably happened, without being pro or anti american or pro or anti islam.


As for 9/11, do those of you who say that Canadians have no right to comment realize just how close most of the Canadian population is to NYC and Washington? Geographically from Toronto I am very close to those places and have been to them many times. I also have friends and relatives there. While it is true that I am not American, to say that such an event happening so close to home (really Toronto has more of a chance to be a target than say the midwest minus Chicago) which affected all of us so closely is something that we have no right to comment on is just arrogant.

[Vykromond]

Too soon doesn't seem like a whimsical notion or gauge of time as long as there are troops in Iraq and Bush is still the president. I honestly don't know or will try to guess how long the troops will stay over there, but a movie like this being made while Bush is still president just seems cheesy and inappropriate- like somoene said, it seems more like an attempt to get the patriotic blood flowing (propoganda ahoy) more so than an in-depth look at what happened on flight 93.

What exactly from the film made you feel that it was "an attempt to get the patriotic blood flowing"? I didn't get a strong sense of "Go USA" from it at all. I might not have been paying close enough attention. And IMDB tells me that it's the same the director who also made 'Bloody Sunday,' a similarly-conceptualized film that was most definitely not patriotic (it's also awesome btw). And he's not even American.

(Haha, speaking of not paying close attention, when I went to see this there were people making out in the row behind me. WHAT THE FUCK? I MEAN, WHAT THE FUCK??!!?)

The only other thing I'd note is that this is a very, very different perspective than the one you advanced in your first post ("it's in poor taste"). The way you phrase this post actually does have a reasonable way to discern "too soon."

The option to not watch it is always available, but that doesn't mean people still can't have or express their feelings about the film.

You're absolutely right. My issue lies with someone externalizing his/her feelings by saying not that it's "too soon for [them]" to watch something like this, or that they wouldn't want to, but instead taking the tut-tut approach and laying down the "it's simply unacceptable for this to exist" blanket judgment.

[Izor]

now i hear 'lets stop with the patriotism'. you're the ones acting like your country is important also, hence all this crap about saying canada has a formidable military, and that they're making an impact on our war. Squeezer said to ignore me, yet I notice he also said pretty much the same thing that I said: we're the 'bullies' in international affairs, so of course everyone hates us. Why would ANYONE hate canada, who does nothing? I dont blame you though, its nice to try and feel important sometimes

[Da1andonly]

finnish military > us military

[Izor]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08...dicts_finland/

LOLOLOLOL nice army you got there

"For people who play (Internet) games all night and don't have any friends, don't have any hobbies, to come into the army is a very big shock,"

sounds like RATTY..., probably da1 also

[Liquid Blue]

What exactly from the film made you feel that it was "an attempt to get the patriotic blood flowing"? I didn't get a strong sense of "Go USA" from it at all. I might not have been paying close enough attention. And IMDB tells me that it's the same the director who also made 'Bloody Sunday,' a similarly-conceptualized film that was most definitely not patriotic (it's also awesome btw). And he's not even American.

Let me note from the start that I haven't seen the film, this is all opinion I've gathered from watching the trailer a few times on tv.

I'm going to have to say my political views come into play when thinking about this movie, and how much Bush used 9/11 to push his own agenda. Seeing this movie come out while he's still in office (and with our current problems with Iran), just make it seem like it has the possibilty of being a "go-America" type movie. I understand that the director worked closely with the families, and that this movie might actually be good and not biased- but again, my political views and trying to see it from the families viewpoints (if I had a relative on 93 I don't think I'd want to see a movie about the flight, would just open up old wounds) make me feel like it's not the time for a movie on this subject to be made.

(Haha, speaking of not paying close attention, when I went to see this there were people making out in the row behind me. WHAT THE FUCK? I MEAN, WHAT THE FUCK??!!?)

People would probably fuck in churches and funerals if they didn't think they'd be looked down for it :turned:

The only other thing I'd note is that this is a very, very different perspective than the one you advanced in your first post ("it's in poor taste"). The way you phrase this post actually does have a reasonable way to discern "too soon."

In my first post I was directing most of it towards Gal and any other person who says " who cares" in concern to 9/11, so that's why it might seem different. It's in poor taste to make a movie out of this situation just for money or a book deal, that was a reference to his comment about Mr. " I hate Islam" Fortuyn. In my last post I wasn't trying to get across why I think it's retarded to go with the idea of "who cares" and make money out of this tragedy, I was trying to put across my belief as to why I don't think the movie should be made in as simple a way as possible- TK style.

Does that make sense? First post = "This is why it's bad to disregard other's feelings and make money off of this", second post = "This is why I don't think the movie should be made right now".

You're absolutely right. My issue lies with someone externalizing his/her feelings by saying not that it's "too soon for [them]" to watch something like this, or that they wouldn't want to, but instead taking the tut-tut approach and laying down the "it's simply unacceptable for this to exist" blanket judgment.

That might be your issue but if I had family that died in the incident I don't think anyone else's opinion will sway me on whether I think it's unacceptable for a movie about said incident to exist. It's a different perspective to look from when you actually had family up there, so I can understand why some of them would say it's unacceptable for the movie to exist.

[Galleleo]

I think you americans need to reevaluate your ow so strong position. There is 2 things currently knawing away at that position. China, which undoubtly will be a bigger power then the USA in +/- 10 years time. And Iran wanting to make it able to pay with euro's on the oil market. Which will kill the dollar.

You're are not that strong as you seem to think you are.

[Vykromond]

China, which undoubtly will be a bigger power then the USA in +/- 10 years time.

strike 1...

And Iran wanting to make it able to pay with euro's on the oil market. Which will kill the dollar.

...strike 2...


got anything else for us?

[Pearl Jam]

1. canada vs. usa, round 12340982134029384209346852093480239. ding ding ding

2. did you know that wal-mart makes up 30% of china's market economy? completely true. now all we as americans need to do is discover a way to resurrect sam walton so he can pull the rug out from under them.

[Troll King]

now i hear 'lets stop with the patriotism'. you're the ones acting like your country is important also, hence all this crap about saying canada has a formidable military, and that they're making an impact on our war. Squeezer said to ignore me, yet I notice he also said pretty much the same thing that I said: we're the 'bullies' in international affairs, so of course everyone hates us. Why would ANYONE hate canada, who does nothing? I dont blame you though, its nice to try and feel important sometimes

You're the one who first brought this crap up. It's odd how you don't like people from other countries saying negative things about the U.S., and yet you keep providing examples of why those people think poorly of Americans.

[Squeezer]

not only that, but China's economy is slowing down rather immensly, and their neighbor, India is starting to develop at the rate China was a few years ago. Couple that with the fact that 75% of Indians polled say they love America, and the fact that the govt is highly cooperative with the U.S., and you've got yourself quite an alliance.

[genocidal]

Canada did not enter into the Iraq war because it was known before there were no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, so far attempts to locate any have failed.

Wrong! There most definitely were biological and chemical weapons because he used them on the Kurds in the 80s and some in the Gulf War (this isn't like a debated issue it's what happened). As for nuclear weapons, it was not known that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, in fact it was far from that. There was compelling evidence for their existence (whether it was embellished I don't know) but the international community wanted to rely on weapons inspectors instead. If the world knew they didn't have nuclear weapons why would they want to have weapons inspectors go there?

[Kolar]

Wrong! There most definitely were biological and chemical weapons because he used them on the Kurds in the 80s and some in the Gulf War (this isn't like a debated issue it's what happened). As for nuclear weapons, it was not known that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, in fact it was far from that. There was compelling evidence for their existence (whether it was embellished I don't know) but the international community wanted to rely on weapons inspectors instead. If the world knew they didn't have nuclear weapons why would they want to have weapons inspectors go there?

More then 20 years ago. I'm not saying Iraq wasn't a threat, just that it wasn't a threat as much as NK, Iran and others. The justifacation for invading was weak although given enough time I think the US could have convinced the world it was the right thing to do, weapons or no weapons.

[Vykromond]

gulf war 1991
iraq war 2003

where is the "more than 20 year" gap here, i don't see it