French film on September 11 to debut in Toronto on, well, Sept. 11.

September 4, 2002 9:18 AM

French film on September 11 to debut in Toronto on, well, Sept. 11. -- I came across this link in the Guardian describing a series of 11 short films strung together by a French filmmaker. What doesn't bother me is that the film is labeled as "Anti-U.S." People have their own opinions and that's just fine. What DOES bother me is the debut of this film at the Toronto Film Festival is slated for Sept. 11 2002. Has anyone seen this film? Should the festival organizers been more respectful of the deceased and debuted the film on another date? Does it matter that there were more nationalities than just American that lost citizens that day? Please be respectful. I'm trying to open a dialogue on the film and it's contents, not a flamewar on US Foreign policy.
posted by absquatulate (47 comments total)

it's one year later. one year.
Would you feel better about this french film if it opened at the Toronto film festival september 12? Is it it's contents or it's date you are objecting to?
Someone clue me in.
posted by dabitch at 9:31 AM on September 4, 2002

The group of artists in this programme represents virtually every continent and many names will be familiar to Festival audiences. For 11’09”01, they have produced some of the most moving, thoughtful and provocative films imaginable. Danis Tanovic and Ken Loach note the worldwide resonance of the date itself – for Tanovic, it echoes July 11, 1995, the date of the massacre in Srebrnica, and Loach points out that Salvador Allende was deposed on September 11, 1973.

Idrissa Ouedraogo has made a thoughtful comedy about Burkina Faso. Samira Makhmalbaf shows a teacher trying to explain the attack to a group of young schoolchildren. Sean Penn achingly evokes the life of a widower living in the shadow of the twin towers, while Claude Lelouch depicts a deaf person’s reactions to the events. Shohei Imamura reaches back to Japanese memories of World War II and Mira Nair, who was here on September 11 for the premiere of her Monsoon Wedding, shows the troubles of ethnic minorities in this time. Amos Gitaï presents his vision of the way the media deal with information of international significance. In a resounding summation, 11 minutes of near-darkness accompanied by a requiem of prayers, sounds and music by Alejandro González Iñárritu stands against Youssef Chahine’s personal vision from the perspective of the Middle East

It would seem that you are being disrespectful regarding this film. From the description of the short stories it seems like an interesting movie and the subject matter would make it a natural for being screened on that day.
posted by smcniven at 9:33 AM on September 4, 2002

Looking at something critically is not the same as criticizing, and does not necessarily mean you're against it.
posted by panopticon at 9:39 AM on September 4, 2002

September 11 doesn't belong to anyone.
posted by mediareport at 9:41 AM on September 4, 2002

it's one year later. one year.

yes, db. to the day, in fact; rather like an anniversary, or a birthday.

i guess there's good and bad to the film, on many levels. perhaps i'm cynical, but i think that all of this controversy is intended simply to create interest (and hence revenue) for the film.
posted by moz at 9:43 AM on September 4, 2002

People will watch the film and make up their own minds. If it's offensive, it's offensive every day. I don't see the problem.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:45 AM on September 4, 2002

ok, just checking Moz, some thing couldn't be shown on the six month anniversary to sept 11 either. or: what smicniven said. Perhaps you are a bit cynical but i don't think the date was picked for more media attention as this films topic will get plenty anyway, and as you can see already the negative spin is hard to control.
posted by dabitch at 9:46 AM on September 4, 2002

Please be respectful. I'm trying to open a dialogue on the film and it's contents, not a flamewar on US Foreign policy.

In fact, I find your injunction more worrying. Nobody's seen the film - how can we open a dialogue on its contents? I say bring on a flamewar on US Foreign Policy! This, at least, we can do. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:51 AM on September 4, 2002

I'm sure that once it was picked for the Toronto festival, the decision to screen it on 9/11 was deliberate. The organizers would probably argue that picking that date constitutes a form of alternate commemoration, given much of what else will be broadcast around the world. And I think they have a fair point. In short, what mediareport said.
posted by liam at 9:58 AM on September 4, 2002

Should the festival organizers been more respectful of the deceased and debuted the film on another date?

Perhaps we should ask the same question of all the TV channels with their planned saturation anniversary disaster-porn. And no, I don't buy the 'tribute' line.
posted by riviera at 10:03 AM on September 4, 2002

It would seem that you are being disrespectful regarding this film. From the description of the short stories it seems like an interesting movie and the subject matter would make it a natural for being screened on that day.

i don't think absquatulate is being disrespectful of the film since it's not his/her fault that the guardian article and the people quoted in it have misrepresented it's content... or possibly they're just too stupid to have understood the film(s), i don't know. i've seen several clips from the various stories and i'm really looking forward to seeing the whole thing... and none of what i saw was anti-american.

perhaps i'm cynical, but i think that all of this controversy is intended simply to create interest (and hence revenue) for the film.

the choice of the date was not for publicity, it's for remembrance... the festival organizers wanted to mark the date because it means something to them. last year everyone involved was hit extremely hard by the events in the states. everyone was just completely gutted, whether they were canadian, american, european or otherwise. no one wanted to show their films or go on with the press interviews. most of my friends completely abandoned their press engagements, some were in the middle of interviews as the news was spreading that morning, and it was heartwrenching watching people take it in and try to carry on. because they couldn't. most of us felt completely pathetic and useless; the frivolity of being actors and filmmakers was fucking unbearable that morning.
posted by t r a c y at 10:08 AM on September 4, 2002

Miguel: I believe the film has already been shown in parts of Europe, particularly at an Italian Film Festival. I thought perhaps some of those people may be on MeFi, and hence my question.

Panopticon: I agree with you completely. That's why I posted this link. Thank you for articulating what I couldn't

smcniven: Where did you find those descriptions of the shorts? I'd like to read more about them. Do you have a link? Also, I didn't think I was being disrespectful of the film at all. I haven't seen it, just questioning the timing of the release as best I could given my limited exposure to the film and it's contents.
posted by absquatulate at 10:08 AM on September 4, 2002

I'll try to be "respectful."

Lots of people died on September 11th. They happened to be mostly rich Americans. They were not members of the military. This can be called "civilian casualties due to a terrorist attack."

Immediately after September 11th, almost every other rich American a) became fearful for their lives b) became fearful for their investments and c) began to pitilessly exploit the event for every media dollar it was worth.

To me, rich Americans have desecrated their own institutions. Instead of looking open-mindedly at the situation, they climbed on the bandwagon, pointed to "evil-doers," and invested in the same 3rd-world-country-raping companies that they have been investing in all along. None of them said "damn, now I know what it feels like to lose my friends and family because some rich foreigner was pissed at some rich guys in my country." Because that never happens to people in 3rd world countries... right? None of these wealthy Americans said "shit, maybe I will pull my money out of those oil companies that hire paramilitaries to rape, beat, and kill anyone that tries to prevent them from stealing the natural resources of their native country." No, instead they dumped more money into military contractors, who were bound to get rich from this "war."

I don't feel that anyone can be more disrespectful than the hypocritical wealthy American investors have already been, and so I won't try to top them. All these French film producers need to do is give some royalties to said rich investors, and they'd shut their stupid yaps.
posted by zekinskia at 10:11 AM on September 4, 2002

Every day many thousands of people around the world are victims of violence, should we therefore not show anything controversial or dissenting on any day of the year, would that be respectful?

Should the whole world just shut up because approx 3000 people died that day? What about the thousands of Iraqi children that have died in the embargos? Should we not show McDonalds commercials out of respect for the fact that they died with empty bellies?

On preview Zekinskia says it purty damn good.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:17 AM on September 4, 2002

zekinskia: What are really saying?
posted by Witty at 10:26 AM on September 4, 2002

*you
 
 ohh... fiddle-sticks
posted by Witty at 10:27 AM on September 4, 2002

To me, rich Americans have desecrated their own institutions. Instead of looking open-mindedly at the situation, they climbed on the bandwagon

whether as terrorism or not, violence has never solved anything that did not also involve submission. i think terrorism is mostly useless, yet people latch onto it with a faith that reminds me of those who fall sway to religious cults. i'm not really surprised at the way people are acting about 9/11 on either end.

None of these wealthy Americans said "shit, maybe I will pull my money out of those oil companies that hire paramilitaries to rape, beat, and kill anyone that tries to prevent them from stealing the natural resources of their native country." No, instead they dumped more money into military contractors, who were bound to get rich from this "war."

how do you know? have you studied the american economic landscape to any degree? please explain yourself. (and, quite honestly, i think most every american became fearful of their lives -- not just those with money.)
posted by moz at 10:34 AM on September 4, 2002

zekinskia: Lots of people died on September 11th. They happened to be mostly rich Americans....Immediately after September 11th, almost every other rich American a) became fearful for their lives b) became fearful for their investments and c) began to pitilessly exploit the event for every media dollar it was worth.

Sorry in advance for the personal attack, but you are an asshole. Take me to MeTa if you want. Ban me if you can. But it won't change the fact that you're an asshole.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:35 AM on September 4, 2002

(i guess it's kind of a reach to say violence with submission, that is war, has "solved" many things. it's made problems go away, i guess, but at awful costs. the pet shop boys were right: why don't we just solve everything with a football match?)
posted by moz at 10:37 AM on September 4, 2002

I believe the film has already been shown in parts of Europe, particularly at an Italian Film Festival. I thought perhaps some of those people may be on MeFi, and hence my question.

OK. Il Foglio, the (small but very vocal) Italian newspaper quoted by the Guardian, ripped the movie apart -- but Il Foglio is very, very pro-Berlusconi government (which is very, very pro-Bush).
Many Italian newspaper critics -- not only the liberals --actually praised the movie or at least they called it "interesting".
Of course some of the film's many directors -- like Loach -- are very liberal, which should not, per se, be a crime against the memory of the 9-11 dead.
I haven't seen it though, can't comment. Just wanted to clarify that point -- it's not been universally panned
I'd go see it.
posted by matteo at 10:45 AM on September 4, 2002

"Immediately after September 11th, almost every other rich American a) became fearful for their lives b) became fearful for their investments and c) began to pitilessly exploit the event for every media dollar it was worth."

Exactly what percentage of rich Americans do you believe work in the media industry? Can you point to any evidence showing that media coverage of 9/11 actually made more money than, say, the Gary Condit stories? Did companies charge more for advertising? Should the media have not discussed 9/11? Should they have done it for free, at a loss?

Also, have you ever considered that maybe the reason Americans are relatively wealthy is that the US has a significantly less-corrupt government and good technological development? I'm not saying paramilitary rapes aren't going on anywhere, but you seem to be under the impression that the overwhelming majority of US money comes by beating and stealing from the poor of other countries.
posted by callmejay at 10:46 AM on September 4, 2002

absquatulate: Now I feel guilty for being slightly snarky about your plea for respect, so here's what I found:

The film will be shown for the first time on Thursday, at the Venice Film Festival. Here (in French) is a brief overview of the film and here's its official website, which includes a trailer[This one's QT, but there's WM and Real too]. As far I can tell, it looks vaguely interesting but hardly controversial. Hope this helps!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:59 AM on September 4, 2002

We aren't all "RichAmericans". I somehow doubt that the firemen, policemen and EMT's that died that day ever thought of themselves as rich. Nor did the building maintainence workers that perished. Or the 72 waiters, busboys, dishwashers and prep cooks at Windows on The World who died.

Your post only displayed your own prejudices and ignorance. To imply that these events were somehow less tragic and traumatic because it was mostly 'rich Americans' who perished is.... well... Oh hell [FLAME] zekinskia [/FLAME]!

Grrrrrr....

That being said I don't find this film (based on the descriptions I've read) to be offensive, nor do I take offense at the exhibition date.

I'm not one of those who believe that turning a critical eye on US forign policy and how it may have contributed to a world in which someone would hate us enough to do such a thing, is necessarily anti-American or pro-terrorist or inappropriate in any way. Truth is neutra
posted by TCMITS at 11:49 AM on September 4, 2002

l.
posted by TCMITS at 11:50 AM on September 4, 2002

The issue 'bout absquatulate's posting is really 'bout free speech. The movie's content is irrelevant. The movie's debut date is irrelevant. Point is, IMHO, the movie has every right to be debuted on 9/11 just as everyone has the right to express their opinion on the events of 9/11.

Is it exploitative of 9/11? Surely, if you bear in mind that everything done around September 11 for the enxt 5-10 years will be exploitative. I'm still awaiting the barrage of commemorative promotional offers laced with keywords such as "liberty", "freedom", or "american" ("patriotic" is conveniently ignored 'cause marketing gurus know that patriotism also implies allegiance to one's governing institutions). zekinskia was harsh, but right in a Jello Biafra kinda way.
posted by freakystyley at 12:17 PM on September 4, 2002

The idea that US foreign policy might have had something to do with the decision of a bunch of fanatics to kill 3,000 people is not new. Viewing terrorists as satanically motivated 2D 'evildoers' does nothing to help prevent 9/11 being repeated so I'd say releasing the film on this date is the best time to do it. The anniversary should be a time to figure out why it happened and how to prevent such tragedy happening again.
posted by pots at 12:55 PM on September 4, 2002

I just want to say that I've heard everybody who for any reason at all is ill-disposed towards any facet of US foreign policy for the last thirty years has said "You got your Towers blown up because -insert my reason here-." and it's all wrong. 'We got our towers blown up' because some Rich Foreign Guy with delusions of a greater Araby fooled (using religion, no less) a bunch of impressionable young men into committing suicide. Whether Nixon deposed Allende (as one of these 11 films implies) or US foreign policy has dropped the ball on Kashmir, or Gujarat (as S. Rushdie recently implies in his WashPost editorial, who's even heard of that place?) or even our support for Israel or whether we are encroaching on Moslem holy sites in Saudi Arabia, are all beside the point, and other peoples' projections onto events. And I think trying to attribute the motivations of suicidal terrorists even slightly to one's own cause is pretty ghoulish (and short-sighted.)

And Zekinskia, don't you think your views here are a little biased and unconsidered, Mr. "Self-Absorbed Philosopher who thinks that thinking is good" (quoting from your profile)? Maybe you're trying to be provocative, or do you really believe this extreme view of yours?

I think the film, when viewed, will rise or fall on its own merits. It could hardly be more crass than a million other exploitive media surrounding the anniversary.
posted by monkeys_typing at 1:40 PM on September 4, 2002

This sounds too worthy for words.

Sean Penn achingly evokes the life of a widower living in the shadow of the twin towers

Achingly? Will we ache when we see Sean Penn? Actually, now you mention it ...

In a resounding summation, 11 minutes of near-darkness accompanied by a requiem of prayers, sounds and music by Alejandro González Iñárritu stands against Youssef Chahine's personal vision from the perspective of the Middle East

Can I go and see The Bourne Identity instead? Thanks.
posted by Summer at 2:28 PM on September 4, 2002

For all who responded, yes, I really do hold those views. I think that there are two kinds of RichAmericans: those who know that choosing to buy an SUV instead of a compact costs lives, and still choose to buy the SUV, and those (on their high horse) that absolutely refuse to see the correlation between their personal possessions and the countless deaths of unfortunate bystanders who have been killed, and worse. I don't hold PoorAmericans responsible for the behavior of corporations, because they have absolutely no say in the matter.

I am not trying to disrespect the lives of those who died in the towers. I am saying that their lives are worth no more than the lives of civilians in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and where ever else our foreign emissaries (i.e. corporations) choose to "do business." From there, you have two choices:
a) the lives of the civilians dead in the two towers are exactly equal in worth to the terrorists who blew them up, along with the lives of every other human being,
b) the life of a native poor Saudi, AND the life of a native poor American, neither of whom have a choice in matters involving the behavior of Taliban terrorist cells or large corporations respectively, are worth MORE than the lives of Saudi terrorists AND RichAmericans, or
c) you just can't compare the values of people's lives at all.

I realize that I fail to back up my very broad statements with any facts. I am not writing an essay here, I am "commenting," i.e. stating my opinion. Still, I think it is quite apparent that industries like those US companies that harvest oil in the middle east are incredibly destructive, both to the lives of people in those countries, and to the image of "RichAmericans."

These corporations represent us, as Americans, and they are doing anything it takes, including killing people, to make MONEY. I hold the financiers and the upper management responsible for the actions of corporations, because I believe that they do, indeed, have the power to stop killing people
posted by zekinskia at 4:07 PM on September 4, 2002

Does the USA stop in its tracks every August 6th?

No?

Then don't expect the rest of the world to stop in its tracks on 9/11.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:10 PM on September 4, 2002

P.S.: Pardonyou, you quoted me and then said I was an asshole, never saying anything whatsoever about the article, or even my comment that you quoted. I accept your advanced apology for the personal attack. You are the sand in the gears of discussion, and at best the text you spewed was about as useful as monkeys typing Hamlet. Congratulations..
posted by zekinskia at 4:17 PM on September 4, 2002

Living in Canada (rest of the world), I do expect to be stopped in my tracks on the one year anniversary. I attend a public high school, and I will be rather surprised if we're not going to have a minute of silence or something of the sort. Of course, I could be completely wrong and the date could be dismissed. However, I would assume that most of the world will stop in its tracks, and also be expected to.

But on the topic of the film.. It bothers me that the film is labelled "anti-American". I have not seen the film myself, but my understanding is that it is the perspective of the Sept. 11 events through the eyes of 11 different producers. As people love to say these days: everyone is entitled to their own opinion. To assume that all Americans have the same view of the September 11 attacks is absurd. And to label a film and its producers "anti-American" for possibly questioning popular western opinion and American propaganda is disgraceful. The only reservations I would have against a film like this is if it is disrespectful to the victims of the attack. However, it seems that it may turn out to be an interesting diversion from one-sided national tv network flashbacks to Sept. 11 and help put the event in perspective on an international scale.
posted by twos at 4:45 PM on September 4, 2002

August 6

(to better appreciate five fresh fish' heavyhanded sarcasm)
posted by matteo at 5:37 PM on September 4, 2002

And no, even if I have huge problems with Truman's decision, I don't think the comparison with 9-11 makes sense at all
posted by matteo at 5:39 PM on September 4, 2002

Spielberg released Schindler's List on Christmas because that is the day that movie theaters in America are usually filled with Jews (then they eat Chinese food afterwards). This is nothing new.
posted by bingo at 5:44 PM on September 4, 2002

matteo: Eh, it kinda makes sense. Seems to me that, setting aside contextual considerations of the war at all, August 6 will turn out to have been more important in broad geopolitical terms than Sept 11. The use of a nuclear weapon remains an event with a very visceral emotional impact; even from a 60 year's vantage point people have strong opinions about it. It remains to be seen if the emotional impact of Sept 11 will have the same sort of lasting significance, but I tend to doubt it. (N.B. This is not to say the what happened on Sept. 11 was not a heartbreaking tragedy; and of course we mourn those who died. I'm just saying that in objective terms, the first use of nuclear weapons will turn out to be an event more worthy of commemoration from a vantage point of many years hence.)
posted by mr_roboto at 6:53 PM on September 4, 2002

zekinskia, I don't agree with what you say word-for-word, but I agree with what you're trying to say. Rich America (Americans and institutions with investing power) is not afraid for their lives, but afraid for their lifestyles. They're afraid of what the Enrons and Bush's wanton spending means to their investments. Consequently, more people are gonna be screwed so these fudgepackers could keep their heads above water. Yes, they could stop screwing/killing people, but the sad truth is that it wouldn't be profitable.
posted by freakystyley at 9:31 PM on September 4, 2002

Spielberg released Schindler's List on Christmas because that is the day that movie theaters in America are usually filled with Jews (then they eat Chinese food afterwards). This is nothing new.
posted by bingo at 5:44 PM PST on September 4

Christmas day is a big movie day and not just for the Chinese food eating Jews. Theatres are packed with people that are sick of being holed up with their families.

Also, Schindler's list was released on 12/15/93 in the US. It was released on Christmas day in Canada.
posted by birdherder at 9:38 PM on September 4, 2002

mr_roboto: I agree with you to a certain point. The first use of a nuclear weapon on that scale will always be a turning point and a significant mark in history. It's direct impact on current generations, however, doesn't have quite same effect as it did on say, my grandafather's generation... people who were alive when it happened. Since there's a strong likelyhood that there will be future terroristic events occurring in the U.S., I can see how 9-11 will eventually be swept into an unfortunate pile of tragedy. But for now, this is a marked event for a generation or two of Americans that have never seen or experienced anything like this before.

I smelled death... literally, I breathed it in. And I will never forget it.
posted by Witty at 1:13 AM on September 5, 2002

>saturation anniversary disaster-porn

There's a band name in there somewhere.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:48 AM on September 5, 2002

P.S.: Pardonyou, you quoted me and then said I was an asshole, never saying anything whatsoever about the article, or even my comment that you quoted. I accept your advanced apology for the personal attack. You are the sand in the gears of discussion, and at best the text you spewed was about as useful as monkeys typing Hamlet. Congratulations..

Some posts just don't merit rebuttal. But since you asked so politely, here you go:

Lots of people died on September 11th. They happened to be mostly rich Americans.

First, although I'm not sure exactly how you define "rich Americans," it's not hard to detect the distaste that underlies that phrase in your mind. I find your attempt to lessen the horror of the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians by focusing on their socioeconomic status morally repugnant.

Second, I don't think your premise is at all based on fact. The death toll includes not only bankers and bond traders, but scores of firefighters, police officers, cleaning workers, secretaries, messangers, members of the military, busboys, waiters and waitresses, cooks, and photographers. Under any definition those were not "rich Americans."

Immediately after September 11th, almost every other rich American a) became fearful for their lives b) became fearful for their investments and c) began to pitilessly exploit the event for every media dollar it was worth.

Again, your simplistic belief that "rich American" = bad would be laughable in another context, but is simply distasteful in this context.

Second, your use of the phrase "almost every other rich American..." is telling. What you're saying is: "Except for the rich Americans who died, the rest of them..." Obnoxious.

Third, how on earth do you feel yourself qualified to opine about what "almost every other rich American" did "immediately after September 11th"? Is it literally true that rich Americans felt more fearful for their lives than any other American? Is it literally true that rich Americans became more fearful for their investments than any other American (I have news for you -- most investment dollars in the U.S. do not come from "rich Americans" but from large funds like public employee and union pension funds)?

Third, I have a special paragraph for your claim that "almost every other rich American ... began to pitilessly exploit the event for every media dollar it was worth." Where the fuck do you get off making that claim? How exactly did these Americans "exploit September 11th without pity" for "every media dollar it was worth" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean)? What are you talking about? The flags? The references to America? The pride in the country? Sorry to tell you, buddy, but the majority of people in this country feel a sense of pride and patriotism, and want to see those expressions. They're not mindless goats who would otherwise be ambivilant were they not bombarded by patriotic imagery. I personally don't get into the rah-rah, gung-ho, flag-waving display myself, and I know full well that the U.S. is not perfect or entitled to "my country right or wrong" deference. But meeting the public's demand for a sense of patriotism is not "pitilessly exploiting" the event.

To me, rich Americans have desecrated their own institutions. Instead of looking open-mindedly at the situation, they climbed on the bandwagon, pointed to "evil-doers," and invested in the same 3rd-world-country-raping companies that they have been investing in all along. None of them said "damn, now I know what it feels like to lose my friends and family because some rich foreigner was pissed at some rich guys in my country." Because that never happens to people in 3rd world countries... right? None of these wealthy Americans said "shit, maybe I will pull my money out of those oil companies that hire paramilitaries to rape, beat, and kill anyone that tries to prevent them from stealing the natural resources of their native country." No, instead they dumped more money into military contractors, who were bound to get rich from this "war."

Needless to say, your relentless invective against "rich" Americans grows tiresome. In this paragraph alone you refer to "rich" or "wealthy" Americans seven times (including the use of "they" or "them"). You're bizarrely fixated on this one note, and your wild, unsupported generalizations of this group of people is crap.

Finally, this paragraph is the archetype of the ridiculous moral relativism that permeates what passes for "analysis" of September 11th by the far left. Rather than intellectual honesty, which would require you to criticize the act regardless of the root cause, you insist on implying that the habits (investing or otherwise) of rich Americans actually caused this to happen in the first place, and that those habits are continuing. And your characterization of corporations as "3rd-world-country-raping," and intentional murderers (again implying that the blame for 9/11 falls on their shoulders) may make a convenient fit with your narrow worldview, but it doesn't reflect the truth.

In short, zekinskia, although you describe yourself as a "Self-absorbed Philosopher who thinks that thinking is good..." your post betrayed your claim. I saw no thinking, just knee jerking.

But most of all, I abhored your attempt to mitigate the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians by labelling them with your pet put-down: "rich Americans." Hence, to circle back to where I started long, long ago: you're still an asshole.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:21 AM on September 5, 2002

pardonyou?: Nice! I heard that and I liked it.
posted by Witty at 7:32 AM on September 5, 2002

The whole 'asshole' thing is so unnecessary, and I don't see how it advances one's argument to sink to a personal attack, particularly when the rebuttal isn't particularly compelling and is bathed in the same "narrow worldview" and "unsupported generalizations" it purports to expose. Also, this type of insult gives little latitude to those of us who, in analyzing the arguments on this site, tend to define and refine our own opinions on these matters. I tend to appreciate criticisms of my own arguments, and learn a great deal from them, but when the criticism gets personal (something I'm ashamed to admit I've done here in the past), any constructive progress is lost.

What pardonyou? generalizes as knee jerking is for many of us a long process of trying to come to terms with the paradoxes (paradoxi?) in our American identity: how we live in a democracy, and yet we do not seem to have a voice in how it is governed; how our elected leaders can decide at will to keep the process of open government a secret (a Bush effort predating 9/11, not limited to 'national security'); how the media, once the watchdogs of democracy, are governed by the same economic power structure that runs our government, and therefore act as more a public relations effort; how the ones shouting the loudest for war happen to be the ones who will benefit the most economically from having one (and happen to be the ones who have shadily avoided personal military service in the past); how people are willing to "show" patriotism in, indeed, a knee-jerk fashion, without an attempt to understand what they are supporting (much as many profess christianity, but don't actually practice it).

It's interesting that we so heavily criticize the Islamic fundamentalism (or what is apparently a perversion of the true Islamic faith) that forms a basis for terrorist sentiment against the US, yet do not question our own patriotic show of blind faith--the people who, without question or discourse, will wave a flag for anything we stamp with the "American" label. Sometimes it seems the flag is now just another corporate logo.

The acts of 9/11, as horrendous and wrong as they were, did not happen in a vacuum. The perpetrators did not pick the US (or the targets) at random. They came after us for a reason, and it appears to have a great deal to do with our foreign policy; the problem is that there seems to be a concerted effort to not understand these reasons. We just want to be able to call it evil and go back to living in the fantasy that we are god's chosen country. The fact is that in addition to the good we have done in the world, the US has also done some disgraceful things (involving "innocent" civilian populations as well), many of which have been done for purely economic reasons (particularly on behalf of powerful corporations or industries); our history of involvement in the Middle East reeks of this. Terrorists against us in various times have cited this justification for making us a target. It may be a false reason, just an excuse, but the problem is that we never get around to discussing it. Much of the rest of the world sees hypocrisy in our "support" of human rights, justice, and democracy, yet we adopt the view that they're all wrong and we're always the good guys; again, we never get around to discussing it--we just won't entertain the possibility.

Like zekinskia, I happen to think that the efforts of our richest have a lot to do with how we got to this place; however, I tend to limit my definition of 'rich' to those wealthy enough to hold the power. While the Pentagon and World Trade Center stood as symbols of this elite, their inhabitants were working people, making the system run but not directing its efforts. It's a testament to our dishonesty that we do not consider the "collateral" damage we have inflicted on innocent civilians in the Middle East (which now outnumber our 9/11 casualities) with the same measure of tragedy and regret--they can no more be blamed for the actions of their goverment than we can for ours.
posted by troybob at 9:01 AM on September 5, 2002

It's a testament to our dishonesty that we do not consider the "collateral" damage we have inflicted on innocent civilians in the Middle East (which now outnumber our 9/11 casualities)

I don't want to respond to your entire post, as I'd just be going 'round in a circle, but the statement above needs to be corrected. Claims that civilian deaths in Afghanistan exceed those killed on 9/11 all come back to one source: Marc Herold, a professor at the University of New Hampshire. Herold's work has been fairly conclusively debunked, but that doesn't stop it from being repeated like a mantra.

Second, if you're going to do a comparison (which I don't think is proper anyway -- see below), the comparison should not be deaths vs. deaths. The goal of the Afghanistan action was not retribution, but prevention. The goal was to incapacitate al Qaeda and prevent future actions. Thus, the proper comparison would be:

deaths + future deaths prevented vs. deaths

Finally, there's no moral equivalency between the purposeful slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians and accidental deaths through conflict. I'm not saying the latter are any less worthy of sorrow or regret than the former, just that the measure of the morality of the overall actions has to take that factor into account.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:36 AM on September 5, 2002

My comparison of the number of deaths was incidental, and you are correct, I'm going primarily by what I have heard mentioned in the press; numbers aside, it's not inaccurate to say that we've inflicted a number of unnecessary civilian casualities and we do not find that loss of life particularly significant in light of our supposed moral superiority. In any case, my larger point was that the civilians on either side are minor consideration in a power struggle based in economic motivations (much of which is being carried forward with primarily economic motivations).

...the measure of the morality of the overall actions has to take that factor into account.

The innocent civilians lost in either case themselves had nothing to do with the morality of the overall actions, so how does one decide "moral equivalency?" Given this logic, the terrorist organizations might argue that, given their goal was to incite terror and strike at our economic/military power structures, the loss of innocent lives was "accidental." Both forms of action are intentional. Each is carried out with the view that the incidental (yet expected) loss of innocent life is acceptable when compared with the weight of the moral argument of the attacker.

You decline to respond to my entire post as you'd 'just be going 'round in a circle"; however, I'd have to call you out and mention that this supposed circle is a path you have not yet tread in this forum.
posted by troybob at 10:43 AM on September 5, 2002

I realize that I fail to back up my very broad statements with any facts. I am not writing an essay here, I am "commenting," i.e. stating my opinion.

The common mantra of those who cannot back up their statements with evidence.

"The moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat. Oh, you want evidence to support my claims? I am not writing an essay here, I am 'commenting,' i.e. stating my opinion."

Yes, you are free to make all the statements you like without any supporting evidence. The rest of us are free not to believe you until you do provide evidence.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:26 AM on September 5, 2002

That AND he's an a$$hole.
posted by Witty at 12:38 PM on September 5, 2002