<!-- Begin meta tags generated by ORblogs --> </meta name="keywords" content="progressive, liberal, politics, government, edit, language, grammar, accuracy, honesty, clarity, world, news, media" /> </> <!-- End meta tags generated by ORblogs -->> Editor at Large: Why doesn't "World Trade Center" mention bin Laden?

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Why doesn't "World Trade Center" mention bin Laden?


Some people who have seen Oliver Stone's film "World Trade Center" are wondering why the film neglects to mention who was behind 9/11. After all, we're talking about Oliver Stone here - someone who has never shied away from presenting the facts as he sees them.

In fact, considering Stone's reputation as a shrewd and incisive political and social commentator and conspiracy theorist, doesn't it seem odd that he would make a film that avoids even HINTING at who might have been behind the attacks?

What might Stone be saying by saying nothing?

UC-Berkeley professor Ruth Rosen thinks that by failing to mention any perpetrators, "World Trade Center" allows the ill-informed to continue believing that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were involved. She thinks Stone should have added a postscript to the movie saying that "government officials" have determined that it was Osama bin Laden and 20 other Saudi Arabian and Egyptian men who planned and executed the attacks - not Saddam or anyone from Iraq. That way, Rosen suggests, it would be painfully clear to the ill-informed that we shouldn't be in Iraq at all and should instead be focusing our efforts on capturing bin Laden and dismantling al Qaeda.

While we wouldn't argue with Rosen's assertions about Saddam and Iraq, we would question her assumption that those "government officials" are telling the whole story, or the whole truth. In fact, we think that's precisely why Stone intentionally avoided mentioning any perpetrators: because he knows that the jury is still out, not only as to who planned and executed the attacks but as to who allowed them to happen.

Was it Cheney and the neocons? Was it Bush? Was it Karl Rove? Was it Clinton?

We may have to wait for Stone's next movie, "World Trade Center II," to find out...

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/17/oliver_stone_and_
the_big_lie.php

8 Comments:

Blogger exigent said...

I, for one, refuse to watch it. I wont even netflix it. I'd rather go watch the Katrina movie, or the 2004 tsunami that killed over 275,000. When are those movies coming out?

One 9/11 movie was one too many. I just dont get it.

2:51 PM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Exigent: We refuse to see the film, too. Too many people have already profited from the tragedy.

We've heard that Spike Lee made a film about Katrina, but we're not sure about a tsunami film (unless you count "An Inconvenient Truth"...).

4:49 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

Like the alleged holocaust. This alleged event never happened.

8:53 AM  
Blogger exigent said...

We dont deny that it happened. We just dont like being lied to.

Now it's being glamorized by hollywood as what I can only guess to be a story of hope blah blah blah, while thousands died and a handful profitted.

Where is Osama anyway? Is he still none of Bush's concern? (Bush, March, 2002)

11:56 AM  
Anonymous kyle said...

I don't think it's even been completely proven that Osama had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. There is still a lot of screwy questions that the government is not answering about that day.

Osama may have approved of the attacks, but his supposed confession on tape contains a lot of inconclusive information. For example....the tape is really low quality and it doesn't even really look like Osama. Also, Osama is left handed and the tape shows him writing with his right hand. There are many many other details that don't add up.

5:12 PM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Roger: As with the holocaust, it would be beyond insane to suggest that 9/11 never happened. It isn't, however, insane to suggest that 9/11 didn't necessarily happen the way we've been told it did.

Exigent: Where IS Osama? Is he, in fact, "none of Bush's concern" because he was working for Bush?

Kyle: Right on!

6:16 PM  
Blogger exigent said...

Agreed, there are a lot of things that don't add up, I'm just pointing out with Bush's "resolve", our outstanding Intelligence gathering agency, along with all the money we've thrown at this problem, we should be able to find anyone that we are looking for... IF we are indeed looking for them.

To keep the ignorant satisfied he should at least find this one guy. I remember the rumors that we had him and bush was gonna make news of it right before the election.

8:46 AM  
Blogger nina said...

check out scholars for 9/11 truth. they at least speak to some of the bogus "science" behind the government's version. the video 'in plane site' is also pretty interesting.

i'm waiting for someone to come out with a "where's waldo?" version board game called "where's osama?"

11:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home