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
posted by Editor at Large at 9:45 AM
4 Comments:
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"...).
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.
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!
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?"
Post a Comment
<< Home