People here are saying she's a terrorist supporter and supports those who did 9/11. But if you listen to her speech and then listen to her explain it, she says she understands why the terrorists did what they did. She never said she approved of it.
"The only thing that separates Bravery and Foolishness is the result"
Wolfn1; We did hear her speech and those Terrorists are COWARDS. They are very brave when they have guns and the explosives. Every notice though how they react when up against the I.D.F. or our U.S.M.C. When someone can shoot back their hands up in the air pretty quick.
shareyou don't have to approve to sympathise. she did sympathize with terrorists. she also implied that what they did was somehow justified. whether or not she just got up there for shock value, or because she genuinely believed what she was saying, she made the wrong choice, and even though i'm not from the USA, i agree with how they reacted.
shareyou, as well as many others on this board, make the mistake to confuse her empathy for the 9/11 attackers with sympathy.
she does not approve of the actions they have taken, but she makes the effort to try to understand why they did what they did.
and she gives a reasonable explanation for why they chose to attack and kill civilians, without ever condoning or even supporting it.
concerning the point whether the attackers where cowards or not she also takes a different stance (than the generally accepted), arguing that sacrificing one's life for ones beliefs (as wrong as they might be) is not an act of cowardice, but rather of desperation*.
where the attackers terrorists? certainly.
where they murderers? absolutely.
did they choose the wrong way to address their issues? definitely.
where they cowards? no, for sure no more than a sniper, killing his target from 1000 meters away, a pilot launching a guided bomb from the sky or a drone operator remotely killing someone from half way around the globe.
---
*) the last sentence of her speech was quite clear of that, but unfortunately it went under in the screams of outrage of her classmates:
you may not like what they had to say, or how they got their message across, but for the first time we heard it. and what we heard was a cry for justice.
Indeed. It seems, and rightly so, that we (Americans) can't really discuss the topic without getting emotional about it. It's to be expected that we would given what happened. So, look at a similar situation where we (Americans) have no emotional attachment like the the IRA. The IRA is a terrorist group, without a doubt, but I can certainly understand why they did what they did.
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.
www.werepissedoff.net
"you may not like what they had to say, or how they got their message across, but for the first time we heard it. and what we heard was a cry for justice."
The problem with her speech and your explanation is their message was never relayed to the chosen enemies that they attacked. Nobody has looked at why Al-Qaida chose to take out the WTC towers. Nobody has since looked at that attack and said, "Wow, America was really wrong in how Al-Qaida was treated." They just see that Al-Qaida chose to kill civilians who worked in what is the center of American Capitalism. They chose to take out a landmark and make America feel unsafe in their everyday lives. No message was relayed except that they will kill innocent people for the sole purpose to cause "Fear" of further acts of violence. They attacked on American Soil because they wanted to show that even the little Al-Qaida can kill American People with their big military. That is it. That is the only message that was relayed.
Nobody heard a cry for justice except the PEOPLE WHO SYMPATHISE WITH THE TERRORISTS!!!!!
No information of previous acts against Al-Qaida has been relayed to the American people because of their actions. There were few Americans that cared who Al-Qaida was before 9/11/2001 and now Millions more Americans know they exist and want them dead for their actions after 9/11/2001. No message of injustice was relayed to the American People? There never is a reason to kill innocent civilians, and to try to explain how a person could feel justified other than saying that they were insane is showing "Sympathy" for them and/or their cause.
Her entire speech was trying to say that this act was an act of despiration. That they had no other way of conveying their message, but in reality, those 19 idiots believe a Religious Fanatic that told them if they commited suicide in a fashion as to kill thousands of people, then they would solidify their path to paradise in the after life. That is the only reason these 19 idiots attacked us.
And sorry to tell you, when a person decides to try to explain how those terrorists felt they were justified in attacking civilians to get a message across, that person is equally an idiot for believe there was some message attached to their actions.
You are exactly right.
share
And sorry to tell you, when a person decides to try to explain how those terrorists felt they were justified in attacking civilians to get a message across, that person is equally an idiot for believe there was some message attached to their actions.
[deleted]
She said she UNDERSTOOD the terrorist attack.
Understand = Sympathize = Approve (?)
For the immigration officer, the equation stood firm,
For the poor girl, wasn't that simple.
What the poor girl thinks doesn't matter, what the officer thinks stands.
That's America's official stance!
In other words, "what she said or thought" wasn't the problem. It was "where" she said it.
If you are in the States, behave like one of them.
That's the lesson you learn from this flick.
Hey ''thebigone''... Of course those scumbag 9/11 hijackers were cowards, THEY KILLED INNOCENT PEOPLE... If you have a problem with someone, go kill that person not people who have nothing to do with your problem... The Columbine murderers were cowards, simply because they were killing people that didn't do anything wrong.. And they were attacking people to their faces, but still they were cowards...
shareI agree, those people did nothing wrong, always the innocent who suffer in wars.
P.S "She was trying to understand????"
it's mass murder, there is nothing to understand!
If the weather's nice you may care to walk in it--Little Dorrit
If you looked at US history, especially during the Cold War, you can see that they also killed innocents that were not even remotely connected with the US, all for dubious reasons (e.g. the Domino Theory). Yet most Americans don't really know that. What happened on 9/11 is terrible for the individuals concerned, but look at what the US did to other countries (like Chile, where they replaced a democratically elected president with a dictator) and that definitely put things into perspective.
Trying to understand why 9/11 happened instead of just saying "they're evil, period", is actually to way to a safer country and avoids making stupid mistakes like going to war with a country that had no relation with 9/11 in the first place.
Think about what you are comparing.
We have a military target and bomb a building where there happens to be civilians around the area or in the building. Those "Few" civilians are killed while we kill the primary target.
9/11/01, the terrorists hijacked civilian planes and flew two of those planes into a civilian building with no military or political personnel inside and used those planes as missles to destroy those buildings. Killing 3,000 innocent civilians and no other "Primary Targets". Those 3,000 people were not colateral damage of a violent attack on a political or military target. They targetted civilians and killed civilians with the purpose to cause "FEAR" in the American people.
There is no comparison.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yeah, duh that was mass murder, I never said America didn't commit it. That's why I said it's the innocent who always suffer in wars. That includes all citizens who become victims of the actions of their government.
If the weather's nice you may care to walk in it--Little Dorrit
[deleted]
Some people in here are just as stupid as the ignorant sob cops and the high school kids. Just cause you can understand someone motives doesn't mean you support or approve of their actions. Bunch of paranoid morons jumping to conclusion. I think morons like that deserve get taken out. If you so stupid, then you don't deserve to stand. If that's so hard to understand, then go stay under a rock a few more centuries.
shareWhen I personally think about this subject, I throw the word "terrorist " out of the window. Because it is an excuse to accuse others. It's just a word.
I don't care what a person is or believes in, it's their private matter. However as long as it doesn't do harm to other people. What people do, that's what matters.
I agree with the girl, that it should be allowed to seek to understand why people do what ever they do without getting judged. It would be really dealing with the issue. You can't just ignore or not even try to understand and then try forcefully remove the issue. Now, immediately some of people say I don't approve US doings in other countries and that I'm on terrorists side? No. I am not on anyone's side, because there are no sides. There are only point of views.
We are constantly being bombarded with the one point of view our country has, so we can have a hard time to see the view others have.
This young 15 year old girl may not have condoned the actions of the 9/11 terorists, but she expressed herself in an unfortunate way, which was readily misinterpreted.
The last line of her speech:
you may not like what they had to say, or how they got their message across, but for the first time we heard it. and what we heard was a cry for justice
was ill-concieved. What "cry for justice" did the US and it's citizens hear?
What exactly did/does Al-Qaeda want from the US and it's people?
And, if the attackers felt they were fighting injustices committed by the US, how would committing injustice against unsuspecting american citizens( and perhaps others) facilitate that cause?
The girl made an miscalculation in judgement because there was almost no way that what she was attempting to say would be well-recieved- it was simply too controversial a topic for a young woman dressed in traditional isalmic garb to be saying in the current social climate.
Thus, she brought attention to herself, which with being "illegal immigrants"
her family didn't need.
As she read that report all I could say is "that girl's got some serious balls!!" Even if she "understood" why the terrorist did what they did I felt in the current USA with 9/11 wounds still so deep they'll probably never heal--even 9 years later--she should have kept her opinions/beliefs to herself, ESPECIALLY given the fact that she's Muslim herself AND in the country illegally. I'd be so bold and venture to say that up untill approximately 8:45am Sept. 11, 2001 she may have gotten away with empathizing with terrorist under the protection of "Freedom of Speech." However, after that time Freedom of Speech comes with some serious strings attached and she, as intelligent as she was, should have been aware of them.
Like some of you mentioned, going to war with an ideology is an uphill battle since more recruits to that belief system are joining with each passing day. You can liken it to a sickness; attacking the symptoms won't cure it. You have to identify and go after its root/cause.
---------------------------------------
"I don't love you enough to hate you!!"
[deleted]
She stated the terrorist had a reason for what they did, and we need to understand the reason.
Not approve of the reason, or praise the reason, just understand the reason.
And by understanding, our approach to the problem would be better grounded.
This is something we did not do in real life, we got angry (which is normal) and we got our guns out and started firing. There was a bigger scope to 9/11, a historical, cultural, and social one. It wasn't just a simple attack that needed to be violently avenged. If we had looked at the historical, cultural, and social aspect of what we were walking into we could have come up with a more rounded approach. Especially cultural aspects of the middle east and how they would react to US soldiers coming over.
That's absolute nonsense. It was terrorism for the sake of terrorism. What possible goal was to be achieved except murder? Trying to find the hidden meaning in everything is the heart of all the social problems today, not a lack of understanding.
-
You did just fine, Clarence. Now go git yo'self some hot cornbread!
Are you so simplistic that you are incapable of understanding that people that conduct what's known as "terrorism" actually have motives for their actions outside of terrorizing people?
Ostensibly, the motives behind the 911 hijackers was solidarity with the Palestinian cause. She even identifies this motive in the movie, yet it's either the inattentive, dense, or totally brainwashed who failed to pick it up. So despite not knowing what your problem is, I think I have a pretty good idea nevertheless.
Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard
I don't agree with her viewpoint one bit, but I thought she made a good point when she said that it is "freedom of speech". You can't defend YOUR freedom t speech, but deny it to others, no matter what they are saying.
That is why the Bill Of Rights is a farce. Because it makes people think that they have unrestricted rights to say whatever they want. Laws needed to be brought in to restrict speech when it is damaging and dangerous (libel, slander, incitment to riot, etc) becaue the Bill Of Rights isn't also a Bill Of Responsibilities. You can't deny her right to have an opinion that you don't agree with, no matter how offensive, and still tell me that unrestricted freedom of speech is okay.
It seems that there is a better time now in America; a new and better president and a less scared people. It is sad when, even though this was constructed for film (however it might have happened - and it scares the hell out of me)a 15-year old girl, a child! is legally charged for words. First of all a human right to speech, a human right to think for onself is offended then. The very foundation of democracy is that we don´t think alike, don´t say the same things. Secondly she is a child, thirdly it seems that her offence was - even though I think this is a misinterpretation - to sympathize with someone. Is this illegal? To think? What is wrong with that. Many think it is OK for the US to go to war even though this will mean murder, rape and so on (I´m a bit harch but this is reality). It is important that we think different; and that it´s Ok. In the meantime terrorism will go on. Lookm for the origins of why people kill themselves and others in terrorist acts; do not just look at the terrible acts themselves. Terrorism is the wrong (if probably seen as the only way for many) to get attention. Maybe we all should start to listen better to avoid terror? The answer to go to war against terror is so painfully stupid it will just keep the acts going. Prevent by spreading ideas instead; spreading wealth, education etc. Good luck.
share