Until the moment the 9/11 hijackers used whatever weapons they used, to orchestrate the most horrific international terrorist act in history, they were all still innocent of any (known) terrorist act. Legally, they were innocent. Now juxtapose a domestic soccer-mom type who just like the 9/11 men knew exactly what she had planned, and then went through with it.
I don't understand why this concept of a woman as a mass-murdering terrorist is so hard to grasp. What's good for the terrorist suicidal barbaric heartless gander is good for the terrorist suicidal barbaric heartless goose.
It seems pretty clear four+ hours constitutes premeditation. She was into the theater of it all, like some freakshow on Criminal Minds. No one should have made a documentary of this Hell. I regret having watched it. I never watched any theatrical film about 9/11; I knew what would happen. I wish I had known what was going to happen here. As a reviewer on IMDB puts it, the documentarian makes the sick sick sick subject more sensational and lurid by teasing out the end. I live in a different state but very close to where this took place, and I'd never heard of this incident. My heart goes out to anyone who either witnessed this, was injured in it, got PTSD from it, or had children burn to death in it.
I watched the documentary because a recent spate of wrong-way interstate fatalities have taken place in my area. One collision killed six members of an immigrant Indian family traveling in a small sedan. "There's Something Wrong with Aunt Diane" puts the sick idea of going out in a blaze of glory in an imminent suicide's head. This woman was evil incarnate, so--yes, I do think it would be a good thing for the documentary never to have been made. Particularly such a sensationalized, Dear Zachary-over-the-top narrative does harm. This film glorified a madwoman and (apparently very successfully) humanized her.
I'd be interested to know if the documentarians were, for lack of a better word, friends. I say "for lack of a better word" because it's presumptuous to believe a psychopath is capable of having friends. Not surprising at all, the significant people who refused to have anything to do with their work.
(1) You think that this film "glorified" Diane Schuler? I am pretty sure most people would disagree with you in that assessment.
(2) You think it's a good idea to censor such documentaries. That speaks volumes. We have the First Amendment for a reason. And, a very good reason, at that. And it has stood for some 200-300 years. So, perhaps you might want to re-think your position.
reply share
Look up the word "absolute", if you are not familiar with it.
You chose the word, not me.
Also, stop with the hyperbole.
If you have to resort to exaggerations, it indicates that you have a weak argument or a weak position to begin with (i.e., one that needs exaggeration).
Plus:
You are side-stepping the real issue.
If you have "absolute" evidence, I am quite sure that the investigators on the case would love to have it.
Or is it the case that you -- sitting at your computer in your basement (and probably with no law enforcement/investigatory training and/or experience) -- know more about the specific details of the case than the investigators who have studied every detail and pored hundreds, if not thousands, of hours into the case?
Enlighten us all. With your expertise on this specific case.
Translation: I want to side-step the "real" issues and avoid them altogether, and hope that nobody notices. So, I will just post some nonsensical message to try to create a distraction or diversion. Because I really can't respond to the valid substantive points being made. And I really don't have any skills in logic or in argument/debate.
reply share
It's very interesting that when people don't have any good response they will call a poster names or resort to saying you don't have a good argument without any explanation. Good luck in life!