Directed and produced by Jeremy Earp and Sut Jhally, narrated by Julian Bond, "Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire" is an unrated sixty-eight minute eye-opening documentary released in 2004 by The Media Education Foundation. The film sheds light on the relationship between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq before the attack on the World Trade Center. Just like every other movie or documentary, this film carries a message; Hijacking Catastrophe provides concise analysis that persuades its audience to take a second look and interpret the connection. It is generally a perceptive documentary full of oppositions against the Bush administration featuring interviews with significant people full of compelling arguments. Hijacking Catastrophe takes its viewers on a journey of all fallacies the Bush administration and radical neoconservatives made to escalate the fear and persuade the American public to strike war on what they called "terror".
This documentary contends to represent the political corruption caused by the Bush administration and the right-wing radical neoconservatives. For that reason, the film includes many strategies to help the audience's understanding of the suspected relationship. To begin with, the documentary starts up with the powerful quotation by Herman Goring, "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger," This quote explicitly signifies that George W. Bush along with the neoconservatives lied to make the American public react in a certain way they have planned for their own concealed motives. In my opinion ma...
... middle of paper ...
...a man determined to achieve absolute power over the cost of war tragedies. The film productively works through featuring interviews, displaying news footage and heartbreaking pictures of the after math of the war on Iraq. It specifically proves how the Bush administration provoked the media to convince the people of America to support "war on terror" by creating a non-existent fear. It offers interviews and documentaries that show the hidden motives of the Bush administration kept secret from the American public such as gradually expanding the country's power through extending the military expenditures and power to keep up global hegemony. Finally, if anyone pins the America vs. Iraq war on terrorism and have not seen this documentary they are to a certain extent mistaken hence, it is full of vital facts but with less irony, sarcasm and biases than Fahrenheit 9/11.
This historical study will compare and contrast the depiction of the “War on Terror” in a pro-government and anti-government plot structures found in Zero Dark Thirty (2012) by Kathryn Bigelow and The Siege (1998) by Edward Zwick. The pro-government view of Zero Dark Thirty defines the use of CIA agents and military operatives to track down Osama Bin Laden in the 2000s. Bigelow appears to validate the use of torture and interrogation as a means in which to extract information in the hunt for Bin Laden. In contrast this depiction of terrorism, Zwick’s film The Siege exposes the damage that torture, kidnapping, and
The three films that I chose for this final project are; Fahrenheit 9/11, CSI season 1 episode 22, and West Wing Season 3 episode 1. These films are connected because they focus on different aspects associated with the attacks on September 11, 2001. Fahrenheit 9/11 is connected to the current topic because its main plot point follows Michael Moore’s narrative of blaming George W. Bush, our president on September 11 2001, for the acts of terrorism. Moreover, the film examines step by step the failures of President Bush before, during, and after the falling of the Twin Towers. The CSI episode took a somber and realistic tone airing an episode that featured Taylor expaining that his wife died when the towers fell. Furthermore, The West Wing,
Released on July 31, 1992, the two-year film production was meticulously researched, yet laid out simply and forcefully the case against the US government story, and won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature as a result. Made all the more timely by the recent war on terrorism (or errorism, as I like to call it), the “Panama Deception” shows how the U.S. killed between 3,000 to 4,000 people over the course of an invasion that the rest of the world was against (a theme duplicated in the War on Iraq and others prior to then Panama invasion).
...y the characters in the film, the audience is able to gain insight into the corruption and lies that are “war”. This insight ultimately helps the audience analyze the text deeper and enables them to draw the similarities in current events and dissect what they hear and see throughout the film.
The attacks that occurred on 9/11 took place on September 11th, 2001. In this devastating event, four different attacks had taken place. Each of the attacks were carried out by terrorists. The group responsible for the attack was Al-Qaeda, a militant Islamist organization that is known to be global in present day. The group itself has a network consisting of a Sunni Muslim movement that aims to make global Jihad happen. Furthermore, a stateless, multinational army that is ready to move at any given time. This terrorist group focuses on attacking non-Sunni Muslims, those who are not Muslim, and individuals who the group deems to be kafir. Ever since the late 1980s, Al-Qaeda has been wreaking havoc all around the world. The leader of the group once being Osama bin Laden. Three planes were bound for New York City while another plane headed towards Washington, D.C. which was supposed to take out the U.S. Capitol. Two of the airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center. One plane hitting the North Tower and the other hitting the South Tower. The third plane had crashed into the Pentagon taking out the western side of the building. The last and final plane was focused solely on taking out the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C. but failed due to passengers of the plane coming hijacking it from the hijackers. The passengers attempted to take out the hijackers but sadly failed, crashing it into a field in Pennsylvania. Throughout the content of this paper, we will be focusing on the role of media when it comes to 9/11; more specifically: how the media's coverage of 9/11 manipulated our feelings towards 9/11, how it affected Islamophobia in America, and the lasting effects of 9/11.
...the citizenship in order to manipulate not only our society but other nation’s as well. I believe Jarecki thoroughly introduces and supports his claims about our government and effectively raises awareness about the terrible effects that our government is having on our own citizens along with the citizens of other nations. Jarecki conveys his message successfully by introducing his argument with the utilization of heartfelt anecdotes and intense imagery emphasizing his points and galvanizing his audience to the important cause of raising awareness and seeking change. Throughout the film, visually striking images as well as the heart wrenching stories provided persuaded the readers to believe his overall message. He thoroughly discusses the aspects of the military-industrial complex and without a doubt leaves his audience at the very least questioning “Why we fight.”
... also exposes the U.S government because when President Clinton states that ‘they are trying to minimise the civilian casualties’, he ‘forgets’ to say that the Americans targeted hospitals and primary schools. If I was an American I would feel disgraced and ashamed of my people.
The transformation of America is often discussed in both popular media and academic dialogue. Each generation has a name, new technologies define new eras, and events seem only notable when they are “historic”. While major events catch the interest of a broad spectrum of the public consciousness, subtle interactions between actors and slight shifts in beliefs are constantly changing the realities of the world. When the twin towers fell in 2001, the United States seemed to be thrust into a new world of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Jihadists, and a global fight against terrorism; bombs were dropped, ground forces were deployed in foreign states, and anyone who publicly questioned the urgency of war was at risk to be labeled a traitor. This one event was indelibly branded on the consciousness of the world and if often seen as a moment of sudden transformation. Most Americans believe that the troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to the terrorist attacks on the United States and while it is hard to deny that the 9-11 attacks was the impetus for putting boots on the ground, it is imperative that the chain of events following the horror of September 11 are seen to reflect the willingness and wants of actors in control before the towers fell.
Though the statement might seem contradictory, there is an underlying truth that can be applied through both generations. The Party in the novel created these slogans to ensure continuation of control and power over their people. During wars nations unite and people focus on their common enemy and less on how despondent they are. Constant war shows that people are sacrificing, pledging and giving devotion to the country and consequently to the government. As a result, this keeps the general population under control. War brings forth devotion and patriotism to the country. The 1930 's and 1940 's involvement in WWII brought forth such patriotism that many people became less worried about the current depression their country was in. The History Channel states "Some of Hollywood’s top stars joined the military. Many appeared in government-produced training films and morale-boosting short subjects. Others participated directly in the fighting" (History.com). The article also states that during the war "Americans listened to more patriotic or war-related music" (History.com). In 2001 President George W. Bush declared a "War on Terrorism" and the country became unified and determined to fight and keep terrorist at bay. A Global Policy Forum article states that after the declaration was announced, "Washington called on other states to join in the fight against terrorism asserting that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"" (War on Terrorism, GPF). From both the constant war in 1984, the continuing "War on Terrorism" and even WW2, has stemmed a universal detestation towards a single group. In the novel, the Brotherhood run by Emmanuel Goldstein is subjected to the hate and the blame of Oceania 's problems. "The program of the Two Minute Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure"
Bush demonstrates that with the use of metaphors, personification, and also repetition. Using metaphor, he compares America to steel, saying that America is like steel, but not pliable. Portraying that whatever dangerous act comes to America, America will stay strong and not move. Personification is to explain the reasoning behind the terrorists’ operations and the motives behind this move. Bush gives feeling and visualization traits to the nation, consequently putting it in the nation’s point of view, highlighting what the nation felt and saw. Repetition is to bring America together and strengthen everyone. It is to show that this heartbreaking event did not just affect the victims, but it affects the entire country. The way Bush uses repetition to get the people of America together makes America stronger because the more a country is together, the more power and strength it will possess. As a final point, President Bush’s usage of these three rhetorical devices grabs the attention of the people and helps Bush express the type of tone he wants to get
When a giant explosion ripped through Alfred P. Murrah federal building April 19,1995, killing 168 and wounding hundreds, the United States of America jumped to a conclusion we would all learn to regret. The initial response to the devastation was all focused of middle-eastern terrorists. “The West is under attack,”(Posner 89), reported the USA Today. Every news and television station had the latest expert on the middle east telling the nation that we were victims of jihad, holy war. It only took a few quick days to realize that we were wrong and the problem, the terrorist, was strictly domestic. But it was too late. The damage had been done. Because America jumped to conclusions then, America was later blind to see the impending attack of 9/11. The responsibility, however, is not to be placed on the America people. The public couldn’t stand to hear any talk of terrorism, so in turn the White House irresponsibly took a similar attitude. They concentrated on high public opinion and issues that were relevant to Americans everyday. The government didn’t want to deal with another public blunder like the one in Oklahoma City. A former FBI analyst recalls, “when I went to headquarters (Washington, D.C.) later that year no one was interested in hearing anything about Arab money connections unless it had something to do with funding domestic groups. We stumbled so badly on pinpointing the Middle East right off the bat on the Murrah bombing. No one wanted to get caught like that again,”(Posner 90). The result saw changes in the counter terrorism efforts; under funding, under manning, poor cooperation between agencies, half-hearted and incompetent agency official appointees and the list goes on. All of these decisions, made at the hands of the faint-hearted, opened the doors wide open, and practically begged for a terrorist attack. So who’s fault is it? The public’s for being
The diverse perspectives displayed by Oliver Stone in JFK are implemented to hinder blind following from lack of knowledge. The facts uncovered in Stone’s film work towards a common goal— a conspiracy taking place. By emphasizing this point, he provided another believable option. Although the surroundedness of bandwagon advertising and peer pressure may never cease, blind following from ignorance is severable.
...viewer recognizes that agencies, such as the CIA, are valuable in the War on Terror for the data collecting they’re involved in. On examining of the film, the movie’s setting, agencies involved, and the subject matter targeted, the appropriate historical and social themes were connected to the plot. The circumstances in the film depicting the aftermath of September 11th attacks and the U.S. government’s role in tracking Osama Bin Laden were realistic. After the 9/11 attacks, Americans felt that radicalized Islamic groups and their leaders that encouraged these followers to attack America were enemies to their country. Therefore, the film didn’t have to have a poster of Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden to be used as propaganda to make the point that the radicalized Islamic group was the enemy of the United States; this decision had already been made by the United States.
The amount of corruption within the United States’ violent involvement in the Middle East is almost unreal. Unfortunately, the wars have been too real—half a million deaths in the first year of Iraqi Freedom alone (Rogers). These wars have been labeled--the violence, filtered-- to fit a specific agenda. Whether the deaths are deemed an acceptable loss in the name of national security, or as a devastating injustice, the reality doesn’t change. Lives have been lost. Lives that will never be brought back. The intention of wars is in part due to attacks on the twins towers on September 11th 2001. When the buildings fell, almost three thousand people died, according
On September 11, 2001, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the mindset and the opinion of nearly every American on the one of the most vital issues in the 21st century: terrorism (Hoffman 2). Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a perverse method of political change, one must first begin to understand what terrorism is, where it is derived from, and why there is terrorism. These issues are essential in America’s analysis of this phenomenon that has revolutionized its foreign policy and changed America’s stance in the world.