Interesting, but hardly condemning....
No, not condemning, but it does reduce further films on the same tired old subject of why Bush and America and Blair and Britain are evil empires to yet more mouthing of the same old tired lines of rhetoric/propoganda instead of something new or valuable.
There's little question that what Osama bin Ladin did was a horrible evil. Why would we want to investigate *if* it's evil?
I did not suggest either that the man should investigate Osama Bin Laden or *if* anything was evil. I, in fact, suggested that he should *expose* the actions of Bashar al-Assad and his regime in my first post and then expanded the suggestion to include the leaders of any of the other murdering dictatorships in the world. Osama Bin Laden is not the leader of a state and, as you point out, is pretty obviously evil, not requiring a great deal of investigation. Although considering the number of times I've heard America accused of somehow deserving OBL's actions on 9/11 it wouldn't hurt to investigate and expose OBL's history and agenda in a high-profile film. Instead we get more of the same anti-Bush rhetoric, propogated out of a transparent desire to make a buck and gain prestige in certain circles. Again, I defend the guy's right to do it. But I also have the right to heap scorn upon it for its obvious intellectual and philosophical failings and contradictions.
If someone were to make a movie that merely questioned it, rather than stated it, you'd be just as upset as you are now.
Again, should I be upset that you put stupid words in my mouth? You claim to know what I would do in a hypothetical situation? Tiring and prejudiced. I would not, in fact, be upset if someone rigorously questioned the morality of OBL's action or the actions of Bush or Blair. The defining characteristic, of course, being the "rigorous" part. I have yet to see anything rigorous on the matter.
It seems to me that presenting a work of fiction wherein somethign happens and we can see a hypothetical result of a real world decision is the best way to question something. It is, in fact, one of the primary ways political fiction has always been done.
Agreed.
As for "frothymouthed attack." How, exactly, would such a story be told that questioned?
By rigorously examining the effects of said event instead of blindly pounding on the refrain of anti-Bush/Anti-Americanism that has become so tired and common. Imagine if you will a mockumentary seriously examining how the fall of Bashar al-Assad might lead to democracy in Syria? It would need to rigorously examine and believably overcome the problems of fanatical Islam being a power in the country, it would have to examine and overcome the problems of family, clan, and tribe coming before the nation in the minds of the people, it would have to overcome the problems of government censorhip in the subject country, it would have to overcome the challenges presented by the subject country being surrounded by other countries who do not want democracy to succeed, etc... In the end such a mockumentary might actually propose or inspire real solutions to those real problems which could lead to some idealistic revolutionary in that country, or another, to actually take the plunge into resistance and perhaps succeed. Now imagine if there was a large body of such work. Its effects would compound to the good of the world. Instead, we get "Death of a President" and "Farenheit 9/11."