My Two Cents on United 93 and the Backstory

Rating: Null/10 (29 April 2006)

This subject must be dealt with. As a nation, we risk being blinded by a kind of PTSD if we cease to function rationally when this subject or the fate of those passengers in particular and their unfathomable decision, is uttered. I don't know if a film, which is generally considered to be the most potent form of communication, is the best way to deal with it.
The film is, deliberately or unwittingly, an allegory or microcosm of the Curse of the Modern Age. Great minds have commented that the possibility that the weapons and tools of geniuses can and will ultimately fall into the hands of those with neither the intellectual ability to conceive of them nor the associated responsibility to humanity for their use  is very real and is our greatest enemy. The coupling of ideological fanaticism with this little glitch in the economy of innovation is what made the September 11th attacks possible.
The struggle that took place on Flight 93 encapsulates this ugly battle, which, at its heart is man's highest faculties (the use of advanced technology, and understanding of human psychology and fear; the effect of 'blitz' actions) applied in the most base way (fanaticism and anger), to the most humdrum and unsuspecting of subjects. It was a real 'down and dirty' play, a proverbial kick in the balls.
And it failed.
What most affects me is the failure of the attempt to seize psychological control over the passengers, as was successful on the other flights that day. Clearly, the effect the news of the other attacks would have on their hostages was not something the planners of the hijacking accurately figured into their deliberations, which must have been extensive.
This single aspect, that those who would attack a group of hapless travelers had not considered either the depth of their strength, duty, selflessness, courage or humanity  is the chief idea in this sordid matter. It is paramount because we are in a struggle for our humanity, not only in a cultural sense, but within single cultures, single nations, and even single individuals. This struggle between the higher and lower aspects of our species is not exclusive to one gender, race, culture, creed, age or religious persuasion.
The highest purpose of any individual or society or species cannot, logically, be realized without freedom, and there is no materially freer (financially, culturally, religiously) country than the United States. 'Live Free or Die'; the dichotomy of freedom-loving people willing to go toe-to-toe with the greatest enemies of freedom, and the incarnation of its own fear is counter-intuitive, but actually makes poetic sense. One reason freedom is so special is because it enables a formidable defense, when provoked, but needn't resign itself to a militaristic or passive disposition by default. Because...what kind of life is that? Attacks upon freedom are attacks upon the self; thus, though freedom may not prevail, it cannot entirely be defeated.
I think the terrorist agents in these attacks were behaving like neglected teens, and that the United States has indeed been stingy and somewhat self-righteous with freedom. When I see the human desperation required to enact those attacks, they appear to me as cries for help  and I'm not being dismissive. The main reason is that the perpetrators have no negotiable terms. These were not attacks aimed at a strategic objective, like Pearl Harbor, or which would cease at a defined state of affairs.
When human beings resort to terrorism and behave like animals, they have already surrendered their humanity, and we know well what human beings with no humanity are capable of. It is a mistake to sympathize with this behavior. I think the course to take is to recognize the real reasons for such attacks: feeling excluded, disenfranchised. I realize a lot of the rest of the world would say I'm being smug in this analysis, but fear of the good life, a deep-seated inferiority complex, and actually being excluded  manifested as envy  is the only explanation that adds up. Inherently, religion is not a cause; it will always be subject to the host; which is simply our design. A person may resign his personal control or judgment, but this is willing. Religion is like software; it can be uploaded or downloaded into any willing 'carrier' or system. Moreover, aspects of religion may be played-up or played-down. The question is: why are certain people disposed to faiths, and aspects of those faiths, that support other objectives? Ought not we to consider what that seminal, grass-roots ethos is? There are Muslims in America who are law-abiding. There are, too, Christians, in America and abroad, who conceive monstrous plots to kill in the name of their faith. Let's call it what it is: their dressing up their personal needs in something larger, not owning up to a deeper psychological cause. That's all I'm saying.
Our Achilles heel is also our secret weapon: freedom enables us to keep our wits and fight smartly; to oppose or reconcile as appropriate - most especially when the unthinking impulse is to destroy. Is there any greater terrestrial power than what I have described? It's giving your humanity a weapon and a flower, and choosing for your enemies when they cannot. I don't see so much of that kind of Kingly power; I don't see us acknowledging what our weaker enemies cannot themselves acknowledge.