Fahrenheit 9/11 [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

cstroman

06-22-2004, 07:47 PM

The Bin Laden family theory was debunked COMPLETELY by Richard Clark when he admitted the FBI (through him) approved the flight.

Moore tried to tie it to Bush, and failed because the facts are out there.

Here's a transcript of the Interview from the 9/11 commission with regards to the bin Laden family:

Richard Clarke on Air Bin Laden
From the 9/11 Commission hearings:

MR. ROEMER: We will certainly be looking to people in future hearings for their recommendations in a host of different areas. So I hope that you might think through this area a little bit more and be available to us. Mr. Clarke, let me ask you some difficult questions for you to get at the complexity of our relationship with the Saudis. On the one hand, I think it's fairly -- there's a great deal of unanimity that the Saudis were not doing everything they could before 9/11 to help us in a host of different areas. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers came from there. We had trouble tracking some of the financing for terrorist operations, that we still have too many of the madrassas and the teachings of hatred of Christians and Jews and others coming out of some of these madrassas. We need to broaden and deepen this relationship. I will ask you a part A and a part B. Part A is where do we go in this difficult relationship? And part B is, to further look at that difficulty here, you made a decision

Page 27
after 9/11 to -- I think. And I'd like to ask you more about this -- to allow a plane of Saudis to fly out of the country. And when most other planes were grounded, this plane flew from ! the United States back to Saudi Arabia. I'd like to know why you made that decision, who was on this plane, and if the FBI ever had the opportunity to interview those people.

MR. CLARKE: You're absolutely right that the Saudi Arabian government did not cooperate with us significantly in the fight against terrorism prior to 9/11. Indeed, it didn't really cooperate until after bombs blew up in Riyadh. Now, as to this controversy about the Saudi evacuation aircraft, let me -- let me tell you everything I know, which is that some -- in the days following 9/11, whether it was on 9/12 or 9/15 I can't tell you, we were in a constant crisis management meeting that had started the morning of 9/11 and ran for days on end. We were making lots of decisions, but we were coordinating them with all the agencies through the video teleconference procedure. Someone -- and I wish I could tell you who, but I don't know who -- someone brought to that group a proposal that we authorize a request from the Saudi embassy. The Saudi embassy had apparently said that they feared for the lives of Saudi citizens, because they thought there would be retribution against Saudis in the United States as it became obvious to Americans that this attack was essentially done by Saudis, and that there were even Saudi citizens in the United States who were part of the bin Laden family, which is a v! ery large family -- very large family. The Saudi embassy, therefore, asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans. The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the at that time the number-two person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved -- after some period of time, and I can't tell you how long -- approved the flight. Now, what degree of review the FBI did of those names, I cannot tell you. How many people there are on the plane, I cannot tell you. But I have asked since, were there any individuals on that flight that in retrospect the FBI wishes they could have interviewed in this country, and the answer I've been given is no, that there was no one who left on that flight who the FBI now wants to interview.

MR. ROEMER: Despite the fact that we don't know if Dale Watson interviewed them in the first place.

MR. CLARKE: I don't think they were ever interviewed in this country.

MR. ROEMER: So they were not interviewed here. We have all their names. We don't know if there has been any follow-up to interview those people that were here and flown out of the country.

MR. CLARKE: The last time I asked that question, I was informed the FBI still had no desire to interview any of these people.

MR. ROEMER: Would you have a desire to interview some of these people that --

MR. CLARKE: I don't know who they are.

MR. ROEMER: We don't know who they are.

Page 28

MR. CLARKE: I don't know who they are. The FBI knew who they were, because they --

MR. ROEMER: Given your confidence and your statements on the FBI, what's your level of comfort with this?

MR. CLARKE: Well, I will tell you in particular about the ones that get the most attention here in the press, and they are members of the bin Laden family. I was aware for some time that there were members of the bin Laden family living in the United States. And, let's see, in open session I can say that I was very well aware of the members of the bin Laden family and what they were doing in the United States, and the FBI was extraordinarily well aware of what they were doing in the United States. And I was informed by the FBI that none of the members of the bin Laden family, this large clan, were doing anything in this country that was illegal or that raised their suspicions. And I believe the FBI had very good information and good sources of information about what the members of the bin Laden family were doing.

MR. ROEMER: I've been very impressed with your memory, sitting through all these interviews that the 9/11 commission has conducted with you. I press you again to try to recall how this request originated, who might have passed this on to you at the White House Situation Room, or who might have originated that request for the United States government to fly out -- how many people on this plane?

MR. CLARKE: I don't know.

MR. ROEMER: We don't know how many people were on a plane that flew out of this country. Who gave the final approval, then, to say "Yes, you're clear to go, it's all right with the United States government to go to Saudi Arabia"?

MR. CLARKE: I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference. I was making -- or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two -- since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State of the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know.

MR. ROEMER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEAN: Senator Gorton?

MR. GORTON: One more question on that subject. When the approvals were finally made, and when the flight left, was the flight embargo still in effect or were we flying -- or was that over? We were flying once again?

MR. CLARKE: No, sir. No, Senator. The reason that a decision was needed was because the flight embargo -- the grounding was still in effect.

----------------------------------

Moore is a liar.

MadsenOMC

06-22-2004, 07:58 PM

So, if Richard Clarke provides information that gives ammunition to people who hate Moore, then he is credible? But when he provides information that is critical of the Bush administration, he has no credibility because he's just disgruntled and hoping to cash in? Do I have that straight?

JCR

06-22-2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by cstroman
Moore is a liar.

Ha. I do find it amusing you'd use the 9/11 commission to defend bush, given that bush has been strongly claiming that the commission get things wrong this week because they've said there was no iraq/al qaeda link pre the war. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3816699.stm)

I personally couldn't care less about the bin laden's flying out. There are bigger issues, ie. weapons of mass destruction. Heh, that's another topic that makes me laugh.

MadsenOMC

06-22-2004, 08:33 PM

Yeah, how about that cstroman? Bush and Cheney going at it with the bipartisan 9/11 commission.

Shockwave

06-22-2004, 09:14 PM

Has anyone considerd the fact that both Moore and Bush can be liars at the same time? :)

MadsenOMC

06-22-2004, 09:22 PM

I would bet on it.

DaMovieMan

06-22-2004, 11:01 PM

Im watching this movie tomorrow and I CANT FUCKING WAIT!!

Hopefully this movie really changes people's mind and makes them see things even more clearly...

i.e. DO NOT VOTE BUSH :D

DMM

MadsenOMC

06-23-2004, 12:28 AM

For anyone planning on seeing this movie, or even anyone not planning on it, check out Control Room if you get the chance. It's outstanding and worth seeking out.

Mr. Fred Krueger

06-23-2004, 12:36 AM

By the FBI, CIA, and 9/11 commission.

Oh yes, because the government never EVER lies.

*note the sarcasm*

Anyone else find it funny how people place the word PROPAGANDA on something yet act as if there's no Republican propaganda regarding the Bush administration.

Beeblebrox

06-23-2004, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Fred Krueger
Anyone else find it funny how people place the word PROPAGANDA on something yet act as if there's no Republican propaganda regarding the Bush administration. [/B]

People only call it propaganda when they disagree with it.

cstroman

06-23-2004, 12:54 AM

Yeah, how about that cstroman? Bush and Cheney going at it with the bipartisan 9/11 commission.

I disagree with the Pres./Vice Pres. on this issue. I don't believe there was any "credible" link between Al Qaida and Sadaam (Iraq is a different story) at the point we invaded. Could one have developed? Sure, it's possible given their mutual hatred for America. But Al Qaida is a wahabbist organization, very religious, very zealous, very intollerant of all NON-Muslims and even most Muslims. Sadaam was pretty much a secular Muslim (although he had a Quran written in his own blood) and had he been less tyranical, would have been our greatest ally over there. The only successful secular ruler.

But on this one, I am not with the President. And remember the commission hasn't said there WAS no link, just that no 'credible' link has yet been found. The links presented by our intelligence committe has reached dead ends since invasion.

Unless the Pres./Vice Pres. are privy to information that the Senators don't have, I don't think there existed any working relationship between the two.

Also I HOPE there really weren't any WMD's in the country. If there were and he exported them (to Syria would be the logical choice since they shared an "open border" trading policy despite any embargos etc.) I would expect to see them appear in Palestine, Lebanon, etc. or even back in Iraq against our own troops and/or Iraqi's

Please let there be no WMD's for the sake of future suffering if they do.

MadsenOMC

06-23-2004, 01:10 AM

Talking about propoganda, that is heavily covered in Control Room. I hate to beat a dead horse, but it really is a fascinating documentary, and I think that word can be used to describe it. It definitely has a point of view, but it doesn't resort to Moore's methods and tactics. I can't recommend it enough.

cstroman

06-23-2004, 10:37 AM

Never heard of it.

MadsenOMC

06-23-2004, 11:00 AM

I know this is a different thread, but I think it relates to this movie in many ways. Control Room is all about Al Jazeera. It starts in March 2003 right as the U.S. invades Iraq. It focuses on the military's relationship with the station, the feelings of the Iraqi people and journalists and what purpose the station serves in that part of the world, where 40 million Arabs are watching. It covers things the media here doesn't touch. It's fascinating stuff.

cstroman

06-23-2004, 11:33 AM

You do realize that Al Jazeera uses the term "Martyr" for people who blow up busses of Jews in Israel.

Al Jazeera. Al lies, Al the time.

Al Jazeera is as unbiased as TBN's "news" if you want to call it that.

BakeTheMooCow

06-23-2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by cstroman
You do realize that Al Jazeera uses the term "Martyr" for people who blow up busses of Jews in Israel.

Untrue.

If you had watched The Daily Show from a few nights ago, Hassan Ibrahim (reporter for Al Jazeera and the man behind Control Room) was asked about the use of the term 'martyr' on Arab websites, and he said that he uses neutral terms like 'casualties' on his show and was of the opinion that it is impossible to determine who is a martyr and who isn't. He produces the show "The Weekly File" for Al Jazeera.

You make generalizations and expect people to accept them at face value, and criticize Moore for doing the same.

MadsenOMC

06-23-2004, 11:45 AM

Don't believe everything Rummy tells you about Al Jazeera. After seeing the movie, I've realized that unless you are currently living over there, you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to that part of the world, myself included. So see the movie before you bash it.

MadsenOMC

06-23-2004, 11:48 AM

Excellent point bakethemoocow. That man is extremely intelligent and the best part of the movie. We just really can't understand life there, no matter how smart we think we are or how much we think we know.

cstroman

06-23-2004, 12:02 PM

Actually its an absolute fact that they DO use the term "Martyr" in reference to Palestinian Suicide Bombers. The person YOU listed may not on his show, but the reporters from the various countries do use it.

Visit the Al Jazeera website and read the english Translations of their articles. Also see if you can find english translations of their Newscasts (not english commentaries, but word for word translations).

They DO say, "A Palestinian Martyr blew up a busful of Zionist Jews this morning", etc.

All Jews in Israel are labeled as "Zionists" whether they are or not, no distinction is made.

Unless something has changed at Al Jazeera in the last 2 years, Martyr is very much a word used when referring to Palestinian Suicide Bombers.

BakeTheMooCow

06-23-2004, 12:28 PM

"The person YOU listed may not on his show, but the reporters from the various countries do use it."

The person I listed works for Al Jazeera, so you can't paint a broad stroke saying the term 'martyr' is used everytime a Palestinian suicide bomber blows up a bus, because clearly, on 'The Weekly File' atleast, the term is not used.

If it is used by other reporters, how can you call the channel "Al lies, al the time" when the use of the term 'martyr' is not a lie, but an opinion? It is only a reflection of the way the Arabs view the Israel/Palestine conflict. All news organizations use language that is molded to coincide with those of their viewers. It can be likened to the use of the term 'hero' in the West.

MadsenOMC

06-23-2004, 12:33 PM

Guess who said Al Jazeera is "all lies, all the time?" Rummy. Yup, that moronic, lying piece of shit Donald Rumsfeld. So he is qouting Rumsfeld when he says that. And Rumsfeld has no idea what he is talking about. Find a better mouthpiece, man.

cstroman

06-23-2004, 01:16 PM

Guess who said Al Jazeera is "all lies, all the time?" Rummy.

Actually I said that in the Islam.com forums 3 years ago just after 9/11. That was my "slogan" for them, I don't care what Rumsfeld says.

Actually the only "lying pieces of shit" I know are Democrats Like Slick Willy and Ted "Drunk Driving Killer" Kennedy, Dick Gephardt, and the like.

Bakethemoocow, we don't call our soldiers "heros" in our reporting. We call them Soldiers or Marines, but we don't say, "Today 4 Heros killed a suspected Iraqi terrorist".

The person I listed works for Al Jazeera, so you can't paint a broad stroke saying the term 'martyr' is used everytime a Palestinian suicide bomber blows up a bus, because clearly, on 'The Weekly File' atleast, the term is not used.

So then Fox News is an Unbiased News source as well? What is your view of it? TBN unbiased in their news reporting?

See the difference?

Also, note this current story on Al Jazeera in English:

Second Intifada (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F1AA34B0-1DAA-4A97-BE65-BD54EB703B65.htm?GUID={ED8317B4-626C-498B-8AD2-F9274D510D99})

The term in English "Self-Sacrificer" is "Martyr" in the Arabic. From your posts I can see there is a difference between my studies on the Middle East and Islam, and your knowledge which comes from.....? I would like to honestly know.

If it is used by other reporters, how can you call the channel "Al lies, al the time" when the use of the term 'martyr' is not a lie, but an opinion?

Hence the "opinion" and the difference between reporting and editorializing.

All news organizations use language that is molded to coincide with those of their viewers.

Exactly my point. TBN and Al Jazeera are the same channel with just Christians and Islam being the main difference.

MadsenOMC

06-23-2004, 01:18 PM

cstroman

06-23-2004, 01:23 PM

cstroman, I think you're a smart guy, but how can one take you seriously when you say only Democracts lie? Are you joking? Do you need me to make a list of Republicans that lie? Do you honestly believe that only one party lies?

No, but your opinion and mine of who is a "lying piece of shit" are just that. I would take anyone in the Bush administration over anyone in the Democratic Partry ANYDAY (except maybe Lieberman).

Kerry's cabinet is non-existant.

I think you are a smart guy as well, despite your "I hate _______" (insert whatever republican/conservative you don't agree with).

I think you have as much basis for your views as I do which is your Personal beliefs.

MadsenOMC

06-23-2004, 01:25 PM

Well, we agree on that.

MadsenOMC

06-23-2004, 01:58 PM

Interesting sidenote about Control Room. The thoughtful, conflicted and intelligent military spokesman who is featured throughout the movie, has been ordered by the Pentagon to stop talking to the press and is going to quit the Marines.

Winston Wolfe

06-23-2004, 02:33 PM

There is a POLITICS forum created for anyone who wants to discuss politics. This thread is for discussion about the FILM itself, what you liked about it, what you didn't, etc...

If the politics talk continues in this thread, it will be closed.

Thanks for understanding.

Jon Lyrik

06-23-2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Winston Wolfe
There is a POLITICS forum created for anyone who wants to discuss politics. This thread is for discussion about the FILM itself, what you liked about it, what you didn't, etc...

If the politics talk continues in this thread, it will be closed.

Thanks for understanding.

Ya'd end up closing every one of the new Fahrenheit 9/11 threads. Appearantly, semi-off-topic politics and this film are pretty much inseperable on this board. How many of these Fahrenheit threads got closed for swaying too deep into politics? 3?

But are we allowed to discuss the politics of the movie itself? It would be almost impossible not to.

Zebra 3

06-23-2004, 05:29 PM

Where are the rest of the world's great investigative news journalists? Too busy covering Michael Jackson and Lacy Petersen's disappearance, eh? C'mon guys...left, right...any sides...come out of the woodwork and create some damn insightful documentaries already! If this isn't the right time, I don't know when it ever would be.
- JoBlo (http://www.joblo.com/fahrenheit911.htm)
Granted way too many so-called serious reporters are chasing Wacko Jacko and other celebrity weirdos, but there's been coverage to what Michael Moore is bringing forward in part already. Here's one example: CBC.ca - The Fifth Estate: Conspiracy Theories (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/).

The Heart Collector

06-23-2004, 05:38 PM

Shockwave

06-23-2004, 06:56 PM

I think it was so it wouldnt get passed over or ignored.

cstroman

06-23-2004, 07:57 PM

Did I miss something?;)

moviemuffin

06-23-2004, 10:20 PM

I take this war a lot more seriously than Moore or anyone in the Bush administration.

My husband is a Kurd. He was a very small boy when he watched his grandparents slaughtered in the streets of Bagdad. His family barely escaped with their lives.

I was glad to see Hussein caught, but remain convinced they haven't replaced him with anything better.

I'm not pro-Bush. I'm not pro-any of these fuckheads.

I'm against making jokes and money on the issue, particularly with lies.

DaMovieMan

06-24-2004, 01:53 AM

To say one thing first:

This movie simply cannot be all lies, its just impossible and if even one thing is the truth (i think many many are) then America and the rest of the world are in deep shit if Bush is re-elected.

Now on to my short review/reaction.

This film was AMAZING. Third best of this year after Kill Bill Vol. 2 and The Passion. Very Very entertaining and very insightful. Michael Moore deserves all the praise he can get for this film. Im glad that he was able to distribute his film here before the election becuase i definately believe it will change many peoples mind and possibly ruin the career of George W. That's how powerful this movie is.

The two best things about this film are music and editing. The people responcible for that should get some kind of award as soon as possible. WIthout them it wouldnt be have as powerful as it is.

When i got out of the cinema all i could think was 'Oh my God.' at the thought of this kind of guy becoming president of one of the most powerful countries in the world. I recomend this movie to EVERYONE but especially to Americans.

Full review coming up tomorrow or Friday..it's fucking late and i feel great after watching Farenheit.

9/10

DMM

Judge_Smails

06-24-2004, 02:19 AM

You may want to look at tonight’s numbers for F9/11… a record single day haul I believe from the two theaters in NYC… almost a $40,000 per-theater average (adjusted for inflation, this is comparable to the NYC opening of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT five years ago).

But I’m not quite sure I buy the way some are extrapolating these numbers out over the entire weekend… limited release films always have disproportionately high per-theater averages. And NYC, after all, is going to be the most receptive market to this film for obvious reasons.

I would expect Chicago, L.A., Boston and San Francisco to be very receptive as well. But I also suspect that there won’t be lines around the block in cities and towns in the Midwest. I’m not saying a weekend per-theater average of $30,000+ is impossible, but it will be quite an accomplishment.

Now that I’m thinking about it, once the weekend is done, I’d be fascinated to know exactly WHERE most of the business is being done for this film (i.e. what percentage of the boxoffice is generated in California and New York).

JCR

06-24-2004, 09:15 AM

If it does a $20M plus opening weekend on it's $6M budget, and it could, I hope disney feel suitably stupid, if I were a shareholder there I'd be furious.

dellamorte dellamore

06-24-2004, 09:17 AM

All i know is , i wouldn't want to live in the Mid East , under any circumstances , not with homicidal dictators , ritual killings ( people getting killed without trials ) , beheadings , a lack of capitalism ( unless you count all the money the leaders take and the black market ) , religious fanatacism , people getting hands chopped off for whatever reason .

The place is and always has been a hell hole , and Al Jazeera makes it seem like the US and the " Zionists " are to blame for all that regions woes . They have been killing their own people for eons , so why is it our fault , they came after us , and we responded , now they want to try and act all innocent , freak the bastards , i wouldn't even call them animals , because that would insult the animal kingdom . Yeah , we're so bad , that's why people will risk life to get here .

Moore should get on his knees and thank the gods that he is in a country that gave him the opportunity to exploit , mislead , and spew falsehoods , all the while raking in the massive amounts of greenbacks endorsed by the country he so despises . Not too mention the chicks that wouldn't even know he exists if he didn't make such a spectacle of himself with these nonsensical cinematic diatribes that don't qualify as journalism , but pure self promotion . He knows he couldn't make money in film any other way , like say a PJ or a Spielberg , he only has a quintillionth of their talent , so he takes cheap shots and throws together some grainy footage in the guise of enlightening the masses or at least the people that think he's some sort of soothsayer and soldier of truth and justice , he's not , he's merely a glorified con man .

By the way , i could be wrong , but i think Blair Witch hit 50, 000 plus per screen average here in NYC back in 1999 . Not sure which theater but i think it may have been the Angelica , right off of Houston street in Chelsea ( Celebrities go there in case you want to star gaze while you watch stars on the screen ) . Could be wrong , but i'm almost positive it still has that record and it's in the 50's , without adjusting for inflation .

DaMovieMan

06-24-2004, 10:05 AM

There was nothing grainy or cheap in the shot of Bush having fun on his vacation or who the real victims of the Iraq war were. So i dont know what you're talking about. Moore expressed his opinion in the best possible way and it was powerful.

DMM

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 11:08 AM

After seeing Control Room this week, and after reading firsthand accounts of life in Iraq in Harper's and Vanity Fair, I have come to the conclusion that unless you live there or have lived there, you really have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. You have no idea what life is like for everyday people. You have no idea how they feel about Saddam. You have no idea about anything. And I am including myself here. The only people who liked the U.S. and wanted them there are the Kurds, and even they are turning now. No one else wanted us. Did the like Saddam? Of course not. But they did not want another country invading their own, destroying it and trying to force something down their throats. Can you blame them? The Bush administration and the military have been feeding the media here crap since day one of the war. And do not make the mistake of believing what that fucking lying piece of shit Rummy says about Al Jazeera. They only wanted to show people the reality of war. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with them siding with their own people and their own country?

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 11:09 AM

dd, please see the movie before bashing it. Or just don't talk about it.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 11:34 AM

I've studied that area (and a little Arabic as well). I know what I am talking about when I make commentary about it.

The guy behind the beheadings in Iraq is NOT a "freedom fighter" HELL, he's not even an Iraqi, he's from Jordan or Syria and what has HE done for Iraq? Built Schools? Promoted Freedom? Pressed for Equal rights for Women?

Hell no. The Guy came to Iraq to kill Americans and NON-Muslims whether they be Military or Civillian.

If those fucktards would spend half as much energy HELPING build schools and HELPING build the economy as they do killing those trying to do such, the situation would be alot better.

I'll give you a few more interesting facts. Iraq has a couple hundred thousand Chaldean Christians in the country. None of them are killing, attacking foreigners there. There is also like 30 Jews left (from the 500,000 that once lived there) who are also not attacking or killing.

It's Moral Secularism vs. Islamic Theocracy at the moment. If the Islamic Theocracy wins, you have a state sponsored terrorist training ground a la Afghanistan.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 11:39 AM

Hey, cstroman, I didn't see anyone defending the guy behind the beheadings. And you know, studying something is great. I am all for that. Educating oneself is a very noble purpose. But I don't that means someone can truly understand what day-to-day life is like there, or the complexity of the situation there.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 12:38 PM

But I don't that means someone can truly understand what day-to-day life is like there, or the complexity of the situation there.

Then what's the point in studying it? What's the point in being educated at all?

Sorry, but I respectfully and wholeheartedly DISAGREE.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 12:40 PM

It's not that it isn't worth studying or being educated. I never said that. I said the opposite. It is very important and worthwhile. But you could study, say, 1800s England all your life. Would you ever truly understand what it was like to live there?

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 12:42 PM

Another point I'm trying to make, and maybe I'm not doing it well, is that it is extremely easy for us to assume that we know what is going on over there. Myself included. I read everything I possibly can about it. I want to be educated. I want to be informed. But being that we are safely in America, what, some 6,000 miles away, can we really understand it?

echo_bravo

06-24-2004, 12:57 PM

Christ Madsen, there you go again digging yourself another hole.

So with your rhetoric then wouldnt you have to stop criticiizing Bush. After all you have never meet the guy and dont know first hand what he is like. So with your way of thinking you cant really comment on him then huh?

Anyways, Iraq and pretty much the rest of the Middle East is a shithole. It was a shit hole before he got there and it is a shit hole now.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 12:59 PM

Of course not. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on it. And I admit, I will never understand Bush. I don't know him; I don't know what makes him tick. But I can still have an opinion of him. I never told anyone they can't have an opnion, or that they should shut up about something. There you go again, actually.

Lynn7

06-24-2004, 01:08 PM

I thought this article gives an example of the other view of things that Moore portrays- I agree with this woman.

Sarasota principal defends Bush from "Fahrenheit 9/11" portrayal
By Associated Press
June 24, 2004

SARASOTA — Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" criticizes President Bush for listening to Sarasota second-graders read a story for nearly seven minutes after learning the nation was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

But Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal at Emma E. Booker Elementary School, says Bush handled himself properly.

"I don't think anyone could have handled it better," Tose'-Rigell told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune in a story published Wednesday. "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival, portrays the White House as asleep at the wheel before the Sept. 11 attacks. Moore accuses Bush of fanning fears of future terrorism to win public support for the Iraq war.

Bush told the federal 9/11 Commission, which released its report last week, that he remained in the classroom because he felt it was "important to project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening." Moore says Bush failed to take charge.

Tose'-Rigell, who was at Bush's side, did not hear what White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card whispered when he squeezed past her to tell the president of the attacks, but "I knew it was something serious."

"The president bit his lip and clenched his jaw," she said. "I didn't know what happened, whether it was something with his wife or children or something with the nation. I remember praying that God would watch over our school and protect our children."

She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."

Tose'-Rigell said she plans to publish her account of the morning of Sept. 11 from pages she wrote in her journal following the attack. The principal said she didn't vote for Bush. "But that day I would have voted for him."

On a personal note, I was in a total daze that day( 9/11)- I couldn't understand what I was watching on Tv- I was at a school where TVs were on with no sound. No one had a clue- the attack was so unexpected and horrific. It seems unfair for people to go back and cast events in a different light. If a camera had been on me that day I would've looked dumbfounded and bewildered. It's fine for Moore to tell his view of things but to deliberately leave out info that changes the perspective is grossly misleading. It's his right I guess but to me it is intellectually dishonest.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 01:13 PM

Criticizing Bush for sitting there is a waste of time. How would anyone have reacted? America had just been attacked by terrorists. This is the least of my problems with Bush.

Judge_Smails

06-24-2004, 01:30 PM

That's an interesting point.

I know how I reacted when I turned on the TV on 9/11 and learned the world had gone insane. I'm really glad there wasn't a video camera taping me. As a matter of fact, after spewing quite a bit of profanity, I do seem to recall sitting around with a blank expression on my face for the better part of the day.

I wonder what a video camera would've captured had it been focused on Michael Moore when he saw that second plane hit. I know what he wrote on his website later on 9/11, but I'm talking about the actual moment.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 01:56 PM

Criticizing Bush for sitting there is a waste of time. How would anyone have reacted? America had just been attacked by terrorists. This is the least of my problems with Bush.

According to the transcripts this is a major point made in Fahrenheit 9/11. The fact that it is in his documentary doesn't bode well for it being nothing more than Propoganda.

Nazis did it in WWII and Moore is doing it now.

His reaction is COMPLETELY within the realm of rational human behavior.

Now if it had been Gore on the other hand the kids would be in therapy from having the guy jump up and start screaming "How dare they! HOW DARE THEY!" (see picture at left)

but I'm talking about the actual moment.

I think I've seen that picture.....

He was sitting in a chair in front of a TV with a pizza in one hand and a 2 gallon jug o' pepsi in the other. He did kinda have one butt cheek tilted up and if the expression on his face says anything, he had just let one rip.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 01:58 PM

So, if Moore's propoganda is similar to Nazi propoganda, is conservative propoganda as well?

cstroman

06-24-2004, 03:23 PM

Yes. Propoganda is propoganda.

Beeblebrox

06-24-2004, 03:40 PM

"I don't think anyone could have handled it better," Tose'-Rigell told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune in a story published Wednesday. "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"

Are those the only two options, sitting there like a confused bump on a log or running screaming out of the room?

Are our expectations of Bush so low that the idea of him acting like an adult and excusing himself from a photo op to deal with a national emergency is just totally out of the question?

cstroman

06-24-2004, 04:47 PM

Are those the only two options, sitting there like a confused bump on a log or running screaming out of the room?

He never says he was confused. That's just some liberal idiot reading into something after the fact. That's like saying "That guy just looked evil" after he goes and kills someone. Yeah, right.:rolleyes:

Are our expectations of Bush so low that the idea of him acting like an adult and excusing himself from a photo op to deal with a national emergency is just totally out of the question?

The real question is are you so unable to see how he should deal with it that when his PEOPLE told him they were monitoring the situation and keeping him informed, that they were doing just that? If they had needed him, they would have told him. They didn't need him at that moment therefore they didn't say "Mr. President we need you to come with us."

No reason to "jump up and do nothing" until you know what it is you can do.

Anyone picking at his reaction in the school, is trying to grasp farts in the wind with their fists.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 04:52 PM

BTW after we were bombed at Pearl Harbor why didn't we declare war IMMEDIATELY and why didn't we send our carrier fleet out to intercept the Japanese (which was very possible).

What about Kennedy having his head blown off?

It's because you are sucker punched.

And to keep this to movies, watch American President. A similar occurence is portrayed (although on a smaller scale) and tell me how it is handled.

anakinsrise

06-24-2004, 05:55 PM

My review of FAHRENHEIT 911

IN SHORT : Michael Moore brings us another ,riveting,sad,discomforting and very intriguing documentary.

THE GOOD :One of the things i like about,Michael Moore is his effectiveness,as a journalist,not afraid to ask hard hitting questions and the guts to question our very government and those in charge of it.Not like some in the media who would rather question Marc Anthony about his marriage to J-Lo. The film opens on a scene we all know well,the Florida elections of 2000,as vice president Gore,family,and friends celebrated,an electoral victory there, the tables were soon turned,and Bush was soon elected.It is shameful and sad to watch as each representative from Florida who questioned the voting process,were not backed by any senators,and are turned away by a glum Gore.As we are once again brought to the heart wrenching day of 9-11-01 ,we watch George W.Bush stare off into space for seven minutes as he sits in a classroom,after he is told America is under attack.Much of the same way he obliviously stares off into space as he hears of how more Americans die or are beheaded in Iraq.We learn of his true ties to the Binladen family,of how he was on vacation for 42% of his first 8 months in the white house,and he says it himself,'You dont have to be in D.C to work i have email and a fax machine". Notice how we are alerted to the most simple missteps in security these days?,but of how we knew nothing on 9-11, the day security really mattered.One of the more effective scenes is that of a mainly military family,from flint Michigan,who go from gung ho for the war, until sadly the lose one of their own,a son who weeks before his death begins to question his faith in Bush and why he and his fellow soldiers are in Irag.Of course some will say this film is anti Bush,and anti republican,but i welcome a documentary showing Bush's side and that of the republicans.I have never trusted politicians,democrat or replublican ,but i do believe the country has excelled under some presidents(JFK,Clinton)who were definitely not flawless,but i admired their sincerity and guts to try to truly make a difference.Will the film make you think ? Will it make you angry? Yes and yes!.But isnt that what good filmaking is all about?

THE BAD :There is a bit of repetition found in Fahrenheit ,we know under Bush we went to war for oil,3 million jobs and counting were lost,taxes were cut for the rich,and this is the most secretive administration in history.At times i felt i was being beaten over the head with these facts.Moore grandstands a bit in a scene in which he tries to convince congressman to send their children to fight in Irag.Humorous,but not as effective as the scene in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore takes the victims back to K-mart to return the bullets purchased there ,some still lodged in their bodies.

IN THE END : Scale of 1-10 a solid 9 ! Go see Fahrenheit 9-11 tomorrow,dont wait for the DVD,cable and satellite.It truly is an eye opener ,see it before the film is banned because,it has "electioneering communications" restricted by federal campaign laws.HA HA HA HA!!!

cstroman

06-24-2004, 06:08 PM

Michael Moore is not a journalist or documentarian. He's a propogandaist and activist for his political party and his leftist agendas.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2 hour democratic party campaign infomercial with the same slanted "facts" and "half truths" expected therin. It's "Bowflex Politics for Democrats" that or "Democrat Politics for Dummies".

I don't think someone should go to a movie house expecting a Political Propoganda movie, nor should they go to watch a Billy Graham religious special.

These are about on the same level.

I'm glad to hear that your political agenda was pandered to so as to give yourself that little pat on the back.

Now go watch a real documentary and get some real truth.

blankpage

06-24-2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by cstroman
Michael Moore is not a journalist or documentarian. He's a propogandaist and activist for his political party and his leftist agendas.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2 hour democratic party campaign infomercial with the same slanted "facts" and "half truths" expected therin. It's "Bowflex Politics for Democrats" that or "Democrat Politics for Dummies".

I don't think someone should go to a movie house expecting a Political Propoganda movie, nor should they go to watch a Billy Graham religious special.

These are about on the same level.

I'm glad to hear that your political agenda was pandered to so as to give yourself that little pat on the back.

Now go watch a real documentary and get some real truth.

Have you seen the film?

I understand your political views, as anyone would, but I think it is unfair to judge anything before you have seen it. No matter what your opinion on the person or subject is.

As well, you're stating all of a bunch of things, saying that's what the film is? In what...your opinion? That would make sense. But, the way I take it...you're stating it as a fact.

I mean, it could, after all, be propoganda. Harry Knowles, the most biased reviewer out there, said it was propoganda. But, Moore has stated it as facts.

I haven't seen anyone properly show, with proof, that it isn't. And if they have, it hasn't been public. So, I'm going with Moore, because he has more shit to make himself up.

Now, that's just...MY OPINION.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 06:35 PM

The definition of Documentary exlcudes his film automatically. And as I have stated before. I have not seen the film, but read some of the transcripts from it.

How is it NOT propoganda? How is it a documentary? How is it a balanced look at the events post 9/11.

(hint: it's not a documentary)

Definition of Documentary:

doc·u·men·ta·ry

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter , as in a book or film.

By definition, it isn't a documentary.

Propaganda:

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

By definition it's propaganda.

I win by facts and truth. Next please

cstroman

06-24-2004, 06:38 PM

It's also an Infomercial for the democratic party:

infomercial

n : a television commercial presented in the form of a short documentary

cstroman

06-24-2004, 06:41 PM

Wikipedia:

Propaganda: is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts. A similar manipulation of information is well known, e.g., in advertising, but normally it is not called propaganda in the latter context. The word propaganda carries a strong negative connotation that advertising does not.

BINGO!

cstroman

06-24-2004, 06:45 PM

Michael Moore = Leni Riefenstahl ;)

blankpage

06-24-2004, 06:46 PM

I understand where you're coming from.

And, I never said it wasn't propoganda or a true-documentary. I said I'm going to have to put my faith in Moore because no one has proven him wrong yet.

Until I see the film myself, I'm just a naive bistander.

And you said you win by facts and truth, can I have some proof of that, like a link or something? I'm not saying you're lying, but I'd be interested in reading something that proves Moore wrong.

BakeTheMooCow

06-24-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Another point I'm trying to make, and maybe I'm not doing it well, is that it is extremely easy for us to assume that we know what is going on over there. Myself included. I read everything I possibly can about it. I want to be educated. I want to be informed. But being that we are safely in America, what, some 6,000 miles away, can we really understand it? That is one of the most intelligent things I've ever read on this board, or elsewhere.

Unless you've lived in the Middle East and experienced life here, you will believe what others want you to believe.

You may think you've got it all figured out, you may think you know everything there is to know about this part of the world, but in the end, your opinion is formulated by what others tell you and not from your own experiences.

This is why I keep reading stuff like this:

Anyways, Iraq and pretty much the rest of the Middle East is a shithole. It was a shit hole before he got there and it is a shit hole now

and this:

All i know is , i wouldn't want to live in the Mid East , under any circumstances , not with homicidal dictators , ritual killings ( people getting killed without trials ) , beheadings , a lack of capitalism ( unless you count all the money the leaders take and the black market ) , religious fanatacism , people getting hands chopped off for whatever reason.

I was born and raised in this "shithole", and I've lived here for 19 of my 20 years.

Only after I moved to Chicago an year ago did I see how skewered the American perspective of the Middle East is. All the footage in the news and all the articles in the papers about people dancing in the streets at news of Americans dying, or women walking around covered from head to toe is not even close to being in the same vicinity as reality. Its exactly what the media want you to think, so you can feel happy about bombing the hell out of us, and expect us to thank you for saving us from our 'backward-ass' lifestyles.

Last week I read that a terrorist group was helping promote Fahrenheit 9/11 in the Middle East. Complete bullshit, but people actually belived it was true. This is just one example of how the media thinks for you, instead of allowing you to think for yourself.

Of course Fahrenheit 9/11 does exactly that, which is why I'm going to be cautious not to accept it as a factual depiction of events, even though I agree with the underlying agenda Moore has.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 06:50 PM

There are two threads in this forum that are locked that prove he was wrong about claiming Bush had ANY knowledge of the bin Laden family leaving the US (Richard Clark proved him wrong in his 9/11 commission testimony. The link is in that thread and you can find it anywhere by searching for "bin Laden, richard clark). It was Richard Clark and the FBI.

So that is a lie. The film "portrays" that it was Bush personally that approved it.

Second, I don't "win" over Moore except on having higher principles, what I meant is in my opinion that his film is PROPAGANDA, which I provided the definitions from dictionary.com and wikipedia.

So, his film is as a statement of fact (and his own admissions) PROPAGANDA.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 06:53 PM

So where are you from in the middle east and what is "not true" about Burkhas and anti-american sentiment where you come from?

cstroman

06-24-2004, 06:59 PM

From Wikipedia about Fahrenheit 9/11:

"The distribution of the film in the Middle East is being done by United Arab Emirate's Front Row Entertainment, whose managing director, Gianluca Chacra, has stated that Moore is "considered an Arab supporter" in the region."

I think you need to retract your statement.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 07:16 PM

cstroman, have you seen the movie? If not, why are you making statements that imply that you have? And can you really claim that someone who lived there for 19 years is wrong, or doesn't know what they are talking about?

cstroman

06-24-2004, 07:18 PM

Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah

Samantha Ellis
Thursday June 17, 2004
The Guardian

The controversy over Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 just won't go away. The film, which is being advertised with the strapline "Controversy? What controversy?", has been rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America, meaning no one under 17 can see it unless accompanied by an adult. Distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films, opening the film next week, are appealing against the decision. The rating came partly because the film shows images of US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, images Moore says he had long before the scandal erupted. He told Associated Press he kept quiet because he thought he'd be accused of "just putting this out for publicity for my movie".
Anger at Moore is building up, too. Pro-military lobby group Move America Forward is campaigning to "Stop Michael Moore from profiting in his attacks on America and our military"; Michael Wilson is making a documentary called Michael Moore Hates America; and the website www.moorelies.com is out "to expose America's fakest pseudo-muckraker".

Meanwhile, in the United Arab Emirates, the film is being offered the kind of support it doesn't need. According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon with offers of help. All in all, Tony Blair must be relieved that Moore is not going to make a film about him; Moore rebuffed the rumour in a message on his website headlined: "Sorry to scare you, Tony. Michael Moore was just kidding."

cstroman

06-24-2004, 07:19 PM

You asked me that already Madsen and I replied about reading the "transcripts" remember?

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 07:20 PM

Move America Forward is no better than Moore. They are merely the opposite end of the political spectrum.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 07:21 PM

cstroman

06-24-2004, 07:24 PM

And can you really claim that someone who lived there for 19 years is wrong, or doesn't know what they are talking about?

Well, in answer, Michael Moore has lived here his whole life and he doesn't know WHAT the fuck he is talking about so it is very possible.

I'm not doubting what he is saying, just saying he may be looking at it through "colored" glasses.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 07:26 PM

OK, so all you read is a transcript. IMO, your comments make it seem as if you have seen the movie. IMO, you should refrain from bashing it until you have seen it. A complete film is night and day different from a partial transcript.

The transcript is FROM the finished shot footage before cuts. And likewise people should refrain from bashing Bush until they are actually president, but people don't follow that line of thinking.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 07:26 PM

Who has the glasses, Moore? Or the gentleman who lived over there? And I could say the exact opposite about Moore. I could say he has it exactly right about America. It's just an opinion, not fact.

JCR

06-24-2004, 07:26 PM

...has stated that Moore is "considered an Arab supporter" in the region."

I don't think he is, not in the way you're implying anyway. The chapter about Israel and so on in stupid white men was fairly even handed actually. Although moore does support the IRA, who do murder people, which is a little unfortunate.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 07:27 PM

Oh please. That is a sorry comparison. Then you shouldn't bash Moore until you make a documentary. Come on.

The Heart Collector

06-24-2004, 07:35 PM

cstroman

06-24-2004, 07:37 PM

I don't think he is, not in the way you're implying anyway.

Umm. that isn't me implying, those are the words of "Gianluca Chacra" of Front Row of UAE. An ARAB.

BakeTheMooCow

06-24-2004, 07:37 PM

I see statements made by distributors of the film as nothing but marketing tactics. Saying in an Arab country, that Moore is an Arab supporter will maximize revenue. Doesn't make it true.

JCR

06-24-2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Stop saying "propaganda" every 5 seconds, you're not hammering any point home that we didn't know about. Boo hoo, it's propaganda. Big deal, that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, which is that it's a complete bunch of lies.

Best post ever. Maybe it is propaganda, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and if what moore does (I'm basing this on his books as I've not seen F911 yet) is propaganda than bush talking shite about "evildoers" and so on is as well.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 07:43 PM

Stop saying "propaganda" every 5 seconds, you're not hammering any point home that we didn't know about. Boo hoo, it's propaganda. Big deal, that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, which is that it's a complete bunch of lies.

Stop saying "bush sucks, blah, blah, blah" every 5 seconds, you're not hammering any point home that we didn't hear before. Boo hoo, you don't like him. Big deal, what you think he is doesn't seem to be what he really factually is.

:rolleyes:

cstroman

06-24-2004, 07:46 PM

One other thing to note. If the next time someone is killed (after it is released in the Middle East) by beheading, etc. and Moore's film is EXPLICITLY mentioned or at least is DIRECTLY REFERENCED as influencing the action of the killer, (seeing as how he portrays actual soldiers in Iraq negatively)

What would you think of him then? Terrorist supporter? al Sadr wannabe? what?

cstroman

06-24-2004, 07:48 PM

I see statements made by distributors of the film as nothing but marketing tactics. Saying in an Arab country, that Moore is an Arab supporter will maximize revenue. Doesn't make it true.

How do YOU think people who are undecided or critical about the United States over there will feel about us after seeing the film? Will they like us more or less?

JCR

06-24-2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
I see statements made by distributors of the film as nothing but marketing tactics. Saying in an Arab country, that Moore is an Arab supporter will maximize revenue. Doesn't make it true.

Yeah, I don't see how moore saying he supports arabs while plugging his movie is any different to any hollywood star coming to the UK and saying how much they love it here- which they all do- while plugging a movie. It's a simple ruse designed to get yourself over with potential customers. It doesn't mean anything.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 07:52 PM

How do you know the soldiers in Iraq are portrayed negatively? You have not seen it. And I don't give a fuck about a damn transcript. Until you see it, stop bashing the movie.

So if someone is beheaded, and they state that they watched his movie, he is responsible? Weren't you going on and on about personal responsibility and personal accountability before? Or is that only relevant when it suits your political agenda? Sounds like someone has something in common with Michael Moore.

JCR

06-24-2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by cstroman
How do YOU think people who are undecided or critical about the United States over there will feel about us after seeing the film? Will they like us more or less?

Hate to let you in on this little secret, cstroman, but most of the rest of the world hates bush already. This film ain't gonna change many minds.

The Heart Collector

06-24-2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by cstroman
How do YOU think people who are undecided or critical about the United States over there will feel about us after seeing the film? Will they like us more or less?

A little bit more angry than they were before. Which was a whole lot.

syxxpac

06-24-2004, 07:57 PM

I was just watching Family Guy and I made a shocking discovery: Michael Moore looks just like Peter Griffin!

Ahem. Sorry.

Continue Fahrenheit 9/11 discussion.

cstroman

06-24-2004, 08:01 PM

So if someone is beheaded, and they state that they watched his movie, he is responsible? Weren't you going on and on about personal responsibility and personal accountability before? Or is that only relevant when it suits your political agenda? Sounds like someone has something in common with Michael Moore.

Personal Responsibility IS what I'm talking about. If you give money to a terrorist to buy guns and they use those guns to kill innocent people, the person who gave them the money to buy them is.........?

An accomplice.

There's a reason why inciting mob violence is against the law.

I am hoping that Moore's Propoganda flick doesn't add fuel to an already hot fire. If he was too short sighted to think about that when he made it, then when it comes to someone seeing moore's flick and acting because of it, then that is saying something about his misguided agenda.

Wanting to use your propaganda film to push your political agenda in an election year is one thing. Releasing it in countries where it will be used as a basis for violence against others is something else.

Time will tell, but let's hope for the best.

MadsenOMC

06-24-2004, 08:03 PM

Wait, so now Moore is funding terrorists? I'm confused by your reasoning here. And he shouldn't have made the movie? Or he just shouldn't release it in the Middle East?

The Heart Collector

06-24-2004, 08:04 PM

I am hoping the Bush administration's actions don't add more fuel to the fire. You know, 'cos they're responsible for pretty much all of the fuel added so far.

BakeTheMooCow

06-24-2004, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by JCR
Hate to let you in on this little secret, cstroman, but most of the rest of the world hates bush already. This film ain't gonna change many minds. True.

And its important to distinguish between most of the rest of the world hating Bush, and most of the rest of the world hating America.

Again, I echo what Hassan Ibrahim said a few days ago on The Daily Show that a lot of people in the Middle East look up and respect American ideals and their way of life, freedom of speech and expression and American education in particular. Every single person who graduated from my high school (including me) is studying in an American, British or Canadian university.

That is why the phrase "anti-American sentiment" is such a misnomer to describe the feelings of this part of the world. People hate Bush and his policies, not the American people. Fahrenheit 9/11 should only unite people in their hate for the current U.S. administration. And before you say it - no, the views of extremists and terrorists do not represent the views of the entire Middle Eastern population.

systemdwn

06-24-2004, 08:16 PM

Everyone selects articles, movies, whatever...to support their beliefs while ignoring anything that would go against their opinions.

Deep down...we are all stubborn and we all think we are right.

...the best way, is to be open to both sides of the story...and not jump to conclusions. Anyone can find articles that supports Moore, but also, anyone can find articles that destroys him.

To be fair, you need to read all the articles - be open to everyone's opinions.

Moore succeeds on some levels but also fails too. So, do conservatives.

I remember back during the Kosovo conflict, Republicans but particularly the conservative media was against the war. They called it "Clinton's war" and who remembers the whole "wag the dog" that the conservatives spread when Clinton bombed Afghanistan to try to kill Bin Laden!

Do you honestly think that the same conservatives would accuse Bush of "wag the dog" to distract the country! I don't think so...a double standard that is prevalent everywhere in politics!

When a conservative President bombs a country, we hear the opposite...conservatives supporting him...but now, liberals are destroying Bush! Even after Bush was caught lying to the American people, conservatives continue to support him while liberals take advantage of that lie to destroy him.

Sounds familiar? **ahem** President Clinton...

My problem with this country is that people are just too damn loyal to their parties that they ignore the bigger picture, a picture that is not black + white....but very grey!

Keep in mind that 80% of voters ALWAYS vote party line no matter what! A president wins by whoever convinces the most "undecided" voters...

I am goign to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend. And, I will go in with no expections. After seeing the movie, I will make my own conclusions!

btw...do you think Fahrenheit 9/11 can be #1 this weekend? I personally would not be surprise if it breaks the 20 million mark!

cstroman

06-24-2004, 09:45 PM

Per an e-mail from Joblo, I can't respond to this thread anymore. Sorry.

Lynn7

06-25-2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by systemdwn
Everyone selects articles, movies, whatever...to support their beliefs while ignoring anything that would go against their opinions.

Deep down...we are all stubborn and we all think we are right.

...the best way, is to be open to both sides of the story...and not jump to conclusions. Anyone can find articles that supports Moore, but also, anyone can find articles that destroys him.

To be fair, you need to read all the articles - be open to everyone's opinions.

Moore succeeds on some levels but also fails too. So, do conservatives.

I remember back during the Kosovo conflict, Republicans but particularly the conservative media was against the war. They called it "Clinton's war" and who remembers the whole "wag the dog" that the conservatives spread when Clinton bombed Afghanistan to try to kill Bin Laden!

Do you honestly think that the same conservatives would accuse Bush of "wag the dog" to distract the country! I don't think so...a double standard that is prevalent everywhere in politics!

When a conservative President bombs a country, we hear the opposite...conservatives supporting him...but now, liberals are destroying Bush! Even after Bush was caught lying to the American people, conservatives continue to support him while liberals take advantage of that lie to destroy him.

Sounds familiar? **ahem** President Clinton...

My problem with this country is that people are just too damn loyal to their parties that they ignore the bigger picture, a picture that is not black + white....but very grey!

Keep in mind that 80% of voters ALWAYS vote party line no matter what! A president wins by whoever convinces the most "undecided" voters...

I am going to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend. And, I will go in with no expections. After seeing the movie, I will make my own conclusions!

btw...do you think Fahrenheit 9/11 can be #1 this weekend? I personally would not be surprise if it breaks the 20 million mark!

You make a good point but parties are deeply divided along philosophical ideologies and that is why people strongly identify with each. I think Moore has the right to make and show this movie but it is important for the other side to respond with their ideas, especially since many of the points made in the movie have been challenged for their truthfulness. I also worry that the blame America slant might have a dangerous impact on the lives of other americans or coalition members in the middle EAst. I wish our country could be united in this but that is impossible.

I feel that the US and other free nations are under a grave threat by people who have no regard for humanity. Moore has a regard for humanity, I know, but his film seems to be idealistic in that in a perfect world if the US left these guys alone all would be well. I think our very survival is at risk - these terrorists will not be done until all of the "infidels" are killed and the world is under their rule.

. What Moore does not seem to address is that S Hussein was thumbing his nose at the UN resolutions and that after 9-11 it was important to show that the US will not be mocked- that it means what it says. We needed more than ever to be respected. These Arabic countries are respectors of power not of submissiveness. They disdain weakness. These people had begun to see the US as a superpower that was impotent. The terrorists never beleived we would go to war becasue they thought we were a nation of cowards- afraid to die for a cause. It was important to show other wise. ALso, Hollywood is very against this war but it is because of what Hollywood has put out that these terrorists have called us the great SAtan. They see the US as promoters of indecency.
Moore simply puts out his idealistic view of the war but there is another viewpoint that is not addressed. I wish I could see that movie made but it is doubtful it would ever get the exposure of this one. I respect the viewpoints of both sides but I am sorry to say that I beleive that the war was a necessary evil.

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 11:25 AM

So we needed to invade Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11, to show the rest of the world who is boss? I think that is a terrible reason to go to war.

I agree that both sides of the debate need to be heard. That's what makes this country great? And the other side is doing all they can to be heard, including trying to get advertising to the movie banned in the months before the election. The other side is out there.

I also think it's a mistake to assume that Moore and others of his political ideology just want to sit back and let terrorists do whatever they want. I don't think anyone is trying to make that point. What they are against is the war in Iraq, not the war against terrorism. And they do see a difference.

Lynn7

06-25-2004, 12:17 PM

I saw the guy who is trying to get the ads banned for the Moore movie. He said he actually fought against this law (campaign finance reform)and is using this an issue to get the law's injustice to be brought to attention. He believes that the law is unconstitutional (although the Supremem Court has ruled otherwise) and is making sure that everyone adheres to it and it is not selectively applied. it will be interesting.

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 12:26 PM

It's very ironic, too. Republicans fought very hard against campaign finance reform. Bush didn't like it or want it passed either. And now that they can use it to their advantage, they champion it and think it's the greatest thing ever. Very interesting.

Jon Lyrik

06-25-2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by systemdwn
btw...do you think Fahrenheit 9/11 can be #1 this weekend? I personally would not be surprise if it breaks the 20 million mark!

Yes, I would think so. The hype and controversy is through the roof and it did scorching business when it was released in Manhattan on Wednesday.

I saw the guy who is trying to get the ads banned for the Moore movie. He said he actually fought against this law (campaign finance reform)and is using this an issue to get the law's injustice to be brought to attention. He believes that the law is unconstitutional (although the Supremem Court has ruled otherwise) and is making sure that everyone adheres to it and it is not selectively applied. it will be interesting.

It would never work. Even if it did, the film would find an audience by WOM and controversy.

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 01:01 PM

Interesting tidbit. The woman from Michigan who's featured in the movie, and whose son dies serving in Iraq; he writes her just before he dies and states that we are there "for nothing."

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 01:13 PM

For Moore haters and those who do not share his views, looks like Dallas in September is the place to be.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000552469

Lynn7

06-25-2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
It's very ironic, too. Republicans fought very hard against campaign finance reform. Bush didn't like it or want it passed either. And now that they can use it to their advantage, they champion it and think it's the greatest thing ever. Very interesting.
This one guy is not championing it- he is using it as a tool to get his opposition noticed. The Repubs do not beleive in this reform becasue they believe it infringes on free speech. It resricts certain groups from publicizing their views for a period before the election- it hurts both sides but mostly it hurts the public advocacy groups.

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 01:14 PM

Republicans claiming something infringes upon free speech. Now that is hilarious. Meanwhile, they do whatever they can to prevent as many people as possible from seeing Moore's film.

Lynn7

06-25-2004, 01:27 PM

I haven't heard anyone espousing that-maybe some people on the street blowing off steam? Joe Scarborough saw the movie and said it had some good points to it although he felt the film was not a fair portrayal. I have heard other Repubs say they do not agree with this movie but agree that it had the right to be made. If I thought the Repubs were against free speech I would not be voting that way- that's for sure.

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 01:29 PM

Well, Repubs seem to rail on Hollywood and such any chance they get. They never seem to be concerned with free speech, until it affects them directly. Do you honestly believe that John Ashcroft gives a fuck about freedom of speech? That man would gladly take it away to spread his ultra-conservative, religious agenda.

Beeblebrox

06-25-2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
If I thought the Repubs were against free speech I would not be voting that way- that's for sure. [/B]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but Republicans are now going to the FEC to get ads for Moore's movie banned from television. They are claiming that the ads are political advocacy ads and would violate a law banning such ads 60 days from a general election.

You're not talking about boycotts or organized protests anymore. You're talking about exploiting the weight of the government to silence people you don't agree with.

Forget what you think about the law itself, ads for this movie are clearly not political endorsement ads. What if 60 Minutes wanted to do a story on either candidate less than two months before the election. According to this appeal, 60 Minutes would not be able to advertise such a story on television. That's just preposterous.

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 01:50 PM

Say what you want about Moore and the movie, it is not an endorsement of Kerry or any candidate. It is a criticism of Bush and the current administration.

Thrizzle

06-25-2004, 03:21 PM

Anyone see the documentary? Any ratings?

Lynn Minmei

06-25-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by systemdwn

btw...do you think Fahrenheit 9/11 can be #1 this weekend? I personally would not be surprise if it breaks the 20 million mark!

#1? Nah.

It'll be on there, just not quite #1. If it is though, it would be mind-blowing.

Sigur509

06-25-2004, 04:38 PM

...

DaMovieMan

06-25-2004, 06:26 PM

I've mentioned it before but ill say it again. Farenheit...one of the best movies of 2004....9/10.

My favorite parts include Bush's reaction to the Twins getting attacked, Bush on vacation, the 'fear' philosophy of the government, the whole execution of the Saudi and Bush connection (Shiny Happy People!!!!), 'We're gonna smoke 'em', The conclusion.

Everything cstroman said can be easily refuted but i honestly dont have the time right now. I just have my oppinions that happen to be exactly in sync with Moore's and that was way before F9/11 came about, so im extremely happy with this movie and its director.

DMM

jackson13

06-25-2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by cstroman
Per an e-mail from Joblo, I can't respond to this thread anymore. Sorry.

Thank the fuck Christ. Now we can actually discuss the damn movie.

Im off to see it as soon as I finish typing this post. It's playing 30 minutes away from me, on one screen. So im getting there an hour early to see it in case it sells out. Hopefully it wont be, but with as much attention as its gotten, and playing on only one screen in a 65 mile area around here, I almost expect it to be.

Jon Lyrik

06-25-2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
#1? Nah.

It'll be on there, just not quite #1. If it is though, it would be mind-blowing.

Don't be too surprised. I heard some phenominal reports on it selling out everywhere to the point that it could reach $30 million this weekend or more.

Addi88

06-25-2004, 07:13 PM

I just saw it and it's simply increadible. Everyone should see this movie. However, I got lost once or twice with all the information being given to us. One of this years best movies!

9/10

Lynn7

06-25-2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but Republicans are now going to the FEC to get ads for Moore's movie banned from television. They are claiming that the ads are political advocacy ads and would violate a law banning such ads 60 days from a general election.

You're not talking about boycotts or organized protests anymore. You're talking about exploiting the weight of the government to silence people you don't agree with.

Forget what you think about the law itself, ads for this movie are clearly not political endorsement ads. What if 60 Minutes wanted to do a story on either candidate less than two months before the election. According to this appeal, 60 Minutes would not be able to advertise such a story on television. That's just preposterous.

I saw this guy on tv last night and he fought against this campaign finance law and lost so not he is using the movie to proceed against the law again by making an example to make his point. He is actually aginst it casue he thinks it is anti-free speech but wants to make sure that if this law is forced that it is applied equally. and he is not against the movie being aired just against the ads for his own purposes (He's not really against the ads but just to prove his point) :D

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 08:43 PM

Again, the law prevents advertisements that endorse a specific candidate for president before the general election, right? This movie does not endorse a candidate for president. It does not tell you to vote for John Kerry. It is an attack on Bush. So is it breaking any laws?

SPOILERS

Just got back from the movie. It's playing on two screens at the local art house theater. Every showing so far today has been nearly sold out or entirely sold out, and the main theater holds over 1,000 people. Needless to say, there was constant applauding throughout the movie and more applause when it ended. Clearly a Moore-friendly crowd.

Anyway, I loved it. I don't think there's that much someone could point to and say, "Moore is lying about that." It seems pretty airtight to me. The biggest issue seems to be the Saudis and when they flew out of America and if they were properly questioned. But clearly, they have a very long, close relationship with the Bush family. There is no denying that. The scenes outside the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C. were very interesting as well. They certainly have a lot of money invested in the states.

There's not much that I didn't like. He does take some easy cheap shots, which I thought were a little lame. I could have done with less voiceover. Thankfully, he is not onscreen much. That is a definite plus. Also, not everything in the movie is a shocking revelation. Bush vacations a lot. Big business is shady and will profit from the war. It's not a question of right or wrong, really, but is this scandalous information, as Moore seems to think it is? I would argue no, and some things could have been left out.

Overall, though, like Bowling For Columbine, it's an excellent film. Very well-made, at times hilarious and at other times very moving. I had to fight back tears during the scenes with the grieving mother in Flint. Powerful stuff. Great clips of Bush being a dumb ass. He is one massive idiot. It's hard to believe this man is the leader of the free world.

Is it objective and even-handed? No, not at all. How you feel about it is clearly going to depend on how you feel about the war. But I don't think someone who has actually seen the movie can claim that it is full of lies. Either you support the war and this president, or you don't. This would make a great double feature with Control Room. After seeing both, I don't know how any rational human being could support this bullshit war. It is not about fighting terrorism people. They didn't go after Bin Laden until two months after 9/11. The testimony from Richard Clarke and the acting director of the FBI is damning as well. Thomas something. Can't remember his last name. I was not disappointed.

8/10

ANavissi500

06-25-2004, 08:46 PM

One of the best films of the year and one of the most important films made in recent memory, Fahrenheit 9/11 serves as a painful reminder of how fucked up the global situation currently is and how change is necessary. Through interviews w/ dead soldiers' mothers, a series of amazing business connections linking everything to each other, a lot of graphic footage, and the voice of the always seen but seldom heard troops. This film is definitely promoting his leftist agenda, but there was a big differentiation between the facts and his philosophies. It would be like "Fact: Cows are mammals. I bet you that if we were inside a cow's mind we could find out why they are so tasty." It was presented in that way so that only the really gullible would take everything he said as the God's truth. The film is also a tearjerker and I cried only a little but I know some people that bawled. Finally, the film is a tribute to the poor American troops, people that get semi-victimized in this film as do Iraqi civilians. One of his arguments (that is a little hard to swallow) is that the war makes innocent troops do bad things, and I think that's pretty true, but there still is a clear separation of right and wrong that I think a wiser person could differentiate between, but who am I to say what the troops are thinking? The film is less Michael Moore packed which is also a plus. No more Maury Povich - style hugging. See it.

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 08:54 PM

Good point ANavissi, and one I forgot to make. This unjust war is being fought by the poor and minorities, or poor minorities. There is something sickly funny and sad about watching those two recruiters openly prey on poor people. It's really easy for rich white men in power to send people off to war, isn't it? Sickening.

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 09:01 PM

On a related note, moviecitynews is predicting a $10-$12 million Friday gross and a $30 million weekend.

Lynn7

06-25-2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Good point ANavissi, and one I forgot to make. This unjust war is being fought by the poor and minorities, or poor minorities. There is something sickly funny and sad about watching those two recruiters openly prey on poor people. It's really easy for rich white men in power to send people off to war, isn't it? Sickening.

It's a voluunteer military but everyone knows that it is a dangerous business to be in the military no matter what recruiters say. People die in training too. but on a side note- a freind's friend's son served in Iraq nad retuned safely only to die in a car accident. There are no guarantees in life. As far as all the recruits being poor that has not been my experience. I know a lot of middle class kids who are serivng right now with pride and really believe in what they are doing. Many of my relatives have served in past wars without any reservations. My father and uncles served in war time and so did my grandfather. They could have all been killed. My father was injured during a gunfight (he fell off his gun on his ship while he was firing! *G*Sounds funny but he surffered form a back injury the rest of his life.). They were not rich and they never were ashamed of serving their country.

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 09:50 PM

Sure, it's voluntary, everyone knows the risks, and not everyone is poor. But predominantly, it is the poor and minorities serving and dying. And they prey on them shamelessly. That is the reality of it. That's not saying it's always the case, but for the most part it is true. Take a look at the lost of the dead. Look at where they are from. Look at their ethnic background.

jackson13

06-25-2004, 10:21 PM

Well, so much for that. I drive all the way there, practically run into the theater, and its sold out. The dipshit that runs the theater decided to put the second most talked about/controversial movie of the year one ONE GODDAMN SCREEN! I cannot even describe the hoards of people that were pissed off about it being on one screen. So I saw Dodgeball instead, which I wanted to see last week but didnt. Fuckin Chuck Norris.

Glad to hear so much good word of mouth and read so many positive reviews from people, because I plan on seeing it next week now, once all the hoopla dies down.

chans

06-25-2004, 10:44 PM

Brandon Gray, President of Box Office Mojo, thinks that this film is rubbish.

http://boxofficemojo.com/forums/viewtopic.htm?t=41149

MadsenOMC

06-25-2004, 11:01 PM

Who cares what he thinks? Should I post a link to one of the positive reviews? Look at the rating at rottentomatoes.

dellamorte dellamore

06-25-2004, 11:45 PM

I got an idea , let's get this corpulent blowhard in a combat situation and see how he responds , that should shut him up for good . Yeah , his films are mildly entertaining prop films , and he is an amusing interview , but his act is old , he's already been exposed , if the " left " is all they have for a counterpoint to the " right " , well , they will be sleeping with the fishes once again in Nov . Sorry folks , Moore has already been exposed for the fraud that he is , but the people that have drunk his coolaid don't want to admit it , for shame , it's over babes , you know the Reps are the best of the worst , deal with it .

Moore is just lining his pockets on manufactured outrage , like those fake ass gangster rappers , he just happens to manipulate people's reaction to politics instead of the supposed white guys suppression of anything dark .

MadsenOMC

06-26-2004, 01:01 AM

Reps are not the best of the worst, sorry to break it to you. I could not possibly disagree more. I don't think it gets any worse than the Reps. And how do you figure that he has been exposed for a fraud? By who? You? Just because you disagree with his politics, doesn't mean he is a fraud. So is no one allowed to criticize the war and Bush? How about you put Bush in a combat situation, dd? How do you think that massive pussy would respond? Do you not find it ridiculous that all of the chicken hawks never saw a second of real combat? That the rich white men send the poor off to fight and die in war? You are OK with that? I hope not.

MadsenOMC

06-26-2004, 01:02 AM

You know what else is getting old, dd? You bashing movies you have not seen. You do it over and over again. You go from thread to thread, trashing movies you haven't even seen. It's gotten to be pretty ridiculous.

Wildbilld

06-26-2004, 01:28 AM

Classic 4 Star Rating:
http://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/star.bmphttp://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/star.bmphttp://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/star.bmphttp://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/halfstar.bmp

Letter Grade:
B+

1-10 Scale Rating:
http://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/8.5stars.bmp

Beeblebrox

06-26-2004, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
and he is not against the movie being aired just against the ads for his own purposes (He's not really against the ads but just to prove his point) :D [/B]

Yeah, and he's got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing.

He could easily make his point with an ACTUAL political ad. But to show how much you're against censorship by censoring someone is like killing someone to show them how much you oppose murder.

Judge_Smails

06-26-2004, 02:45 AM

MadsenOMC, let me just say that I read a lot of your posts and seldom agree with you.

I think you should respect the rules of the board and keep your comments on point, and not about dd’s film-going habits.

I’m not saying this to tick you off; I’m saying it because people are already getting thrown out of this thread for getting personal.

Even though I don’t agree with you, I must admit that I would miss your invective-filled / profanity-laden posts.

On point:

I haven’t seen the movie, but based on your comments it seems Moore has reinforced a long held myth about the U.S. military, which is that it’s the “poor minorities” that are always fighting and dying.

The truth is that, yes, minorities are over-represented in the military as a proportion of the population. However, what people like Moore always fail to mention is that minorities are UNDER-REPRESENTED in combat positions.

The guys who are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are overwhelmingly white. Please don’t take my word for it, and instead check out the numerous websites dedicated to the “faces of the fallen”.

Apparently in Michael Moore’s Army, there are no Pat Tillmans.

Furthermore, a huge number of the casualties in Iraq are coming from National Guard and Reserve units, where the per-capita income tends to be much higher than the general enlisted Army.

I understand your comment about the “chicken hawks”, but this is once again an oversimplification. Both Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Kerry supported military action against Iraq, and both of those guys know what it’s like to get their hands dirty.

Just some thoughts.

DaMovieMan

06-26-2004, 02:58 AM

The guys who are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are overwhelmingly white. Please don’t take my word for it, and instead check out the numerous websites dedicated to the “faces of the fallen”.

The general point that Moore makes in the movie and the point he makes over and over again in the talk shows and what not is the mere fact that young innocent Americans are dying for an unjust cause. That is it. Doesnt matter what ethnicity...they are American fighting for America and for what?

That is the whole point. Moore doesnt need to mention anything about under-representation.

Wildbill:
If a 4 1/2 star rating is equivalent to a B+ then what is an A+ to a star rating? This is just mere curiosity nothing else :)

DMM

Beeblebrox

06-26-2004, 03:05 AM

In case no one has heard yet, Variety is reporting a possible $6-8 million gross for Friday. That's based on a $2.6 million gross by 3pm this afternoon, with some theatre owners moving the film to their larger venues later in the day to accomodate a surprising demand.

There are some estimates that show the film breaking the highest grossing documentary record in just one weekend. The previous record holder, Bowling for Columbine, took 25 weeks to reach the current record of $21 million.

There is also a possibility that F911 could actually be the weekend's top film, though it's still too early to say.

Jumpman8323

06-26-2004, 03:48 AM

I wanted to see this movie earlier this evening, but it was sold out for the two shows I wanted to attend.

Lynn7

06-26-2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by chans
Brandon Gray, President of Box Office Mojo, thinks that this film is rubbish.

http://boxofficemojo.com/forums/viewtopic.htm?t=41149

I'm glad you posted this- I hadn't seen this. I like to read all the different reviews.

dellamorte dellamore

06-26-2004, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
You know what else is getting old, dd? You bashing movies you have not seen. You do it over and over again. You go from thread to thread, trashing movies you haven't even seen. It's gotten to be pretty ridiculous.

I'm not going to blow 9.50 on nonsense , but if someone pays for me , i'll see it . And why can't i comment on all the hype that's surrounding it , that's all apart of the attraction to this film .

MadsenOMC

06-26-2004, 10:43 AM

Thanks Judge, but I did nothing wrong and don't need you to tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing. I did not insult dd or anyone else. He has a habit of bashing movies he has not seen. You think that's cool? I love talking about this movie and I want to continue discussing it. But it'd be great if people were making informed opinions when bashing it. I don't think that's too much to ask. And I have seen the pictures of the dead. I watched Nightline read all the names and show their picture. A lot of minorities. A lot of poor. And then there's the two recruiters in the movie, who make no secret of the fact that they are intentionally going after poor and minorities. Well, yeah, a lot of people voted to support the war. That is what happens when you are repeatedly lied to.

MadsenOMC

06-26-2004, 11:02 AM

It's not like who is fighting over there is the main issue here. It's just one of many things that raise question marks. There's the Bush family's long and close relationship with the Saudis. There's Cheney and Halliburton. There's the companies that have made massive profits from this war and that have close ties to either Bush 41, Bush 43, both or their friends. It addresses the reasons given for fighting this war. The way we sent merely 11,000 troops to Afghanistan after 9/11 and didn't look for Bin Laden, the man responsible, until two months later. Again, none of it really is new information. For the most part, we've heard it or seen it somewhere else. But it's brought together very effectively. The bottom line is, this guy does not need to be given four more years to ruin this country. But I didn't need Moore to tell me that. It sure was entertaining, though. Bush speaking in public is always good for a laugh. "Fool me once...."

EDsoulsurvive*

06-26-2004, 11:50 AM

bush lovers and haters alike, you must see this film. It was freaking brilliant. I wasn't really either for or against Bush, but Fahrenheit 9/11 really pushed me into the latter direction. Now I'm all for determining opinions for yourself, but this movie sheds new light on a lot of political events you might think you know about, but hav really only scratched the surface of. Now I know this will come off as propoganda, but Moore doesn't usually whore himself to the camera as this films main focus is on the victims of 911, both deceased and those still living, those at war and the families of. This is a very important movie and shutting yourself out from it is ignorant. So you don't agree with Moore? Let me tell you, he does supply many solid and even shocking arguments, each as well researched and supported as the next. Give the film a chance, even if it doesn't change your opinion, at least it'll reaffirm your true faithfulness in the current ruling power in the US. I'd give this movie an 8/10, it's only problems stem from pacing and terminology for those of us not educated in politics.

And o yeah, this movie is fucking funny too.

systemdwn

06-26-2004, 03:17 PM

The documentary was very good; however, the movie becomes brilliant when Moore focuses his attention on his hometown of Flint and the American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq.

I walked out of the theater with even greater admiration of the soldiers sacrificing themselves! The movie did a perfect job to personalize the harsh reality of war!

dellamorte dellamore

06-26-2004, 05:51 PM

If you need a job , you have to do something , so for some the military is one of the options . Nobody forced them to sign , and when you join , you're doing so with the knowledge that you just may , hold on to your hats , see combat , oh , the horror , what a suprise and shock . Some of these people who join may have been living in poverty , and there may not have been too many other options ( sorry , not everyone can make millions with pseudo documentaries ) . The military gave them food , shelter , medical coverage , and in some cases a career with a pension . Oh that's so bad , i guess they should have worked at Mc D's , oh wait that place is bad too , mind as well sell drugs on the street corner . And say duh , obviously if someone has some money , the military won't be as appetizing , but even some people that have the means to do something else answer the call . I know someone in my family that has been on tour in Iraq twice , and he doesn't regret it , he wanted to be there , plus there wasn;t to many other things going at the time and only a couple of bucks to his name , and with kids and a wife it really helped to join the Army .

That's the whole purpose of joining , to defend the country , even if you may not agree with particular military operations , they signed up , some will see combat , some will get lucky and get stationed stateside or in Korea , or some other skate duty station , but part of the responsibilty of being a memeber of the armed forces is going to war . When someone becomes a police officer , they are doing so knowing they too may be in life threatening situations , same with firefighters , it's all part of the job . I'm tired of people moaning about the troops having to go to war , it's their job . And Moore doesn't give two shits about them anyway , he's just exploiting their deaths for profit , he's a political opportunist . The sad thing is that the people in this latest creation don't even know he's manipulating them , they think he's trying to enlighten the " ignorant " masses .

All he's concerned with is making money , and he knows controversy sells . As a filmmaker , he's just about average , as a showman , he's a conniving bastard , and i'm sick of this narcisstic blowhard making money for spouting half truths and flat out lies .

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks he's anything other than disingenuous with regards to his atitudes to the troops and the people in his hometown , they're just pawns in his little films .

BigKickerSnicke

06-26-2004, 06:29 PM

Great documentary. Entertaining and well done. It was far more tighter and coherent than Bowling, which was extremely disjointed at times, but this movie is not. It's far more serious and I loved it. All the Moore haters are going to come out and say how slanted it is, but really, it's no more slanted than any of the total bullshit that CNN feeds America, except at least Moore has the balls to show the other side most people don't get to see. How can you argue you with that is beyond me.

MadsenOMC

06-26-2004, 07:45 PM

dd, save your pity, oh wise and knowing one. People who like the movie don't need you to patronize or placate us. I have strong opinions, but I don't think that I know everything. You simply have no idea whether or not Moore truly cares about the soldiers who are dying or all of the men and women serving in the military. Or anyone in the entire world for that matter. You can guess and wonder, but in reality you have no clue. You can't. Unless you talk to Moore in person, or he says so in an interview. Otherwise, there is no way in hell you can know for certain. So stop acting like you know things that you simply can't. I am not a huge Moore fan. I am aware of his tactics. I don't agree with everything in the movie. I think it has its flaws. But this movie is not full of lies. If it is, I want you to see it and point them out. I'd love for you to do that. I fucking dare you. I dare you to see the movie and point out the lies. I bet you won't do it. Your grave mistake is that you think everyone who likes this film is a sap being duped, and that we believe every single word in it. But that is not the case. First and foremost, I laughed and was entertained. I know he's manipulative. I know all about his tactics. The people who see and enjoy this are not idiots, no matter what you believe. Deal with it. And see the movie and point out the lies.

whitetrashhobo

06-26-2004, 08:15 PM

i got the guys personal office phone number and i want to call it, but i want to know what to say because i fogot who h was and what he wanted to talk about. so can someone tell me what his name was, and what he wanted people to call about?

Thanks

MadsenOMC

06-26-2004, 08:19 PM

Here's another way of looking at it, dd. What if I said, man, I feel really sorry for all of the people who bought the Bush administrations outright lies concerning this war and why we're fighting it? That is one sad, sorry bunch of people. They just believe everything that Bush, Rummy and Cheney have shoved down their throats. No matter what those guys say, they buy it. They don't think about it or analyze it. Nope. If they say it, it must be true. Bunch of sheep who can't think for themselves. What would you say to that? Also, this may be a shocking revelation for some, but you actually can like this movie without liking Moore.

Raul Duke

06-26-2004, 10:14 PM

just got back, I have absolutely no opinion on this film at all, but it sold out 3 shows straight, insane

Duke Nukem

06-26-2004, 10:15 PM

Here's the reason Michael Moore is wrong for making "Fahrenheit 9/11" and it is short and sweet.

When President Bush was first told about planes crashing into the World Trade Center, he was shocked. However, he was an elementary school at the time reading to children. So, he went back to the children and finished reading for the story to them. For 7 minutes.

Michael Moore points this out real good that Bush's lack of response ininitally shows that "he didn't care what happened." But, Moore is wrong. What was President Bush supposed to do, freak out on the children? He chose to stay calm and finish that reading engagement since he would only be there for 7 more minutes. He chose to say calm for a little while, so that he could better understand what happened later on when further news came out.

And, there's more. When he got the call that the World Trade Center was hit, he looked as if his blood stopped cold or something. This was for a moment, then he went on to finish reading to the children. Oh, that's right. I'm sure Moore edited that part of the video taken from the school out for Farhenheit!

This is the most simple misunderstanding from Michael Moore. And, it only gets worse with the rest of the political nonsense going on. That's why I don't need to see "Farhenheit 9/11" to know that it is wrong and that the rest of Michael Moore's ideas are wrong. He could not be more wrong. If he did become more wrong, my head would explode.

But, that's it. That's all I'm saying. I don't want to make this go all political. So, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a very wrong movie, styling documentary filmmaking or not. It shouldn't exist.

Beeblebrox

06-26-2004, 10:43 PM

That's why I don't need to see "Farhenheit 9/11" to know that it is wrong and that the rest of Michael Moore's ideas are wrong.

Didn't see it. Nuff said.

This is the most simple misunderstanding from Michael Moore.

You haven't seen the film, which means you're making several assumptions about Moore's motivations.

You're doing exactly what you accuse Moore of doing.

Shockwave

06-26-2004, 10:51 PM

Moore is great at asking Questions but terrible at finding answers, thats all there is to him for me. Hes a fraud.

I really dont care for Bush atm but Moore is even worse. Hes a utter dick that loves to be in spot light and center of controversey and will manipulate whatever facts he needs to keep him there.

SkyNet

06-27-2004, 01:08 AM

i usually dont post in 5 page long threads.. but i just saw this flick and GOD DAMN FUCKIN AWESOME MOVIE.

I have never been a Bush Supporter (and WILL NEVER be one). and i always knew how much of a cock sucker this guy was... and ya... fuckin great movie!

Its ok that people dont like michael moore... but me.. i hate being lied to... which is why i hate pres bush... i mean.. if you dont wanna see the truth.. dont see this flick... but if your a fan of the truth! see this movie!

(PS>. there is no need to flame me for this post... i dont plan on lookin back in this thread.. i just wanted to post my thoughts... if you disagree, ,fine by me)!

ANavissi500

06-27-2004, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Shockwave
Moore is great at asking Questions but terrible at finding answers, thats all there is to him for me. Hes a fraud.

A good doc. filmmaker should leave it broad and not give us answers, only open it up to discussion. This film is creating channels of discussion that people have begun to close. If Moore said the solutions were A, B, and C the film wouldn't work. Also, how can cut and dry answers be found in such a broad series of issues, like terrorism, the war, 9/11, the effects on troops, etc. You can't give a panacea for something like that. It doesn't make Moore a fraud - it makes him a realist.

The Heart Collector

06-27-2004, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by Shockwave
Moore is great at asking Questions but terrible at finding answers, thats all there is to him for me. Hes a fraud.

How is that being a fraud, or being bad? That's like saying I'm a bad person if I can disprove someone's magic tricks but can't come up with a way to disappear objects myself.

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Shockwave
[B]Moore is great at asking Questions but terrible at finding answers, thats all there is to him for me. Hes a fraud.

I agree with others. That's a really odd definition of a fraud.

And ironically enough, I don't think F911 actually asks a question. I mean, it does ask specific questions, but its theme, unlike BFC, is not a question.

BFC asks why there is so much violence in America. Moore did not provide an answer and I think that was the proper way to deal with it. I don't think there is an answer, certainly not an easy one.

But F911 is a comment more than a question. He's saying, and I don't imagine how anyone could disagree, that the rich and powerful make decisions that benefit their own and do so at the expense of the poor.

What Moore does is extend that commentary to the war on Iraq, and how the rich and powerful exploited 9-11 to get even richer, by distracting the public from Saudi Arabia's culpability (15 of the hijackers were Saudis, Bin Laden himself is a Saudi, the Saudi government has sponsored terrorism in the past) because of the Saudi royal family's ties to the Bush family, and diverted it to Iraq.

dellamorte dellamore

06-27-2004, 08:57 AM

So what he's saying is that Bush is responsable for the massacre at the World Trade Center ( genocide is what it is ) , and the attacks on the Pentagon ( everyone seems to forget about that part .

Bin Laden is of Saudi descent , but he denounced his family long ago around the time of the Afghan war with the former Soviet Union . He has no ties to them anymore , and his base of operations is now Afghanistan with the group of psychotics Al Queada . No reason to attack SA , when the hornet's nest is in another country , now that would be nonsensical . Iraq did have an alliance with Al Queada , but i know noone wants to accept that fact , and i have no doubt Hussein was partially funding terror attacks against the US and other countries . Yeah , so maybe he didn't personally give the funds to Bin laden , but they certianly found there way to his criminal organization , via Al Queada operatives . That would be in violation of one of the UN resolutions , he was forbidden to consort with or aid and abet known terrorists . That alone was enough to invade Iraq and knock him out of power .

He had weapons of destruction , and he constantly denied access to inspectors , the denial of access was another violation of the UN resolution , and it stipulated that force was to be used if he was in violation . He agreed to those resolutions , and then he violated them , and Clinton was too much of an incompetent to enforce them properly . He felt diplomacy would work , not so with psychotic terrorists , force is the only language they understand .

I'm still waiting for the doc about the men who had their hands cut off by Hussein's henchman for sedition or whatever the hell it was . Ask them how they feel about him , and how peaceful the country supposedly was before the war . It will take awhile , but i'm sure those poor souls who have been brutalized for 30 years by Hussein will be much better off , and will know what it's like to live in something resembling a free country .

It's never pretty , and i don't want to see any soldiers get killed , but like i said , they volunteered of their own free will , they knew there was a chance their lives would be in danger , that's what war is , ugly , and disgusting , but a soldier's responsability is to his country , and if he or she loses his life defending it , then that's the reality , that's the chance they took when they signed up . What did they think , they were going to be playing golf everyday and drinking themselves into a stupor at the bar every night ? It's never clean , it's not some movie where everything works out all nice , but it's necessary in certain situations . I say wipe out as many murderous , souless creatures as humanly possible , because they obviously have no regard for our lives .

What Bush is doing now is something that would have had to be done eventually , he is just speeding up the process , it's something , Hussein is someone , that had to be confronted sooner or later , he would only have gotten worse .

Now , i'm sorry for going off again , and i don't want this thread to get taken down , so i promise i will from now on , stick to the merits of Farenheit 911 , that is when i actually do see it ( still waiting for the free pass ) . I'll just sneak in after i watch Spiderman , rather Raimi gets my 9 dollars instead of Moore .

By the way , Kerry supported military force against Hussein when Clinton was president , now he's against it ? Talk about duplicity , and political bias .

optimus1

06-27-2004, 09:52 AM

Hmm what I dont like about the 7 min pause so he dont upset the children B.S. is that not more then 20 mins later he had a newsconference right in front of all the children , spelling out what had happened..he should have immediately gotten up and excused himself as soon as he was told and got on the hotline and dealt with the issue IMHO.

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 12:48 PM

It's like watching a deer in headlights. He had no idea what to do. Bush is a man that isn't bright and needs others to tell him what to do. Part of me thinks, who knows what someone would do in that situation. But when you look closely at his face, he looks dazed and confused. He looks like he's waiting for someone to tell him what to do. And no, dd, Moore is not saying that Bush is personally responsible for the attacks on the WTC. You have no idea what you are talking about, once again, because you have not seen the movie. You claim people who watch this movie are just taking Moore's "lies" at face value. But you have no problem swallowing all of Bush's lies. There is no link between 9/11 and Iraq, as much as you and Bush and Cheney want their to be. Just because those clowns say it doesn't make it true. How is that any different than what you are accusing fans of this movie of doing? And are you joking? Where are those weapons of mass destruction? If I'm not mistaken, WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANY.

The Heart Collector

06-27-2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Iraq did have an alliance with Al Queada , but i know noone wants to accept that fact

hahahahaha.

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
[B]So what he's saying is that Bush is responsable for the massacre at the World Trade Center ( genocide is what it is ) , and the attacks on the Pentagon ( everyone seems to forget about that part .

I wish you people would actually watch the movie. That's not what he says at all. If anything, Moore contents that they were caught with their pants down.

I won't get into the politics of the rest of your post because of the rules here, but needless to say its a pack of unsubstantiated assertions, distortions, and outright misinformation.

You guys complain about Moore distorting the truth, but I haven't heard an ounce of reliable, solid facts coming from the critics of this movie about this movie yet.

KcMsterpce

06-27-2004, 01:25 PM

I have been looking forward to seeing this for quite some time.

I'm still gonna have to wait, because it keeps getting sold out!

I hate those people that are seeing it and I'm not!

:D

systemdwn

06-27-2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Duke Nukem

When President Bush was first told about planes crashing into the World Trade Center, he was shocked. However, he was an elementary school at the time reading to children. So, he went back to the children and finished reading for the story to them. For 7 minutes.

Michael Moore points this out real good that Bush's lack of response ininitally shows that "he didn't care what happened." But, Moore is wrong. What was President Bush supposed to do, freak out on the children? He chose to stay calm and finish that reading engagement since he would only be there for 7 more minutes. He chose to say calm for a little while, so that he could better understand what happened later on when further news came out.

I disagreed with the way that scene was edited in the film where Michael Moore slowed down the footage to make him look really clueless and added his own voiceover by saying, "So...who screwed me over this time? The Saudis? who?" or whatever Moore said.

HOWEVER...President Bush should of left the photo opportunity the moment he heard the first plane crash. He is the commander in chief for this country and if the United State is being attacked, he should do everything in his power at the moment to prevent any further attacks.

Those 7 minutes...if he grounded the planes immediately after the first plane hit...would it prevent the Penn. flight to lift off? Would it give enough time to shoot down the 2nd plane before hitting the 2nd tower?

We will never know but those 7 minutes were critical!

President Bush could of left the classroom with dignity and class. He could of said, "Sorry kids but it was great reading with you. I have some important matters to deal with" as he smiles and waves. Would it of been THAT hard to do?

come on...

Jachyra

06-27-2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Bin Laden is of Saudi descent , but he denounced his family long ago around the time of the Afghan war with the former Soviet Union . He has no ties to them anymore...

It's obvious you haven't seen the movie because this is actually talked about in it. Once again, you're way off in your assumptions and "facts" because YOU HAVN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!!. Go see the movie before arguing about it.

On topic...

I'm canadian. Before you go telling me this doesn't concern me, consider this: when America coughs, we're the one sneezing. What you do south of the border really affect us in a big way politically, economically, etc.

With that said, the movie depicts situations we don't see on CNN or any news outlet. It is slanted, in a huge way and has an agenda: it's the first thing Moore himself says about his movie.

But as far as documentaries go, it's a real eye opener. It invites discussion and that's what it's all about.

Republican, democrat, who cares. Bush and his minions need to go. If the republican party would have another candidate with other aides than the ones they have in place, i'm sure they would have a better chance come November.

Like I said, i'm looking at this from the outside, and that probably gives me a different view on things. For the sake of the US, I hope this unnecessary war will finish soon and you can start working on your image to the world that Bush and his aides destroyed (it wasn't the greatest before Bush, but geez, he killed it in less than 4 years). I'm sure good men would do the job, either Republicans or democrats it doesn't matter. A good person is a good person.

I don't usually post in threads, but this movie made me want to. See? The intention of the movie was to invite discussion and it worked! :)

chinton

06-27-2004, 01:34 PM

Ill go ahead and say i like Moore and as far as whether hes a liar I dont really know since it seems like both sides jus t kind of say that about each other.

What I do know is that i found this movie entertaining, disturbing, visceral, and brilliant.

It was very smart of Moore to stay off camera as much a s possible. It was also smart of him to present many facts that have already documented, actual documents, and actual video footage specifically the war time stuff. It just made the whole film more believable.

There are so many powerful scenes in this film such as seeing the many dea d Iraqui civilians, the soldiers reactions to the war, and the mother who is transformed by her dead son.

Is this propaganda? Well of course it is. Its not like Moore is being deciteful about that. Is it powerful? I think so. I think everyone should see this film.

10/10

Also I know you cant talk a bout this film without being a little polotical but can we actually keep the threa d on t he film.

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 01:36 PM

Moore employed fact checkers from the New Yorker to make sure that it's as accurate as humanly possible. He knew that people were going to call him a liar, mostly people who have not seen the movie. I would love it if some of those bashing the movie and Moore had actually seen it. That'd be nice.

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by systemdwn
I disagreed with the way that scene was edited in the film where Michael Moore slowed down the footage to make him look really clueless and added his own voiceover by saying, "So...who screwed me over this time? The Saudis? who?" or whatever Moore said.

What's interesting is that I think the unedited, real time footage was MUCH more damaging that what's in the movie. You don't need a voice over or slow mo. Seeing him sitting there after he's been delivered the news is enough.

President Bush could of left the classroom with dignity and class. ...Would it of been THAT hard to do?

Well according to Bush supporters, the only options available to him were sitting there like a confused child or jumping up and running screaming out of the building.

systemdwn

06-27-2004, 01:45 PM

The tentative boxoffice numbers are in....

1.) Fahreinheit 9/11 21.8 M
2.) White Chicks 19.6 M

#1 for a doc. ... damn!

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by chinton
Also I know you cant talk a bout this film without being a little polotical but can we actually keep the threa d on t he film. [/B]

It's hard but I'm trying. ;)

One thing I was glad to see a film like this finally address, and something critics of this war have known for quite some time is the Saudi connection.

15 of the hijackers were Saudis.

Bin Laden and his family are Saudis.

Saudi Arabia is a known sponsor of terrorism.

And what country did we invade?

Iraq.

That has never made any sense. I knew of course that the Bush family had ties to the Saudi royal family, but in a much more vague sense. What I didn't realize was that invading Saudi Arabia, or even going after them in any way on terrorism was never going to be an option.

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 02:32 PM

Here's a little excerpt from the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/politics/campaign/27fahrenheit.html) about how F911 is playing the heartland.

They attended a screening in Indiana. The vast majority were Moore fans who loved it. One 16-year-old Bush supporter booed the film.

But then there were these folks. I think you could call this article, "Shaking free from the koolaid."

They may not be Mr. Moore's most wished-for audience, but he would be heartened to know that at least a few Republicans emerged from theaters on Friday on wobbly pins.

"All the offhand remarks they caught Bush making, he wasn't very presidential," said Jerry Murrell, a retired stockbroker in Carmel and a Republican who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000. Mr. Murrell said that he had grave doubts about the war in Iraq, and that after seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" his next vote "is going to take a lot of thought."

And in Pensacola, Fla., Monica Moody, a 20-year-old restaurant hostess who described herself as a conservative Republican, proved to be Mr. Moore's perfect target.

"Oh my goodness, I cried," Ms. Moody said. "I'm still trying to process everything. It really makes me question what I feel about the president. I'm still going to respect him as our president, but it makes me question his motives. Of course, I think that's the whole point of the film, to question his motives. But after watching it, I do question my loyalty to the president. And that's scary for me."

Shockwave

06-27-2004, 02:33 PM

Im going to stay away from this one becuase Bush took the war to far and Moore is a dick and a liar, but im very happy that it got first at the box office, for no there reason then it makes Eisner look like a dolt!

He shoulda known this movie would go good, its controversial for gods sake! Did they learn nothing from The Passion??

Hoo-ha!

systemdwn

06-27-2004, 02:44 PM

Eisner did wonders for Disney in the early 90s...

...now, he has become one of the worst CEOs in this country and should be fired!

Disney needs new blood in their leadership!

syxxpac

06-27-2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Shockwave
Moore is a dick and a liar

A dick? Perhaps. I can definitely see where one could think that, especially if your name was Charlton Heston :p

As for being a liar, can you cite an example?

I'm just wondering because I hear that a lot, and the only Moore movie I've seen is BFC, which to me didn't have anything major at least that made me question the validity of his arguments.

Shockwave

06-27-2004, 03:00 PM

Theres was so many deliberate, serious, and consistently deceptive errors in Bowling for Colombine that it wasnt even funny, i havent seen 9/11 yet and really dont plan to becuase of this fact.

I dont care if its biased(thats the nature of the game!) i just dont expect an old dog to learn new tricks.

A dick? Perhaps. I can definitely see where one could think that, especially if your name was Charlton Heston

Indeed! I still think Moore went about that wrong. Have the balls to stand up for what u beleive and tell it to the man straight, dont slink around the issue and try to buddy up with him!

syxxpac

06-27-2004, 03:23 PM

Theres was so many deliberate, serious, and consistently deceptive errors in Bowling for Colombine that it wasnt even funny, i havent seen 9/11 yet and really dont plan to becuase of this fact.

Once again: can you cite an example? Because I'm not sure what parts you're referring to.

Indeed! I still think Moore went about that wrong. Have the balls to stand up for what u beleive and tell it to the man straight, dont slink around the issue and try to buddy up with him!

I thought it was hilarious how he thought Moore was on his side and finally the old, racist fart catches on that he's being made a fool of.

Classic :D

Shockwave

06-27-2004, 03:34 PM

I thought it was hilarious how he thought Moore was on his side and finally the old, racist fart catches on that he's being made a fool of.

Yeah, i still laugh at that. I dont disagree that he DID have that coming to him for years!

I also find it funny that hes in the position hes in, considering many of his movies like Planet of the Apes, The Omega Man, ect, ect, seemed to send the opposite message that he does now.

Even when he the father ape in The Plant of The Apes remake, wasnt his death bed scene about the evils of man and guns?? ..or maybe i dont remember right.:confused:

Jachyra

06-27-2004, 04:13 PM

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here...

The part that got me the most was that lady reading the last note from her son, then going to the white house to vent her anger and being accused by that Republican airhead of staging the whole thing, accusing her of lying about her dead son...then saying "Well lots of people have died there". SO freaking typical.

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 06:04 PM

These are more excerpts, this time from the LA Times:

Before the movie started, Leslie Hanser prayed.

"I prayed the Lord would open my eyes," she said.

For months, her son Joshua, a college student, had been drawing her into political debate. He'd tell her she shouldn't trust President Bush. He'd tell her the Iraq war was wrong. Hanser, a 41-year-old homemaker, pushed back. She defended the president, supported him fiercely

But Joshua kept at her, until she prayed for help understanding her son's fervor.

Emerging from Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," her eyes wet, Hanser said she at last understood. "My emotions are just…. " She trailed off, waving her hands to show confusion. "I feel like we haven't seen the whole truth before."'

...

In theaters nationwide, many viewers said they couldn't imagine loyal Republicans coming to see a movie the Bush administration had dismissed as a twisted montage of misleading innuendo and outright falsehoods. But for all the partisan hooting, the movie did appear to draw at least a strong smattering of the Republican and the undecided voters that Moore most desperately hopes to reach.

And some of them said they were deeply moved.

Moved enough, perhaps, to consider voting for Kerry in November.

For Richard Hagen, 56, it was the footage from Iraq: the raw cries of bombed civilians, the clenched-teeth agony of wounded American troops. A retired insurance agent from the wealthy River Oaks neighborhood in central Houston, Hagen described himself as a lifelong Republican. But then, standing by his silver Mercedes, he amended that: A former lifelong Republican.

"Seeing [the war] brings it home in a way you don't get from reading about it," he said. "I won't be voting for a Republican presidential candidate this time."

dellamorte dellamore

06-27-2004, 06:57 PM

Why should Eisner feel bad , he made his choice not to distribute the film , and he missed out , who cares , i doubt he's crying over it . How much is the film going to make altogether , nothing earth shattering , maybe for a pseudo documentary i guess , but still the core audience has prob already seen this , unless people get sucked in by the hype as usual and it has the so called box office legs .

And didn't Disney have that nice little hit Pirates of Carribean in addition to Finding Nemo , i'm sure they will take the profits from those two over F 19 . And a couple of other hits also , why would he care about this one missed opportunity , it's not that big a deal . Think some of you are making his decision seem much more damaging than it really is .

Anyway , i'm ready to see the cinematic rebuttal of F 69 , Micheal Moore hates America , that should be interesting , and it's funny how Moore doesn't mind ambushing his subjects , but when it comes time to submit to an interview with a first time documentarian he runs like a little wuss , what a hypocrite , can give it , but he can't take it .

Beeble , oh no , don't tell me Passion stories are going to start popping up , and how we are going to hear how these people had a life changing , religious experience because of this film .

I have a question , did any of these bumpkins think war was pretty , is the brutal reality of war such a revelation ? The only reason there sorry , i feel your pain asses are here is because of war , and i'm not just talking about this one . Of course it's unsettling , and repulsive . What's so eye opening about that . Wonder if they saw that Berg fellow get beheaded , gives you an idea about what they will do if given a chance , not too mention all those people mangled bodies at the world trade center , and people jumping out of windows so they could avoid being burned .

Keep on fooling yourself into thinking we can hold hands and be friends with everyone , you'll see what happens .

And i heard about that lady who lost her son , and what a manipulative way to exploit her , what a fool she was to let Moore use her outrage like that , but he is a con man , so it's fully expected .

Zebra 3

06-27-2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Why Wonder if they saw that Berg fellow get beheaded , gives you an idea about what they will do if given a chance , not too mention all those people mangled bodies at the world trade center , and people jumping out of windows so they could avoid being burned .
I did see the Berg beheading video and a man and a woman holding hands and jumping off from a top floor of the WTC on 9/11 on TV. That said, I hope Moore gets yet another Oscar for his effort and this fall US Pres. Moron is sent back to his Crawford, Texas doghouse.

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 07:20 PM

Wonder if they saw that Berg fellow get beheaded

Well, since you haven't seen F911 yet and you're still talking out of your ass, I'll let you know one thing they did see: Saudi Arabia's public beheading of a petty criminal.

They also see 15 of the 19 hijackers coming from Saudi Arabia. They see the Saudi royal family's connection to the Bush family. They see the Bin Laden family from Saudi Arabia. They hear about Osama thanking Saudi Prince Bandar for bringing him and the United States together.

And yet despite all these connections, they see the Bush administration embracing the Saudi regime, who've sponsored terrorism and committed brutal acts against human rights, as allies and friends while diverting attention to Iraq.

Kevin Smith fan

06-27-2004, 07:26 PM

I'm so happy that this movie was the big hit at the box office this weekend!!! Usually I pay no attention to box office numbers because no matter how bad a movie is it usually is number 1 if it has a big budget and big stars. Farenheit 9/11 is a great film and I'm glad that it's being released before the election so that the general public that are ignorant to some of Bush's malpractices will become aware and this (as NOFX says) Idiot Son of an @$$hole will never set foot in the White House again. I saw this film today and if people are shocked by this, there is even more that didn't make the film. I thought they might talk about how he helped his buddy, and CEO of Enron out of trouble, but he went straight for the jugular with this movie and suceeded.
Farenheit 9/11- 91/100 (A-)

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 07:28 PM

Actually, dd, the box office is earth shattering for a movie of this type playing on a low number of screens. Like it or not, it's phenomenol. And like it or not, countless people are loving the movie and have had enough of Bush's bullshit. I still haven't seen any rebuttals from you when some of us called you out and hoped you would clarify some things you said. Not going to do it? Sick of not knowing what you are talking about?

dellamorte dellamore

06-27-2004, 07:31 PM

Kind of like how sick a bunch of people were with Clinton , it's all politics , people will believe whatever they want to believe so long as that person supports their preferred political party .

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Anyway , i'm ready to see the cinematic rebuttal of F 69 , Micheal Moore hates America , that should be interesting

Of course. Because you're not really interested in the truth. None of the Moore-bashers really are.

You're ready to see the rebuttal but you're unwilling to see what that film is rebutting. It's not about finding facts. It's about you embracing everything you already agree with and attacking everything you don't. It's really that simple.

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 07:34 PM

dd, if the movie is full of lies, I want you to point them out. Put your money where your mouth is and point them out. You are guilty of exactly the same things you acuse Moore and fans of this movie of. I'm not sure why you can't see that.

dellamorte dellamore

06-27-2004, 07:35 PM

Earth shattering is 63,000 pers creen , Blair Witch did that in 1999 when ticket prices were even cheaper , just to give you a perspective on those numbers . What did this one hit , 30,000 , that's amateur compared to that .

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
You are guilty of exactly the same things you acuse Moore and fans of this movie of. I'm not sure why you can't see that. [/B]

I know why, but it's against the rules here for me to express it.

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 07:37 PM

No, it isn't. Because there's nothing else to compare it to. Blair Witch was a fluke. The numbers are staggering for this kind of movie on this many screens. Deal with it. Plenty of movies I hate make tons of money. Life goes on.

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
[B]The numbers are staggering for this kind of movie on this many screens. Deal with it.

Obviously. You're talking about a documentary outgrossing big summer releases playing on three times the number of screens. It broke the previous documentary record in just one weekend. It's a big deal by any stretch of the imagination. To call it "amateur" is to be so blinded that reality just loses all meaning.

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 07:55 PM

Interesting tidbit from moviecitynews:

Disney Flirts With Serious Media Backlash By Getting Political After Dumping Fahrenheit 9/11 A Year Ago

Right-Wing Group Move Forward America, To Date Known Only For Attacking F9/11, Aligns Itself With Disney Release, America's Heart & Soul...

According To Press Release, Disney Is Giving This Fringe Group A Private Screening To Draw Press Coverage... An Interesting Marketing Strategy, Offering A Political Alternative To F9/11 (Even Though It Is Not Actually Representative Of The Film Itself) But Potentially The Kind Of Smoking Gun That The Weinsteins, Moore & The Media Will Use To Finally Bury Michael Eisner

Shockwave

06-27-2004, 08:30 PM

Of course. Because you're not really interested in the truth. None of the Moore-bashers really are.

That is shit logic.

I am interested in the truth, but not someone elses radical version of it. Im all for this movie as far as entertaint goes but im sure as hell not going to gobble everything Moore says like hes the second coming of Jesus.

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Shockwave
I am interested in the truth, but not someone elses radical version of it. Im all for this movie as far as entertaint goes but im sure as hell not going to gobble everything Moore says like hes the second coming of Jesus. [/B]

Have you seen the film?

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 08:39 PM

I am not going to gobble up everything Moore says either. But I'm waiting for someone to point out all of the lies in this movie. And it isn't happening.

Judge_Smails

06-27-2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Like it or not, countless people are loving the movie and have had enough of Bush's bullshit.

Not to be a weenie, but they can be counted. $21 million opening weekend = about 3 million admissions.

Just for comparison, 3.5 million people watch THE O'REILLY FACTOR on Fox News each night.

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
if the movie is full of lies, I want you to point them out.

I haven't seen the movie, but I have seen the trailer. In the trailer, Moore ambushes some Congressmen in an attempt to get them to sign their kids up to join the Army to go to Iraq...

Does Moore mention in the film that parents BY LAW can't sign their children up to join the military? Does he state that what he's asking these Congressmen to do is impossible?

This is usually the point where people respond with the semantic arguments about what a "lie" really is...

Knock yourselves out.

Shockwave

06-27-2004, 08:47 PM

Im going tonight, right after Dodgeball! I missed the ending after the credits and i heard its the best part.

Moores movies are entertaining but i take them with a little more then a grain of salt. Hes a master of manipulating scenes and people to get the desired result and chop out the rest.

To me, a good documentary must present both sides an Moore has NEVER been good at that.

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 08:52 PM

So the average movie ticket is $7 these days? I thought it was less than that. Are you sure? And I looked up the ratings for The O'Reilly Factor, and it seems to get about 2 million viewers per night. So what if a congressman's son or daughter signs up on their own? Because one member has a son in Iraq.

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 08:55 PM

Average cost of a movie ticket was $6 was 2003.

Shockwave

06-27-2004, 08:55 PM

It costs 7.50 for an evening showing at mine. :(

Bastards!

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Judge_Smails
[B]Not to be a weenie, but they can be counted. $21 million opening weekend = about 3 million admissions.

Just for comparison, 3.5 million people watch THE O'REILLY FACTOR on Fox News each night.

That's got to be the weirdest and most irrelevant comparison ever.

If people had to drive down to the movie theatre, wait in a line around the block, and pay $10 to see his show, somehow I don't think O'Reilly's numbers would be quite so high.

Beeblebrox

06-27-2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Shockwave
To me, a good documentary must present both sides an Moore has NEVER been good at that. [/B]

Moore has never really tried. He's the first to admit that he's got an agenda, a point of view. And there's nothing about documentaries that say they have to be objective. Super Size Me certainly wasn't, but it's still a documentary.

Second, I don't think I'd group you in with the general Moore-basher I'm talking about. I may not agree with you on Moore, but there's some rationality to your comments.

Shockwave

06-27-2004, 09:10 PM

Second, I don't think I'd group you in with the general Moore-basher I'm talking about. I may not agree with you on Moore, but there's some rationality to your comments.

likewise, at least u back up your opinions and stick to it. If we all agreed on everything wed have nothing to discuss!

K, back to the battlefield!

MadsenOMC, your up next...

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 09:12 PM

Up next for what? I second his comments. Many are bashing the movie sight unseen, which I think is ridiculous.

Shockwave

06-27-2004, 09:13 PM

Up next for what?

To post next of course! It was your turn.

I figured u were still there, lingering in the shadows.:)

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 09:19 PM

I am lingering in the shadows, eagerly awaiting someone else to reply so that I can then reply.

Shockwave

06-27-2004, 09:23 PM

I am lingering in the shadows, eagerly awaiting someone else to reply so that I can then reply.

..and so bait is set and the trap is sprung. Wheres cstroman when u need him?

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 09:25 PM

He might not be allowed to post here anymore. I think I recall him saying something along those lines.

Lynn7

06-27-2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I am not going to gobble up everything Moore says either. But I'm waiting for someone to point out all of the lies in this movie. And it isn't happening.

did you read Christopher Hitchens review of the movie- he pointed out a lot of inaccuracies as he found them.
I havne't seen it but I've seen so many clips and heard so much discussion over it I feel as though I've seen it.

I am making a choice not to see it. I don't want this guy to profit from me. He hates everything that I believe in. I respect someone who is willing to show respect for other's points of views. He isn't. That's fine but when he presents things about "my side" that I feel are wrong I feel the need to defend my point of view when its attacked... even if I haven't seen the movie. I'm sure you guys would feel the same.

MadsenOMC

06-27-2004, 10:36 PM

No, I wouldn't feel the same. Not at all. I would want to see it so that I could accurately discuss and debate it. I would want to be able to back up my statements. What do you think Moore hates, when you say that he hates everything you believe in? Bush and war? Because he does not hate America. Hearing discussion and seeing clips does not even come close to seeing a two-hour movie. And Hitchens story has been rebutted at hollywoodbitchslap, so I guess it's open to interpretation.

blacksnake

06-27-2004, 11:10 PM

Fahrenheit 9/11, is a documentary by Michael Moore, the brilliant mind behind such documentaries as Roger & Me, and Bowling For Columbine. This film is about looking into George W. Bush's reign as president of the United States of America, and the events that lead up to and followed the bombing of the twin towers in New York City, on September 11, 2001. Winner of The FIPRESCI Award and The Golden Palm at The Cannes Film Festival. Almost less than a month after premiering at The Cannes Film Festival, and winning it's top prize Fahrenheit 911/ was picked up for distribution and was going to be released a month after The Cannes Film Festival, across America and Canada, on June 25, 2004. A lot of people did not want viewers to see the film though. A Republican PR firm formed a fake group called Move America Forward, to scare and harass theater owners so that they would not get the film. Out of nearly 2500 theaters only 500 of them agreed to show the film on it's release date. One theater owner in Illinois, also claims to have received death threats if she showed the film. And at first Miramax Films, which is a partner with Disney, dropped the film because of the political controversy so later the two heads at Miramax, produced it on their own and found another distrubor to release it. The fact that this film might not play in my local theater bothered me. So, I e-mailed my local theater chain and told them how much I wanted to see the film and I believed in freedom of speech and expression and for them to please release the film. Maybe three days later they e-mailed me back and guaranteed that the film would play at my local theater on Friday, June 25, 2004. They kept their word. When, I went to see the film it was at a matinee and the theater was packed with people of all ages (which I think is good because I think everyone over the age of 13 years should see this film) and once the film ended the whole audience applauded. Even playing in less than a thousand theaters the film ended up grossing more money than any other film this weekend bringing in twenty two million dollars. I'm sure now that the film did quite well other theaters will pick up the film to release it. Was the film worth my e-mail? Was, I one of the people who stood up and applauded at the end? The answer is yes. Fahrenehit 9/11, made me laugh, brough me to tears and was brilliant, passionate, brings up some very good points and issues, is thought provoking, has some very humourous scenes and others that will bring tears to your eyes, the film is powerful with it's words and images, it's gripping and overall an excellent film. Hours after I saw the film I still thought about it and how powerful it was. Some may call the film propaganda and be against it but there are still tons of good points that Michael Moore raises and that people should see. I believe that everyone should see this film whether they are an American or not. I also think that Michael Moore, is a brilliant and compassionate man and I will be a fan of his and his films for a very long time. Fahrenheit 9/11, is the best film I've seen so far this year and I hope you the reader see it as well. I also agree with what one celebrity said when they said that this film years from now should be shown in school. I also thank the distributors for releasing this film and just before election time and I have my fingers crossed for Michael Moore, to win an Oscar for this film.

Beeblebrox

06-28-2004, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I'm sure you guys would feel the same.

No I would not feel the same. You're talking about respect for other people's point of view, but you're not the least bit interested in other people's point of view. You want to take in everything that already agrees with you, like Hitchens's negative review of the film, and shut out whatever doesn't, like the film itself.

I've read Hitchens's review (see, I like to have ALL the information I can), and it's not a factual refutation of F911. It's just ANOTHER op-ed piece in response to Moore's op-ed piece.

Here's an excerpt from Hitchens's review in which he practices exactly the kind of distortion that he accuses Moore of employing:

Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait.

To be factually accurate, Hitchens's should have said "Moore asserts that prior to the first Gulf War Iraq had never attacked or killed (I don't think Moore uses the word "threatened" but I'm not sure) any American." That's what Moore asserts. Prior to the first Gulf War. It makes all of Hitchens's points after that irrelevant. Most of them don't involve attacks on Americans, and those that do happened after the Gulf War.

But you wouldn't really know what Moore said first hand to know whether or not any of this is accurate. You refuse to see Moore's movie and that makes your opinion on any of this dubious at best.

I respect someone who is willing to show respect for other's points of views.

Hitchens's leaves out a crucial detail in that first sentence. He insults Moore's intelligence AND appearance in the next. And this is an example of guy you RESPECT? A guy who supposedly respects other people's opinions?

Beeblebrox

06-28-2004, 01:39 AM

More examples of Hitchens's respect for other peoples's views, and thus your respect for his:

I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines?

Again, this in no way points to factual inaccuracies. Indeed, it doesn't argue with Moore's assertion that the volunteer army is populated predominantly by the lower class and a disproportionate number of minorities.

What Hitchens's tries to do here is invent a contradiction where none exists by injecting his own snide tone and pretending it's Moore's.

(again, you wouldn't really know because you refuse to see the movie in question)

On Hitchens's first point, he considers it a bit of intellectual dishonesty that those who opposed sending troops at all now argue that not enough troops were sent. That's hardly a contradiction. Many of us opposed the war. But if you're going to go through with it anyway and send troops into harm's way, do it right by sending enough troops to get the job done. In other words, don't do it, but if you do make sure you don't unecessarily risk the lives of our troops. Not exactly an unreasonable position when not phrased by Hitchens's vitriolic snideness.

The second point, that Moore supports a larger army to send to Iraq but opposes recruitment of those lower class and minority kids is just preposterous. Moore simply says no such thing. In fact, Moore spends more time than he should telling the audience how great an opportunity the army is for struggling communities like Flint. The army offers a chance to get out, make money, get educated.

What Moore argues is that those kids sign up assuming that they won't be sent into harm's way unecessarily. That they can trust their leaders to do right by them. And in this case, that hasn't happened. Bush has created a war and is making other people rich on the backs and the lives of these kids.

Obviously, you haven't seen the film so you have to take my word or Hitchens's word for what the film actually says (hmm, I wonder which you'll pick).

Shockwave

06-28-2004, 06:42 AM

No I would not feel the same. You're talking about respect for other people's point of view, but you're not the least bit interested in other people's point of view.

To be fair, niether is Moore however. He admits openly hes got an agenda and WILL tell a one sided story to get HIS point across, but not really the WHOLE truth on things.

I am making a choice not to see it. I don't want this guy to profit from me.

yeah, thats the way i was feeling, and since my previous engagment to see it got ruined, i just snuck in.

..im going to hell, i know.:p

dellamorte dellamore

06-28-2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
More examples of Hitchens's respect for other peoples's views, and thus your respect for his:

I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines?

Again, this in no way points to factual inaccuracies. Indeed, it doesn't argue with Moore's assertion that the volunteer army is populated predominantly by the lower class and a disproportionate number of minorities.

What Hitchens's tries to do here is invent a contradiction where none exists by injecting his own snide tone and pretending it's Moore's.

(again, you wouldn't really know because you refuse to see the movie in question)

On Hitchens's first point, he considers it a bit of intellectual dishonesty that those who opposed sending troops at all now argue that not enough troops were sent. That's hardly a contradiction. Many of us opposed the war. But if you're going to go through with it anyway and send troops into harm's way, do it right by sending enough troops to get the job done. In other words, don't do it, but if you do make sure you don't unecessarily risk the lives of our troops. Not exactly an unreasonable position when not phrased by Hitchens's vitriolic snideness.

The second point, that Moore supports a larger army to send to Iraq but opposes recruitment of those lower class and minority kids is just preposterous. Moore simply says no such thing. In fact, Moore spends more time than he should telling the audience how great an opportunity the army is for struggling communities like Flint. The army offers a chance to get out, make money, get educated.

What Moore argues is that those kids sign up assuming that they won't be sent into harm's way unecessarily. That they can trust their leaders to do right by them. And in this case, that hasn't happened. Bush has created a war and is making other people rich on the backs and the lives of these kids.

Obviously, you haven't seen the film so you have to take my word or Hitchens's word for what the film actually says (hmm, I wonder which you'll pick).

Who's the judge of being put into harm's way unnecessarily , Moore , the American people , the soldiers , congress , the senate ? Why did they sign up , to play cricket . In boot camp they are trained to kill , it's their job , all the other occupational and edutional opportunities are second . You want a job , go start working in the civilian world , you want an education , go to school , this is the military , get over it already and follow the orders you agreed to follow when you took that oath . Don't start complainin about something you agreed to , the people high up in the chain of command will make the decisions when it comes to war and combat . Don't like it , go awol , go crying home to momma ( if you make it that far ) , get court marshalled as a deserter , then you'll really be crying , go watch F 19 , join the peace corp , but once you sign you have an obligation to fulfill your commitments , even if it means death , that was part of the deal , the potential to lose your life .

Let the civilians argue amongst themselves about the merits of the war , let the people protest , it's something they like to do , because they don't like action , they only like to whine . You are a man / woman of action , you get things done , no matter how difficult the task , and your efforts are appreciated more than you know .

Don't complian about the so called lack of troops because regardless of what you may read or see in the media , the operation is a success , there were enough troops to get the job done , but some people had to find some fault , and in order to play both sides of the fence , they claimed they were for the war , but only if more troops were deployed , bubkuss i tell them , you did something that has never been done before , liberated two hostile , terrorist sponsoring / harboring nations within a two and half year time span . Two nations that attacked the homeland , and they had to be dealt with swiftly , regardless of the peacenicks , the UN , and European nations who hate us anyway .

Don't listen to the naysayers , because although more blood will be shed , the soullless creatures who would wish to destroy us are on the run , and many of them have either been killed or captured . Can't let up the chase , can't let them rest , we must keep on reminding them that if you attack us , the USA , or plan to attack us , you'll pay the ultimate price , because we'll never stop hunting you , wherever you may try to hide .

By the way , there is a new book that illustrates Saddam Hussein's connection to Al Queada and Bin Laden , and contrary to the cynics , guess you already know the transfer of power has already been completed in Iraq . Wonder what Moore has to say about that , we need more troops , the war is going bad ? He should just admit it , it's a success , but that's not to say the danger is gone , but it's a huge step in accomplishing this particular task .

JCR

06-28-2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
He should just admit it , it's a success.

I do wonder if you're trying to make me laugh again, DD. I just read this on a bbc messageboard: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3826023.stm)

"Please keep your democracy. We Iraqis have no need for these lofty notions of "freedom" and "power". All we want is water, food and a job. You have failed to give us even these basic necessities. If you can't deliver, let us do it ourselves and take the puppets with you.
Sayeed Al-Awad, Iraq"

Sounds like a wonderful success to me. Handover means fuck all unless they can restore some structure to the country.

Lynn7

06-28-2004, 10:02 AM

When I said that you guys would feel the same I meaant if your point of view is under attack you would like to defend it- that's all I meant. The Hitchens comment was just that there are people out there making criticisms against Moore's movie. I never said I respected Hitchens- I only reffered to his article. Hithcens bashes Bush at every opportunity. He is not a Bush supporter by any means. Actually I'm pretty sure he is an Englishman commenting on American politics. I do find his commentaries amusing however. I always have, whether I agree with him or not.

Why do you say I'm not open to debate. I am always debating issues. I have a point of view just like you do. I have been on both sides of the political spectrum. I DO change my mind when I think the argument is compelling. I don't always take a black and white stand on issues. For instance I can understand the point of view that Moore presents about not going inot Iraq. I know that it was a dangerous thing to do. I was terrified as the troops were entering Bagdhad. But I think it's better to work preemptively instead of remaining passive and weak as our very existence is being threatened. They have threatened us with extinciton- these people will not be afraid to use the nuclear bomb or poison our food supply or unleash a killer disease.

I think Moore is a theorist. Everything is intellectual provocation with no practical solutions.

MadsenOMC

06-28-2004, 10:54 AM

dd, what is this so-called book that offers proof of a connection between Iraq and 9/11? You keep insisting there is one, but you offer nothing to back it up. When you are asked to, you ignore it and do nothing. So please, back up your claims. We know they met at some point, but Hussein did not see eye to eye with bin Laden on things, so it never went further than that. We are waiting for you to prove otherwise. Same with your claims that there really are WMDs, despite evidence to the contrary and nothing to support those claims. Where is your proof?

OK, so everyone that threatens us throughout the globe, do we just strike them first and destroy them? Should that be America's foreign policy? Fuck trying to get along with the rest of the world. Do what we want, to whoever we want, whenever we want. If some don't like it, and complain, we'll just bomb their ass and move on to the next people. Is that was you're suggesting? We're America, we can do whatever we want, rest of the world be damned?

MadsenOMC

06-28-2004, 11:02 AM

dd, do you believe everything Dubya tells you? A transfer of power does not prove success. Because Rummy says everything is going well, does not make it true. Do you honestly believe they would say otherwise? Do you honestly believe that they are not shoving propaganda down your throat? It is still fucked up over there. It is still a chaotic mess. This is symbolic more than anything. It's for good headlines. Bush can give a press conference and tell us how wonderful life is over there, and how happy and joyful the Iraqi people are. I would hope you wouldn't just take their word for it. They have proven that their word does not mean shit.

Beeblebrox

06-28-2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think Moore is a theorist. Everything is intellectual provocation with no practical solutions. [/B]

While that's true of BFC, there certainly is a practical solution in F911: Get Bush the fuck out of the White House.

But I think it's better to work preemptively instead of remaining passive and weak as our very existence is being threatened. They have threatened us with extinciton- these people will not be afraid to use the nuclear bomb or poison our food supply or unleash a killer disease.

Moore argues among other things that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian.

Bin Laden and his family are Saudi Arabian.

Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism.

Bin Laden personally thanked Saudi Prince Bandar for bringing to US to his aide in terrorist acts against the Soviet Union in the mid-80s.

And after the worst terrorist attack on US soil in our history, we invaded....IRAQ?

Moore's case, and it's a good one, is that the war against Iraq was never about terrorism. As MANY MANY critics at the highest levels of government and within the intelligence community have pointed out countless times, a war against Iraq over terrorism, particularly as it relates to Al Qaeda, doesn't make any sense.

When you say "they" have threated our existence, and "they" would use nuclear bombs against us, you're not talking about Iraq because that's simply not the case. In terms of threats to us, Iraq was no more dangerous than any average middle eastern country. Certainly LESS dangerous than Iran. Less dangerous than North Korea. And less involved with Al Qaeda than Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or Afghanistan.

So is an offensive war with questionable motives, questionable evidence, and questionable troop strength reason enough to send our kids off into harm's way? I'd say not.

Beeblebrox

06-28-2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
[B]A transfer of power does not prove success.

In fact, the reason the transfer of power was moved up two days was because the security over there is so bad that they were afraid of organized insurgent attacks on the scheduled day of the ceremony.

I won't address the rest of dd's post because it's not really about Moore or Fahrenheit 9/11, but I will say that dd IS the kind of Moore-basher I'm talking about.

Lynn7

06-28-2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
While that's true of BFC, there certainly is a practical solution in F911: Get Bush the fuck out of the White House.

Moore argues among other things that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian.

Bin Laden and his family are Saudi Arabian.

Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism.

Bin Laden personally thanked Saudi Prince Bandar for bringing to US to his aide in terrorist acts against the Soviet Union in the mid-80s.

And after the worst terrorist attack on US soil in our history, we invaded....IRAQ?

Moore's case, and it's a good one, is that the war against Iraq was never about terrorism. As MANY MANY critics at the highest levels of government and within the intelligence community have pointed out countless times, a war against Iraq over terrorism, particularly as it relates to Al Qaeda, doesn't make any sense.

When you say "they" have threated our existence, and "they" would use nuclear bombs against us, you're not talking about Iraq because that's simply not the case. In terms of threats to us, Iraq was no more dangerous than any average middle eastern country. Certainly LESS dangerous than Iran. Less dangerous than North Korea. And less involved with Al Qaeda than Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or Afghanistan.

So is an offensive war with questionable motives, questionable evidence, and questionable troop strength reason enough to send our kids off into harm's way? I'd say not.

Getting Bush out of the white house is not a practical solution to our terrorism problem IMO. Plus we were having outr people killed by terrorists before Bush was even in office. What else does he propose?

If 19 Americans went over and killed 3000 people in North Korea would the US be to blame? We have some really unsavory people here who do not represent our country. I do believe Saudi Arabia pretends to be our friends but might be supporting terrorism but I'm not sure why they would do this. Their oil is worth nothing without money to buy it. It's a confusing idea. There is something fishy there but no proof as of yet. Plus it is muddied now that the terrorists have turned against the very government that supposedly supports them. Lots of intrigue- there are 6,000 members of theSaudi royal family if I remember right. Maybe some of them are involved and others aren't? Hard to say.

The way Moore claims that the Bushes and the Saudis have this weird connection is just not beleivable to me. I need to see motive. Bush seems very happy in his Crawford homey life style. Pres Bush senior seems totally oblivious to world powers right now, jumping out of airplanes and riding around on his motor boat. I don't see that ambitious drive for money and power of either Bush in evidence. I need to see these things before I could beleive an accusation like that.

I see Sadaam as a major threat against us. he had a major hatred for us especially since we embarrased him by chasing him back home after Iraq 1. He would've stopped at nothing to assist any terrorists with an anti-american agenda. He certainly had some deals going on with the UN where he was obtaining oil money he should not have been taking- meant for the starving citizens. He could have funded quite a few subversive groups with that money-right under the UN's objective nose. IMo we are safer without him. Not safe but safer.