Should FArenheit 9/11 be distributed to Middle East Countires?

[Lynn7]

Should Farenheit 9-11 be distributed to Middle East Countries. Reportedly Hezbollah wants to help distribute it. I've heard the movie will be used to help recruit new terrorists to fight against the "great Satan" (the US). Is Moore going to be the Jane Fonda of the 2000's? (giving comfort to the enemy)

[SLAW]

Jane Fonda giving comfort to the enemy by being anti-war? Whatever. Yes this movie should be released everywhere. This movie portrays America as a great country, just with a bad President.

[JCR]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Should Farenheit 9-11 be distributed to Middle East Countries. Reportedly Hezbollah wants to help distribute it. I've heard the movie will be used to help recruit new terrorists to fight against the "great Satan" (the US). Is Moore going to be the Jane Fonda of the 2000's? (giving comfort to the enemy)

Lynn7 even apart from the fact the usa attempting to ban the film would be the greatest hypocrisy ever (you're in iraq to give political freedom to the people, remember. Not take it from them.) The LAST thing you should do is ban the film. It would make what moore is saying much more credible, and make many more people want to see it. I was talking to an Aussie the other day and he said he reckoned more people there had seen the Larry Clark film Ken Park, which is banned there, than would of had it not been banned. How exactly would you stop people downloading it and making bootleg dvds?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SLAW
Jane Fonda giving comfort to the enemy by being anti-war? Whatever. Yes this movie should be released everywhere. This movie portrays America as a great country, just with a bad President.

Just to clarify- I have always been a fan of Fonda's but the vets have never forgiven her for going to the enemy during a time of war. Even John Kerry was nervous when pictures of him sitting next to her during a Vietnam protest started to pop up earlier in the campaign.

Fonda was very anti-war at he same time as a lot of the country but when the dust settled. she is the one the vets continue to hate (40 years later) because of those pictures with the enemy. My question is just that will Moore become the next Fonda?

[JCR]

NB: if you do know how to stop people downloading and bootlegging movies, do feel free to tell the mpaa. They'd really like to know. There may even be a shiny nickel in it for you. ;)

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Lynn7
My question is just that will Moore become the next Fonda?


Apples and oranges. What they are doing is much different. Fonda was more of a participant, Moore is more of a leader - doing his own thing.




Susan Sarandon is Jane Fonda - complaining about what the president is doing.

Michael Moore is closer to someone like Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstien - presenting evidence of wrong doings by the president.






Don't lead this to say that I'm on about Moore getting Bush impeached -- I'm just comparing what they are doing.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Just to clarify- I have always been a fan of Fonda's but the vets have never forgiven her for going to the enemy during a time of war. Even John Kerry was nervous when pictures of him sitting next to her during a Vietnam protest started to pop up earlier in the campaign.

Fonda was very anti-war at he same time as a lot of the country but when the dust settled. she is the one the vets continue to hate (40 years later) because of those pictures with the enemy. My question is just that will Moore become the next Fonda?

The pics of Kerry behind Fonda were fake (not that it should've mattered anyway). It was such a big deal when they were first shown, now it's not even mentioned for being disgraceful. Moore has never taken pictures with any fake enemy.

[Ultrahumanite]

Hmmmm. According to this article in The London Guardian, it would seem that the terrorists want it shown in the Middle East... I wonder why this wasn't reported here in the US... I don't remember seeing it in any of the national papers, or on the TV news. I wonder why?

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. 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."

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
[B]Hmmmm. According to this article in The London Guardian, it would seem that the terrorists want it shown in the Middle East... I wonder why this wasn't reported here in the US... I don't remember seeing it in any of the national papers, or on the TV news. I wonder why?

Because the media is LIBERAL! LIBERAL! LIBERAL! The corporate media is...LIBERAL!


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".

Saying that Michael Moore hates America is very anti-American...not to mention stupid.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by SLAW
Because the media is LIBERAL! LIBERAL! LIBERAL! The corporate media is...LIBERAL!




Saying that Michael Moore hates America is very anti-American...not to mention stupid.

Michael Moore is a hypocrite of the worst kind. I've made my point the same way everyone else has. The man is a lying son of a bitch. As far as whether or not this film gets show, show it everywhere. He has a right to make monye just like everyone else does. But be sure nobody else gets banned either. Because along with the bullshit, I'd like to show them both sides of the story and the actual facts (something that Moore doesn't give a fuck about).

[Ultrahumanite]

Originally posted by SLAW
Saying that Michael Moore hates America is very anti-American...not to mention stupid.

Well, you know, having a book called "Rush Limbauggh is a Big Fat Idiot", some people might say that's just as offensive... but Franken would argue that he called the book that because it was true. Michael Wilson might make the same argument about his title -- in any case, it would be interesting to see how Moore holds up under the kind of tactics he uses on other people. Using Moore's tactics you could probably show the world that Moore was a drunken, abusive tyrant and pedarist.

On that note, has anybody picked up "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" yet? I saw it at the bookstore, but being a poor college student....

Well, you know...

[SLAW]

Hehehe! Franken titled his book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot And Other Observations" because Rush and others always say that liberals ALWAYS resort to childish name calling, so he figured, mine as well. It can be argued that Moore embellishes the truth, but he doesn't lie. There really are no examples of him flat out lying. Yes, his films (with the exception of BFC) are art that represent his and millions and millions of other Americans political philosophy. He shows what he wants, but he doesn't lie.

[Lynn7]

He makes a lot of connections that have never been proven. He presents them as fact. He gives wrong impressions (as in BFC where he portrays someone leaving the bank with a gun when the gun would not actually be available until after a background check has been done). That is why the other side cries foul. The same thing was done with the anti-clinton movies where he was presented as doing very shady things (Vince Foster's suicde might have really been a hit etc) It's all bad.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
He makes a lot of connections that have never been proven. He presents them as fact. He gives wrong impressions (as in BFC where he portrays someone leaving the bank with a gun when the gun would not actually be available until after a background check has been done).

That does not prove the man is a liar. All it proves is that it is too easy in this country to gain a fire arm.

[RicochetShaw]

SLAW, I agree with what you're trying to say... I think. But I think you're defending your point in a bad way. I like Moore, I'm glad for what he's doing. But there's no getting around the fact that he lies. I'm not claiming like some that film his propoganda, but c'mon... there's a some lies in his docs.


Originally posted by SLAW
It can be argued that Moore embellishes the truth, but he doesn't lie.

See, if you tried to justify lying as "embellishing the truth" to your girlfriend, you'd probably get slapped.

[SLAW]

Really? Just flat out lying? Not miscaculations or bad sources? He's just a liar and trying to make as much money as he can? Not really. By embellish I kind of mean more by maybe exaggerations. I don't like everything I hear he might of said in the media (which i can't be sure which are true or not), but he will say something every now and then that is exaggerated.

Is Bush's vacation time before 9/11 exaggerated in the film? yeah, a bit, but that doen't mean those vacations weren't taken and that it wasn't an entertaining music montage in the movie. Is Bush truely a horrible person? I don't think so, but there are those who do (and trust me, it's a lot, including Moore ofcourse). And for every statistic, you can always dig and find one that says the exact oppossitte. I do not buy that Michael Moore is a liar, but some people will never buy that he is not.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by SLAW
Just flat out lying? He's just a liar and trying to make as much money as he can?

I never said that, nor did I mean it. But you must admit the fact that there have been lies in his docs, right?

[SLAW]

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
I never said that, nor did I mean it. But you must admit the fact that there have been lies in his docs, right?

I don't know. If something was found to be false, there could be a number of reasons why other than lying.

[Lynn7]

In the days of faxes, computers telephones email etc can someone truly ever be on vacation when in charge of somethings as big as the country. Clinton took a lot of overseas trips around the world with huge contingents that travelled with him. Was he working when he went on those? i fhe travelled to Africa was he working on the US's financial business or on the business of Israel or Palestine? As long as these people are getting the job done it doens't matter where they work from. Bush is getting the job done, IMO. If he works from Crawford or from DC it doens't matter to me.

[Jim H]

she is the one the vets continue to hate (40 years later) because of those pictures with the enemy.

Not just the pictures. She actually called vets who said they were tortured liars, despite overwhelming evidence that proved it. I can't blame them for being mad over that, at the very least. She also doesn't even have the excuse of being extremely young, brash and stupid.

Lynn7 even apart from the fact the usa attempting to ban the film would be the greatest hypocrisy ever

The US doesn't ban films, unless you want to count child pornography. One area we're better than the UK.

Well, you know, having a book called "Rush Limbauggh is a Big Fat Idiot", some people might say that's just as offensive... but Franken would argue that he called the book that because it was true.

Well, the name is an attempt at humor. A better comparison would be if the book had been titled "Rush Limbaugh is a traitor". But that is something someone like Coulter would do, not someone who is generally light-hearted like Franken.

(as in BFC where he portrays someone leaving the bank with a gun when the gun would not actually be available until after a background check has been done).

A background check takes a couple of minutes. One phone call.

Clinton took a lot of overseas trips around the world with huge contingents that travelled with him. Was he working when he went on those? i fhe travelled to Africa was he working on the US's financial business or on the business of Israel or Palestine?

Yes. He was on US business.

As far as Middle Eastern countries... I don't see it working too well. It would be very difficult to translate, and the film is mostly keyed to Americans.

[Lynn7]

It is my understnding that it actually took a few days or even weeks to actually get the guns but he portrayed it like you go inot the bank, open the account and then walk out with the gun- funny but misleading.

I really don't have a problem with gun ownership. In fact if we start having a problem with terrorists over here a lot more people might star owning guns.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It is my understnding that it actually took a few days or even weeks to actually get the guns but he portrayed it like you go inot the bank, open the account and then walk out with the gun- funny but misleading.

I really don't have a problem with gun ownership. In fact if we start having a problem with terrorists over here a lot more people might star owning guns.

No, you actually go in, open an account with a certain minimum deposit (it was a large amount - multiple thousands) and fill out the paperwork. A phone call later and you have the gun, which is stored in the bank vault. I don't really see what the big deal is. I can see he was making a point about how much America loves guns, but really...

Someone is getting an unloaded gun after depositing thousands of dollars and having a background check done. Not that big of a deal.

Guns also weren't the only item available - other bits included things like a grandfather clock and furniture.

[Ultrahumanite]

Michael Moore lies.

Example of Michael Moore lying:

In "In Bowling For Columbine", Moore says: "So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Gee, you know, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction.' What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"

He also asks if knowing that weapons of "mass destruction" were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters.

However, The Lockheed-Martin plant that Moore visited does not now make, nor has it ever made, "Weapons of mass destruction".

Unless, of course, you consider weather and communication satellites to be "weapons of mass destruction".

This isn't stretching the truth. This isn't embellishment. It isn't even sloppy research; Moore was told during the tour exactly what was produced at that plant.

It was a lie.

Anybody care for another?

[Thrizzle]

"Communication Satellites".

ICMB's, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, any long distance missile the US military emplpoys, and probably most short ranged missiles too, use satellites for targetting. So it's possible that those satellites actually do play a part in WMD's.

Or perhaps, the plant produces the rocket propulsion and it's used to shoot those satellites into orbit, along with WMD missiles into the upper atmosphere.


The thing is, you're hearing two sides, and you choosing to support the one for your side. I am too; but we really cant be sure who's right and maybe in a way, they both are.