Fahrenheit 9/11, has any one seen it?

[NIIIC]

I saw that film 3 days ago and it scared me a bit, I mean no to get any political enemies, but when you see the man that is the most powerful man today, because don't forget that in his little suitcase, the is enough power to blow up the hole world at least 7 times. I really think that that man should be someone exceptionally wise and intelligent. Don’t you. And after seeing that film, I don't think Bush is that man.

[Trejiuvanat]

I have not seen it, and I doubt I will see it, as Moore mostly just "recites" lots of statistics, that certainly are true, but as ever, from a particular point of view.

 

I have little love for the U.S. American government, their cowboy president (IMHO, that's the impression he gives) and his NAC staff, but Moore's way to present those facts is just as manipulative as pro-U.S. American propaganda.

 

One last thing, as a Moderator, I'd advice anyone to think over their comments first. Politics is one of the hardest topic to moderate, so keep it down, or we'll have to close the thread.

[NIIIC]

Ok I sought of that a few times before opening it, but I sought that it could be interesting, because politics is an interesting debate. And I sought it was perfect for the occasion. Mostly now that the danger level went up.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Politics is a very touchy subject, especially when it comes to American Politics. In general it is best to leave this subject alone, or restrict it to a place that is public, but not too public (like a chat room or PM).

[Texas_Fett]

The film certainly shouldn't be banned (it's a free country, after all), but I refuse to give Michael "Jabba the Hutt" Moore any of my money for his one-sided, propaganda-in-documentary's-clothing, distortion of reality. How anyone is able to call it a 'documentary' with a straight face is beyond me. He's more than just a little fast with the figures, quotes, etc. Hell, even Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and other left-leaning talking-heads admit that most of it is made up of whole-cloth. Even the New York Times has printed statements from the movie and contrasted them with the actual facts. I'm surprised the movie was released at all, considering that Richard Clark's testimony to the 9-11 Commission blew the movie's central premise out of the water.

 

It must be extremely depressing and maddeninly frustrating to live in the web of lies that Mr. Moore deems to be 'reality'.

 

That said, politics should be kept at a distance on the boards here, or kept to discussing the relative platforms of Palpatine's "New Order" and the Rebel Alliance's "Appeal to Reason".

 

Palpatine/Vader in 2004!!

[Evaders99]

How about an option: "No I won't see it but anyone else is welcome to see it." ?

 

I'm not for censorship and I'm much like Texas_Fett on the matter. I won't see it because Michael Moore has become everything he seems to hate: stupid white men.

 

Enough politics, ice cream anyone

[Ragnar]

Hm.. I actually _had_ some icecream while I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 last week.

 

I think I can be fairly objective on this, mostly because I never really gave a damn about the whole mess either way...

 

In my opinion, it is no more a documentary than "Bowling for Columbine" was. It is however, less entertaining, pherhaps because Moore's point of view on the matter is more personal.

 

The movie is indeed a summation of statistical and other facts, which -given that it lasts for almost 2 hours- makes it a little dry. To the director's credit, you never really get bored watching. Now, personally, I found some of the commentary a bit presumptuous. The "fact A and fact B means ..." voice-overs get a bit far-fetched in some places. I'd concede they're interesting to consider and need looking into, but it all sounded a little conspiracy-theorisch at times.

 

So what remains is do you need to go see it or not? Well, if it's entertainment you seek, stay at home. While "Bowling" was just hilarious enough to keep you wanting for more, "Fahrenheit" is pherhaps just a little too serious. So if propaganda was the objective, this is where Moore failed to connect to a wider audience.

 

But I guess the movie is -first and foremost- a collection of facts. I'm sure no time would have been wasted on filing lawsuits if there'd been any gross inaccuracies, so it is still, if nothing else, informative. And as I have been led to understand, it in part represents a point of view that has not gotten any media attention by any of the major networks, if at all. If that is true, it certainly has a broader claim to existence than it would have merely from a "free speech" viewpoint.

 

IMO to discuss the whole movie is pointless. The movie asks a lot of questions but it doesn't really awnser any of them convincingly. So what really should happen is to take each question out of its context and discuss it seperately. Fat chance of that ever happening now that the ElectionCircus2004 is on the road.

 

Personally, I left the theater a little disturbed. I had not exactly been overwhelmed with new information, but some of the things I didn't know before where at the very least mildly concerning. Had I been born and living in the US, I would -without doubt- have grown up to be a Republican and would have voted for W. It is impossible to determine what that would have done to my point of view, but one thing that immediately struck me is that George W. Bush is doing neither his country nor his party a favor by running for re-election.

 

Oh well, I guess it's a little late for that

[Cain]

EDIT - Bush not to inteligent he is makeing new active terrorists only. Edited August 3, 2004 by Cain

[Jahled]

Personally, Michael Moore makes me cringe almost as much as President Bush.

 

Evaders is right: Anyone?

 

Edit: Avoid politics...*

 

*original

[Cain]

Yes avoid politics we the "slaves" or the "elite" can't reach that HI or LOW we need to shut up or else. It's to much mud in the politics and we may get dirty ......oh may we already are since the damn politicians play with it directly in our heads.

 

 

 

No offence guys but I was in politics in my University and belive me I know them very well and If we let them free even in a debate it's good for them. So be wise and vote with your mind and soul before actuly voting ......btw how many of the SWR americans will vote ?! I gues none ....since the politics are better left alone ...they never affect us so why bother

 

 

No offence guys ...I love you all enough to permit my self to raise the voice

[Texas_Fett]

Personally, Michael Moore makes me cringe almost as much as President Bush.

 

Evaders is right: Anyone?

 

Edit: Avoid politics...*

 

*original

Classic .gifs, Jahled!

[Jin_Roh]

I'll decloak long enough to say a couple of things. I try to leave these damned political threads alone but I never can.

 

It looks like most of our membership thinks Bush is both wrong and stupid. You might take a second to remember that by calling Bush stupid you are inferring that people who agree with him are stupid...and that kind of name calling always gets peoples' blood up.

 

Bush may well be wrong but I don't think he's stupid or dishonest, at least no more so than John Kerry or Michael Moore.

 

Ragnar wrote: "But I guess the movie is -first and foremost- a collection of facts. I'm sure no time would have been wasted on filing lawsuits if there'd been any gross inaccuracies...".

 

Man, I wish that was the case. People can and will file lawsuits over here at the drop of a hat. The US legal system is desperately in need of tort reform. And our laws concerning libel/slander are next to worthless. Two more reasons not to extend John Edwards' political career, imho.

 

Cain wrote:"I just wish the americans will change their president since this one is only good at makeing new terrorists wich nobody needs. I spent time in Kuwait near Iraq and I know that he is actualy helping the terrorist by gieving them reason to fight ..."

 

Like they need a reason to hate us. We tried doing nothing or very little from 1978-2001 and all it got us was embassies bombed, barracks bombed, ships bombed, airliners bombed, and then airliners turned into bombs. Bush may not be a genius but he knows this much: if the US doesn't take the fight to the terrorists it's just going to mean more dead Americans. And one day one of these psychos will get a bomb big enough to kill an American city, and unlike Bush, they'll use it. Most Americans don't want to face that fact, and most Europeans are apparently indifferent to it.

 

You guys who hate Bush should thank your lucky stars Theodore Roosevelt can't be reincarnated as president. If he was: no more Tehran, no more Damascus, no more Baghdad (he wouldn't have bothered with an invasion). Probably no more Paris either.

 

Here are some things to consider which maybe everyone will agree are positive: Afghan women can walk in daylight without being stoned to death, and they can go to school again. And the tens of thousands of child deaths each year in Iraq resulting from sanctions and the "oil for palaces" program will hopefully stop occurring. There was a cost to just containing Saddam, and it was mostly ordinary Iraqis who were paying it.

 

PS - hey Cain, judging from this thread I'd say you could count on at least three votes in the US elections this fall by our membership. And they'll be for Bush. Happy? (PPS - We love you back dude )

Edited August 3, 2004 by Jin_Roh

[Jahled]

Jahled wrote: "But I guess the movie is -first and foremost- a collection of facts. I'm sure no time would have been wasted on filing lawsuits if there'd been any gross inaccuracies..."

 

No I didn't dude!

 

Eek!

 

Good to you about Jin btw!

[Cain]

I still think Kerry is better than Bush

[Jin_Roh]

1,000,000 apologies Jahled! I've corrected my mistake.

[NIIIC]

As the creator of this topic, I must excuse my self for creating so much trouble problem is I can't erase it.

Cain rote:

I still think Kerry is better than Bush

 

I don't really think Kerry will be much better. The only thing is that there won't be Bush any more. The two are guys mad of money, what is important is who is behind the president. And it is to avoid having Rumsfeled, Powel and the rest at the head of the most powerful country.

 

I wouldn’t say that I hate Bush; in the beginning I was supporting him as much as Clinton or any good president. After the 11 September, I was convinced in the necessity of attacking the HQ of terrorism and all of that stuff.

 

But when he decided to bomb Iraq with his so called "precision" bombs and undo Saddam because " he tried to kill my Daddy" ( Bush ) and because he hade so called mass destruction weapons that turned out to be a very SMALL stock of INSECTISIDES, mostly that a few months earlier he said that there were no such things in Iraq. And if you tell me that Iraq needed to be freed, "I MUST SAY THE SITUATION IS MUCH BETTER NOW", Iraqis were killed or tortured by Saddam's government. And now they are killed by terrorist bombs and tortured by the American’s government. I don't know for you, but it doesn’t seem any better now. With out counting that most of the population is against it. But no worries, the IRAQ NATIONAL GUARD trained by Americans soldiers (that don't speak a word of Iranian, and the ING soldiers don't speak a word of English, I let you imagine the communication level it class) will defend every body and get blown up at the place of the Americans or English soldiers.

And if you say that he was a dictator, well there a many dictators in the world and that have much more than Insecticides in their tanks, like small North Korea, that if I am not fooled has the nuclear weapon. I mean if I was a president, I would go first for them. Oh but I forget the main problem... THERE ANREN'T ANY PETREOL IN ANY OF THESE CONTRIES.It is true, I mean «HOW WOULD WANT TO ATTACK A COUNTRY THAT HAS NO PETROL; EVAN IF ES CAN POTENTIALY DESTROY HALF OF YOUR COUNTRY WITH THE SIMPLE PUSH OF A FINGER ON THE BOUTON FIRE "

 

All of these reasons seem to me enough to not HATE BUSH but frankly disapprove him. Now Kerry will be probably the same but he is after Bush, and if he wants to keep his place, he'd better reaper Bush's government misstates.

[Cain]

As I said more brains in a president is much better. Btw I read all about Kerry's life and it seems to have a bigger IQ than Georogy.

 

NIIIC you are right about the oil stuff there are so many new countrys to go in and police the dudes ...but again no oil. See how many money goes for afganistan new army 1 mil USD and for the Iraq 1000 times more. Man belive me the arabs have less IQ than Georgy and he made tones of new terrorists.

 

 

I don't think is we name Georgy stupid we name his voters also ...I supported him to once. The voters didn't know.

 

 

I'm courious how mister Bush would had handle the cuban crissis....ohhhh but he is a coward since he in not going in Nord Coreea so probably he will never had rised to Kenedy's level .

[NIIIC]

Well I think Kerry is only good at finding a very wealthy wife.

I read an article on the elections situation in the Time. Well Kerry inverted 11'000'000 $ and Bush 1'000'000$, big difference. Also there was a poll and it said that Kerry would be better for economics and stuff, but BUSH FOR THE SITUATION IN IRAQ AND TERRORISME. Really I think any one could be better then him for these to things. But I must say, I am worried Bush WILL WIN!

[Cain]

Yes it's very possible that Bush will win...anyway maybe next he will go for Adolf stile actions.....anyway this preventive war is much the same....

[Jahled]

***bangs head on keyboard***

 

George Bush; despite the fact I don't see eye-to-eye with his policies is not some dark angel anymore than other world leaders. The French blew up a Greenpeace ship in New Zealand killing some bloke a couple of years ago, and went ahead with nuclear tests in defiance of global outrage. Their opposition to the war in Iraq was quite simply because of their own economic interests which they would loose out on when unable to trade with a butcher and complete tosser like Saddam Hussain, which they appear to have enjoying for years. Big moral ground boys. Lecture America and the UK not about your concerns for the welfare of the Iraqi peiople. For morals you have had not much when the despot was in power. My cousen lives in southern France, and before the war expressed genuine concern about the economic effects of a war for the region around him.

 

The majority of Muslim regimes don't seem to understand the concept of human rights and torture (not that the US or the UK seem to.. though at least our countries have the liberty and freedom to expose abuses... ), these Islamic insurgents in Iraq all of a sudden seem to have forgotten how their Islamic fellow-brothers might not want to get blown to oblivion in one of their car bombs; because I am sick of hearing Muslim people talking about the sanctity of their fellow Muslims. Evident in Iraq at the moment. Obviously. Thanks. So that also makes non-muslims less in the eyes of them and their interpretation of their God.

 

Sorry to brake the news lads, but God isn't going to be anymore Muslim than it is Christian, Pagan, Hindu, or whatever. They might find themselves very acountable for their wicked crimes against people standing outside churches or bus stops or whatever following their rather pathetic suicides.

 

Anyway, Iraq was bound to happen. The west needs a stable supply of it's oil. Hussain wasn't playing ball, and that's that. It's a crap excuse for a war and so much disruption and pain for the Iraqi people, but it's nothing new. There's always a reason for a war. There always has been. Years ago it was the civilizations in the Middle East flexing their muscle and giving other people grief. It's like a game of Go.

 

I wish I had been born a bit of lichen in a cave, it's not just Michael Moore or George Bush that make me cringe; it's five thousand years of human history.

 

***Sigh***

 

Prepares to be quoted and ripped apart...

[Thumper]

I haven't seen the movie, nor do I want to, for various reasons.

 

I was personally involved behind-the-scenes in an event that got national attention. If I learned one thing from that, it was that the media is not always right. I knew people who called up CNN and corrected them on what really happened. We had people at all levels off the street second-guessing high-level decisions using that wonderful thing called "hindsight." There's always more to a situation than the average person knows. (Disclaimer: the opinion expressed here is solely my own, and does not necessarily reflect that of the agency I work for)

 

That said, I do my best to take things I hear with a grain of salt, and I try to trust that my country's leaders know what they're doing. Since I'm never going into politics, I can't do much more.

 

-Thumper

[Ragnar]

Like they need a reason to hate us. We tried doing nothing or very little from 1978-2001 and all it got us was embassies bombed, barracks bombed, ships bombed, airliners bombed, and then airliners turned into bombs. Bush may not be a genius but he knows this much: if the US doesn't take the fight to the terrorists it's just going to mean more dead Americans. And one day one of these psychos will get a bomb big enough to kill an American city, and unlike Bush, they'll use it. Most Americans don't want to face that fact, and most Europeans are apparently indifferent to it.

 

Yawn. There's many types of intelligence, and George at least posesses the one that gets people to like you. And as it turns out, that's the only quality that matters come election time. I've always felt that it's a rather stupid system, but I'm also quite sure I wouldn't like any of the allternatives.

 

As for the USA doing nothing or very little during 1978-2001...

 

...really?

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

The USA did qite a lot during that period, which is why a lot of people don't like them.

 

I know I'm not an American, but this is my two cents. They need to elect someone who will stop what he is doing and say "Let's look at the problems we have inside our boarders before we go and meddle in other countries".

There are lots of situations that need the military muscle of the US, and we should all be thankful that they ar ethere when they are needed, but they've taken it upon themselves one too many times to do what is "right" (better put, what works for them, who gives a damn about every one else), and have subsequently pissed a lot of people off.

 

From the perspective of an outsider, you need a government that works with the UN on ALL things. We should be working towards the unification of countries around the world, not unilateral action. If we were to abolish countries all together ther ewould be a more equal sharing of the world's resources, increased safety, and fewer conflicts (no nationalism, no wars). The current administrations doesn't allow for that.

 

Some one has already said taht it's not Bush, but the people behind him you should want out. I agree completely. Bush really isn't a bad guy, but when his handlers (and that's exactly what they are) don't tell him everything, or lie to him, he can't do his job.

 

Again, just my two cents.

[NIIIC]

There's many types of intelligence, and George at least posesses the one that gets people to like you

 

Bush isn’t intelligent, his back round is. I think that bush is useless with out their support, they tell him what to say and do.

 

At least our countries have the liberty and freedom to expose abuses

 

What do you mean "freedom to expose abuses" no one would have known about the torturing of this Iraqis in that prison if they hadn’t been a like in the armies high quarters. It was going to continue with the support of the CIA or would have been stopped and hidden for at least 50 years. Not to say that the French government did differently during WW I but that isn’t freedom. With out mentioning the outrageous Guantanamo and the secret prisoners that were captured in Afghanistan during the War but that ARN'T war prisoners, all of that to avoid the Geneva’s Convention to apply.

 

 

Sorry to brake the news lads, but God isn't going to be anymore Muslim than it is Christian, Pagan, Hindu, or whatever. They might find themselves very acountable for their wicked crimes against people standing outside churches or bus stops or whatever following their rather pathetic suicides.

 

Exactly so why is Bush saying that this is a crusade against the bad, that we are supported by good. That "God will lead our hands". My God have we went back to the time of kings and Moslems castles. To the Spanish inquisitions and all of that. Next thing is every body that hasn’t been to church will be fined. Come one, these times when an Arab is good dead or converted to Catholics (in that case there is a new section: owner of petrol fields) are finished, we are supposed to be tolerant and open to other religion.

The worst is that the "bad ones" chef says the same thing that the "good ones" chef says.

I now that France isn’t better with there new rules.

 

Anyway, Iraq was bound to happen. The west needs a stable supply of it's oil.

 

What about all the reserves in California and in Alaska? Is it that Americans want to us there on reserves in last like that they will be the only ones having petrol? Or is it because Family Bush and the rest of his friends don't have any fields over there?

 

Editted by Trejiuvanat. Edited the quotes, so they fit better.

[Jahled]

at least our countries have the liberty and freedom to expose abuses

 

What do you mean "freedom to expose abuses" no one would have known about the torturing of this Iraqis in that prison if they hadn’t been a like in the armies high quarters. It was going to continue with the support of the CIA or would have been stopped and hidden for at least 50 years. Not to say that the French government did differently during WW I but that isn’t freedom. With out mentioning the outrageous Guantanamo and the secret prisoners that were captured in Afghanistan during the War but that ARN'T war prisoners, all of that to avoid the Geneva’s Convention to apply.

 

Right, before you quote people and slice up their paragraphs get your facts right. I don't know what planet you're from but haven't you noticed the media outrage concerning Cuba and that Iraqi prison? There's also the small matter of one US soldier being jailed for a year for his part and Ms England presently on trial. Day after day I read news articles by journalists or politicians wanting to press the issue of how people are treated at these places. So what's you point concerning my statement of freedom and liberty? Me no comprehend. What you've said makes no sense in connection with what you coquoted me on.

 

Suggestion: Read a newspaper.

 

 

Sorry to brake the news lads, but God isn't going to be anymore Muslim than it is Christian, Pagan, Hindu, or whatever. They might find themselves very acountable for their wicked crimes against people standing outside churches or bus stops or whatever following their rather pathetic suicides.

 

Exactly so why is Bush saying that this is a crusade against the bad, that we are supported by good. That "God will lead our hands". My God have we went back to the time of kings and Moslems castles. To the Spanish inquisitions and all of that. Next thing is every body that hasn’t been to church will be fined. Come one, these times when an Arab is good dead or converted to Catholics (in that case there is a new section: owner of petrol fields) are finished, we are supposed to be tolerant and open to other religion.

The worst is that the "bad ones" chef says the same thing that the "good ones" chef says.

I now that France isn’t better with there new rules.

 

Again, please don't quote me and waffle off onto something with nothing to do with the quote. My stsatement has nothing to do with what comes out of George Bush's gob concerning his own spiritual beliefs. It rather obviosly addressed the stupidity of someone with fanatical religious beliefs pre4pared to blow themselves up along with a few innocent passers by; in the name of version of god.

 

Anyway, Iraq was bound to happen. The west needs a stable supply of it's oil.

 

What about all the reserves in California and in Alaska? Is it that Americans want to us there on reserves in last like that they will be the only ones having petrol? Or is it because Family Bush and the rest of his friends don't have any fields over there?

 

Yeah well keep your voice down because if you read the papers you would know that Bush is trying to oil Alaska which is what we don't want for god's sake! We don't want to many more Exxon disasters spoiling a rather beautiful wilderness do we??

 

Please don't quote me in future and then go off on a subject which had nothing to do with what I was orginally saying.

 

Editted by Trejiuvanat, so the quotes don't get too confusing.