Eve of Destruction

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anduril


So, you've read it. Perhaps, you could give me some evidence for your position that it's a dung heap. Comment, if you will, on just a couple of the Fahrenheit Facts #1-15 at the site.

---

Funny, I asked you to do that and you didn't want to. Anyhow, here goes.

Fact 15: A happy and healthy Iraq.

Those kids flying kites and peolple getting married were actual events happening in Iraq the day before the sky started to fall. Yes, the bomb shown was blowing up the Iraqi ministry of defense, and it was nowhere near those civilians shown in Moore's 'file footage'. However, I somehow doubt that the same type of activities were going on that day. Massive Ordinance Air Blasts put a damper on wedding receptions and kite activities.

Moore also had footage of the civilian casualties that isn't commented on in that blog. Now who's omitting facts?

Nobody is claiming that Saddam was an alright guy. Shit, he was a monster. But it's never discussed how he came to power: Through US money and Interests. .source

Fahrenheit Fact no. 13: Air National Guard Service Misrepresented

It's interesting that Bush helping with a political campaign durring his absenteeism didn't come out untill long LONG after the questions arose, were ignored, arose again, were further ignored, 10k was offered to prove otherwise by that Doonsebury guy. All of a sudden: Hey, WAIT! I was campaining. Yeah. Campaining.

Why is this stuff getting published?

Same reason we're discussing this film: MONEY.

O.J.'s free because of it, there are Harry Potter films because of it, Bush is President because of it.

Another point about the National Guard service:

James Bath was Bush's co-pilot.
His name is blacked out on the white house-released document.
Michael Moore already had a copy of the original, and kindly tells us why the name was blacked out. Because people might find out that James Bath is in neck-deep with the Saudi's, placed there by Mr. George W. Bush. (his good buddy). Osama Bin-Laden is a Saudi, in case you didn't know, Ken.

See the film- it's all there on screen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anduril


So why then haven't there been a virtual stream of suits and counter-suits with respect to these books? Are they all telling the truth? Why is this stuff getting published?

---

Gee, you think people might be telling the truth? Is this a foreign concept to you? It's not always a good idea to file a libel suit. In general people don't like lawyers and would rather spend their time doing nearly anything else than court. Also, if they lack the resources, they're kind of stuck. But you're a smart guy, I don't have to point that out to you.

Quote:

---

That's not the Communist manifesto but nice try. I'll give a "B" for effort, k?

---

gee, teach. do i get a gold star too? That was a re hash of the main points of the soviet doctrine. Pleas explain how you think that's relevant in this forum.

Quote:

---

I love the world you live in. Can I join? Do I apply with the casting director of the X-Files or is it a direct application to Oliver Stone that gets me in? We can talk about it later in Roswell, okay? If I can shake my FBI tail, I should be there by sundown.

---

grow up. your attitude is the type that hinders progressive change. Just because a guy doesn't endorse any major political parties, he's a conspiracy nut? Your stupidity is really starting to show, buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
Funny, I asked you to do that and you didn't want to. Anyhow, here goes.

---

Yes, it is. Except I had already read the blog and so it did not profit me any to pull stuff out for you if you were simply going to ignore it anyways. Now, I know you've at least scanned parts of it. Besides, its Moore that has to prove his case; the burden of proof always lies with the prosecutor.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
Fact 15: A happy and healthy Iraq.

Those kids flying kites and peolple getting married were actual events happening in Iraq the day before the sky started to fall. Yes, the bomb shown was blowing up the Iraqi ministry of defense, and it was nowhere near those civilians shown in Moore's 'file footage'. However, I somehow doubt that the same type of activities were going on that day. Massive Ordinance Air Blasts put a damper on wedding receptions and kite activities.

---

So you think happy and healthy Iraq was just on hiatus for the day?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
Moore also had footage of the civilian casualties that isn't commented on in that blog. Now who's omitting facts?

---

They are omitting facts. Your point?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
Nobody is claiming that Saddam was an alright guy. Shit, he was a monster. But it's never discussed how he came to power: Through US money and Interests. Source

---

US money didn't bring Saddam to power; it kept him there. But, more to the point, doesn't this fact point to the American responsibility to fix what they had done? Also, if Saddam is as you concede a monster, should we have let him stay in power?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
Fahrenheit Fact no. 13: Air National Guard Service Misrepresented

It's interesting that Bush helping with a political campaign durring his absenteeism didn't come out untill long LONG after the questions arose, were ignored, arose again, were further ignored, 10k was offered to prove otherwise by that Doonsebury guy. All of a sudden: Hey, WAIT! I was campaining. Yeah. Campaining.

---

Striking rebuttal. Thank-you.

Perhaps you could comment on Fahrenheit Fact #14.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
Gee, you think people might be telling the truth? Is this a foreign concept to you? It's not always a good idea to file a libel suit. In general people don't like lawyers and would rather spend their time doing nearly anything else than court. Also, if they lack the resources, they're kind of stuck. But you're a smart guy, I don't have to point that out to you.

---

If all those books in that section of Amazon.com are telling the truth then there is no such thing as truth. The books are mutually contradictory.

In libel suits, you never lack the resources. Attorneys, if the case is any good, take these on a percentage of the settlement. Besides, the people being targeted by these political books are all persons of means.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
gee, teach. do i get a gold star too? That was a re hash of the main points of the soviet doctrine. Pleas explain how you think that's relevant in this forum.

---

It was not Soviet doctrine! I'm employing sarcasm to argue against the conspiratorial logic of your's, Moore's, and Johann's position.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
grow up. your attitude is the type that hinders progressive change. Just because a guy doesn't endorse any major political parties, he's a conspiracy nut? Your stupidity is really starting to show, buddy.

---

No. Because a guy thinks the Democrats and the Republicans are colluding and because a guy buys into Moore's theories suggests he is buying into conspiracy theory. Now true, to an extent, I'm starting to blur the distinction between your arguments and Johann's... it is after all Johann that brought up the Skull and Bones deal... but, I still think it holds true for the types of positions you are advocating.

So what about Skull and Bones, then?!

Do you not acknowledge that that group is bent on world domination?

Do you not recognize that the Bonesmen are an elite (in their own minds) group of "smart" men who have no other purpose than ACHIEVING WEALTH AND POWER?

How thick is your skull?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
Another point about the National Guard service:

James Bath was Bush's co-pilot.
His name is blacked out on the white house-released document.
Michael Moore already had a copy of the original, and kindly tells us why the name was blacked out. Because people might find out that James Bath is in neck-deep with the Saudi's, placed there by Mr. George W. Bush. (his good buddy). Osama Bin-Laden is a Saudi, in case you didn't know, Ken.

See the film- it's all there on screen.

---

First of all, again nothing new but I bet all these facts were new to you when you first watched F9/11, eh?

Second, your point? Do you find it unusual that a businessman who owns an oil company had extensive contacts in Saudi Arabia and even had a contact person to deal with the Saudis? Do you find it unusual that a businessman would find a job in his company for an old colleague from his days in the National Guard? Please do go on... I can't wait until you link Bush with the Bin Ladens directly; that's when the shit really hits the fan...

This dialogue is hilarious- and you are the source of it.

When Bush was told of the 9/11 attacks, he sat there for 7 full minutes. What was he thinking?

He was thinking: "Who screwed me?"
He knew only one person did it: Osama.

The whole world quickly learned his name. Bush had to jockey pretty fast to get everyone to direct their anger at an enemy.

I did only learn of all of this shit at one film. And I believe the majority of what Moore points out. It's too logical. It makes too much sense.

He's absolutely right, and the picture is grim.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
So what about Skull and Bones, then?!

Do you not acknowledge that that group is bent on world domination?

Do you not recognize that the Bonesmen are an elite (in their own minds) group of "smart" men who have no other purpose than ACHIEVING WEALTH AND POWER?

---

Oh yes I do. They're the American branch of the Illuminati, didn't you know? Skull and Bones is a powerful group, involved in all the major evils of the past century: Iran Contra, the Drug Trade, the Assassination of JFK, the Vietnam War, and now the Iraq War. These guys are bad news. The people of this country need to go down to Yale right now and insist that the society be disbanded or at least banished from the campus.

Your posts speak for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
This dialogue is hilarious- and you are the source of it.

When Bush was told of the 9/11 attacks, he sat there for 7 full minutes. What was he thinking?

He was thinking: "Who screwed me?"
He knew only one person did it: Osama.

The whole world quickly learned his name. Bush had to jockey pretty fast to get everyone to direct their anger at an enemy.

I did only learn of all of this shit at one film. And I believe the majority of what Moore points out. It's too logical. It makes too much sense.

He's absolutely right, and the picture is grim.

---

Well, I'm glad you've been critical and scrutinized the information carefully. Kudos for a job well done! It's always best just to accept the first thing you hear; far more efficient way of learning anyways. Who needs to concern themselves with all that bullshit of reading books, articles, and divergent opinions? Better just to rely on one's sixth sense and the everyman, Michael Moore. Also, psychic abilities to read minds always comes in handy too.

I can't rely on news media to give me the truth.

Michael Moore is the best thing we've got right now.

As far as I'm concerned anduril until you see the film you're out of your league (but you'll just be stubborn- I can feel it).


You can insult Moore all you want- you just make him more right.

What hurts you so much that you have to say what you have been saying here?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anduril

If all those books in that section of Amazon.com are telling the truth then there is no such thing as truth. The books are mutually contradictory.

---

i see. You've read all of those books, i suppose.

Quote:

---

In libel suits, you never lack the resources. Attorneys, if the case is any good, take these on a percentage of the settlement. Besides, the people being targeted by these political books are all persons of means.

---

you're not wrong, attorneys will work on contingency. To sue someone for libel it costs about a year of a lifetime (at least) and unmeasureable stress. What's your time worth?

Quote:

---

It was not Soviet doctrine! I'm employing sarcasm to argue against the conspiratorial logic of your's, Moore's, and Johann's position.

---

sounded lots like the hammer and sicle doctrine to me. i still don't understand what you're trying to prove. For the record, sarcasm is easily recognized by one's tone of voice. I just can't pick yours out between the pixels. Try writing to the point next time, we'll see if we can't get somewhere.

Quote:

---

No. Because a guy thinks the Democrats and the Republicans are colluding and because a guy buys into Moore's theories suggests he is buying into conspiracy theory. Now true, to an extent, I'm starting to blur the distinction between your arguments and Johann's... it is after all Johann that brought up the Skull and Bones deal... but, I still think it holds true for the types of positions you are advocating.

---

gee, an expert. Who was it that gave you lisence to categorize our positions? Never mind. Again, to clarify your distortions, I never said that the Democrats and Republicans were in collusion. I only said that they have the same goals, and they do.

Do yourself a favour and start reading before you count yourself as an expert.

Raoul

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
i see. You've read all of those books, i suppose.

---

Do you need to read all those books to know that they are mutually contradictory? Let's just pull out two titles: Lies: The Liberal Lies about the American Right by Ann Coulter and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balance Look at the Right by Al Franken. Somebody's pants are clearly on fire here... and that's just two book titles.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
you're not wrong, attorneys will work on contingency. To sue someone for libel it costs about a year of a lifetime (at least) and unmeasureable stress. What's your time worth?

---

So, what you are saying then that it is not surprising that Michael Moore has not been sued? You'll have to excuse me if I'm starting to get a little confused.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
sounded lots like the hammer and sicle doctrine to me. i still don't understand what you're trying to prove. For the record, sarcasm is easily recognized by one's tone of voice. I just can't pick yours out between the pixels. Try writing to the point next time, we'll see if we can't get somewhere.

---

Oh, I see. I didn't realize that you actually believed that the Jews were out for world domination before WWII, which was a statement I made in that post. Hmmm... that would have been a clear indication of my sarcasm if the twenty-three points weren't enough. Guess, I'll have to give you less credit next time. I'll try to dumb it down some in future posts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
gee, an expert. Who was it that gave you lisence to categorize our positions? Never mind. Again, to clarify your distortions, I never said that the Democrats and Republicans were in collusion. I only said that they have the same goals, and they do.

---

My apologies I assumed that when you commented on how the Democratic Senators failed to rescind the Supreme Court decision that you were implying collusion. But, now I understand: both parties are working independently towards the same goals. Got ya now. That clears it all up. Its sort of how the gas companies work independently to raise the price of gas. Not really collusion... just looks that way. Hopefully, you can understand where my confusion arose.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
I can't rely on news media to give me the truth.

Michael Moore is the best thing we've got right now.

---

Yeah, God forbid you should spend anytime outside a movie theatre and maybe do some of your own research on the topic. What a horrible waste of time that would be? Much better to live vicariously through movies; its easier too, I suppose. You can just place your trust in pure and unadulterated honesty, humanity, and goodness of directors, actors/actresses, and the entire, worldwide movie industry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
As far as I'm concerned anduril until you see the film you're out of your league (but you'll just be stubborn- I can feel it).

You can insult Moore all you want- you just make him more right.

What hurts you so much that you have to say what you have been saying here?

---

You think I'm hurt and you care enough to ask... that's sweet, Johann. Are you saying we're still friends? That would be really special of you.

Until I see the film I'm out of my league, eh? That statement would require you to prove that there is significant information in the movie that I presently lack. Furthermore, it presupposes that you believe yourself to be in a superior league to which I should aspire and yet you've admitted that nearly everything in Moore's film was news to you and that you have done no real significant additional research into the topic. That's a strange league that I'm supposed to join.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
I can't rely on news media to give me the truth.

Michael Moore is the best thing we've got right now.

---

You mean he's the only person who has theatrically released a documentary on the issue that you went to see. Personally, I make a point of checking and researching the sources on my own and you know what, the Internet lets you do a pretty bang up job without even leaving your home. You can read official reports, check out left-wing and right-wing opinion sites, consult all sorts of reference works, check out databases compiled by numerous individuals and NGOs, visit the official websites of the good, the bad, and the ugly in this whole situation, read dailies from nearly every major network and news organization in the world, etc. etc. etc.

Sarcasm: Truely, it's a shitty way to make a point. It's tiresome, it's sloppy debating and subpar writing. In text form, it's difficult to tell when you're turning it on and off.

If you're any sort of writer, debator or holder of opinion, PLEASE learn to express your views by writing to a point. Frankly, it makes you look bad.

Al and Anne have decided to take it to eachother on the pages and airwaves rarther than in court. Eventually, it's possible that a suit for libel may be launched. I haven't read either book, but just because they're pointing fingers at eachother and calling eachother liars doesn't mean they aren't both right. Are they on the same subject?

"Out of his league" may not be the best choice of words, but I agreee that if you haven't seen the film, you're ignorant to make comments about its content. Let's be reasonable.

Also, let's be clear. There seems to be a stigma that calling someone a conspiracy theorist immediatle and completely refutes all of their claims. It's as though when someone alleges that two other people or parties conspired to do anything, they must be a complete nutjob. Why is that? Has this never happened in the history of civilization, politics or man?
Pease explain and see if you can do it with your tounge out of your cheek.

Raoul

This thread is becoming... repetitive. i would suggest that if the dialogue simply descends to character attacks, that it be carried on via email. It becomes too difficult for anyone else to enter, and too hard to decipher. Dialogue being the main function of this site...Cool, glad it generates such fervent discussion nonetheless. And of course, look forward to reading new ideas / takes on the film.
P

Raoul: I've resorted to sarcasm because the claims of F9/11 and the claims made by you and especially Johann are preposterous. And, quite frankly, I think the sarcasm has served the argument that I have made because, especially in Johann's case, it has already showed just how far he is willing to take the conspiratorial logic and how little critical research he has done to arrive at his views.

Conspiracies of the type envisioned by F9/11 are ludicrous. They reflect a latent desire to explain events that the spinner feels that they can not control. Conspiracies help them to cope. Are there genuine conspiracies operating in this world? Sure Raoul. But not of the type that Oliver Stone or Michael Moore would have you accept. To propose that a group of such disparate people with so many disparate views, ideologies, aims, and philosophies could function as a single-minded entity with some long-term, inalterable, and unchangeable purpose is simply outside the realm of documented human experience. Life produces interesting coincidences, strange correlations, freaky and eerie innuendos but ultimately these are what they are and no more.

Let's take the Skull and Bones society. It is one of several so-called secret societies on Ivy League campuses. These secret societies are essentially and little more than the elite's version of fraternity. Its on-campus members are a collection of fortunate sons between the ages of 18-30. The secret societies meet a couple times a year to drink, eat, and talk. Obviously, given that most of the members are fortunate sons and attending one of the finest institutions in the world, it should not be surprising that these people go on to take up high powered positions the world over. But, while they share a common fraternity in their experience as members of the society, they are not in collusion to establish some sort of New World Order. That's the popular imagination gone wild, so enchanted by the rich, the famous, the powerful, and the ideas that a 'secret society' conjures up. Its nonsense and people who believe in that sort of nonsense really need to take a pill. The rich and the elite are far too concerned with their own lives and responsibilities to be gathered in dark rooms, plotting global domination. There are many reasons that converged to bring about the Iraq war and nowhere on that list can you justify a global conspiracy.

As for the Iraq war, it is justified on many grounds, quite apart from Moore's rhetoric:

(1) The Saddam regime was in persistent, repeated, and flagrant violation of the cease fire that ended GWI. It is significant to note that this reason alone justifies the conflict and also inveighs against the red herring that liberals throw out, i.e. "if we invaded Iraq, why don't we just invade North Korea or Iran?" The U.S. and the British took several preliminary steps to deal with these violations; they set up no-fly zones and instituted embargos on Iraq among other things. The violations continued.

(2) The Saddam regime, in collusion with officials from the U.N., abused the Oil for Food program, depriving Iraqi citizens of food and other humanitarian aid while simultaneously propping up the ailing regime. Source.

(3) Contrary to reports by the media and liberal populist opinion, the Saddam regime was attempting to reconstitute its WMD program. Despite the lengthy lead up to the conflict that allowed Saddam more than enough time to either transfer the weapons to the Baathist regime in Syria or hide/destroy these weapons and evidence pertaining to their existence, the Iraqi Survey Group still found considerable evidence. David Kay's Statement on the Interim Progress Report is a very instructive read and, I think, would surprise more than a few people who accepted the media position that nothing was found. It is also worth noting that the Iraqi Survey Group remains active under the direction of Charles Duelfer. I encourage you to read his Testimony to the US Congress.

(4) The UN Security Council, in unanimity, repeatedly determined that Iraq was in violation of its resolutions on several counts. In particular, Security Council Resolution 1441, passed by unanimous vote in 2002, decided that Iraq was and remained in material breach of prior resolutions, including Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) and provides legitimate authority to effect compliance through the use of military force. The failure of the UN Security Council to act upon these resolutions with force has meant that the United States and Britain, who already faced the enormous burden of enforcing the no-fly zones and the embargos, had to bear what should have been the responsibility of all member nations. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that if the UN had stood up in one voice that Saddam would have fled Iraq and sought asylum in Syria, thereby avoiding the war altogether. The divisions on the council, however, gave Saddam the hope that the United States would have to back down in the face of international pressure and opposition.

(5) The Saddam regime remained hostile and belligerent towards the United States. It has been recently confirmed by Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, that Iraq planned attacks on the United States. This information was provided to the United States. Source.

(6) Again, contrary to reports by the media and liberal opinion, there was considerable circumstantial evidence to suggest that al-Qaeda agents met with Saddam and other Iraqi officials for the purposes of identifying potential areas of cooperation in their mutual aggression towards the United States. Indeed, this is consistent with the safe haven Saddam provided to Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic terrorist group with connections to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda leader, and al-Qaeda, more broadly. The connections between Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda are well documented by many organizations, including the Human Rights Watch, which is hardly a right-wing organization. I encourage you to read HRW's Backgrounder on Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan. It is also notable that Iraq long supported and encouraged the Palestinian practice of suicide bombing.

(7) The Saddam regime was one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern memory. Its crimes are horrific, grotesque, and unimaginable. As horrible as the abuses by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib have been--these actually seem more like psych-ops to me, they pale in comparison; this is not to justify the Americans but rather to give people a basis from which to merely begin to understand the degree to which Saddam brutalized and torture thousands upon thousands. Again, Human Rights Watch serves as an independent source for information on these abuses. I encourage you to read some of their publications on Iraq under Saddam. As you'll quickly notice, this site also has reports on the conduct of Coalition forces in the country.

(8) On strategic grounds, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the development of a secular Iraqi state, comparable to Turkey, have had numerous positive consequences already and will have positive long-term consequences for Middle-East peace too. First, democracies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq will effectively isolate Iran and undoubtedly give strength to the reformist movement in that country. Iran will be completely encircled by prosperous and free states. Second, Iraq's constitution and democratic system will certainly serve as a model for countries such as Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt to emulate. Iraq will prove that democracy and freedom are not incompatible with Islam. Third, the liberation of Iraq has allowed Americans to move out of bases in Saudi Arabia where they were required in order to maintain stability and protect against Iraqi aggression. Obviously, the American military presence in Saudi Arabia is a huge source of the animosity that exists towards them. Saudi Arabia is the most sacred of the Arab lands in the Middle East. Fourth, Operation Iraqi Freedom will serve as a visible demonstration of American commitments to peace in the Middle East. Again, one of the sources of animosity towards the Americans in the Middle East has always been that the Americans have propped up dictatorships and, most notably after GWI, failed to adequately support popular uprisings against these regimes. Fifth, the instability in Iraq has meant that terrorists, who might otherwise attack civilians in the United States, are engaged in conflict with soldiers there. Many analysts are quick to point out that the Islamic militants have come flying out of the woodwork in Iraq but few have realized that this means they are not in the United States attacking civilians. The United States has effectively opened a front for its war against terrorism. This front contributes considerably to the safety of the world. Sixth, the denouement in Libya, as even Gadhaffi himself has stated, was inspired to some degree by American action against Iraq. I recognize that this denouement began earlier than the American invasion of Iraq but the decision to dismantle the WMD program was clearly post-invasion and, at least to some extent, related. Also, Libya's WMD program begs the question, "If a poorer country under equally stringent embargos could develop a WMD program that included an active nuclear program, why is there anyone who believes that Iraq didn't have WMD?"

Lastly, I'll just suggest an op-ed piece by Ann Coulter that is actually quite good and incisive. I could go on too but I won't. This is enough.

Andy:

I'm glad to see that you've dropped the sarc. and come back to rationality.

Nobody has ever tried to say that Saddam was an alright guy, but you've got to admit, andy, that it's peculiar that the Iraqi dictator was the one the United States cared about. The US aided and abeted a similar regime in East Timor, They have flat out ignored the Warlords of Africa and stood idly by as Pol Pot did his thing. Why Saddam? I dunno. Ask your buddy George.

It's those sorts of inconsistencies that make people wonder. Also, the fact that Bush, his family and his associates reap more dollars than I will ever count in my lifetime off of the war every day is something that can't just be ignored.

This thread has been very educational. I see now that it is violently impossible for anyone to come to terms here.

The left fails to acknowledge the theory that no one is getting screwed here and the power structure in the world is simply a result of the cream rising to the top: people good at business becoming more powerful and wealthy

The Right fails to acknowledge that those in the most wealthy and powerfull positions have attained those positions underhandedly and continue to perpetuate their Oligarchy at the expense of the people of the world.

Conclusion: I forsee widespread civil unrest in the united states and globally in the very near future

Question: Have you seen the film, Andy? If now, how is it that you feel so comfortable commenting on it?

Raoul

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
Nobody has ever tried to say that Saddam was an alright guy, but you've got to admit, andy, that it's peculiar that the Iraqi dictator was the one the United States cared about. The US aided and abeted a similar regime in East Timor, They have flat out ignored the Warlords of Africa and stood idly by as Pol Pot did his thing. Why Saddam? I dunno. Ask your buddy George.

It's those sorts of inconsistencies that make people wonder. Also, the fact that Bush, his family and his associates reap more dollars than I will ever count in my lifetime off of the war every day is something that can't just be ignored.

---

Even if I granted that all of these things you have written are accurate, how does it in any way, shape, or form serve as an argument against the war in Iraq given the reasons I posted? How does casting dispersions on Bush, on the White House, on Oil Executives, or any other group make the war in Iraq unjustified? How does alleged American inactivity in other crises around the world make a case for inaction in Iraq? The fact is that it doesn't. And, what's more, you are not accurate in the dispersions you've cast so how much worse does it make your case? (BTW, if you think that you are accurate, start supporting it with facts and reliable sources; you are not going to convince anybody just on your word, except those who already share your view.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raoul
Question: Have you seen the film, Andy? If now, how is it that you feel so comfortable commenting on it?

---

I answered these questions in my very first post.

P.S. Sarcasm is rational. It is one way among many to conduct a debate and/or elicit a person's views on something. It is a particularly effective way to see how far people are willing to take their views.

Here's THE FACTS, anduril. And you're definitely no friend of mine now.



1. I don't like Bush- I don't trust him. I don't trust our government either. Pardon me for that- they have more power and money than me. I must assume this or I KNOW I'm naive.

2. I don't have time to research politics when I have no interest in it. I care about politics as much as it affects my world. Movies are my world. Fahrenheit is a film- I reviewed it. I believe Moore. You don't like it, no skin off my back. You're gonna find out in the years to come how right the man is.

3. Chris Knipp e-mailed me about my "self-fufilling prophesy" in predicting that Bush will win in November. You won't see me gloat. I just see everything and I'm telling you what I see.
I want to be proven wrong so bad...
Bush will win. He bought it with his oily dollars. What do you think he's been doing these last 4 years? Planning for the next four. Is everybody fucked in the head here? Watch Bush win people....

And another thing: anduril has "employed sarcasm" because he knows I'm right. YOU MOCK WHEN YOU SHOULD BE INTELLIGENTLY DEBATING ME.

4. Skull and Bones are a dangerous group all right. They're "bad news" alright. anduril is one X@?%& if he thinks this "society" is just hanging out sipping tea enjoying brotherly love. They're only responsible for one evil in the world x?Y?@#. George W. Bush. I'm raging inside knowing that Yale is where this guy went to University. Yale means nothing to me now.

Finally, this discussion is getting repetitive. Sorry, P.
I don't wanna get into "he said she said" with people who are blind beyond all doubt.

Sixth sense, intuition, gut-feeling- you bet your ass I'll follow these over "published opinion". This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. My time and energy are not worth a pissing match.

The U.S. attacked Iraq with NO PROVOCATION

What right did the U.S. have to attack innocent people?

Sure saddam is a bad guy, but why bomb innocent people? Why kill innocent men, women and children.
They've screamed at soldiers- they've screamed at Bush:
Saddam may be a bad man, but he's OUR bad man.

How would you feel if bombs started raining on your head in Edmonton? People dying left and right? How would you feel if soldiers from another country barged into your home and started ransacking the place, looking for Saddam?

You wouldn't be happy, would you?

God bless America! The greatest liberators of all-time! We are enlightened! We help the world! If we can do this for Iraq, just think what we could do for your country! *just one question, though...psssst! do you have oil in your country?*


How's that for employing sarcasm? How far have you taken your blindness?

To the farthest reaches of ignorance..which is just left of hell.

As the admin, Ive editted the previous posts to remove certain comments about other users... easy enough to converse without hitting such levels.
P

Among your ad hominen attacks, I found a couple of salient points to address.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
The U.S. attacked Iraq with NO PROVOCATION

What right did the U.S. have to attack innocent people?

Sure saddam is a bad guy, but why bomb innocent people? Why kill innocent men, women and children.

---

However, most of the salient points were, like this one, addressed in the eight points I made above or in my recent response to Raoul. If you disagree with my position then refute all eight points and provide sources to justify any position that I am not likely to take your word on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
They've screamed at soldiers- they've screamed at Bush:
Saddam may be a bad man, but he's OUR bad man.

---

This is the one salient point I could find that I've not actually addressed. Your argument, it seems to me, is that the people of Iraq did not want the invasion. Unfortunately for your argument, you happen to be wrong. Polls conducted by the Oxford Research Institute confirm that more Iraqis support the Coalition invasion than are against it. A majority of Iraqis believe their life is better now than before the war (56%) and an overwhelming number (71%) believe that life will be better for them in the future.

Naturally, resentment towards the Coalition presence in Iraq is building and future polls may indicate some change as that begins to be reflected. This is to be expected. The Coalition presence is a reminder that Iraqis are not providing their own security nor are they completely independent of the Coalition-led forces. This is, again naturally, a humiliating experience. But, that more Iraqis than not, can still, even despite their resentment, support the invasion and clearly indicate that life will improve says something profoundly important. They supported this war despite its costs.

And, you know, I believe the reason that they support it despite its costs is that they know the costs of living under Saddam even a day longer would have brought higher costs. In fact, I think alot of the anger towards the Coalition is that they didn't do this earlier; that they didn't finish the job eleven years ago. In those eleven years, considerably more Iraqis died under Saddam's brutal thumb then in the Coalition invasion and the months since.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
How would you feel if bombs started raining on your head in Edmonton? People dying left and right? How would you feel if soldiers from another country barged into your home and started ransacking the place, looking for Saddam?

You wouldn't be happy, would you?

---

If it was necessary to win my freedom, bring it on. I'll take care of my family and do my best to stay out of their way.

For once I'll try to be civil here.


You completely dodged my question on why kill innocent people.

They're "circumstantial casualties" in your view. "War is hell", right? "Wrong place at the wrong time, suckers...we are bombing you to free you. Please die gracefully. Don't kill American soldiers who are liberating you. We'll just get mad and make you pose naked while we smoke cigarettes..."

Polls mean nothing to me. Who really cares about polls and who actually relies on them? I could tell you "polls show that 90% of American people hate Bush" and I might be right. Did I do a poll? No. But it sounds correct...
One out of ten doctors agree that Tylenol is the best pain reliever!

You mean to tell me that while some country is bombing you you're gonna huddle with your family and say over and over:
It's for the best, dear- we're being set free by these bombs. After the war we'll be free. Hand me that grenade, junior...

I didn't dodge your questions at all. I addressed each one.

And, Jason: When people suffer oppression and persecution, freedom is worth the fight and I'll tell you, as Iraqis do, that they fear Saddam more than coalition bombs. My family, in that situation, would see that freedom is coming and, for all the fear that the bombs might create in their hearts, the joy at the prospect of a new life would be their promise in the dark night. Say what you will, but if I lived in Iraq, I'd be overwhelmed that Saddam is gone. Finally, opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anduril
Say what you will, but if I lived in Iraq, I'd be overwhelmed that Saddam is gone. Finally, opportunity.

---

All right, I saw it, and now I'm going to have to butt in.

The thing is, you can't think in North American terms when you're considering Iraq. OK, Saddam is gone, and that's a good thing. But that's really not the only issue. Was it worth the civilian lives to achieve this? In my opinion, no, and that's me. And I know I'm not going to convince the world about it. Hell, I can't even vote yet.

We've managed to get the bad guy out of his mansion(s), but at what cost? So many dead, foreign unrest, and a divided country. I'd love to be everyone's friend, but because of a stupid political happening, some people refuse to trust me anymore.

Bottom-line: this film is a must-see. They're facts. Moore himself said the film isn't fair, but that's really not the point. This isn't the kind of propaganda to recruit Hitler's Youth here. Moore's not trying to manipulate you. He just loves his country and wants the best for it. It's not like he's shoving anything down your throat. He's just presenting evidence and seeing what we'll do with it. I commend the man for utilizing the cinematic medium to get out a message.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HorseradishTree
All right, I saw it, and now I'm going to have to butt in.

The thing is, you can't think in North American terms when you're considering Iraq. OK, Saddam is gone, and that's a good thing. But that's really not the only issue. Was it worth the civilian lives to achieve this? In my opinion, no, and that's me. And I know I'm not going to convince the world about it. Hell, I can't even vote yet.

We've managed to get the bad guy out of his mansion(s), but at what cost? So many dead, foreign unrest, and a divided country. I'd love to be everyone's friend, but because of a stupid political happening, some people refuse to trust me anymore.

---

Whose guilty of thinking in North American terms here? I'd say it is you. Do you have any idea of the thousands upon thousands of people that Saddam tortured, brutalized, and murdered? And, please don't even suggest that the casualties in the invasion or the incident at Abu Ghraib come close because they don't. It doesn't appear to me that the present generation in North America, including perhaps also myself, have any realistic notion of tyranny. People say over and over again that they know Saddam was a bad guy but they toss it around as if he was just a neighbourhood bully you could ignore. This man was evil. Hitler evil! Get it? He thought he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar, the ancient Babylon king--he even was working on rebuilding the city of Babylon; his modern-day political hero was Stalin. This man gassed men, women, and babies; he tore people limb from limb; shot them without provocation, simply for pleasure; he had whole populations exterminated; he stopped the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates for God-sake just to starve southern tribes--this devastated an entire natural ecosystem and way of life for thousands of people that had existed for literally hundreds of millennia. Do people not get this? You don't just turn your back on this type of evil. Damn it people. The outrage should be that the Americans let him run that country for so long; but to rail against the fact that they got rid of him now. My word, what is wrong with us?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HorseradishTree
Bottom-line: this film is a must-see. They're facts. Moore himself said the film isn't fair, but that's really not the point. This isn't the kind of propaganda to recruit Hitler's Youth here. Moore's not trying to manipulate you. He just loves his country and wants the best for it. It's not like he's shoving anything down your throat. He's just presenting evidence and seeing what we'll do with it. I commend the man for utilizing the cinematic medium to get out a message.

---

Michael Moore, like so many movie makers, wants an audience; everybody claims to be patriot to make a buck in the great olde U.S. of A. In this case, Moore has tapped into liberal hysteria over Bush, apparently an hysteria he himself buys into, and the result is a propaganda film. And, let's be clear... propaganda does not necessarily mean devoid of facts. Quite the contrary actually, propaganda is the deliberate use of ideas, information, or facts for the purpose of helping a cause, often by attempting to injure or cast dispersions on someone or something. This particular piece of propaganda makes selective use of the facts to create a lie.

Anduril,

Thank you for the link to the site of Farenheit 9/11 criticisms, because I am collecting those for a reply of my own, more as a definse of the film's whole approach and validity as a critique of Bush administration post-September 11th policies than to deal with dozens of nitpicking facts. The latter are just a propaganda device, as everyone knows, like the list of "errors" made up by the opposition to sling mud at the documentary, Chavez: Inside the Coup.

But since I have a lot of movies to write about and this one isn't first on my list, I'll state some points here.

Farenheit 9/11 is partisan. You can even argue that it's not a documentary at all, but that's another issue. I don't guess we're all violently opposed to passionate filmmaking. Passionate filmmaking is what we love, right?

Thus in a sense what it comes down to is, where do you stand? If you're seriously pro-Bush, you won't like this movie. If you refuse to see this movie, you're wearing blinders. You're afraid of something.

The anti-Moore sites and blogs are interesting to go through. It's surprising how feeble a lot of their points are. The one you cite, Anduril, has already backed down on a number of its "FFacts".

There is only one serious omission I've seen pointed out, and it is a serious one: Moore's failure to mention Israel in talking about the true motives for the invasion of Iraq.

An important fact to note is that Moore is all about facts now. Sure, he's in-your-face and not the least subtle. His lack of diplomacy has gotten him into trouble, notably when he was cut off at the Oscars. But we need guys who can get into trouble in the name of presenting the truth. Michael Moore is nothing short of a national treasure. That becomes clearer and clearer as the months and years go by. He becomes more and more valuable. Thank God for Michael Moore. He bridges the seemingly unbridgeable gap between Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

But nonetheless he's got his facts together. Moore isn't working by himself with a skeleton crew and on a shoestring in Flint, Michigan any more. He's got clout and he's got money and he's got a substantial staff. The upshot of that is that his fact-checkers are better and more energetic than his opponents'. So, be very careful when you challenge his facts.

But ultimately, perhaps what is most effective about Farenheit 9/11 isn't the facts and statistics Moore cites at such length or the outline of data he builds up about Bush and the Bush family and the events leading up to and subsequent to September 11th's terrorist attacks on the US.

What's most effective is the images. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there reading that book in the classroom as the Twin Towers topple. As he prepares to announce the invasion of Iraq. As he winds up a remark about fighting terrorists (okay, in Israel, not in Iraq: so what?), smirks and lines up a golf shot. The bland faces. The smirks. The banality of evil.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Thank you for the link to the site of Farenheit 9/11 criticisms, because I am collecting those for a reply of my own, more as a definse of the film's whole approach and validity as a critique of Bush administration post-September 11th policies than to deal with dozens of nitpicking facts. The latter are just a propaganda device, as everyone knows, like the list of "errors" made up by the opposition to sling mud at the documentary, Chavez: Inside the Coup.

The anti-Moore sites and blogs are interesting to go through. It's surprising how feeble a lot of their points are. The one you cite, Anduril, has already backed down on a number of its "FFacts".

---

To back down when in error is not a sign of feebleness; it is a sign of integrity. The blog lists a number of good points. But, personally, the point for me is not whether F9/11 employs facts or not. As I've stated before, Moore uses facts to create a lie. It is the selective use of information, the use of information irrelevant to the argument, and the juxtaposition of real yet essentially unrelated images. It is, also, the interpretive lens through which the information is presented. Consider the opening of the movie in which viewers are given a picture of Bush in the classroom and the narrator asks us to consider what Bush is thinking. Are these facts, Chris? Are the rhetorical questions by the narrator meant to elicit any fair consideration of what Bush's thoughts might have been at that moment? No. Moore isn't interested in the truth, at least not beyond his version of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Farenheit 9/11 is partisan. You can even argue that it's not a documentary at all, but that's another issue. I don't guess we're all violently opposed to passionate filmmaking. Passionate filmmaking is what we love, right?

Thus in a sense what it comes down to is, where do you stand? If you're seriously pro-Bush, you won't like this movie. If you refuse to see this movie, you're wearing blinders. You're afraid of something.

---

That's a red herring and you know it. Refusing to participate or watch something is not an indication of blindness or fear. The information in the movie is nothing new nor is Moore the first so-called documentarian to present this information. Moreover, I've now managed to see a good portion of the script. My refusal to watch this movie in the theatres is based on my unwillingness to support Moore, this project, or future projects like it. As a responsible consumer, that is my right.

As for being pro-Bush... I accept that there are more than a few things that I don't particularly like about the man's policies and judgment nor do I reject the notion that mistakes have been made in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Incidentally, I thought Blair was a much better spokesman for the war than Bush. I do, however, support Bush over Kerry any day.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
An important fact to note is that Moore is all about facts now. Sure, he's in-your-face and not the least subtle. His lack of diplomacy has gotten him into trouble, notably when he was cut off at the Oscars. But we need guys who can get into trouble in the name of presenting the truth. Michael Moore is nothing short of a national treasure. That becomes clearer and clearer as the months and years go by. He becomes more and more valuable. Thank God for Michael Moore. He bridges the seemingly unbridgeable gap between Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

But nonetheless he's got his facts together. Moore isn't working by himself with a skeleton crew and on a shoestring in Flint, Michigan any more. He's got clout and he's got money and he's got a substantial staff. The upshot of that is that his fact-checkers are better and more energetic than his opponents'. So, be very careful when you challenge his facts.

But ultimately, perhaps what is most effective about Farenheit 9/11 isn't the facts and statistics Moore cites at such length or the outline of data he builds up about Bush and the Bush family and the events leading up to and subsequent to September 11th's terrorist attacks on the US.

What's most effective is the images. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there reading that book in the classroom as the Twin Towers topple. As he prepares to announce the invasion of Iraq. As he winds up a remark about fighting terrorists (okay, in Israel, not in Iraq: so what?), smirks and lines up a golf shot. The bland faces. The smirks. The banality of evil.

---

Again, I'd ask you to explain Moore's apparent psychic abilities and reconcile that with what you call "presenting the truth"... not to mention his omission of facts. A lie can be either a wilful and stated untruth or an omission of truth. Where to start on the relevant issues that Moore left out of his movie? In fact, please explain to me how, in the final analysis, casting dispersions on Bush makes the case against the war in Iraq or Afghanistan? I'd say Moore missed the whole point...

Why is anduril still being addressed here?
He hasn't seen the film.
This forum is for discussion of the film.

See the movie or begone!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anduril
As I've stated before, Moore uses facts to create a lie. It is the selective use of information, the use of information irrelevant to the argument, and the juxtaposition of real yet essentially unrelated images. It is, also, the interpretive lens through which the information is presented. Again, I'd ask you to explain Moore's apparent psychic abilities and reconcile that with what you call "presenting the truth"... not to mention his omission of facts. A lie can be either a wilful and stated untruth or an omission of truth.

---

Anduril, turnabout is fair play. What you're describing here sounds identical to the approach that's been mastered by the Bush Administration (and aided by the American media). They are masters at distorting and manipulating information (aka "the facts") to produce their desired result. Moore's set out to burst their bubble, to shatter the myth they've tried to create, and he appears to be hitting a nerve...

Can you see why this film resonates so deeply with so many people? There is a tremendous amount of frustration at the bullshit and the deception that this Administration has tried to pass off on us. To claim that their intentions are pure is naivete of the highest degree, it's total blindness. That's probably the main point Moore is trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JustaFied
Anduril, turnabout is fair play. What you're describing here sounds identical to the approach that's been mastered by the Bush Administration (and aided by the American media). They are masters at distorting and manipulating information (aka "the facts") to produce their desired result. Moore's set out to burst their bubble, to shatter the myth they've tried to create, and he appears to be hitting a nerve...

---

I've never claimed that Bush has not done so, have I? Politics and media frequently descends into the art of propaganda. The question is whose myth do you accept? My eight points on Iraq are not the result of Bush or Moore's mythmaking. I accept neither Bush, Kerry, or Moore at face value; you clearly take Moore at face value.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JustaFied
Can you see why this film resonates so deeply with so many people? There is a tremendous amount of frustration at the bullshit and the deception that this Administration has tried to pass off on us. To claim that their intentions are pure is naivete of the highest degree, it's total blindness. That's probably the main point Moore is trying to make.

---

Oh, I know why it is popular... I'm not challenging its popularity. Also, as I just stated, I've never offered Bush my uncritical support; I could criticize the Bush administration better than most. Your claim to frustration, however, does not resonate with me nor with a significant percentage of the American population because we have decidedly different views on the extent, type, and motive in the so-called "bullshit" and "deception" of this administration.

I certainly don't take Moore at face value. I've given several examples on these threads of points in the film that I find misleading or deceiving. There are also many points he makes that are valid, poignant, and thought-provoking. I like what Edelstein said about the film in his "Slate" review: "It delighted me; it disgusted me. I celebrate it; I lament it. I'm sure of only one thing: that I don't trust anyone—pro or con—who doesn't feel a twinge of doubt about his or her responses."

I would say that there is a "significant percentage" of the American population that is distressed and frustrated by the actions of the Bush Administration. The Administration's art of propoganda is much more polished and institutionalized than that of Michael Moore. It's to the point where it's become unpatriotic to question their motives; that would be a brilliant ploy, really, if only it worked. It won't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JustaFied
I certainly don't take Moore at face value. I've given several examples on these threads of points in the film that I find misleading or deceiving. There are also many points he makes that are valid, poignant, and thought-provoking. I like what Edelstein said about the film in his "Slate" review: "It delighted me; it disgusted me. I celebrate it; I lament it. I'm sure of only one thing: that I don't trust anyone—pro or con—who doesn't feel a twinge of doubt about his or her responses."

---

My mistake, JustaFied, I thought I was responding to Chris Knipp for some reason... sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JustaFied
I would say that there is a "significant percentage" of the American population that is distressed and frustrated by the actions of the Bush Administration. The Administration's art of propoganda is much more polished and institutionalized than that of Michael Moore. It's to the point where it's become unpatriotic to question their motives; that would be a brilliant ploy, really, if only it worked. It won't.

---

It goes both ways... naturally. America is a deeply divided nation and only looks to remain so for years to come. There is a culture war going on in the United States that is reflected also in the political arena as Democrats come to represent one side of the divide and the Republicans the other.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anduril
There is a culture war going on in the United States that is reflected also in the political arena as Democrats come to represent one side of the divide and the Republicans the other.

---

Some would argue that Democrats and Republicans are on the same side of the divide...I don't quite see it that way...