Eve of Destruction

[JustaFied]

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.

[anduril]

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.

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.

[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."

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.

[anduril]

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.

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.

[JustaFied]

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...

[anduril]

Well, in some ways, yes. Although one side of the divide, plugs their nose and votes Democrat while the other side, plugs their nose and votes Republican. There's alot of hostility out there towards politics nowadays.

[Chris Knipp]

Johann has a salient point. One really gets a bit tired of reading people's speculations about films that they just ought to go out and see.

To back down when in error is not a sign of feebleness; it is a sign of integrity.

This is a somewhat naive remark, since the term "back down" itself implies feebleness. However, you're right that to admit one has made an error (in pointing to someone else's supposed error) shows good character, and is necessary. But if they'd gotten their facts straight in the first place they wouldn't have had to back down, and you need to be careful when you are stepping up to point the finger at somebody else that you're justified in doing so. The "feebleness" I was alluding to is a feebleness in engaging in debate, since they showed an inabilty to double-check their own fact-checking.

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.

This is nonsense, and if it is coming from somebody who hasn't seen the movie, it's arrogant nonsense.

The rant that follows is ridiculous. I don't need to point out that neither the US nor any other single nation can go in and exterminate by bombing his country whatever evil tyrant there is ruling a country. There have been lots of them, and there are now.

However, here as always -- difficult as it may be in this instance -- I wish to discuss these topics in the context of the movies, in this case Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. If you haven't seen this movie, Anduril, then you're talking about the invasion of Iraq, but not about the movie and so you lack a thorough context and are not a full-fledged participant in this discussion despite the noise you appear to be making. You've made your position clear: you think the unilateral invasion of Iraq was justified and you embelish that justification by hypothesizing the joy of the Iraqi people in being invaded, because the fall of Saddam resulted.

But Michael Moore's film, Farenheit 9/11, isn't invalidated, even for you, merely by the fact that he disagrees with your position.

[anduril]

I find it interesting that you didn't address my relevant points concerning the movie if, in fact, you are, as you say, so interested in discussing the film nor has anyone shown me that the content of this movie is anything other than what I believe it to be.

But, in the interests of humouring your navel-gazing, I will not make another post and I will simply let stand what I've written, which is easy to do seeing as it has as yet not been significantly challenged. My subscription to this thread is over.

[Johann]

Chris is absolutely right: what's most effective is the images.

This was one of the first points I was trying to make: you can't argue with a filmed image. Moore is not manipulating STOCK FOOTAGE. He's not weaving a complex web of lies with actual footage of Bush and company. You can't argue with the images of Bush acting like an arrogant idiot.
His speeches are priceless. Moore has dug up some DEVASTATING clips.

How are these images lies? How are these speeches lies?
They're not. They speak for themselves, and the result is pretty damning.

Chris brings up a great point:
Israel.
That country has more nukes than you can shake a stick at. There are more "weapons of mass destruction" in Israel than there is tea in China. (I'm exaggerating, but there are a shitload of nuclear weapons in Israel- all protected by the President.)

The US are great buddies with Israel, and they pose more of a threat to the US than Bin Laden and Al Queda did.
Where's the movie on Israel and the potential powderkeg that can be? Where's the expose on Bush's relations with the Israeli's?

[Chris Knipp]

Chris brings up a great point:
Israel.
That country has more nukes than you can shake a stick at. There are more "weapons of mass destruction" in Israel than there is tea in China. (I'm exaggerating, but there are a shitload of nuclear weapons in Israel- all protected by the President.)

The US are great buddies with Israel, and they pose more of a threat to the US than Bin Laden and Al Queda did.
Where's the movie on Israel and the potential powderkeg that can be? Where's the expose on Bush's relations with the Israeli's?

RIght. But my specific point re: Farenheit 9/11 is the question of why Moore spends so much time on the Bushes' chummy relations with the house of Saud, when obviously the invasion of Iraq and establishment of a permanent US military presence there was something that Israel was very eager to have, whereas the Saudis were not so enthusiastic about all the unrest and insurgency an invasion of Iraq would cause.

Too bad Anduril has "backed down" himself, like some of the challengers to Moore's facts in the movie. I wanted to ask him what we did about Ceausescu, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos, King Jong Il, and on and on; why it just happened that the dictator of the country with the second greatest oil reserves in the world was the one we just had to eliminate.

[Johann]

I just wish anduril would see the movie and then tell us specifically the lies Moore purports.

Moore says he's thinking of offering a $10,000.00 reward for anyone who disproves anything in his film.

[Chris Knipp]

P.s.

I didn't bring up the Israel issue. I got it from an anonymous blog published by the Tom Paine site: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/blind_or_a_coward.php. It's a pretty nasty critique of Moore, but it has a good point. Again, though, this is not a distortion of fact, but an omission.

[Johann]

Chris Knipp speaks for me too! *sorry* :)

[Garbanzo]

WTF, M8 ^^??

Maybe you'd learn a thing or two, Anduril, by watching this movie, even if you don't agree with it.

It is unfortunate that all the people that need to see this movie refuse to.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Too bad Anduril has "backed down" himself, like some of the challengers to Moore's facts in the movie. I wanted to ask him what we did about Ceausescu, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos, King Jong Il, and on and on; why it just happened that the dictator of the country with the second greatest oil reserves in the world was the one we just had to eliminate.

Is this an invitation for me to rejoin the discussion? I "backed down," as you call it, because you more or less asked me to do so by claiming I wasn't a full participant in the discussion. Plus, I felt that no one was actually raising any significant counter-arguments to what I'd written or making a good argument that there is information in F9/11 that I need to see or don't know about; your argument, e.g., reflects a position I've already answered--a point which evidently you didn't bother to read. Tell me, Chris, what's the point of engaging in an argument when (a) you're more or less told to get lost, (b) the opponent doesn't even read your points, and (c) the opponent makes no significant counter-arguments and only throws out red herrings and ad hominens? In spite of this, let me know if you want me to enter the thread again and I will renew my subscription... as I said early on, I'm game for this argument... I'll defend the war in Iraq and I'll also comment on anything in F9/11 that's presented to me... in the meantime, I'll simply point out again that no one on this thread has yet served an adequate rebuttal of the eight points I made in an early post or given me a quality reason to see this movie; I may have "backed down" but my arguments are still standing without me. CYA.