The OFFICIAL Farenheit 9/11 Thread

[westamastaflash]

Paul Krugman? Just another left wing polemicist.

Give me a break people, Michael Moore lost any of his credibility he had for me when i saw him presenting (in Bowling for Columbine) a "speech" given by charelton heston in columbine right after the shootings. If you watch, he cuts out and back in to this "speech" and Heston's tie is a different color for god's sake! I highly doubt that his "documentary" is anything of the sort.

Read this - ALL of this:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I really hope that the public is not swallowing these disgusting lies.

Fact is extremely important for a documentary. And fact is severely lacking in this movie.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Moore's an artist not a journalist, he draws no conclusions. The point of the movie was to highlight the fact that the most powerful person in the world is a fucking fool, and I think it worked.

[seth]

fact that the most powerful person in the world is a fucking fool

btw, he just felt a second time from his bike. i'm not joking !

[BTs_Mysterio]

Moore's presentation may be questionable at times but if you think that there is a twist free media on TVs, in movies, or from the mouth of your government you are mistaken. If you are so into the truth you better examine every side of the argument there is and see the truth is in the middle and/or never said by either side. Every side wants the image of perfection which isn't possible.

Let's use a little saying: Everyone has their price.

If you don't see how that applies in the ideal you shouldn't be one to examine things deeply.

[Mr.Mellow]

I found an interesting article/interview that puts a few of Michael Moore's claims in F9/11 into the dumpster. A quick, interesting read.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1402&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040728%2F1450113065.htm&sc=1402

[westamastaflash]

My problem with his movie is that he presents it as truth, and the sheepole swallow it whole. Yes, Bush isn't the most honest president either - but the point is that Moore claims to have created an "objective" piece of Documentarial journalism - NOT an opinon piece. And this is a lie. I understand that most journalism is tainted - but to present as fact complete fictions to the extent that moore does - and then get awards for it - is completely immoral and it disgusts me.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Just about as immoral as lying to a country to justify a war. I believe the war in Iraq was about corporate profit, not WMDs or the propagation of democracy. Our country was hijacked by a hand full of neoconservative nutjobs.

[BTs_Mysterio]

You know west. Bush presented fake evidence as FACT. I think to lead a country into war dishonestly is worse than making a movie.

[westamastaflash]

Fake evidence? The EVIDENCE of the WMD programs was there (hint - look at what John F. Kerry himself said)  - just because the weapons themeselves were not does not (my opinion is that they are currently in syria - how did terrorists get ahold of enough sarin to possibly kill 40k people in jordan) taint fact any. Oh and the uranium from africa - Britain still firmly stands by their conclusions - and thus, Bush never lied.

If the Iraq war were TRULY about corporate profit spets, why the HELL are we trying to create a democracy there? Corporate "greed" works much better with statism (see Nazi Germany and Volkswagen) than with a free market with  no artifical barriers to entry.

If we only wanted Iraqs Oil, then we should be constanly rubbing all their faces in the dirt and pumping the oil as fast as possible without any of this 90 billion dollars for schools, hospitals, and the like.

[seth]

why the HELL are we trying to create a democracy there?

well after the mess we did, it would be the least we could do !

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Thomas Jefferson himself believed, that in order to survive a true democracy would have to be organic, not forcefully imposed. I think in the long run our preemptive, unilateralist foreign policy choices will cause more harm than good in the region. I also don't think we're any safer from terrorism because of the war.

The first thing our troops secured were the oil fields, I know this was to prevent Saadam from burning them all, but knowing what I do about basic human instinct, I would have to conclude that greed was also a motivating factor.  

Most of the 87 billion congress approved was for lucrative private contracts, and I'm glad the the Iraqi's are getting new schools on American tax payer dollars, but it makes you wonder when schools in some parts of the U.S. are virtually crumbling to the ground.

I think Mr. Bush is a fucking fool, liar, megalomaniac, corporate tool, religious faker and worst of all a ex-cokehead/alcholoic.

[BTs_Mysterio]

If we only wanted Iraqs Oil, then we should be constanly rubbing all their faces in the dirt and pumping the oil as fast as possible without any of this 90 billion dollars for schools, hospitals, and the like.

They took the less straight forward approach by choosing the leader of the country. They probably made the guy sign hundreds of oil agreements with the US. As for your idea about where WMDs may be, how did you say it:

just because the weapons themeselves were not does not (my opinion is that they are currently in syria - how did terrorists get ahold of enough sarin to possibly kill 40k people in jordan) taint fact any

Well there's brainwashing at it's best. The weapons do not exist. I tell you where they will find them: if Bush gets re-elected he will go into syria and find nothing, then go to Iran, then some other helpless country, then he will go to a country with WMD and invade them to say they have finally found them. At which time N. Korea's weapon development will be completed. They will be the ones who help the terrorists come up with new and creative ways to reach a target.

Once again, if you intend to reply to my post also reply to bobby's and spets's, as they are on slightly different parts of your post and ideas. And yes the evidence is fake.

[seth]

westamasta, what evdience are you talking about ?

- the british report regarding Uranium: well last time i checked, everybody but british PM agreed that it was 100% forgery (the guy who signed that letter was supposed to be some kind of a current minister. He was indeed, but 10 years ago...)

- the aluminium tubes: experts have always said it could not be used for extraction coz it doesnt meet the required standards

- the mobil nuclear labs: gimme a break, where the f.. are they ? Should be pretty easy to spot with satellite technology...

- Saddam is able to launch a chemical strikes within  xx hours: yeah right, i'm not  sure he did even throw a single conventional missile on US war planes.

what evidence are you talking about ? tell me.

The only "good" thing with that war was the removal of Sadam. But it came at what cost ? Way too high if you ask me.