Fahrenheit 9/11

Amy · Post by **Amy** » 29 Jun 2004 05:27

Time to post a picture of the retarded kid running?

You win, otacon52, because you used "me thinks". That's my Internet cue of "too clever for me."

DaddyO · Post by **DaddyO** » 29 Jun 2004 05:35

I haven't seen the movie, not sure if I'll pay that much money for diatribe, but I would watch it on video for "the other side of the story". Just a mention. Not only is Peta Wilson in this months Playboy, but the interview is with Michael...Quite eye opening for me at the least. I had formed a negative opinion of him by using his oscar to shove his ideas at me using his "new found" celebrity. I found the interview informative as to his motives. A bitter man, burnt by beauacracy and unemployment in his youth, sees injustices and worse unemployment thru the 70s and vows to make it better....hummmm, okay maybe. But he is definitely driven to get Bush out of office. From the opening statements to the last paragraph he "WANTS BUSH OUT"! When the interviewer asked about other elements of his life, or questions of other things he came back to "Bush cannot stay in office"! So at this moment in his life I see no other motivation from the man. It is easy to see how the movie could be a little biased without having seen it, but I'll still give the man the benefit of the doubt until I do...But it is NOT a documentary it is one man's biased opinion of the truth. It's easy to take photographs, say this is the truth, ask people to believe you and they do so. I am not one of those people and ask others to do the same. I will see the movie (later than sooner) but people, you must ask questions and don't take a picture as the only truth.

In closing, I agree with Justin "in part", we need people like Michael Moore. Part of what he says in the interview is that we need people to get off their duff and speak out and ask questions and don't set on freedoms laurels. We need some dessent about war and decisions made by our leaders. Bottom line -for me- is I want the Michaels of America to make movies like this or hand out pamphlets on the street corner disagreeing with whomever they wish to disagree with. Read the pamphlet, watch the movie, but don't take it as both sides of a two sided coin.

ivaj · Post by **ivaj** » 29 Jun 2004 06:14

Seriously wrote: <span style='color:maroon'>Hey guy,

I respect your opinion and all, but that website...

...might not be the most reliable in the world.

Just sayin'</span>

definitly, it talks about how the "Shroud of Turin," is genuine... impossible, since testing proved that its from the 1600's.

Seriously · Post by **Seriously** » 29 Jun 2004 06:24

Amy wrote: You win, otacon52, because you used "me thinks". That's my Internet cue of "too clever for me."

<span style='color:maroon'>Hey!

Is that...

is that sass young lady?</span>

banky · Post by **banky** » 29 Jun 2004 07:20

DaddyO wrote:

In closing, I agree with Justin "in part", we need people like Michael Moore.  Part of what he says in the interview is that we need people to get off their duff and speak out and ask questions and don't set on freedoms laurels.  We need some dessent about war and decisions made by our leaders.  Bottom line -for me- is I want the Michaels of America to make movies like this or hand out pamphlets on the street corner disagreeing with whomever they wish to disagree with.  Read the pamphlet, watch the movie, but don't take it as both sides of a two sided coin.

I couldn't agree more. There's an element of the right wing that tries to supress any dissent thru passive-aggressive actions (eg. Disney cutting distribution of the film) and then another element which is constantly trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with the same post-9/11 pro-war rhetoric that just doesn't mean shit anymore ("I'm George Bush...and I endorse this ad". )

It's funny to read the critics of Moore's film blast it for being agit-prop, political agenda fueled nonsense when the current campaign ads running for Bush are far worse and even more guilty of this same assertion. There has been no criticism against the emotional content of the film(grieveing families of dead soldiers) by Bush supporters because they simply can say NOTHING to counter it.

If people simply watched the film on it's own merits and more people actually made informed decisions before deciding who to vote for instead of falling back on the bi-partisan system maybe the U.S. wouldn't be in such a bad position right now. It seems the majority continues to take things at face value and the administration carries out all it's policies under the guise of freedom and blind patriotism. I'd certainly hope most of us here are smarter than that.

Post by **Justin** » 29 Jun 2004 08:28

all you michael moore detractors - until you've actually SEEN the movie and personally witnessed for yourself what's actually being presented in the movie, you really have no basis for your criticisms. and thus, making your arguments pretty offbase. and making you look dumb.

MICHAEL MOORE FOR PRESIDENT!

kekekekeke

Nuzman · Post by **Nuzman** » 29 Jun 2004 08:40

the other wrote: There has not been a solid link between Saddam and AQ. The gov't has not found a money trail that lead Saddam to Bin Laden.  Saddam praised 9/11 but said he had nothing to do with it.

Dude, you're showing either your ignorance or your inability to face facts.

Clinton's Justice Department documented the links in the 1998 indictment against bin Laden.

<a href='http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040 ... -3401r.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040 ... 01r.htm</a>

The UK Guardian documented other ties, including the terrorist training camp where Saddam provided a Boeing 707 fuselage for hijacker training ... confirmed by the former vice-chairman of the UN weapons inspection team.

<a href='http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/ ... 46,00.html' target='_blank'>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/ ... 00.html</a>

Bush never implied a link between the Qaeda attack which killed 3000 Americans in 2001 and Saddam. This is a myth created and perpetuated by Democrats and Bush-haters merely for political purposes.

Dude, if you have a shred of desire for truth, go back and read Bush's 2003 State of the Union address and get your facts straight.

the other · Post by **the other** » 29 Jun 2004 09:18

dude look around you will see that depending when it was and who said it that there is no link or there was a link....

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123694,00.html' target='_blank'>case and point #1</a>
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/' target='_blank'>case and point #2</a>
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/' target='_blank'>case and point #3</a>
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/stor ... 37,00.html' target='_blank'>case and point #4</a>

quit just reading the headline, then you can understand the whole story...

and if you want to talk who trained al qaida

<a href='http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1' target='_blank'>case and point #1</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm' target='_blank'>case and point #2</a>

hey what a coink a dink we have the same link....

if we need to go to war with the people that trained terrorist then guess what it was us...

Harry Truman
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.

the other · Post by **the other** » 29 Jun 2004 09:19

and the State of the Union is just a speech.... that is all it is.... it isn't gospel..

the other · Post by **the other** » 29 Jun 2004 09:22

Just like you did, I did the same we posted links that defend what we say... that is all that is we do this so we sound better than the last one... as soon as i find something that states what I believe you can find something that backs up what you believe.... this will never end... you know that right...

the truth depends on where you are standing....

Nuzman · Post by **Nuzman** » 29 Jun 2004 09:28

You're right, we're not gonna do any convincing. I'll be happy to let history sort it out. Until then, I have confidence that I'm right and you have confidence that you're right.

Now where are the boobies!?!

al k holik · Post by **al k holik** » 29 Jun 2004 09:37

Nuzman wrote: Dude, if you have a shred of desire for truth, go back and read Bush's 2003 State of the Union address and get your facts straight.

<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 28-19.html' target='_blank'>From Bush's 2003 State of the Union address</a>

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

Now, the whole wide world knows that al Qaeda = 9/11. In dozens of speeches given by the administration leading up to and well after the war, including Cheney less than 2 weeks ago, it was strongly IMPLIED there was a connection. As further proof, look at the polls up to a month or so ago. Most Americans thought there WAS a connection between Iraq and the WTC attack. That's because they were led to believe that.

If Bush's people wanted to get the truth out there, they sure weren't in a hurry to do so. Easier to get kids to go to war if they think they are avenging the thousands that lost their lives that day.

You sound like you're claiming a left-wing conspiracy, dude. That's pretty ironic.

al k holik · Post by **al k holik** » 29 Jun 2004 09:49

banky wrote: I couldn't agree more. There's an element of the right wing that tries to supress any dissent thru passive-aggressive actions (eg. Disney cutting distribution of the film) and then another element which is constantly trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with the same post-9/11 pro-war rhetoric that just doesn't mean shit anymore ("I'm George Bush...and I endorse this ad". )

I am absolutely not arguing with you, but I do wanna help you out here...

1. Disney makes a lot of money IN and FOR the state of Florida. Yes, Jeb Bush's Florida. That film starts in Florida, and criticizes brother Jeb by name. It was absolutely not in Disney's best interest to distribute that film. Say what you will about Eisner, his judgement was correct this time. A shame too, 'cause his studio really needed a hit right now.

2. The "I'm George Bush and I approved this message" blurb is required by the McCain / Feingold Act. If you don't hear that before or after the ad, it's paid for by someone else, like some Political Action Group, or in Bush's case, the Southern Baptist Convention.

Chanceblack · Post by **Chanceblack** » 29 Jun 2004 11:47

Yo...I'm a Fuckin newbie...(nice "internet" word by the way).....get over it and peep words. this moore shit is something people need to deal with PERIOD.
i aint shit but 24 and i have groups and meetings talking about the wrong going on
that soccer moms and sunday q.b's don't see and won't....moore is just another voice....who the fuck hasnt watched jerrry springer and waited for the kkk man to say some shit u either nod ur head or (smart ones) yell fuck you at. i need the kkk to live just like bush needs my 24 year old ass to pick up a gun heavier than the 8 ball he sniffed when he was 45...by the way, justin, you the man dog...you do good work and hats off homie.

Sunstrider · Post by **Sunstrider** » 29 Jun 2004 12:29

Those of you who take everything Michael Moore says as gospel might find this interesting. It tells about distortions and flat out lies he uses for his "documentaries".

<a href='http://www.newsmax.com/adv/moore/' target='_blank'>Michael Moore</a>

Also here are a few points of UN resolution 1441. The fact that Iraq was not allowed to have WMD we all know. The fact that they refused to show any info on the programs past or present or how they were diposed of is also a key point among others.

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional,
and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all
cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its
commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to
resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide
access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance
in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to
return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully
detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted
by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,
and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a
further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for
assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;

PART OF THE BOARDS FORMERLY KNOWN AS TJNR

Fahrenheit 9/11

Who is online