Fahrenheit 911

talk
21

Well Kirupa, you defended your claim well… though you still cannot prove the part about Bush not knowing, that is still speculation. As for the gov/president thing, indeed they are not the same, but my mistake in reading what you said does not take away from the fact that you still made a grand assertion without means of backing it up. And my statement of the gov acting on lots of other threats still stands. Anywho,

I think that this is a clear example of why Farenheit 9/11 is an important film. It is very easy to be fooled by a leader, any leader, of any party. If they keep telling the public certain things, people usually believe them. Perhaps that is sensible, perhaps it is the biggest problem in society. Either way, Michael Moore shows (or attempts to show, depending on your opinion of the movie) that a lot of the Bush team’s apparent strong stance on terrorism is in some cases just smoke and mirrors. Is the United States more safe with the removal of Saddam? Not really… at least there has been nothing to prove that he posed a threat to the United States. The last country Saddam attacked was Kuwait, and in some ways he had justifiable reasons for doing so (but that’s another topic). And one could argue that the States is less safe now. How? well, if you saw the movie, I’m sure the scene with the screaming Iraqi woman sticks in your mind. It stuck in mine, because it really just proves that hatred of the United States (which is the underlying cause of terrorism) has definitely not gone down, and likely has gone up. I mean, that woman was claling for God to destroy the U.S… you can’t get more anti-American than that. Or how about beating burned soldiers’ bodies with sticks… that’s a nice way to demonstrate love.

And Moore also tried to show that there had been cut backs in some areas of homeland security (Oregon… sorry about spelling, I’m not American). An clearly a lot of what the Patriot Act does, does not make American’s safer, because people targeted rarely posed a threat. As for the threat levels, they just cause fear, and don’t really make anyone safer. Just because you know there is a high chance of terrorist attack doesn’t make you safer if no one tells you the specifics…

But most importantly, as Pomme_ (i believe) pointed out, there are 20,000 protestors showing up in European countries when Bush visits… How can America be safer when EVERYONE in the rest of the world hates Bush, and some are too dumb to distinguish between Bush and the American people.

Ciao for now
P.S. I agree it’s good that everyone’s debating. And it’s great that Kirupa has set up a forum for the debate, even if he floods it with conservative propaganda :ne: lol.

22

I backed up my view by mentioning the 9/11 Commission Report and Richard Clarke’s book as my defense. Those two are several of numerous credible non-partisan/informative sources that refer to the failure of the intelligence agencies in stopping this threat. How can the President know if the intelligence agencies themselves did not know? You seem to think he has some mystic connection that supercedes all intelligence agencies.

You have not been able to prove your point without referring to a movie that any rational person knows is extremely biased, if not, wrong in some areas as mentioned in several of my previous links. You’ll be amazed (or your money back) at how much real information you can learn from reading books and newspapers than you can from tv and (chuckle) movies.

Funny you mention propaganda in a thread about Michael Moore while basing your views on American policy based on his movie :stuck_out_tongue: All views are challenged here with facts. This isn’t another one of those web forums were ideas can have a field day without getting challenged. I think you may want to stick around in Random for that.

23

You heard the fox news reporter, yelling like his life was in danger, that he was biased.

This was one of the most powerful parts of the movie - Look at how conservative and pro-war this woman was, until her son died not knowing what he was fighting for, and then look at how angry she became not knowing why he died, knowing that he died without reason. This war destroyed that womans life, and that war will never bring anything positive into her life. Can you get more realistic then that?

24

Ahh Kirupa, you take my jokes too seriously.

I ask you this, did Bush recieve a statement saying that Bin Laden planned to attack within the United States? I believe he did. I seem to remember hearing Condoleeza Rice discussing it. And anyway, this is going out on a tangent. I merely challenged your statement becuase I felt it was rather bold, and you did not back up in the original post. As you said, this is a forum where things are challanged. I challanged you. I’ve heard many people say that there was a report given to George W. Bush, you said he didn’t know about anything, well quite frankly, neither of us know’s what Bush knew.

Your raging ad hominems won’t stop me either. You said things will be challanged… Well so far the only thing you’re challanging is a minor detail over whether or not you made a claim that you can back up, you have failed to rebutt any of the other plentiful things that I have said.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go watch some movies, as clearly that’s where I get all of my information. Obviously your grand assertion of this makes it a fact.

When you come back with objections to arguments that I have made directly relating to the movie, then I will be quite happy to answer back, and give this forum some of my liberal propoganda.

25

I am with Morse on that. That part of the movie was a lot better than the one where he tries to make a larger than life deal about the plane being flown out of Boston. One part of the movie that I am surprised Moore added was the pipeline bit. The pipeline was in planning since 1996/1997 under the Clinton Adminstration.

[size=1]EDIT: I found a link for that also: [/size][size=1]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/05/clarify.tm/[/size]

Lep - read what you wrote. You mentioned that I have nothing to back up my “grand assertions.” I proved you wrong because I actually mention two credible sources for my views. You conveniently sidestepped that. I try to make sure that everything I say has some reasoning behind it. You have not provided any credible source besides the movie for your views. I base my responses only on what I happen to read. Credible journalists and inside-men/women are, imo, far better than a movie director known for his omission of facts and skewing of ideas.

Even Clinton knew that Bin Laden will attack the US, and he did with planned bombings of the USS Cole and various embassy bombings. Bush asking Rice if Bin Laden would attack has no relation with 9/11. Bin Laden had an infinite number of ways of attacking the US. That does not prove that Bush knew about 9/11. Bin Laden had various tricks up his sleeve. We don’t know how many Bin Laden threats the US did prevent before and after 9/11.

The gov’t is a bureacracy, and all bureaucracies have chains of command. If the intelligence officials in the lower echelons of the FBI and CIA are not able to move their threats towards the top, the chances that anybody higher up such as the CIA or FBI directors know about the threat is minimal.

:slight_smile:

26

Kirupa, that CNN report is interesting, but notice they don’t site ANY sources. News corporations these days… They feel like they’re their own source. While Moore’s movie was biased, so is CNN. Refer to an earlier post quoting CNN that F911 shouldn’t have even been allowed to be shown.

27

Kirupa… I think we have had a huge misunderstanding. I came into this thread to discuss a MOVIE, I didn’t come in here to trade facts from other sources, and quite frankly none of my statements need that. All I’ve done is defend the movie by pointing out that it raises valid points and that no matter how many splices there are, it does not take away from what I think are the major issues raised by the movie. I have made countless statements about certain parts of the movie, and you have not responded to any of these.

And I never said that Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen, and that he knew Bin Laden would fly planes into the WTC. You’ve blown what I said way out of proportion. I asked how you could possibly claim that Bush didn’t know something. You gave your opinion, and your links… I accepted that, but there is no question that Bush recieved warnings about some threats… and you said that the gov recieves too many to respond to. I pointed out that they respond to lots now, and send out general warnings to the public, which they did not do before. WE have debated one point, when I have made many that actually relate to the movie.

28

Credible journalists and inside-men/women are, imo, far better than a movie director known for his omission of facts and skewing of ideas.

I know far more journalists than movie directors, let me tell you that their ideas are as skewed as the chief journalist (??) wants them to be. No one derogates the rules, except from the few famous ones. But those also have skewed views…and they also omit facts. They’re not that much different from anyone else.

Now… quite frankly, if Bush KNEW about 9/11, that’d be an act of treason right here. Seriously, I know he likes money and daddy more than California (or in my skewed analysis anyhow… :D) but allowing 3000 people to die so that he can eventually attack Irak and avenge his father? Come on people…

He didn’t know about 9/11. However, I’m pretty sure he knew an attack was imminent. Do you have any idea how long it takes to plan an attack of that magnitude? There are rumors, even in the secret govt. agencies. Now, they knew Al Qaeda was a threat. Wouldn’t they have sent SPIES in Afganistan to check that out? Cause, come on… with a defense budget as high as what you have (and I’m talking about pre-9/11 budget), there’s no way you cannot be kept informed on global terrorist threats.

Now. I don’t think that the fact that bush knew about an imminent attack or not is really the point. However, the fact that he used it to cut down other civil liberties kinda startles me, just as much as he used 9/11 to attack an innocent country (don’t make any mistake on that… he attacked a country with CLEAR evidence there was no link between 9/11 and Irak. He knew about THAT). Now, of course it’s not the Prez who gets blamed. "oh my, Irak had nothing to do with it all? wow, let’s blame it on the CIA, I can’t take the heat, I’m the head of the free world. I can’t be seen as a greedy person who wanted to attack Irak because insert reason here, I’d be the laughing stock at the G8…Oh, and I might be thrown out of Office at that, too, for waging war for a fallacious reason… No american in its right mind would want THAT, rep. or dem., it’d be a real blow at the entire nation.

Pomme_

29

CNN is one of the more liberal news networks (Ted Turner anyone?), but they know when a movie is full of bull**** (F9/11). EVERY review I’ve read (besides the whackos) have said it’s a good movie, but to take it with a grain of salt.

Leone, Bush has of course seen warnings Pre-911. BUT they probobly were NOT different from the 400 or so a day massive terrorist threats they get.

30

CNN is one of the more liberal news networks (Ted Turner anyone?),

While many news sources are bious liberal and conservative, CNN is leaning slightly leftish, but thats only now, pre-war they where slightly leaning right, I find CNN to be not to bad. You want slanted left? three words: New York Times.

EVERY review I’ve read (besides the whackos) have said it’s a good movie, but to take it with a grain of salt.

Thats true, good movie, but thats true, grain and salt.

Leone, Bush has of course seen warnings Pre-911. BUT they probobly were NOT different from the 400 or so a day massive terrorist threats they get.

Maybe, but you are speculating… if thats true there should be proof.

31

I hear ya. I swore a week ago that if the NYT put one more Abu Ghraib story on the front page with no new information, I would unsubscribe. The next day - another Abu Ghraib story on the front page with no new information. The credibility of their reporting seems to have gone downhill with issues with Jayson Blair and that other reporter who fabricated reports about Iraq. I don’t plan on renewing my subscription with them either :stuck_out_tongue:

The reason why I think Bush did not know about 9/11 is because all of those who are responsible for reporting to him did not have any idea about it either - or at least they claimed so in various interviews and 9/11 Commission Hearings. After 9/11, I think Newsweek, had a cover article about agents who were working on the 9/11 case but couldn’t have their threats taken seriously by the higher ups in the FBI.

Even now, there is no credible evidence that shows that Bush knew about 9/11 prior to it actually happening.

32

But slanted as they are the NYT is still very credible so if i find an article in it, I know its written well. Yeah the Prison scandal has been there manyatimes! haaha…

Even now, there is no credible evidence that shows that Bush knew about 9/11 prior to it actually happening
Well, you should see the case they make in the movie, I think its not entirely correct, but its intresting.

33

Buck Fush.
That is all

34

wow well said, have any sources on that one :stuck_out_tongue:
I don’t think that belongs in the ordered forum…

35

i saw it about a week ago. great movie. its kinda like the opposite of fox news in movie form. if that makes any sense. its funny keeps your attention and makes you really think. living in the middle of no where theres a lot of republicans around and they refuse to even step into the movie to give it a chance. surprise surprise. but maybe theres a few not like that here though i have yet to meet them. i felt that the movie portrayed the effect of video games on people has. yes video games bet you didnt think about that. for example many of the soliders almost enjoyed killing and looked forward to it, they made a mockery out of the forces, and played music while in combat that well i’m sure you can find on some sort of shooting video game. and yes i do realize the military likes this fact, they train them to enchance this fact. but really what about the people that arent soliders and enjoy killing for fun…

36

I think that is a really good point. I seriously don’t want people like that representing my country in war. I don’t care what people say about war being dirty, and having to have people to do the job, someone who has an IQ of 80 and a limited understanding of right and wrong should not be in something as important as war where important life and death decisions are made… they should not be allowed to hold a weapon. Ah well…

For all that has been said in this thread (and this is directed mainly at Kirupa), I hope nothing was taken personally.

Me being Canadian I came up with a rhyme about this film… I’m no rapper, but yeah, i thought you guys might find it entertaining so here is:
People sayin farenheit 9/11 is lies… the hell it is/ 100% truths, though i’ll tell u this/ i’m still wonderin how to convert it to celsius :pleased:

37

I just saw it yesterday and I think it was really good. The critique he gives is 100% correct, and he throws in some fun stuff as well like the Congresmen thing (although it’s not meant to be funny, a lot of people were laughing in the room :P)

38

Haha - it’s all good. We still cool :stuck_out_tongue:

39

After 2 weeks I finally got to see it… definately a MM flick… it has good points and it rides right over other points, but I guess he has to leave out a few issues in order to make his point of view work.
Disturbing… yes…
The first segment on Bushes election was outragiously true…
it makes me realize that there is no way this freak is getting back into Office.
and if anyone here votes for him… well… you get what you diserve… :rocker:
ciao
gp

40

I deserve to be a rocker? sweet! :votes bush: