Fahrenheit 9/11-What's your opinion?

[Phi for All]

I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. I felt it had a lot of good and bad points. I can't believe half the US supposedly thinks Bush deserves to be president of the United States.

 

On the other hand, I think Michael Moore needlessly edited some pieces together regarding Bush tying Al Qaida to Saddam Hussein. Bush had always tried to justify the invasion of Iraq with terrorism and thus with the 9/11 attack. I felt it weakened Moore's credibility to clip together random footage of Bush saying "Al Qaida" and "Iraq" or "Saddam".

 

Overall, I think the movie had it's intended effect on me. Anyone else see it?

[blike]

I saw it, but I don't have time to respond thoroughly right now. Later this evening

[Tesseract]

I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. I felt it had a lot of good and bad points. I can't believe half the US supposedly thinks Bush deserves to be president of the United States.

 

On the other hand' date=' I think Michael Moore needlessly edited some pieces together regarding Bush tying Al Qaida to Saddam Hussein. Bush had always tried to justify the invasion of Iraq with terrorism and thus with the 9/11 attack. I felt it weakened Moore's credibility to clip together random footage of Bush saying "Al Qaida" and "Iraq" or "Saddam".

 

Overall, I think the movie had it's intended effect on me. Anyone else see it?[/quote']

 

You should see bowling for columbine, if you havent already

[Phi for All]

You should see bowling for columbine, if you havent already

I own it. I agree with Moore that we are being manipulated by fear. He brings that across in his new film as well. Have you seen it?

[Sayonara]

The biggest fear that is fed into Americans day in and day out is the fear of not succeeding, which is quite comical for the well-adjusted individual to watch (in a tragicomedy kind of way).

[jordan]

I haven't seen it, but what really bothered me is the interview I saw of him. A lot of it was about "what do expect from the movie" "Are you suprised at how controversial it is" etc. But when the interview got to the part about the factual basis of the movie, he began to frustrate me.

 

First let me say Moore admitted that the "facts" of his peice are all checked and double checked as true.

 

The infamous golf clip: Moore said the story behind is was that Bush, after dealing with the war for a few months went to play a round of golf during which the media approached him for a statement. Bush gave a quick statement after which the cameras were to be turned off. At this point, he says "now watch this drive". One camera remained on thus capturing the clip. Moor then criticizes Bush for not thinking about the war at all times and not taking anything serious. But then again you wouldn't hear the interview in which he explained the context of the quote unless you were watching TV at 2 am EST.

 

The ties to Al-quida: In the movie Moore accuses Bush of getting illegal payments from Al-quida. What he said in the interview is that Bush never actualy recieved the few billion that was reported. Rather, Bush or some of his family were average investors in some of the companies that recieved the money. I see a little difference there.

 

I'll remind you this is all said by Moore, thus he understands exactly how far he distorted things to pass his agenda. I don't like it.

[Phi for All]

The biggest fear that is fed into Americans day in and day out is the fear of not succeeding,

I would define it further as the fear of being perceived as less than acceptable.

[Phi for All]

In the movie Moore accuses Bush of getting illegal payments from Al-quida. What he said in the interview is that Bush never actualy recieved the few billion that was reported. Rather, Bush or some of his family were average investors in some of the companies that recieved the money. I see a little difference there.

I believe the reference was to Bush getting payments from the Saudis, who are Al Qaida's biggest funders, through the Carlisle Group, where Bush Sr. is on the board of directors, hardly an average investor.

[Tesseract]

I own it. I agree with Moore that we are being manipulated by fear. He brings that across in his new film as well. Have you seen it?

 

no

[Aardvark]

I've read Michael Moores books, not yet seen his movies so i can't directly comment on them.

 

However, i have found with his books that whilst he is entertaining and raises some very valid points he has a tendency to over reach the evidence. He very selectively uses opinion polls to try and create a view of US culture and beliefs but does so in an obviously selective misleading manner. And some of his assertitions regarding the reasons to do with the overthrow of the Taliban ( gas pipelines apparently) are just totally disconnected from reality.

 

A fascinating man, who has helped raise important issues, esp concerning the links between big business and government, but over excitable and not completely reliable.

[Phi for All]

A fascinating man, who has helped raise important issues, esp concerning the links between big business and government, but over excitable and not completely reliable.

I agree, and I would also add that he is, perhaps inadvertantly, the perfect way to balance the scales. For the Bush administration, who has been over excitable and not completely reliable about the danger posed by Iraq to justify their invasion policies, I think Moore is a valid compensation. Most people object to Moore's spin on statistics and his over-simplification of the facts, but the same could be said of everybody who has taken a side on these issues. Statistics are manipulable by anyone with an opinion.

 

Take away all the class distinction issues Moore raises and we're still left with the fact that the US has been manipulated through fear into a state of paranoia that leaves us dangerously vulnerable to manipulation by our own leaders, something forseen by the architects of our own Constitution. When those leaders are heavily tied to the success of the military industrial complex, corruption is almost inevitable. I don't understand the intricacies of politics, but I do understand marketing, and when sales are down in the weapons business, it sure helps to have the Bush family in a position to help start a war.

[blike]

There were a couple of things in the movie that really irked me. The first was insulting the administration for not paying enough attention to terrorism and to ignoring threats that we were receiving. Then, later in the film, he says that the administration is trying to scare the american public by announcing the terrorist threats. Seems like he just wants something to complain about.

 

Another thing that bothered me is how he stated that the US gave huge amounts of money to the taliban. That's actually incorrect. We gave huge amounts of money to UN and humanitarian agencies to help afghanistan. Moore made it sound like we had a money order with the Taliban's name on it.

 

Also, Moore tried to make it look like Bush snuck out the bin Ladens during the air ban, when in-fact, it was on the 13th the were allowed to leave. The 13th is when they started allowing some flights. The Bin Ladens were not the only ones flying. Then he goes on to interview Richard Clarke and say that they should have detained the saudis and questioned them. In fact, they did. Ironically, it was Richard Clarke himself that approved the flights, not bush. But you didn't see that in the movie.

 

There were a lot of mistruths and distortions. Moore ignores the chronology of things, which nullifies a lot of information. For example, Bush (sr) didn't join the carlyle group until after their deal with BDM.

 

The secret service guards any embassy which requests it. The 9/11 comission determined that the threat of airplanes being hijacked didn't even reach ashcroft's desk (which moore claimed ashcroft deliberately ignored).

 

I could go on and on

[atinymonkey]

Another thing that bothered me is how he stated that the US gave huge amounts of money to the taliban. That's actually incorrect. We gave huge amounts of money to UN and humanitarian agencies to help afghanistan. Moore made it sound like we had a money order with the Taliban's name on it.

 

 

I agree with the other comments, but I'm sure we not only directly funded the Taliban in the Afghan/Russian war, but we also trained and armed them. We didn't use the UN as an intermediary, not for that period of time.

[Aardvark]

I agree with the other comments, but I'm sure we not only directly funded the Taliban in the Afghan/Russian war, but we also trained and armed them. We didn't use the UN as an intermediary, not for that period of time.

 

This point has already been dealt with, the US may have done some dumb things but it never funded the Taliban.

[atinymonkey]

Dealt with? I humbly beg to differ on that. I know/trained with/have met/prodded with sticks the solders that trained them. I don’t see that as a point to dispute. We may argue that we did not provide them with currency funds but we did fund them with arms, supplies, intelligence, trade routes etc.

 

One news report from the period:-

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/afghanistan/afghan_12-27-85.html

 

A representative from the Taliban, when Bin Laden was not allied to them:-

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/afghanistan/hashimi.html

 

Interestingly, the above report details the Talibans attempts to have Bin Laden put on trial for terrorism. Co-operation was not avaliable from the West.

[blike]

but I'm sure we not only directly funded the Taliban in the Afghan/Russian war, but we also trained and armed them. We didn't use the UN as an intermediary, not for that period of time.

I won't argue that point, but Moore insinuated that we funded the taliban in 2000 with $113 million dollars.

[atinymonkey]

Yes, that sounds a dubious statement. If we had funded them, then the Taliban would not have been crying for Aid. The UN never officially recognised the Taliban, and neither did the US. I’d have to see the film, but a common trick Moore uses (as you said) is to mention a year, a place and then a fact inferring it all happened sequentially when it actually didn’t.

 

 

:edit:

 

Perhaps I aught to have seen the film before commenting at all. Mind you, it's not out here yet, ho hum

[Skye]

What about the money to stop growing so many damned poppies?

 

Here's an article, which is interesting anyway, in hindsight:

 

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

[JaKiri]

One nice consequence of the War on Terror is that the world's heroin production has skyrocketed.

[Phi for All]

What about the money to stop growing so many damned poppies?

 

Here's an article' date=' which is interesting anyway, in hindsight:

 

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm[/quote']

Excerpt from the above, dated less than four months before 9/11:

 

"The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession."

 

Did we follow up to make sure the Taliban spent the $43M on the right thing?

[Aardvark]

Dealt with? I humbly beg to differ on that. I know/trained with/have met/prodded with sticks the solders that trained them. I don’t see that as a point to dispute. We may argue that we did not provide them with currency funds but we did fund them with arms' date=' supplies, intelligence, trade routes etc.

[/quote']

 

I seriously doubt that statement. The US sent aid, weapons, money to Mujiahadeen forces during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban only came into existence in the 1990's, some years after the end of that war, and the end of US funding, involvement.

 

A lot of people seem to have the idea that the Mujihadeen and the Taliban are interchangable, funding for one means funding for the other. That is not correct. The Taliban are a group formed from the religious colleges of Southern Afghanistan and Pakistan which went on to fight many Mujihadeen warlords. Just because the US aided Mujihadeen groups, it is false to then claim that the Taiban were aided.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

as I have just finished reading "House of Bush, House of Saud" by Craig Unger, "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke and "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast.

 

It was basically Bush bash-lite. I have seen other documentaries that have made much stronger accusations against the Bush administration.

 

Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Ottawa University has put out a video called 9/11: Coverup or Complicity?

More info: http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/coverup.html

 

Barrie Zwicker of VisionTV in Canada ran a series questioning the events of 9/11 back in Jan. 2002.

More info: http://www.visiontv.ca/Archive/Archive.html

[Aardvark]

Could you say what those accusations are? The links you have posted just advertise videos for sale, not explain anything.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

http://www.google.com/custom?cof=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3A2304db817d3105b9%3B&domains=globalresearch.ca&q=complicity&sa=Google+Search&sitesearch=globalresearch.ca

 

It gets pretty dark and disturbing though.

[Tesseract]

September 11 attacks were not an act of "individual terrorism" organised by a separate Al Qaeda cell, but rather they were part of coordinated military-intelligence operation, emanating from Pakistan's ISI.

 

thats a lot of drivel