Fahrenheit 9/11-What's your opinion?

[Aardvark]

Thank you for correcting the link i posted.

 

If the disagreement is over a misunderstanding of the word Taliban then fair enough. However i think it's reasonable to use the working definition of Taliban as the group which Muhhamed Omar established and which went on to control most of Afghanistan. When people talk of the conflict between USA and Taliban it's fairly clear that is the group being referred to.

 

On the whole Bloodhoods explanation probably makes as much sense as any. Lets smart bomb those aliens!

[atinymonkey]

The Taliban did not exist in the 70's or the 80's. It's not a matter of revisionism or my not being aware of sometime, it's a fact of facts. I'm a quite tired of people making statements of opinion as through they were fact.

Weird, sounds familiar somehow.

 

The Taliban was an organistation formed from the religious schools (madrassas) of Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan in the early 1990's.

You are not showing much to back up this statement, and nothing to refute the link I provided.

 

http://www.unomaha.edu/afghanistan_atlas/taliban[/url'], just one link, there are many, all detailing how the Taliban came into existence in the 1990's.

The link quite clearly states ‘emerged’ and not ‘created’. If you actually read it, you would see the origins in the talibs who fought the British occupation of Afghanistan (1879 > 1919) and are quite clearly not a new group. The site is going over the emergence of the Taliban as a Government, not it’s origins as a group of fighters.

 

This movement did just 'pop out of nowhere'. Thats what popular movements do.

No, they don’t. Especially in a country that gives support based on the constituent members of a groups past achievements against the Russians.

 

Instead of accusing others of being 'revisionist' you should check your facts.

You mean like posting links that support my view, as I have done?

 

http://www.netbros.com/TheTaliban

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0856490.html

 

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/05/cochran/

 

 

From reading the link http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html[/url'], I think the source debate here is between the two uses of the word taliban. …………..organised by Muhhamad Omar into the military/political group called the Taliban.

 

Thanks for the information. It certainly seems as though they were one of the constituent groups funded by the West, given the supporting evidence.

 

I think the long and short of this discussion is, despite when/where the Taliban originated; members of the group were funded and trained by the west during the Afganistan war with Russia.

[Aardvark]

Here are a few links if you want them. All indicate that the Taliban as a constituent group emerged (ie came into existence) from the madrassas in the early 1990's.

 

 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/tal1-o24.shtml

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2001/20010618.asp

http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/rubin.cfm

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:h9lhBd88SyMJ:www.asiasource.org/americacrisis/inter_video.cfm++%22origins+of+the+taliban%22&hl=en

 

None of your links actually state that the Taliban existed during the 1980's. At the most, vague reference is made to the roots of the Taliban being in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That is definitely not the same as the group having existed then.

 

 

It certainly seems as though they were one of the constituent groups funded by the West' date=' given the supporting evidence.

.[/quote']

 

No evidence at all of Western funding for the Taliban.

 

As such, given the supporting evidence it is impossible for the Taliban to have been one of the constituent groups which received US funding.

[atinymonkey]

Here are a few links if you want them. All indicate that the Taliban as a constituent group emerged (ie came into existence) from the madrassas in the early 1990's.

 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/tal1-o24.shtml

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2001/20010618.asp

http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/rubin.cfm

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:h9lhBd88SyMJ:www.asiasource.org/americacrisis/inter_video.cfm++%22origins+of+the+taliban%22&hl=en

 

None of your links actually state that the Taliban existed during the 1980's. At the most' date=' vague reference is made to the roots of the Taliban being in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That is definitely not the same as the group having existed then.[/quote']

 

Given that one of your links:-

http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/rubin.cfm

 

Actually backs up explicity what I'm saying, I have to assume your not reading the links your posting. All your other links deal with the political emergence of the Taliban. As there are over 500 groups from that period, emergence is not a new existence.

 

BTW, you cannot redefine what is meant by the phrase 'group emerged'. If the author meant 'formed' they would have used that word in place of the phrase. It really is that simple, the use of language is implicit to avoid this sort of mistaken assumption of connotation. Give the authors credit enough that they used the phrase they meant to use.

 

No evidence at all of Western funding for the Taliban.

 

As such' date=' given the supporting evidence it is impossible for the Taliban to have been one of the constituent groups which received US funding.[/quote']

 

At the very best, if you spinned the evidence evey which way and dismissed vast chunks, you still cannot say there is no supporting evidence. All you are saying is that you don't accept the evidence. That makes your view an opinon, as all views of historical events are.

[BeckyK]

I haven't seen it yet but I intend to. I like his work

[Aardvark]

Given that one of your links:-

http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/rubin.cfm

 

Actually backs up explicity what I'm saying' date=' I have to assume your not reading the links your posting. All your other links deal with the [i']political[/i] emergence of the Taliban. As there are over 500 groups from that period, emergence is not a new existence.

 

Actually that link doesnt explictly back up what you are saying, i read it quite carefully, if you stopped making so many assumptions you might make fewer mistakes. That link states, ''When I say the US did not support the Taliban, what I have in mind is that I do not believe that the United States ever gave any material support, financial support or military training to the Taliban.'' He goes on to state that Pakistan (ISI) gave it support in the 1990's. (Not 1980's).

 

If you find any evidence at all of the Taliban existing as an organisation in the 1980's or of it ever recieving Western aid i look forward to reading it carefully. Still waiting for that supporting evidence you mention.

 

Reading that link you so blithely assume supports your argument you might have noticed the section talking about the Taliban being a generational challenge to the Mujihandeen and how it came into existence because of disillusionment at the behaviour of the victorous warlords. Maybe you should be more careful about reading the links.

[BeckyK]

I think the movie makes you think, head on, about these issues. I am grateful for his work, to show us the other side of everything.

[pulkit]

Yes the documentary was very nice.

 

Finally American press that does not glorify war, and accepts that the US did kill thousands of innocent ppl in Iraq and Afghanistan. I loved it coz I alwayz thot of Mr.George W.Bush as a blood thirsty war-monger(this part is definately hereditary) with little or no brains.

 

And just as a foot note, while the carnage in Iraq was on, there was still free press left in this world (mostly not in USA) which showed the real fate of the Iraqi civilians.

[Duke]

I thought it was a great film. I heard a lot of people moan about how one sided it was but then again Bush & co have allready given their version of the events which makes it about even I say.

[Phi for All]

Remember when the GOP harrassed Clinton for 8 years and millions in taxpayer dollars? And all they could get him for was lying about an affair with an intern, in a witchhunt led by Newt Gingrich, who was having an affair with an even younger intern at the time.

 

Oh, yeah, Moore's work is definitely a little payback for that!

[newbie]

Yes the documentary was very nice.

 

Finally American press that does not glorify war' date=' and accepts that the US did kill thousands of innocent ppl in Iraq and Afghanistan. I loved it coz I alwayz thot of Mr.George W.Bush as a blood thirsty war-monger(this part is definately hereditary) with little or no brains.

 

And just as a foot note, while the carnage in Iraq was on, there was still free press left in this world (mostly not in USA) which showed the real fate of the Iraqi civilians.[/quote']

 

Greetings, it's been awhile. I have skimmed through the thread in the past few days and just seemed like I didn't leave, I came across this post and I felt compelled to reply.

 

I don't see how the American press glorifies war!? It would be foolish for anyone to claim in all wars fought that innocent people have not been killed. What irked me in your post is your erroneous claim that America has killed thousands of innocent people. I am not disputing that innocents have not been lost, but I draw the line when you say thousands.

 

How many innocents have Iraq and Afghanistan governments killed? Add to that those they have killed using more innocents as shields when big bad America comes after them.

[Sayonara]

Blast from the Past alert!

 

Lo Newbie.

[budullewraagh]

How many innocents have Iraq and Afghanistan governments killed? Add to that those they have killed using more innocents as shields when big bad America comes after them.

under saddam hussein, 5,000 kurds were killed in 1995. that is the only mass killing he has ever committed. sure, he killed more people, but no more than 30,000 people i would estimate. as for the afghan government, i cannot think of a mass killing they have participated in. they probably killed a few people, but not many. meanwhile, the united states and britain are responsible for the 500,000 children alone (millions if you count adults) who were killed by economic sanctions and coalition bombings between the two gulf wars (source: the united nations). also, in the second gulf war, after the initial bombings of baghdad, 35,000 people were found dead. this count was done only a few days after and so countless buried under the rubble were not counted. also, let us not forget that 4 million vietnamese were killed during vietnam. the united states lost 58,000 soldiers to satisfy mccarthy's blood lust. the tradeoff is 69 vietnamese per american killed. the united states wasn't that poorly outnumbered. i would say that the united states killed millions of innocents in vietnam and millions in iraq.

 

What irked me in your post is your erroneous claim that America has killed thousands of innocent people. I am not disputing that innocents have not been lost, but I draw the line when you say thousands.

 

you know what? i say millions. you cannot justify murder by calling yourself less of a murderer than others.

[newbie]

under saddam hussein' date=' 5,000 kurds were killed in 1995. that is the only mass killing he has ever committed. sure, he killed more people, but no more than 30,000 people i would estimate. as for the afghan government, i cannot think of a mass killing they have participated in. they probably killed a few people, but not many.

[/quote']

 

Hmm, ok lets start from the first mistake Saddam Hussein, he ruled from around 1980-2003, he was characterized by brutal suppression of internal opposition and led Iraq into two devastating wars which I will only mention one; the Iraq-Iran war which killed hundreds of thousands. Moving along now to Afghanistan we have the Taliban regime, which over a course of a civil war led to hundreds of thousands of deaths not including the children in orphanages that were abandoned upon the Taliban coming to power.

 

 

meanwhile' date=' the united states and britain are responsible for the 500,000 children alone (millions if you count adults) who were killed by economic sanctions and coalition bombings between the two gulf wars (source: the united nations). also, in the second gulf war, after the initial bombings of baghdad, 35,000 people were found dead. this count was done only a few days after and so countless buried under the rubble were not counted.

[/quote']

 

I will not dispute that sanctions was a flawed policy but at the time the United Nations as a whole, that means all nations in it agreed and thought that the sanctions posed a innovative, benign and non-violent deterrent. We come to realize that that was not always the case and took the appropriate measures. As far as your vague source is concerned please show me a link of the millions of dead from the sanctions, please make sure it does not include the innocents that perished because of Saddam exploiting the sanctions and keeping the money for himself and using it for his own needs and not of his people.

 

 

also' date=' let us not forget that 4 million vietnamese were killed during vietnam. the united states lost 58,000 soldiers to satisfy mccarthy's blood lust. the tradeoff is 69 vietnamese per american killed. the united states wasn't that poorly outnumbered. i would say that the united states killed millions of innocents in vietnam and millions in iraq.

[/quote']

 

Whoa, my post wasn’t even too you but I decided to reply to you anyways and you go off topic and bring in Vietnam? Tell you what, if you want to continue that please start another thread.

[budullewraagh]

and led Iraq into two devastating wars

hmm, sounds like another country we all know and love...

the Iraq-Iran war which killed hundreds of thousands.

sad thing is that the united states supported iraq with chemical weapons during that time.

civil war

hmm, sounds like anotehr country we all know and love...

but at the time

yeah but that doens't negate the atrocities that were committed.

 

sources:

http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/555734/posts

http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/mckinney1008.html

 

my post wasn’t even too

your post was to everybody. i am somebody.

 

and you go off topic

it's not off-topic but apparently you don't realize the connections i made.

[newbie]

hmm' date=' sounds like another country we all know and love...

sad thing is that the united states supported iraq with chemical weapons during that time...

hmm, sounds like another country we all know and love...

[/quote']

 

You are not forming nor disputing any arguments here, is it good that you have an opinion but don’t try to push it on others without at least having a shred proof.

 

yeah but that doens't negate the atrocities that were committed.

 

You take a couple words of my post and give a sentence back. Really' date=' try harder next time.

 

 

http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

I only needed to read the first ‘source’. Clearly it defends my position.

 

your post was to everybody. i am somebody.

 

Actually it was too pulkit' date=' but I don’t mind talking to you.

 

it's not off-topic but apparently you don't realize the connections i made.

 

Maybe you could try and tell me why?

[budullewraagh]

You are not forming nor disputing any arguments here

come now, you certainly understand what i was saying.

You take a couple words of my post and give a sentence back. Really, try harder next time.

no, i took a thought and replied to it.

I only needed to read the first ‘source’. Clearly it defends my position.

ah, but not effectively. i'll take this quote from the article:

"Meanwhile, on the Iraqi government’s own Web site, the number of under-5 deaths from all causes for the month of September was listed as 2,932."

nearing 3000 children under age 5. you just tell me that there weren't 1500 children above or equal to age 5 killed. also, let us remember that you stated that you highly doubted casualties were in the thousands. hmm, there's 2,932 kids younger than 5 who were killed by sanctions in one month alone.

 

Actually it was too pulkit, but I don’t mind talking to you.

apparently we have different views of this system. you see, when i have things to say to specific people, i use private messaging.

Maybe you could try and tell me why?

sure will. you see, the casualties in vietnam put the casualties in iraq into perspective. you said that you doubted thousands of innocent iraqis were killed. i proved that millions were killed but also wanted to post other figures that made my figures seem more accurate. you see, if one performs an experiment and obtains results, those results are not considered as accurate as the average from a series of experiments. the same thing works here; if it is true that millions of innocents were killed in vietnam, it is easier to realize that millions of innocents were killed in iraq.

[newbie]

come now' date=' you certainly understand what i was saying.

 

no, i took a thought and replied to it.

 

ah, but not effectively. i'll take this quote from the article:

"Meanwhile, on the Iraqi government’s own Web site, the number of under-5 deaths from all causes for the month of September was listed as 2,932."

nearing 3000 children [b']under age 5[/b]. you just tell me that there weren't 1500 children above or equal to age 5 killed. also, let us remember that you stated that you highly doubted casualties were in the thousands. hmm, there's 2,932 kids younger than 5 who were killed by sanctions in one month alone.

 

 

apparently we have different views of this system. you see, when i have things to say to specific people, i use private messaging.

 

sure will. you see, the casualties in vietnam put the casualties in iraq into perspective. you said that you doubted thousands of innocent iraqis were killed. i proved that millions were killed but also wanted to post other figures that made my figures seem more accurate. you see, if one performs an experiment and obtains results, those results are not considered as accurate as the average from a series of experiments. the same thing works here; if it is true that millions of innocents were killed in vietnam, it is easier to realize that millions of innocents were killed in iraq.

No I don’t understand what you are saying; you took nothing but a couple words of mine and replied to those, you didn’t reply to my post at all. The webpage you provided supports my position you need to read it again. I did state I highly doubted casualties in the thousands, first you need to put my statement in context, I was replying to someone other than you. If it was to you then I would be pretty upset that you are not reading.

 

Pulkit was referring to the wars, not sanctions; but I played along with your game nonetheless. Let’s clear this up shall we? In your webpage you provided I read:

 

“The sanctions, first imposed in 1990 after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, are administered by the U.N., not the U.S.”

 

Seems to support my position, lets take another look. If we look right after the quote you put in your last post we have this:

 

“Arriving at a reliable raw number of dead people is hard enough; assigning responsibility for the ongoing tragedy borders on the purely speculative. Competing factors include sanctions, drought, hospital policy, breast-feeding education, Saddam Hussein’s government, depressed oil prices, the Iraqi economy’s almost total dependence on oil exports and food imports, destruction from the Iran-Iraq and Persian Gulf wars, differences in conditions between the autonomous north and the Saddam-controlled south, and a dozen other variables difficult to measure without direct independent access to the country.”

 

And lastly we have this one:

 

“The idea that sanctions in Iraq have killed half a million children (or 1 million, or 1.5 million, depending on the hysteria of the source) took root in 1995 and 1996, on the basis of two transparently flawed studies, one inexplicable doubling of the studies’ statistics, and a non-denial on 60 Minutes.”

 

You can’t use any of that to support your arguments; you claim that America did all those atrocities when that clearly is not the case.

[budullewraagh]

apparently you didn't read my post. you repeated a great deal of your last post in this post. try again.

[pulkit]

As I seem to have started a raging arguement here, I must say something too.

 

I certainly don't think that claiming the loss of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan is an exaggeration. It can never be when someone decides to go about carpet bombing a country, you probably will wipe out entire villages without trace. I don't even trust all of the intelligence that the Americans worked on during both operations (If it were all that trust worthy they'd have got Bin Laden or atleast killed him for sure with one of their bunker busters - his fate we may acctualy never know). I am sure there could have been mistakes. And then the worst thing was attacking countries with nominal resistance, so a mistake = tens of lives.

 

When I said American press seemed to glorify war, I said it because I really thought so. All you ever got to see on an American news channel was some reporter following the American force, reporting in how they had succeded in capturing yet another city and were ruthelessly marching on. The fact is that the suffering of the people was hardly ever brought forward. One allied soldier loses his life and it is in honour - stuff headlines are made of. Ten Iraqis lay down their lives and nobody cares....... I thought this was a war fought under the pretext of establishing freedom and democracy. Isn't freedom related to equality in any way ?

 

If at the very face of it you start to glorify your army and look down upon the other side as some militia who represent all the evil in the world - you are glorifying war, as now you are now fighting "to help the entire world and make it safer". The moment I used to see George Bush delivering a speech to his "successful" troops I would shut my TV off, its too much to take in, thats just plainly supporting his ideology. How come you never saw some orthodox Iraqi on television saying out loud that America is killing them and they don't won't Saddam removed -aren't they entitled to an opinion .

 

The fact remains the Iraqi side was hardly ever covered by the press. And as for the world being a safer place now, I don't think so. I for one feel more unsafe, maybe tomorrow Mr.Bush will think of some pre-text to attack my country and then there'll be nothing I can do.

[newbie]

apparently you didn't read my post. you repeated a great deal of your last post in this post. try again.

I read your posts, but you didn’t extend the same courtesy. I guess you don't want to continue so this ends the discussion. I feel confident in the outcome so you will hear nothing else from me on it.

 

Post #70

Well At least you say that as an opinion and not stating it as fact, you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. I believe America does not glorify war, in all that I saw regarding the war they always reported what happened, when it happened and what was expected next.

 

I also believe there is no exaggeration of the innocents lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, my point was that America was not the cause though.

[Phi for All]

Newbie, have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? If so, what was your opinion of it?

[newbie]

Newbie, have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? If so, what was your opinion of it?

I will give a short answer, I thought it was a funny movie.

[pulkit]

I also believe there is no exaggeration of the innocents lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, my point was that America was not the cause though

 

If thats what you think then there is little I can do to change your opinion......but I must still query; if you think America is not the cause then what/who is ?

 

Did you acctualy believe all that was presented in Farenheit 911 were facts or do you wish to challenge them as well ?

[budullewraagh]

let it be known that people were hired to check the facts to prevent right wing crooks from calling the film fictional. they found nothing wrong.