Did you see it: Fahrenheit 9/11 ?

[Makalakumu]

I didn't see the MOVIE but I can say what the Academy of Motion pictures said. "It is ineligible to be nominated in the documentary catagory because it had actors in it" They also went on to say that over half of the facts were proven to be false. This is just what I read however I will say for every article there is for the film there are two against the film and vice versa.

V/R
Rick

Can you post the source for this article? I would like to read where it states that over half of Michael Moore's facts are incorrect.

 

[Makalakumu]

But do you expect Moore to try to do anything other than spin things so that you walk away with the impression that there is a cause and effect relationship?

The only way to judge this is to see the movie and read reviews that are for and against. I posted a review given by a prominant liberal, Christopher Hitchens, that was not very glowing for Moore. I suggest that people take a look at sources like that.

Spin is spin and you can see it when you see it. At times, F911 is incredulous. At others, the facts speak for themselves. And in reality, Mr. Moore really doesn't have to say much about some stuff. The administration has really messed up bad in some areas.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is a list of reviews done by mainstream sources. Check out what professionals who have seen the movie have to say about the movie.

http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?mp=v&m=561592

:asian:

upnorthkyosa

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Phil

I'm sure he doesn't, either, which is the problem. To each his own; I gave up teaching pigs to sing a long time ago.

With each added little dig at Dr. Robertson, I'm going to have to ask you to show me the invective he has spouted, as he seems too well-mannered to do so.

I don't see you trying to teach anyone, be they pigs (nice) or no. Talk facts, have a discussion, but comments about singing pigs aren't going to win any points in the conversation.

I *will* continue to research the points raised by Moore, but not for your sake but my own. Honestly, Don, given that I've provided researched point after researched point, and you have responded with evasion, hyperbole, and theory, I think it's pretty clear that the burden of proof in this argument falls to *you*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Roley
But do you expect Moore to try to do anything other than spin things so that you walk away with the impression that there is a cause and effect relationship?

Actually, Moore doesn't spin things this way at all. He never even implies that the Bushes and Saudis conspired to cause 9/11. But you wouldn't know that, because you're letting other people form your opinions for you.

In the future, I would certainly appreciate it if you'd research your points and back them with citations and evidence. I'm tired of doing all the heavy lifting in this conversation.

PeachMonkey - I like your metaphor. Very apropos.

 

[michaeledward]

I didn't see the MOVIE but I can say what the Academy of Motion pictures said. "It is ineligible to be nominated in the documentary catagory because it had actors in it" They also went on to say that over half of the facts were proven to be false. This is just what I read however I will say for every article there is for the film there are two against the film and vice versa.

V/R
Rick

This statement begs two questions ...

Which article did you read that said that greater than 50% of the facts were proven to be false? I would like to read it. Can you kindly post a link.

If there are two articles against the film for every article in favor of the film, how can that mathematics possibly work in your description of 'vice versa'?

Mike

 

[Don Roley]

leaving out a few little details, such as this country's support and training of what became the Taliban during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan?

This just caught my eye.

You really do not bother to check the facts, do you?

The Taliban was started in Pakistan AFTER the Soviet's moved out of Afghanistan. The groups that had been fighting them had started to turn on each other and the US (Under Clinton) turned their backs on them as they fed on each other. The Taliban moved in and eventually took over. Some of the locals that had been fighting the soviets with American help went over to them, but the majority went to what we called the Northern Alliance.

I suppose it is too much to ask someone who is so keen on charecter assasination and short on facts that they accused a jewish author of having an anti-semite bias in her novels to actually check his facts, but considering just how much you spend trying to convince other people that they should read books that really do not say what you say they do, it would kind of help your position to actually know what you are talking about from time to time.

Go ahead, flame away or change the subject after being caught in this little mess. Here is a link to what you tried to say, http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=235824#post235824 and I think people should see what a person who accuses a Jewish author of beating up on peole named Scwartz can be considered a resonable source of information when he says that a book or source says something. I stated listening to people who have more experience with you than I and pretty much know what to expect.

 

[PeachMonkey]

You really do not bother to check the facts, do you?

Haven't we already been over this? At the risk of putting words in Robert's mouth, he has twice referred to "training what *became* the Taliban" (emphasis my own). We trained the mujahedeen. Many (most?) of them joined the Taliban. Robert never said we formed the Taliban itself.

I suppose it is too much to ask someone who is so keen on charecter assasination and short on facts that they accused a jewish...

Don, you sadden me. When this discussion started, I thought we were going to discuss Fahrenheit 9/11 and the facts within it (or lack thereof).

At every point, when presented with arguments, facts, and references, you have responded with evasion, ad hominem attacks, and changes of topic. And, as far as I know, you *still* haven't seen the film.

Until you can actually address the points we bring up instead of relying on these logical fallacies, why don't you save your attacks and prevarication and let the adults discuss the film?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Don:

First off, I don't need to look up what I wrote about Ayn Rand. I recall it quite well, and I stand behind it: her novels have at least two very ugly streaks in them, one of misogyny and one of racial superiority. "The Fountainhead," features one of the nastiest rape scenes in literature, made much nastier by the fact that Rand makes it very clear that her character enjoys being beaten, assaulted and left unconscious on a bathroom floor; that same novel, along with, "Atlas Shrugged," says again and again and again that a few Superior Men (who just happen to be described in classic terms of Aryan supremacy) are the only ones who count, and that these few Superior Men are beset by the smaller, inferior hordes who have names like Schwartz. Go read the books; show me where I'm wrong.

Of course it is entirely possible for a, "Jewish author," to beat up on people named Schwartz or whatever (I must admit I don't recall the exact name), just as it is possible for women to write in ways that are misogynist--or, to be fairer, deeply into S&M. In Rand's case--and why exactly did she change her name?--I'd trace these elements back into the strands of Tsar-worship and anti-semitism/racism that, from the little I've read about it, are still very much a part of Russian culture.

As for those people, "who have more experience than you or I," well, I'm afraid you need to speak for yourself in this regard. I'm not exactly the Old Man of the Sea, but neither did I just fall off the sugar-beet truck last night. Some of the evidence that I might actually know what I'm talking about lies in the fact that I STILL haven't seen your evidence that Moore's film--or for that matter, my own arguments--are way off the mark. Lots of other stuff and guff, yes (the previous poster offers a perfectly sound list), but not that.

And yet, if Moore's so far off the beam, if I'm so befogged by ideology, it should be the easiest thing in the world.

To me, you've got a bit of an intellectual and ethical problem here. Basically, a lot of what you're saying simply cannot be supported either logically or factually. Yet your basic political orientation demands that you make certain claims, view reality a certain way---which (sorry in advance) means that you have to skip over some facts, or keep subject-changing to avoid discussions that would expose problems, or launch personal attacks, or draw unwwarranted conclusions, or insult other people's belief in their country. These things fill in the gaps in what you're claiming.

We all do this sort of thing, of course. It's the way ideology manifests itself in discussion....as when people who haven't seen Moore's film condemn it, then turn right around and write, "considering just how much you spend trying to convince other people that they should read books that really do not say what you say they do, it would kind of help your position to actually know what you are talking about from time to time."

If you don't want to see the film, cool. I don't plan to either: why? But could you maybe give chapter and verse on any ONE of the books I've suggested that really does not say what I said it says?

Specifics, please. Further character attack will be responded to with this little trick I learned from, "Neuromancer."

 

[qizmoduis]

Haven't we already been over this? At the risk of putting words in Robert's mouth, he has twice referred to "training what *became* the Taliban" (emphasis my own). We trained the mujahedeen. Many (most?) of them joined the Taliban. Robert never said we formed the Taliban itself.


Don, you sadden me. When this discussion started, I thought we were going to discuss Fahrenheit 9/11 and the facts within it (or lack thereof).

At every point, when presented with arguments, facts, and references, you have responded with evasion, ad hominem attacks, and changes of topic. And, as far as I know, you *still* haven't seen the film.

Until you can actually address the points we bring up instead of relying on these logical fallacies, why don't you save your attacks and prevarication and let the adults discuss the film?

I haven't had anything to say in this thread, because I haven't seen the movie yet. I don't really know if I will, because I go to movies to enjoy myself, not to be enraged over an administration that I already know is the most duplicitous and dangerous ever in our nation's history.

But Don's comment about the Taliban is correct. The taliban didn't originate with the Afghani mujahideen, but rather with Afghan refugees who studied in religious schools over the border in Pakistan. The schools were created by the Pakistan government and the students were encouraged and supported by that government as a counter to the mujahideen groups potentially explosive nationalism.

We can probably be held remotely accountable because our sudden and complete abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out helped create the climate of vicious, fueding, fuedal warlords that became the enemy that the Taliban fought and dominated. That the Taliban was not a lesser evil wasn't discovered by the average Afghan until it was too late.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, but it would appear that our involvement with the Taliban was direct and extended.

Please see:

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mossadeq2.html

And also Mary Anne Weaver's articles in "Atlantic Monthly," May 1998 and "Blowback," Vol. 277, No. 5, 24-36.

Both sources, I am afraid, clearly establish US/Saudi/Pakistani support for the Taliban--including, it appears, some help in setting up those religious schools across the border--as part of opposition to the Soviet occupation.

The Weaver articles are more than a little disturbing, since they discuss at some length the support of two guys named Sheikh Omar and Osama Bin Laden, whom some of you may have heard of. And the article, which clearly identifies both of them as a pair of homicidal nutjobs, come from 1998. Hm.

Before anybody starts yakkin' about this being typical liberalist hogwash or Commie propaganda (and I didn't even mention the World Wide Socialist Web aarticle, which is also pretty good), you might want to take a peek at the sources. They a) dump on Bill Clinton's government quite a lot, b) rely heavily on the investigations of Dana Rohrbacher, who (trust me) is not even remotely a liberal.

Sorry, sorry, but this is one more example of our country's playing precisely the sorts of games that Mark Twain indicted in "To the People Sitting in darkness," more than a frickin' century ago, and suffering for it.

And we still won't learn.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Robert,

Thank you for your thoughtful notes and references. I learn something in nearly every one of your posts.

 

[qizmoduis]

Sorry, but it would appear that our involvement with the Taliban was direct and extended.

Please see:

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mossadeq2.html

And also Mary Anne Weaver's articles in "Atlantic Monthly," May 1998 and "Blowback," Vol. 277, No. 5, 24-36.

Both sources, I am afraid, clearly establish US/Saudi/Pakistani support for the Taliban--including, it appears, some help in setting up those religious schools across the border--as part of opposition to the Soviet occupation.

The Weaver articles are more than a little disturbing, since they discuss at some length the support of two guys named Sheikh Omar and Osama Bin Laden, whom some of you may have heard of. And the article, which clearly identifies both of them as a pair of homicidal nutjobs, come from 1998. Hm.

Before anybody starts yakkin' about this being typical liberalist hogwash or Commie propaganda (and I didn't even mention the World Wide Socialist Web aarticle, which is also pretty good), you might want to take a peek at the sources. They a) dump on Bill Clinton's government quite a lot, b) rely heavily on the investigations of Dana Rohrbacher, who (trust me) is not even remotely a liberal.

Sorry, sorry, but this is one more example of our country's playing precisely the sorts of games that Mark Twain indicted in "To the People Sitting in darkness," more than a frickin' century ago, and suffering for it.

And we still won't learn.

This is the source I used:
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue1/jv6n1a1.html

Other than that, I have nothing to add, really. I'm not the expert in this, that's for sure.

 

[Don Roley]

Sorry, but it would appear that our involvement with the Taliban was direct and extended.

Please see:

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mossadeq2.html

And also Mary Anne Weaver's articles in "Atlantic Monthly," May 1998 and "Blowback," Vol. 277, No. 5, 24-36.

Both sources, I am afraid, clearly establish US/Saudi/Pakistani support for the Taliban--including, it appears, some help in setting up those religious schools across the border--as part of opposition to the Soviet occupation.

Can't get the site to load, so it seems that I would have to take your word for it, and that is not good enough.

And, the Taliban did indeed start in Pakistan and entered Afghanistan NOT to fight the Soviets, but the coalition that replaced it. These are simple, easily known facts. America was not part of the scene when they were formed, Pakistan was. So, your "facts" are again a very twisted version of reality- like what you say about Ayn Rand, etc.

I did like the link that Gizmodius was kind onough to link. Especially this part.

One of the greatest criticisms of U.S. policy, especially after the rise of the Taliban, has been that the CIA directly supported Arab volunteers who came to Afghanistan to wage jihad against the Soviets, but eventually used those American arms to engage in terrorist war against the West. However, the so-called "Afghan Arabs" only emerged as a major force in the 1990s. During the resistance against the Soviet occupation, Arab volunteers played at best a cursory role.

According to a former intelligence official active in Afghanistan during the late 1980s, the Arab volunteers seldom took part in fighting and often raised the ire of local Afghans who felt the volunteers merely got in the way. In an unpublished essay, a military officer writing under the name Barney Krispin, who worked for the CIA during its support of the Afghan mujahidinís fight against the Soviet Army, summoned up the relationship between Afghan and non-Afghan fighters at that time:


The relationship between the Afghans and the Internationalists was like a varsity team to the† scrubs. The Afghans fought their own war and outsiders of any stripe were kept on the sidelines. The bin Ladinís of this Jihad could build and guard roads, dig ditches, and prepare fixed positions; however, this was an Afghan Jihad, fought by real Afghans, and eventually won by real Afghans. Bin Ladin sat out the ëbig one.


Milton Bearden, former CIA station chief in Pakistan, was equally blunt, writing:


Despite what has often been written, the CIA never recruited, trained, or otherwise used the Arab volunteers who arrived in Pakistan. The idea that the Afghans somehow needed fighters from outside their culture was deeply flawed and ignored basic historical and cultural facts.


Bearden continued to explain though that while the Afghan Arabs were "generally viewed as nuisances by mujahidin commanders, some of whom viewed them as only slightly less bothersome than the Soviets," the work of Arab fundraisers was appreciated.(40)

Speaking of which, how many people who are urging others to open their mind and see the "other side of the story" have bothered to do the same? I have noticed only one person who seems even half way interested in checking the story as Moore presents it. We all admit that he is biased, and that he is probably not going to give any evidence that may contridict the version he wants to give, but his fans consider what he says as the whole story and don't bother to look deeper into the matter.

Case in point, Moore says that Bush is responsible for letting the Saudis and Bin Laden family loose on 9-13. Clarke testified that it was his decision and not Bush's. All the Moore fans seem satisfied with the explination by Moore that Clarke then sent the reccomendations to the White house for final approval, etc.

No one seems to consider the fact that 48 hours after the towers came down the White House was a bit busy. They had the final say in the matter, and if there had been something to set off alarms they would have overridden Clarke's reccomendation, but without anything of the sort they probably just rubber stamped his reccomendation and let the diplomats and such leave the country.

So yes, Moore lies when he tries to present Bush as the decision maker in letting the Saudis go. Clarke made the dicision, the White House (very busy at the time remember) let his decision stand, end of story. Not one of the guys who have tried to get people to see the movie to open the mind seems willing to go out and get the entire, complete story in such detail that they can tell what is being left out by Moore.

So, I think that the people who like Moore have got the responsibility to go out and start doing things like read the entire 9-11 commision report when they can, find out enough of international politics to know what the history of th eBath party is and the head of it in various countries, know the problems of what kind of troops are needed in certain situations and how many of each type there are, etc. You guys are relying on Moore to tell one side of the story, but do not seem willing to get the full story and every side of it.

 

[michaeledward]

Hey Don,

It seems pretty cold where you are.... Seems you are all alone on this one.

Anyhow, I have just one question for you.

If you think you have figured out who Richard Clarke is now (as opposed to Wesley Clark), can you tell me where, and for whom Richard Clarke was working on September 13, 2001?

(OK technically, that is probably 2 questions).

Do you know where his office was?
Do you know who his boss was?

Thanks. Mike

 

[Don Roley]

Does the answers change the fact that he took the responsibility of making the decisions and that he is no fan of the president so can not be accused of trying to cover for him? And that the president and his staff probably just rubber stamped what he reccomended instead of instigating it? Or are you going to try to engage in a conspiracy theory along the lines of trying to accuse a jewish aauthor of being an anti semite and then when caught in it try to paint her as a masocist?

 

[PeachMonkey]

Can't get the site to load, so it seems that I would have to take your word for it, and that is not good enough.

Don, Robert listed two other references as well.

So, your "facts" are again a very twisted version of reality

Don, did you read the other two references?

I have noticed only one person who seems even half way interested in checking the story as Moore presents it. We all admit that he is biased, and that he is probably not going to give any evidence that may contridict the version he wants to give, but his fans consider what he says as the whole story and don't bother to look deeper into the matter.

I'm guessing you're referring to me, and yep, I *am* biased. I also watch Fox News, and read the National Review, and even occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh.

The thing is, Don, you have not presented evidence to show that Michael Moore is such an inexcusable liar that no one should even begin to consider watching his film and seeing what he has to say. Case in point:

Moore says that Bush is responsible for letting the Saudis and Bin Laden family loose on 9-13.

Actually, no, he doesn't. Moore points out that the Saudis and bin Ladens were allowed to leave, and his focus is on the fact that *they were not questioned*. Again, having not seen the movie, you're making judgments about what Moore says, and whether or not it's a lie. You are singularly unqualified to make such a judgment, as you have *not seen the movie*.

Now, given that you have no idea what you're talking about re: the contents of the film, I'm not sure it's worth rebutting your other points about the Saudis, but here we go:

All the Moore fans seem satisfied with the explination by Moore that Clarke then sent the reccomendations to the White house for final approval, etc.

Actually, the "Moore fans" (especially me) are *speculating* that that *may be* the case.

but without anything of the sort they probably just rubber stamped his reccomendation and let the diplomats and such leave the country.

Again, you show an ignorance of the facts, which either seeing the film or doing some reading on your own would clarify. The "diplomats and such" to which you allude were 142 Saudis, 24 of which were members of the bin Laden family. Most were *not* diplomats. The group included students and businesspeople. Even if there was no conspiratorial element in allowing the Saudis to leave, it was *grossly neglegent* to allow relatives of the *prime suspect in the attacks* to leave the nation without questioning.

So yes, Moore lies when he tries to present Bush as the decision maker in letting the Saudis go.

Since Moore doesn't say that, no, he doesn't. Why don't you see the movie before deciding what it says?

Not one of the guys who have tried to get people to see the movie to open the mind seems willing to go out and get the entire, complete story in such detail that they can tell what is being left out by Moore.

This is quite an assumption, Don. Moreover, since you claim the film is fill of lies, it actually behooves *you* to back up your claims. Since you don't even know what the movie *says*, I'm not holding my breath.

So, I think that the people who like Moore have got the responsibility to go out and start doing things

Don, I have read the report. And the Waxman committee reports. I majored in classics, history, and politics, with a focus on military history. I am familiar with the history of the Baath party (I'm guessing the eBath party is some how related to "Wesley Clarke").

Why aren't opponents of the Moore film, and supporters of the Bush administration, under the same obligation? Why is it okay to accept the statements of the Bush administration with blind faith? Why is the burden of research in debate always on the opposition? You clearly

I understand that you may not want to see the film under any circumstances, but that pretty much robs you of any legitimacy in entering debate about its content. You continue to expect people who disagree with you to back up their arguments with detailed, factual information, and *also* to engage in painstaking research about Moore's film to see if there are any flaws, but you won't even begin to do the same yourself.

The word "hypocrite" comes to mind again, but this time, I'm not thinking of Michael Moore when I use it.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Or are you going to try to engage in a conspiracy theory along the lines of trying to accuse a jewish aauthor of being an anti semite and then when caught in it try to paint her as a masocist?

Don, why do you continue to engage in ad hominem arguments about Robert even when you're called on it? Robert discussed exactly what he meant, and you did not respond to his actual points, but instead *again* made a character attack.

Have you actually *read* Ayn Rand? "Atlas Shrugged"? "The Fountainhead"? If Robert's comments about Rand bother you so much, why don't you address them directly instead of attacking his character? Or are you not equipped to do so?

 

[Nightingale]

MOD NOTE-

Just a reminder... Attack the ISSUES, not the PERSON. If someone posts something you disagree with, counter with facts or other sources. Do not attack the poster. This is a good thread with a lot of good info being shared, and I don't want to have to lock it.

Thanks.

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR

 

[michaeledward]

Does the answers change the fact that he took the responsibility of making the decisions and that he is no fan of the president so can not be accused of trying to cover for him? And that the president and his staff probably just rubber stamped what he reccomended instead of instigating it? Or are you going to try to engage in a conspiracy theory along the lines of trying to accuse a jewish aauthor of being an anti semite and then when caught in it try to paint her as a masocist?

DO the answers change the fact that he took the responsibility ... .

I don't know. But, then, I am not certain that you are aware that there ARE answers to my questions. In normal discourse, when an interrogative is made, a statement of response is appropriate. So, I will ask again:

You said:

Clarke made the dicision, the White House (very busy at the time remember) let his decision stand, end of story.

I said:

can you tell me where, and for whom Richard Clarke was working on September 13, 2001?

You seem to be indicating that Richard Clarke is to George W. Bush as Kenneth Starr is to William Jefferson Clinton. Can you clarify that perception for me?

Thanks, Mike

 

[michaeledward]

I just cracked myself up with this one.

Case in point, Moore says that Bush is responsible for letting the Saudis and Bin Laden family loose on 9-13. Clarke testified that it was his decision and not Bush's.

Can you picture President Bush ... (or even Don Roley) ... testifying before an independent counsel"

"I guess it would depend on what the definition of "is responsible" is."
​

<chuckling>