Which facts in Farenheit 9/11 do you dispute?

I'm a he not a she and yes i read it. I just reserve my criticisms until ive seen the film. I notice however that PB carefully dodged my question as to whether he's seen the film or is merely (as usual) looking for anyone elses thoughts that he can regurgitate to reinforce his preferred state of denial.

 

I only thought female because of your user name..i tried to be ambiguos but it was a bit impersonal .... so i made a choice

 

So there is NOTHING that could change your point of view

 

On what specifically are you asking whether Id change my view?

The evidence of repeated and ongoing abuse of power, deceit and outright breach of the rule of law in favour of might makes right is far too substantial and too often exposed over the past 2 years for any intellectually honest individual to give it a stamp of approval.

 

Do you think its just The americans that are behind this , its all there fault or do you factor in any other nation....i hardly ever see such zeal put together about any other president/prime minister .. its just odd.

I read about the skull and bones and gathered some information together

http://www.loony-show.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2045&highlight=skull+bones

http://www.ctrl.org/MilleganStews/Whitewash.html

Now you may agree or disagree...but in my view all of these thing are just wild conspiracys ... underneath it all is the fact that something or some action by somebody is not liked , so a vast intricate web is created . Somewhat eloquently put together each feeding on the other ... It can not all be true..

It just so americentric

No other nation is involved (much) apart from America..

Like JFK and the Moon landings there is a simple and dull explanation too it all....don't ask me too tell you what it is. But just the fact that i believe this makes me take a lot of this conspiracy with a pinch of salt.

5-10 years time....everything will be viewed in a diffrent light i am sure.

The only site you gave mentioned PNAC wich is a convoluted bunch of a little truth and a lot of rubbish.

 

Again Matt, be specific. Behind what? the present doctrine of preemptive unilateralist attack as enshrined in the PNAC agenda? YES, it's rather transparently obvious that it is Washington (not any other capitol) which fully intended to launch its perpetual war agenda regardless of international law, treaties, conventions, or the will of the UN SC.

Hardly odd that an American citizen should hold HIS own country to account for abuse of power and utter disregard for international law. Other nations have their own citizenry to hold their own leaders to account. a supposedly hallowed figure of this administration (one they love to claim as the source of their policy imperatives) once said... "remove the beam from thine own eye before trying to remove the speck from thy neighbour's eye". Words we'd do well to heed given our history of destructive hypocrisy around the globe.

I don't know to whom you are addressing much of what you've written above as I made no mention of Skull and Bones, JFK, the moon landing et al.

However, there are conspiracies that revolve around singularities shrouded only in conjecture and there are conspiracies of policy which can be quite significantly demonstrated by researching the history of policy on a given matter or in relation to a specific aim or intent such as the current PNAC agenda.

As for what you might read, I did not provide any direct links to material on PNAC itself. I suggest you do a google search, there are a multitude of sources including the PNAC site itself. It merely requires one to do more than a few casual readings to see how systemic this thinking is and how significantly it underpins what we have seen prepetrated by the current admin in these three brief years.

In the end you may or may not come to appreciate that "conspiracy theory" is a clarion call to many who would somehow rather delude themselves that power politics conducted behind closed doors is not by its very nature "conspiratorial" or that political agendas somehow exist in isolation from demonstrably linked events which span significant periods of time. The PNAC is a very real and indeed conspiratorial effort which has bidden its time on the shelf through the Clinton years awaiting just the very resurgence to power of its key architects as we have today.

Since you decided to raise the issue however, here are some starting points for you. I suggest you carry on and follow up on further links contained therein and perhaps even a google search or two. Research requires time, time which the reactionaries would rather not devote since its tedious and not as smug self satisfying as listening to Bill O'Reilly rant.

A PNAC Primer

The cornerstone of the PNAC agenda

Further articles and information related to the PNAC

 

That's great. So great in fact, that maybe you should start your own thread on the topic. Meanwhile, the topic of this thread is:

Which facts in Farenheit 9/11 do you dispute?

And for non-cowards who are willing to look, the answer is here.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

 

Once again coward, have you seen the film or do you merely grasp onto any right wing pundit who will trash it for you?

(and whatever happened to your vitriolic condemnation for "cut and paste"?)

Can't even present an substantive argument of your own, hypocrit.

 

Is that like saying if you havent been in the military or in the middle east you have to grasp left wing hippy sites. Hell, you cant have the right to slam the attack unless you have actually been there.

Join the military or Shut up.

/end sarcasim

Didnt see the movie, might read the book. I did go to Moores website and looked at his quotes from the movie.

So what, in your opinion, was he trying to claim about the Saudi's leaving America. As in I'm trying to dispute part of the movie (like the thread says)

 

haha!

^thats just all i have to say for that one

 

Actually no, it is not "like saying" that as I deal quite regularly with transatlantic defence specialists, the MIC firms which drive our policies, NATO delegations and foreign policy analysts, in the course of my professional activities. The policies which lie behind our invasion are very much what I have been dealing with for the past 14 years. So friend, I am fairly well qualified to comment on the duplicities inherent in our ME policy and this latest manifestation of those duplicities.

 

Six pages and no real disputes. Predictable and humorous. That link is equally entertaining. Nitpicking. Of course Moore is showing a biased viewpoint, THAT'S THE POINT! He's trying to balance what is force fed to lazy Americans who get their "news" from the mainstream media. There were exagerations, definitely, but if you can't distill the information given in the film and draw out the main and important points then you're worthless. Most curious and freethinking minds already were aware of the points made in the documentary, but it's pretty clear that all you conservatives have just now learned of them through the film.

Yeah, Moore is really distorting things by showing a woman who is grieving the loss of her son to the war when not all mothers who have lost children to the war blame Bush. That is the silliest "dispute" I've ever read. Of course, I haven't read all of them listed on your link, I'm sure there are more ridiculous ones.

 

The only sensible thing you have written.

ooookay....that's weird. Very weird.

 

Is not every nation using the same information more or less.. The end result is the same . You can not dismiss the fact that other nations came to the same conclusion as Bush.
Would Bush have gone on his own too iraq if every other nation involved had come to the same conclusion as you?.

If you denounce Bush for his actions you must denounce other nations as well. Not ask me too.

Can you see the reasons a lot of nations came to the choice they came too?.
Does this matter to you at all?.

If you can see why one nation may have decieded yes and another no ... then why have the opinion you have ?...

That all sounds very clever and plausable but
i mentioned the other conspiracies because
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_Experiments_LRRR.html
http://www.clavius.org/occam.html
http://www.clavius.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3226908.stm

I think there are going to be banal conclusions (eventualy), like spreading democracy , freeing the iraqi people .Making that area secure. Oh and maybe making a bit of cash...and why not. The iraqis will make money as well.

Your a political analyst ... so you may somwhat get off on this kind of thing (no offence)...asking a regular joe about the intricacies of who they should or should not vote for should not come down to this convoluted kind of stuff.

I have read about PNAC before and i don't realy understand it all wich is probably a good thing , because it just spins people off into a multitude of diffrent directions.

Whoever is in office or whoever got in office in 2000 , more than likely we would be in the same place right now..but you can dispute that if you wish.

Thats why i said

 

I think it makes a bit more sense if you have it all rather than a snippet, if you don't agree fine.

I am not quite agreeing with your point of view metro , i do not think???

------------------------------------------------------------------------

what i meant was when people say look at all the people dying 'this war is wrong' this is not fair. I know the same thing was used with vietnam ...wich if i was around at the time (and now with hindsight) i would agree , it was wrong. Not because of the amount of people that died though.
People are comparing this situation too that and comeing to the same conclusion... wich is ridiculous.

 

Right, so you've never been in the military, but your credentials as an international bureaucrat are impeccable. I trust this will be the last time we ever have to listen to you speak about military issues then.

The reason I'm not going to answer whether or not I've seen the film is because you are under the delusion that you can set the terms of debate here. I don't need your permission or approval to post on this thread. If you don't like it that's your problem but try to keep the whining to a minimum.

Now six pages into the thread its become clear that people who say "show me one thing Moore did wrong" immediately cover there eyes when anyone tries to do so. The truth is just too painful.

MOORE LIES, APOLOGISTS APOLOGISE

#1. The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’

LIE. Fox News first called the state for Gore. CBS was the first to call it for Bush. "Nit picking" in the sense that it is completely false.

#2. “In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.”

LIE. This includes weekends. By this measure, most americans are "on vacation" 29% of every week.

#3. “Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens.”

LIE. Michael Moore himself is on record as having wanted to fly. How dishonest can you get? Michael Moore also deliberately creates the misimpression that the Bin Ladens were allowed to fly out of the country when all other flights were grounded. Truth molester.

#4. In 1990 when M. Bush was a director of Harken Energy he received this memo from company lawyers warning directors not to sell stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week later he sold $848,000 worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken announced losses of more than $23 million dollars.

TRUTH MOLESTER. Those same lawyers approved the sale. Worth mentioning? Not if you are Moore.

#5. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group “gained” from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor.

TRUTH MOLESTER. One of the only major defence systems cancelled by Bush was the Crusader artillery system, made by United Defense. Michael Moore knows it was misleading to leave this out, which is why he later pointed out that the cancellation was "after the IPO". But Carlyle still owned 47% after the IPO.

#6.Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush.

LIE. What does "has given" mean? If 90% of that money was in contracts completed before any Bush was employed by the firm (and then only as an advisory board member for the Asian affiliate), is this really so exciting? Doesn't that mean that business with Carlyle dropped sharply after Bush joined the company?

#7 the Saudi elite own 7% of America

LIE. Not by any measure. The premises on which this calculation is made are so faulty as to be embarassing.

#8. Moore: "I didn’t realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies."

LIE. Moore would have had to go as far as the secret service webpage to find this out, which clearly states that "In addition, Uniformed Division officers provide protection for... foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the Washington, DC area. Uniformed Division officers also travel in support of the foreign heads of state/government missions."

#9. According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant.

LIE. Karzai never worked for Unocal. Is this nitpicking? No, this is a huge lie. And Moore never points out that Unocal dropped the pipeline project in 1998 and has since repeatedly stated that is has no interest in reviving it. In fact nobody is building the pipeline.

#10. Defending the USA PATRIOT Act, Representative Porter Goss says that he has an “800 number” for people to call to report problems with the Act. Fahrenheit shoots back with a caption "He's lying."

LIE. Who's lying? Moore. Goss did have a toll free number for complaints about the act.

#11. Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” The audience laughs derisively.

LIE. What did Moore edit out? The next sentence she spoke: "It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York." Oh but editing isn't lying, is it?

#12. Moore shows how people join the army to escape poverty. Moore says poverty stricken Flint is his hometown, and interviewees say that unemployment is 17% and it would be higher except that you are no longer counted "when your unemployment runs out".

LIE. Moore grew up in the wealthy Flint suburb of Davison, unemployment is 10% and unemployment figures do include people who's unemployment benefits have run out.

==========================

So lots of lying there.

Is this worse than a typical day for Limbaugh or Coulter? Or more misleading that the Bush administration's attempts to tie Iraq to 9/11 without actually saying so, resulting in most of the country believing that there was some connection? I would say no, but for the fanatics, Moore cannot be questioned.

 

Your bravado never stops PB, that much is clear. All counter argument that you cannot refute is whining. - intellectually dishonest supposition #1

Pointing out your constant evasions as "setting the terms of the debate" - intellectually dishonest supposition #2

Failing to acknowledge if you've even seen the movie whilst flinging the typical hyperbole of others (with clear mainstream corporate bias against anything that would disturb their cash cow in the White House) as if it were your own informed assessment - intellectually dishonest suppostion #3

Calling those who believe in upholding our constitutionally mandated obligation to hold our leaders accountable for abuse of office "fanatics" - intellectually dishonest supposition #4

You sir are a hypocrit of the highest order and i've little doubt that you lack the strength of character to indeed view the evidence without your partisan filters fully primed and determine for yourself what exact claims Moore makes in the film. If anything, I suspect (and shall duly verify when i have SEEN it for myself) Moore doesn't go far enough into the record of lies and mismanagement for which this administration have repeatedly been exposed.

Go back and ogle your page 3 girl.

 

good post, pb. straightforward and to the point. lies of omission are still lies.

 

Davison is hardly wealthy, and I don't think you need to start in on Flint until you have actually been there. Micheal Moore's depictions of Flint are very accurate.

 

Well said, Metro. The film is a fairly well crafted, and certainly entertaining, polemic. Nobody would go to see this film expecting an impartial and balanced weighing of all the issues involved. Of course there are omissions and sophistries, and occasionally rather crass generalisations and simplifications of difficult issues. Informed viewers know and expect this. They know what Moore does; he's not an impartial, dispassionate, journalistic observer.

The "debunking" article posted here totally misses this; it misunderstands the nature of the film, the nature of Moore's comic-polemic technique, and seems to assume that everyone who goes to see this film is an idiot. It seems more concerned with pointing out the techniques of polemic and nitpicking small omissions and details than challenging the substantive weight of evidence presented. Informed and intelligent viewers will already be fully aware of the techniques of polemic and Moore's comedic / satirical style. I was aware of most of the "objections" raised in that article before seeing the film, anyone who has read widely on the subject will already be aware of most if not all of the information presented as well as much that is not. I have seen absolutely nothing which detracts from the overwhelming weight of sourced evidence from which the film's factual claims are drawn. Nothing which doesn't amount either to trivial nitpicking, or a confusion of the notion of disproving a fact with pointing out the mechanisms of polemic technique. Moore and his lawyers have been very careful about the film's factual basis - he was in clear danger of libelling some very rich people if this had not been the case. Obviously, he presents his case in order to make politically partisan implications and conclusions. What did they expect?!

I'd recommend going to see it; it's a very good film. Bring your brain with you, if you have one.