Which facts in Farenheit 9/11 do you dispute?

This isn't about whether you like or dislike Michael Moore. This is about the claims that he has made in his movie. Thus far, in every direction that I have searched, no one has legitimately been able to dispute his claims. Remember, this isn't about the way he represents his claims, it is concerning the claims themselfes. I'm inquiring about the messages, not the messenger.

 

well, he had a good staff checking over all the facts in the film. thats why you dont see many discrepencies (if there are any)

 

I found "His conclusions are just crazy. That can't be the way things are. I'm not going to bother challenging the conclusions since he's a liberal with an agenda." in the opinion section the other day.

 

that's plain old conservative ignorance - basing opinions on the messenger instead of the actual message.

 

Give them some time... The conservatives will post a website, don't worry. Hey if they have to they will re-write history. Thus far, all anyone on the right is doing is saying it is so crazy it can't be true.

 

from time magazine:
Only one plain was permitted to leave before U.S. Airspace was opened on sept. 13, but most saudis flew out after that date. According to the 9-11 commisoin the FBI interviewd 30 Saudis before they left.
Nearly 1.18 billion moore claimed were invested by the Saudis in bush family and friend vetures were awarded to BDM, a U.S. defense contractor, for training the Saudi military. At the time, BDM was owned by the Caryle group, on whose advisory boad George H.W. bush served five years after the caryle group sold BDM.
The pipeline through afghanistan was concieved in the clinton years, and the taliban visited Houston in 199 when bush was the governor, but didn't visit with him.

 

I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen parts of Bowling for Columbine, his out-and-out piece of lying trash, and I have heard comparisons that he pulls the same shit in this movie.

So it's not necessarily "facts" that I believe he lies about (not in every case, anyway), it's the way he presents stuff in order to deceive the audience into seeing things a certain way, into drawing certain conclusions or inferences.

For example, I'm told that in the movie, he depicts Iraq before the war by showing children playing in playgrounds la la la la laaa and then the evil American war machine reduces Iraq to a smoldering ruin and the kids are dead, their parents are dead, etc. etc.

So now who believes that Iraq, under a psychotic dictator who ordered political tortures and executions, and whose sons, it can best be described, had a "torture fetish," was a paradise of playgrounds and happy children?

I'm also told (have to rely on reports in editorials, news stories and online discussions, since I will NOT pay MM to see this movie) that he cuts back and forth between people in misery and then American troops rejoicing, when the two scenes are not necessarily even related, i.e. did not occur with any correlation between them. This liar used such techniques in Bowling for Columbine: there are dozens of websites you can google for that show the many distortions and outright lies that fill that movie. Why should this one be any different?

-Jeffrey

 

I forget her name but the lady in the film who 'marches up to washington' was on a BBC breakfast show (aptly named Breakfast) , anyway.... she seemed to have had a 180 degree turn in her thinking. She said she was anti anti-war and hated those kinda of people , in certain ways so do i . The death of her son changed her mind . She said that before her son had died she did not engage in the pros and cons (i am horribly misquoting her here but the jist is the same) of what her president had decied (go to war) . Now she thinks like the vast majority of people that this war was wrong.

This seems somewhat of a shame because (IMHO) she is taking the tragic death of her son as the end result. And she said that she did not know the why or wherfores in all of this (Before) and now she feels we were lied too (after).

Now i do feel sorry for her but taking the 'facts' within MM film along with her own searching and still changing her mind seems odd. I did/do not follow all of this from day 1 and i still think its justifiable . I think it was wrong of MM to use this tragedy in such a way within his film . The lady is rightfuly allowed her own feeling about all this . Just the fact that she was on 'our' TV and also within the film , makes me think that human tragedy is being used as a case for 'this war is wrong'

A truly 'contoversial' film would be one on the other side of this...thats a film i would like to see.

MM takes reality and twists it into his own reality..

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

... i think something like that was done 35 odd years ago in a filM called Medium Cool.

All of this is politics and more politics ...... and the funny thing is there is probably less politics going on within politics (if that makes sense)

This film is bullshit because its not controversial , its not a searing examination of the bush administration. And it does not take us inside that war to tell the stories we haven't heard.

Its a one dimensional 'attack' on a global 'problem' . MM thinks it all stems from that nasty bush...ok so were are the other players within this 'game' from all over the world. Mr Bush maybe 'powerful' but he is not the only player.

Could you imagine the same sort of film being made about Mr Blair ... how crap would that film be . This is the same thought i have about this film.

Ok Ok what facts would i dispute within the film ALL OF THEM.

 

Then by all means do and with concrete substantiation to back up your counter argument. Instead, once again, all we see is died in the wool right wing dismissal of facts that are very much a matter of public record and for which you and those of your intellectually dishonest ilk have no recourse but as hominem attacks on Moore himself.

Truly the critics are entrenched in corporate media fed spin and simply lack the intellectual honesty to apply the same principles of scrutiny and accountability for which we heard 4 long years of rant over a petty sexual indiscretion. Utter hypocrits.

 

ummm...that's a pretty good reason to me

And what would that be??

It seems to be pretty controversial to me...

Go for it, we're listening.......*waits patiently*

 

And be here all bloody year..and go over decades of history . And at the end of it be back too square one. No thanks.

Then all war is wrong . Lets compare all of this to vietnam shall we .... a prety messy fucked up situation.

or WW2 another prety messy fucked up situation.

justification and unjustification being measured by human deaths ... is wrong (IMHO).

 

A film about the justification for this 'war'.

A free iraq , nothing to do with oil and more than the crux of WMD.

maybe go through some of this as well

http://www.fact-index.com/w/wo/worldwide_government_positions_on_war_on_iraq.html

Ok a film for the 'pros' (the film i want) and 'cons' (MM film) would ultimatly be playing the same information game...Hindsight is a wonderful thing ...... i just wish equal time was given too both sides ... its not.

 

'war what is it good for....' sometimes quite a lot actualy. I am afraid too say.

 

We've had that daily for more than a year now. It's called mainstream tv news.

It's obviously done just what it intended to do getting you to swallow lies and deceit regardless of how many times over such lies have been exposed.

Obviously you have a very warped sense of what "equal time to both sides" should consist of. If anything the warmongers have hijacked just about every debate with knee jerk and inflammatory soundbites and regurgitations of the same worn out mantras and character slurs to reinforce their denial of factual reality.

Unsurprising dodge once again from the "bury our heads in the sand and follow our leader without question" camp.

Face, it, you can't argue facts because they've already exposed the deceit you've swallowed like a good little sheeple. Bah bah bah...

 

Quote:
film about the justification for this 'war'.

I am not a war monger or anything , it just seems all i personaly see is the aftermath of terror. And like you say 'If anything the warmongers have hijacked just about every debate with knee jerk and inflammatory soundbites and regurgitations of the same worn out mantras and character slurs to reinforce their denial of factual reality'. i think its the other way (as well) anti war people have done a good job of that as well.

Have you poured over every single detail , i do not think most people have . I have not. Does my opinion that i don't agree with your point of view make you right and me wrong ???

.

I am only dodging the question (sort of) because if you say you know everything and that you are right. And if i say my point of view is right . Then we would be at logger heads for hours and hours..i have and you have had plenty of information to come to our own personal conclusions..nothing i or you say in a reasonable amount of time would change either of our point of view.

Ok show me were you get your information from...i will say that you are right and i am wrong . It comes down to prejudice and personal interpretation ...but i am willing for you too change my mind.

 

I have followed the televised news, talk shows, a range of international printed press and documentation from associates in international political analysis since 9/11 itself and I can confidently say those who have applied continued scrutiny and expose of the administration's principle source of pre-war "intelligence" (aka Chalabi and his grasping INC/INA cohorts eager to attain power themselves on the back of US military might) have been vindicated far too often for any credence to be further extended to either the administration, it's new Baghdad puppet regime or the vast array of neo-con talking heads continuing to twist the American public's perceptions of what is truly at the heart of this long awaited realisation of the PNAC agenda.

The hushed up background to the many inflated and otherwise politically inspired claims that prompted this war

If you do have an interest in getting a handle on the background, I challenge you to take time and study this background study.

 

Well said LHI. Nobody does tedious, run-on sentences of meaningless sludge quite like you.

Back to the topic, you want an example of mistakes in Farenheit 9/11? Try this:

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

 

LOL. how about a source that isnt a well known ultra conservative partisan rag?

National Review, now THERE's an agenda-free publication!

 

when i saw that your a preponant of the whole PNAC agenda , i did make a huge 'sigh' of 'not that again'...i will read it with intrest though.Thankyou.


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

This intrests me more because , i did say question it ALL . This looks like it does that very well..both could be deemed conspiritorial , but thats life i suppose.

oh

Mr Bush is not my leader , Mr Blair is . You can call that into question with the whole 'poodle' debate but i have heard it all before..

I think you mentioned i swallow the 'main-stream' media

well
http://www.itn.co.uk/
http://www.bbcmonitoringonline.com/
http://www.afp.com/english/home/

Are all main-stream , unfortunatly most of the information in the media is filtered from these sources (i think). In this county anyway.

I can't remember any of them being 'pro-war' ... i would have hoped that because they all have the inteligence and a vast amount of employees they would have come too some kind of conclusion...right or wrong...

The BBC is anti-war because of there dogged attempts during the Hutton report to prove the goverment wrong and then when they were the main guilty party afterwards , they still claimed it being a whitwash.

The others i mention i think are prety much 'news gatherers' and nothing more..i think they just say 'make up your own mind'. I still think they should have come to some kind of conclusion by now... they have a better chance than any one individual.

Thats why i said

You may know if your media take into account any other points or connections that do not stem from America in some way.

 

Mainstream media routinely derives its news from the wires which are catalogued and disseminated to all news outlets by the NYT daily. The unformity of reporting stories underscores the dirth of real investigative journalism or fact checking by those who pass the story along to the public.

In the end it makes it all the easier for paradigms of thought to become the prevailing ethos through which all further related stories will pass into the public's perception and thus easier to decontextualise, sanitise and otherwise spin the public away from any real scrutiny of that which is reported.

This is precisely the ethos which made it possible for Chalabi and his cohorts to saturate the press with the administration's chosen claims and incrementally inflate them until Iraq became a significant threat in the public mind akin to that of Hitler's Germany (also a comparative widely used by the pro-war crowd which ignores fundamental differences between both societies and peoples).