Lol, okay, Colonel, here's a break
Actually, I didn't make myself clear: I meant that the silence from the major media that I've read so far, not you personally.
Cheers!
Pat
9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright
by catchthis 102 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
Sirius Dogma
Ok, I went and saw Fahrenheit 911 yesterday. I went to see it at the Century 20 close to my house and was surprised it was only in 1 theater, it ended up being the biggest theater they had fitting several hundred people. People were linned up with their tickets to get in, the line went on forever, people were waiting for an least on hour on line. The line went through the entire movie theater, only breaking around a vending station, then around some more, out the firedoors onto the roof and a good way around the building outside. After the movie, I left the theater to see the same line going out the firedoors again.
I tried to go with an open and critical mind. It was more than I was expecting. I went in expecting a political documentary and I laughed my ass off. The laughter was eruptive througout the theater and would rival any blockbuster comedy. The film was well made, witty and just great fun. The bonanza sequence was great, 'smoke em out!' The part about ashcroft being beat by a dead guy, then getting appointed by bush was done so well. The coalition of the willing bit was hysterical. The many candid bush moments make for great movie watching, it he wasn't leading the country and was actually trying to be funny, he could win an oscar for comedy.
At other points in the movie, it was utterly heart renching. The women in Iraq screaming and the mother from Michigan who lost her son in Iraq reduced most people to tears.
Other parts made me feel upset, disturbed or downright angry at the blanant, open, outright corruption and selling out of the american people and our country for nothing more than money buy bush, his family and his cohorts. The parts about the breast milk not being allowed on an airplane, the peace frensno group getting infiltrated by the police and the guy from gym getting investigated by the FBI for saying bush attacked Iraq for oil made me particularly angry. The patriot act is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever and has infuriated me for the past few years it has been in existense. In you are interested in learning more or how you can do more, please visit http://www.eff.org or http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/ specifically
On the other side of the coin, I did find one or two failings in the movie. Although the part about the coalition of the willing was very funny and most of the countries in it had no army whatsoever, there was a few that did have actual armies and did send troops, Britain and Australia and both were left off the list, making it seem like only random, small and uninfluential countries contributed. Granted, the troops sent were a fraction of the US troops involved, but it would have nice to have the list complete and factual. Here is some interesting numbers on that actually - http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/
This was a brilliant piece of film, tying so much that needed to be said in one concise work. Go see it if you want a great laugh, a good cry and a bit of sobering up.
SD
-
patio34
Hi Sirius,
Good review! You reminded me of the Dragnet sequences! Moore brilliantly incorporated so many funny old films into it. It was masterful, just as cinema. He said once, I believe, that he thanked the star of his film, Pres. Bush, lol.
It seems to me, imo, (redundancy, lol! or more specifically a pleonasm--how often can I use pleonasm?) that Moore didn't include the few major countries is that he was making a point: that most of them were small contributors. It was poetic license to use portions to emphasize what he wanted to say.
It was the same with the one congressman (Kennedy?) that was edited out as he said his nephew was going to Afghanistan. The point was that only one had a son or daughter in the services.
Cheers for Sunday!
Pat
-
Quotes
Well, Colonel, let's start with what we (perhaps) agree on: maybe this film should not be called a "documentary" since it clearly has an agenda (not a hidden agenda, the agenda is clearly there for all to see): to show the world the mistakes, incompetence, and ethical violations of the Bush administration. However, this sort of thing is *NOT* new: CBS's Sixty Minutes makes bad guys "look bad" every week. That is, unfortunately, the state of journalism today.
You certainly seem sincerely upset that MM made a movie that makes the Bushes look bad. As for believability, since (as I already stated) most (perhaps all?) of the points of F911 were already made by the internationally recognized CBC The Fifth Estate -- a credible news source -- I tend to believe that these points are factual. To me, this is old news.
So MM didn't go to Iraq. You seem to make a big deal over that. You even imply that the film dishonestly makes it appear that MM did go to Iraq, when you say his voice was added as a Voice Over. You fail to mention that most of the movie has the MM VO; the Iraq scenes are no different than all the other scenes with the MM VO. Watching the film there are a few scenes with MM present on camera, a few more where he can be heard off camera (during interviews), and a huge collection (most of the film) where the only connection to MM is his VO. I don't hear anyone saying "MM was not even present at the 9/11 Investigation (when Dr. Rice said the title of the August briefing was "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within USA") so we should ignore the movie as lies!!!", do we?
As for your qustion "do you know that for a fact" (re: number of Senators with children in Iraq). NO, I don't. But now you want me to defend the "facts" in the anti-MM NY Post article????? WTF??????? Now I have to proove YOUR position????? Your distraction aside, you have not addressed the basice point: that only ONE (according to MM) or TWO (according to the anit-MM NY Post) Senators have children in Iraq. If you have a larger number, I would be keen to hear it. It is up to you to prove your points, not me. Provide a verifiable list. Of course, if the number were larger, I'm sure the NY Post would have stated it in an effort to bolster their point. If the numbers were closer to, say, 35% or more then that would be significant. Your arguement of distraction still has not addressed the point: that the Senators are sending other people's children to Iraq. Oh, and one other thing, you have committed a staw-man fallacy: Moore said "Senators", not Politicians (but in your reply above you said politicians). Maybe that is why you disagree with this point: because you failed to understand and recognize the difference been the general (politicians) and the specific (Senators).
Because he's time and time again giving the impression in his speeches -- I can't comment on MM's speeches, I have never seen him speak. You seem to follow him much more than I do. As for MM's suggestion that Iraqis are peace-loving innocents, I suspect most of the were, and still are. But you seem to be saying that because MM didn't go to Iraq proves that it is not safe -- well DUH!!!! That is one of Moore's points: Iraq is less safe for foreigners than it was before the war. How many beheadings of foreigners happened before the war? The war has caused the majority of peace-loving people in Iraq to hate America (the country, not just the Bush administration -- a significant difference). That is the point!!!!! Your arguement about Iraq not being safe for MM proves MM's point. Thank you! :)
They were questioned. Not according to the FBI counter terrorism guy in F911. Not according to CBC's The Fifth Estate. But of course, you say they were, so I should believe you and not the CBC journalists, because you read it in a blog somewhere, right?
To the anti-Bush crowd, just questioning these people after 9/11 would have been illegal. NO. You have obviously confused questioning the relatives and family of a suspect with the arbitrarily targetting all Muslim males with a beard for extra personal background checks. The former wasn't done (according to MM and according to CBC and according, IIRC, the 9/11 commission); while the later is happening everyday. The point you are making here was already plainly addressed in F911, so my question to you is this: HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE? IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE NOT .
If you had seen the movie you would understand that letting the family & relatives of the Prime Suspect leave (not just leave, but leave PREFERENTIALLY when others were stranded) was an error. Yes, unfortuately, some narrow minded people did generalize their anger against Muslims in general, failing to distinguish between a splinter extremeist fringe group and the peaceful majority. But somehow I don't think that Osama's BROTHER (who was having a meeting with Bush Sr. on 9/11) would have been subjected to a mob-lynching. AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SEEN THE FILM WOULD KNOW, it is normal for police investigators to talk to the family of a prime suspect. AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SEEN THE FILM WOULD KNOW, there is a difference between QUESTIONING THE FAMILY TO OBTAIN INFORMATION and random misdirected acts of violence against anyone fitting a certain profile. You make it seem that MM is encouraging the latter; quite the opposite is true.
For the record, I don't hate Saudi's; only a simpleton would hate an entire race or class or nationality of people. I have some friends that are Muslim. When 9/11 happened and it became clear that Bin Laden was the prime suspect, one of my first concern was that my Muslim friends would be the victims of ill-targetted hate crimes. However, if one of my friends was related to Bin Laden, I would not have shied away from asking "Hey, Man, what is up with your cousin? What's the deal there? Is he a nut job or what? What does he have against America? Let's go have a beer and talk about it. I'm curious."
The "scapegoat" (as you call it) of the "Anti Bush" campaign is BUSH, not the Saudi's. The Saudi's are business people furthering their business interests; this is normal for any business/country. Countries around the world want to "crack into" the American market. However, I suspect that few countries own such a big piece of W Bush's loyalties. However, I welcome you to prove me wrong by showing financial & influence connections between W and other countries. Of course, that would just make Bush look even worse, so I doubt you will do that, even if you had the information.
"See the parallels? HAS THIS THOUGHT EVER POPPED IN YOUR HEAD? Anyone who took the time to think and has intelligence, it should've." -- Yes, the thought has popped into my head. I am concerned that small minded people would use this as an agenda to attack an entire group of people and acheive some hidden agenda, but now I'm talking about W Bush again.
"It just amazes me how some people will go so far to defame Bush and the USA ." -- And therein lies the main flaw in your logic. You clearly can not and will not seperate and distinguish between criticism of the Presidential Administration and "the USA". There is a difference. It is a huge difference. If I was unable to make that distinction, I would probably be like you and attack/reject/deconstruct MM's film. It is this sort of narrow thinking that brands MIT professor Noam Chomsky as "hating America". As Prof. Chomsky said in a recent TV interview, only in America do people confuse criticism of the Administration with anti-patriotism. In the rest of the free world, there is lively political debate and critism, but no one is labelled "anti-{insert country here}" just for criticising the politicians.
Honestly, until you can make this distinction, there is no point in continuing to debate with you: you don't even grasp what the issue being debated is.
~Quotes of the "Looking forward to a change of Administration" class
Ad Hominem & Staw Man -
gitasatsangha
I have to agree with what Logan said. I was very sad, and very angry after watching this film.
I hope that we can turn our anger into something positive, and commit, as a majority of americans, to work to end this tradgedy quickly, and try to elect leaders who are calmer, not paid-off by big business, and are trully "Compassionate." If I were Bush, (either one), and I watched this movie, I suppose I would commit suicide. But he has shown that he really cares nothing for the United States, nor for others in the world, only himself and a small cadre of frends and bosses. The future is unwritten, we can make it a better one.
-
William Penwell
Moore has defended deliberate inaccuracies in his prior films by claiming that satirists don't have to tell the exact truth. Fair enough. But if you take the lies, half-lies and distortions out "Fahrenheit 9/11," there isn't much of anything left.
What about the "lies, half-lies and distortions" that of GW Bush and company have said? These miss-truths have caused thousands of live and the news media were the ones that help propagate these lies as they acted like GW personal cheer leaders.
Will
-
Corvin
Yes, yes, there are alot of critics, Bush butt-kissing critics, who will try to discredit MM and his film. They are more misleading than Moore and are protecting their own interests. They critique the insignificant details and say that you should pan the entire content because of it. There are folks like the snotty Sean Hannity who will defend Bush, no matter how stupid they sound, until their last breath and despise anyone who speaks out against him.
Moore is nobody but a person who turns tragady into dollars.
Hmm . . . perhaps, but Moore is not the one who creates and/or allows tragedy in order to divert attention away from the lousy incompetent job they are doing . . . the job they stole in the first place. Yes, I am talking about that maniac we have sitting in the whitehouse right now. He is a maniac and an idiot. In Bush we have the dangerous combination of arrogance and idiocy . . . along with a mind that can justify it all.
Corvin
-
patio34
Just reading the defenders of the President and his "disastrous" (from the 26 experts who went on record two weeks ago) foreign policy, makes me wonder about the mindset of these defenders.
As the International Herald Tribune stated a few weeks ago, those who would opt to keep such a man in office must share in his criminality.
Pat
-
gitasatsangha
people typically do not want to admit when they are wrong, because it means (to them) a sort of defeat, and also to them perhaps a certain responsibility of part of the blame.
song that reminds of of this year (written dwn some years ago):
the facts we hate
we'll never meet
walking down the road everybody yelling "hurry up, hurry up!"
but i'm waiting for you
i must go slow i must not think bad thoughts
when is this world coming too
both sides are right, but both sides murdered
i give up. why cant they
i must not think bad thoughts
i must not think bad thoughts
the civil wars
and the uncivilized wars
conflagrations leap out of every poor furnace
the food cooks poorly
and everyone goes hungry
from then on its dog eat dog dog eat body
& body eat dog
i cant go down there
i cant understand it
im a no good coward & an american too
a north american that is not a south of a central or a native american
oh i must not think bad thoughts
im guilty of murder of innocent men
innocent women innocent children
thousands of them my planes
my guns my money my soul
my blood on my hands
its all my fault
i must not think bad thoughts
i must not think bad thoughts
the facts we hate you'll never hear us ...
-Excene Cervanka and John Doe
-
Simon
It's amazing isn't it ... Micheal Moore gets one little fact wrong in a movie (they claim) and it's an excuse to rubbish anything and everything it contains.
How many 'little things' has the Bush administration got wrong (like WoMD !) and yet they want to just gloss over those.
Double standards?