Well I guess it is time to remember that it is not about US CITIZENS, THEY did wrong, THEY misleaded you, THEY misunformed you
now YOU KNOW ! Thanks GOD ! take care ...
9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright
by catchthis 102 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
gitasatsangha
mersee bowcoo , babyface
-
Colonel Kurtz
<quote>First things first: Welcome Colonel! Hope you enjoy the forum.</quote>
Thank You!
(please point me to where I can understand how this forum handles it's html formating)
<quote>I repeat my question: Did the things that Moore present really happen? Editing creatively may or may not be desirable, depending on your perspective, but are there ties between Bin Ladens and the companies that GW Bush ran and/or owned? Is Halliburton getting unfair competetive advantage because of Dick Cheney?</quote>
Does Bush have connections with buisnesses past and present? Yes. All politicians do. It all goes back to George Washington. Look at all the Democrat contenders (now gone from the race). They all have/had buisnesses. Past and present. What about Bill & Hilary Clinton? They have "big buisness" contacts also.
Was Bush and Cheney controlling Bill Clintons Presidency?
Look at other leaders in other countries. What about Kofi and the UN? What about that Oil 4 Food scam? John Kerry likes the UN... But no. Bush is the ONLY evil one.
Now, because politicians have buisness contacts (past & present), is that supposed to mean that there's a conspiracy?
A President is free to get advice to give a job/contract to anyone they know of FIRST HAND who can do it, they can by-pass bidding for a contract, especially in the case of an emergency. So what if you used to be the CEO in the past, or are very good friends for many many years with those who own a buisness. However, you personally can't make any money on it. Personally or through stocks/kick-backs/etc.. During Gulf War I, WHO put out those 100's of oil well fires? Did they do a good job in a nice timely manner/price? There you go! They have experience in doing that. And the next time the Government needs them (Democrat run or Republican run) they will usually get the call. Bill Clinton called on them. And President George W. Bush called on them.
If you/Moore are trying to say we went to "War for Oil?®" all because Halliburton was allowed to go to Iraq, that is sad logic and reasoning. Since people like Moore claim Bush is a war profiteer using the Iraq war to get more oil and to boost the USA economy (that's the impression he tries to give, and in his numerious public statements), why is gas so high? That hinders an economy. That slows things down. Why did Moore leave those facts out of the movie?
As for the Afghanistan Pipeline?
<a href=http://67.19.19.67/index.php/weblog/pipeline_goin_through_my_mind/>Afghanistan Pipeline</a>
What next? Bush is funding those many Fuel-Cell companies we have here in the states in case his evil Blood for Oil?® plot fails?
Where is this money going? Since Halliburton is using a government contract, the dollars paid will be in the budget books. Always on record.
And while we are on the subject of profiteering, will Michael Moore be giving any of his millions from this film to those he feels were hurt by Bush and his evil unjust war? If not, shouldn't he also be accused of War Profiteering just like he accuses Bush?
A note about Bowling for Columbine. Michael Moore said he made that movie to show and make people of the world aware of gun violence. He also wanted to do it as a tribute for the victims of Columbine.
1.) Why did he charge money for the victims's families to see the movie?
2.) Steven Spielberg GAVE all the money that would have went to him from the profits made from Schindler?s List. He wouldn't accept making money off a tragady. Did or will Michael Moore do the same? Is he a war profiteer?
<a href=http://67.19.19.67/index.php/blood_money/>Blood Money</a>
For if so, he is guilty of profiting from 9/11 + Afghanistan + Iraq. And that make's him a hypocrit because he judged Bush on this same accusation.
You people talk about Women crying because of this fantasy about War for Oil?® in Iraq, but what about 9/11? To you it doesn't matter. All just some conspiracy made by Bush and evil corporations. Let's forget about them.
And no I have yet to see this film. I see films like this when the come out on cable. And yes, his movies does have humor. But humor are placed within his movies for specific reasons, to make others look like idiots before he really starts laying on the half-truths. Bush getting make-up, Wolfowitz having a comb in his mouth. Just building the impression these people are pansies and retards. And yes, his movies are somewhat factual, but only half-truths.
Half-Truths meaning (no... not showing the other persons side of the story, but) not showing/speaking the alternative. Like the 7 minute wait. Does Moore tell his audience what he thinks Bush should've done? Not from the reviews I've read. Moore (like the democratic party) never mentions/tells what Bush should've done. Moore and the world are quick to point out what Bush shouldn't have done.
[quote]Interesting note: My daughter's boyfriend has never been a dub, but has never voted. My daughter, who is very involved with politics, has begged him to vote to no avail. However, after he saw the movie, he turned to my daughter and said: "That's it, now I'm voting." He is registering on Monday and he said that he is voting for Kerry. I wonder how many people are going to be similarly moved after seeing Farenheit 911?[/quote]
And that is just poor logic and reasoning on both your daughter and her boyfriends parts. Watching a movie and then voting. That's it? No questioning it? No researching it? Because Michael Moore said it, it must be totally true? I've never been a JW/dub, nor was I raised by any family member who was one. However I was studying to become one with friends I went to high school with. After debating with my study partners and JW friends, they would keep repeating the same programmed lines in their heads, even though bible quotes can prove otherwise, and they deny the scriptures I would present. I've ALWAYS had a free mind since birth. Without the thoughts of total pacifism either. I've been in politics for 6 years. However this will be my first year voting. I don't think people should just "vote" just because you are of age. You have to study the political scene for a while so you can make a logical choice. And issues are key. I care about my countries safety more than anything, first and foremost. And by judging the goings on involving Islamic Terrorism since the early 1980's, I want Bush in the White House. Every attack against Americans abroad and on American Interests abroad have emboldened the radical islamic terrorists. After 2 decades of doing nothing to stop them (Osama called the USA a papertiger many times), they then came to our soil to pick a fight.
Apparently, some (all?) of you don't believe this. 9/11 was staged to you. It would've had to been staged because why bother bringing up invading Afghanistan and bring up the pipeline over and over again. It's still not there today! So what's the latest conspiracy about 9/11 and Bush needing to invade Afghanistan? Heroin!!! Poppies!
Even the Mullahs and imams preach in their Mosque's about the "19 Lions" & "The magnificent 19". Even they believe it. And when it suits them, they then blame the evil Joooo's.
And I find it disturbing how people on this board are angry and getting their emotions in the way. This movie made your daughers' boyfriends' mind up... because of emotions. He's gonna register to vote... and he's doing it because of emotions. And when he gets in the voting booth in November, he will vote with his emotions. Spain did the same thing. They voted with their emotions. They pulled an old Neville Chamberlain. Appease the croc. They believed EXACTLY what the terrorists told them: "Because you are in Iraq, you die now!"
However, this is false. Osama bin Laden has had his eye on Spain before 9/11. And in October 2001 after 9/11 he spews his usual retoric about it:
<a href=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Crespo20040322.shtml>Link1</a>
Search for "Reconquista" (no quotes).
<a href=http://manila.djh.dk/spain02/>Link2</a>
What do you do? Democrats have yet to tell the world what they would've done. Just like Europeans have yet to tell the world what the USA should've done. France even had the nerve to say we deserved 9/11. So did Canada. Really nice people. Michael Moore openly asks the terrorist: "Why did you target New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia? These states didn't vote for Bush!"
Nice.
Michael Moores films are pretty much spot on. But he doesn't go further. He can't prove what he really wants to. But still won't get me to change my opinion on Bush. We live in an open free society where things CAN an WILL get found out. It's all documentated and recorded. Say for example Kerry wins this November, he can haul out the presidents dirt for everyone to see. Not only that, he can force the government to look at everyone in the Bush Administration's wealth and see if he got more money some how (war profits). Would Bush risk that? Kerry finding Bush had some dirty laundry that got many people killed? Bush would get lynched. Use logic and common sence.
<quote>Every word of MM's film has been documented and if it's incorrect, believe me there will be plenty of factual info about it! This is being gone over scrupulously.</quote>
Really?
If it is so factual, how come Kerry hasn't hooked up with him?
You may think this is minor, but this just shows me his stupidity.
How about we look at how Michael TITLED this movie and the ads used to promote it:
<a href=http://67.19.19.67/index.php/C9/
100% accuracy?
<quote>And yes, it's been well-known since the invasion started that only one of Congress has a son or daughter in the military.</quote>
Moore is just trying to bring out the old "only poor black kids go to war". Just give the audience that impression, target some senators. That's it.
<quote>What I've noticed, since MM has clearly stated he has lawyers on the ready to sue anyone quickly for slander, etc., that the news is very gingerly accusing it of being in error.</quote>
There are many truths and half-truths in this movie, I'm sure. But since Michael Moore loves to bring up that Pipeline in Afghanistan, he is ALSO trying to say 9/11 was plotted by Bush himself to make it so a Pipeline can be installed.
Note: Again, half-truth, to me, is when Moore doesn't go far enough.
Example: If Moore can aquire private informaion regarding who in political power has their relatives in the military, how come Moore couldn't dig up the money Bush and Cheney are getting from war profiteering in Afghanistan and in Iraq? Moore stops. But he has enough information to get people to think of Bush and his Administration with suspision. That's all he needs. He doesn't go all the way.
<quote>Most of it is, as I said, irrelevant details, not the big accusations of MM being wrong about the Carlyle Group, the binLadens</quote>
What's wrong with being associated with the bin Laden family? Are you prejudice? Is Moore? Just because a disowned son of a certain family name does something terrible, should the entire family be hung out to dry? By showing that Bush had dealings with bin Ladens in the past, he creates the impression among his viewers that he himself helped make 9/11 happen. He is raising the anger in his audience (and I can see it here in the reviews you guys/gals type).
<quote>the pipeline thru Afghanistan</quote>
<a href=http://67.19.19.67/index.php/weblog/pipeline_goin_through_my_mind/>Afghanistan Pipeline</a>
Yes, there WAS to be a pipeline. That changed in 1999. Was Bush controlling the Clinton White House? Where is this pipeline now? Why isn't it shown in the movie? Could it be to hint a conspiracy?
<quote>the inaction of our Commander-in-Chief</quote>
<a href=http://67.19.19.67/index.php/weblog/seven_minutes/>Seven Minutes</a>
No one responded to my post about this. What action should he have done? What would you have wanted him to do? When I watched that news clip, I saw a man in deep thought, not even reading the paying attention to the kids. Just sitting there. He was being video taped. I'm glad he took that time to think about what to do. It shows that he didn't jump the gun and act in haste. He came up with a plan. I can just imagine what people would be saying now and Bush got up and was in a panic. Isn't that what you wanted? He should have KNOWN and had a plan for something like this ahead of time? So he should have quickly went to action to do..... what? And it would have been videotaped. Either way, if he would have gotten up and excused himself, there still would've been minutes of pause... thinking of a plan by him and those with him. People like Moore would still be critizising Bush for doing just that, even. If Moore is willing to make fun of someone getting make-up put on them, it doesn't matter what Bush does, Moore will do whatever it takes to make Bush look stupid. Moore would be saying: "Why didn't he think this through longer?" Because of deep hatred. He will do anything to make Bush look bad. Just like the training wheels reference Kerry made when Bush fell off the bike recently. Did Bush say anything vile about Kerry falling off his snowboard and blaming it on "that son of a b*tch" security guard?
It's easy to point out what Bush shouldn't have done. But where does Michael Moore say/hint what Bush should have done?
Keep in mind, Bush's intentions on wanting to take care of Saddam and help Iraq are not new nor secret before coming into office. Paul O'Neil would like you to think other wise when he mentioned numerious times about "secret Iraq war plans". And Paul O'Neil was trying to make it seem that Bush all the Sudden brought up Iraq because of 9/11.
<a href=http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcript/debate_101100.asp>2000 Election Debate Transcript</a>
Search that page for the word "Iraq" (without the quotes) and read that section. Still a conspiracy?
Finally:
What was the point of this film?
Was it to show that Bush Knew?® and planned 9/11 so he could get access to Iraq's Oil? -
frenchbabyface
Thank you Gita ... (it's so nice to speak french to me)
It reminds JW world isn't it ? ... People are suffering and dying and soldiers are sacrified ... maybe now we got a chance to face the truth and work on a "NEVER AGAIN" plan ... (maybe a dream by now ... but everything begins with a dream ...) "I have a dream" MLK ... we are not there yet ... BUT WHAT A BIG STEP have been done !
-
patio34
Colonel,
I'm not even attempting to rebut your cut-and-paste job that seems to be from right-wing sources, rather than mainstream media. But whatever. If it, as it seems from a glance, is disputing MM's 911, then have at it. There are more expert people than you attempting to do that, but if he's lying, then it'll come out--in the courts if necessary.
What I am addressing in this is how to format your posts as you requested. On the reply page, there's two toolbars right above where you input text.
The top one (the 1st) has the usual symbols on it and if you hold the cursor over it, text will appear, as usual, explaining what it does. The very last one in the 1st row is the quotes. The way you do this is select the text you want in a quote and then click on the quote bubble on the toolbar.
Good luck,
Pat
-
avishai
your cut-and-paste job that seems to be from right-wing sources, rather than mainstream media
Wait, does'nt the right control the mainstream media? Is'nt that why michael moore has to tell us these things? Because the mainstream media is scared and controlled by GWBush and friends?
-
patio34
Hi Avishai,
Good point! Actually I read something last month that seems pretty reasonable to me and saved it. It IS from a blog, but nevertheless, fwiw. Btw, MM did quote from Washington Post quite a bit. My point was that, as MM does, the media can put quite a bit of spin on stuff and be pretty selective. For instance, when Bush was beating the war drums, 60% of Americans were for giving the UN more time, but the main TV news interviewed 399 experts---only 3 of them were speaking about waiting, the other 396 were war experts. If the media were truly democratic, there should have been almost 200 interviews with experts advocating diplomacy, etc, rather than war.
Anyway, I'm glad you brought this subject up and here's the bit in the blog I saw:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/monthly/2004_05.php
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THAT LIBERAL, LIBERAL MEDIA....After reading the latest Pew poll about the political views of journalists, Fred Barnes thinks the case for liberal media bias is open and shut:
Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers are, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for a moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered liberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush be getting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agree with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And I could go on.
He could go on? So why doesn't he? After all, he only has to go as far back as the immediately preceding presidency. I have this dim recollection of massively unfavorable coverage of Bill Clinton during the eight years of his presidency, and I'm pretty sure Clinton was a liberal. Perhaps there's more to this media bias thing than meets the eye, eh?
It's such a tiresome trope, and it misses the point of how the media works anyway. The press bashes whoever's in power, Democrat or Republican, and they cover drama, whether it's in Baghdad or Burbank. For better or worse, that's the main bias of the news industry, not ideology.
At any rate, I wonder what critics like Barnes think the media ought to do. Should news executives give tests or ask cub reporters who they voted for in the last election? And how does he feel about conservative domination of the officer corps in the military or the executive ranks of corporate America? Should we institute some litmus tests there too in order to give liberals a fairer shake?
-
Colonel Kurtz
I'm not even attempting to rebut your cut-and-paste job that seems to be from right-wing sources, rather than mainstream media.
Some are right-wing sites. Some are not. Those that you suspect are right-wings sites, DO contain links to the actual "mainstream media" sources.
On the reply page, there's two toolbars right above where you input text.
I just tried it in Internet Explorer, and the toolbars show. Mozilla 1.7 doesn't seem to want to show them. Thanks for the help though. I though I had to plug them in manually or there was some setting I had to enable in my Profile.
After all, he only has to go as far back as the immediately preceding presidency. I have this dim recollection of massively unfavorable coverage of Bill Clinton during the eight years of his presidency, and I'm pretty sure Clinton was a liberal.
During the last <2 years of his presidency, Clinton got hammered. That's true. But when I look at it (liberal media/right media) I try to look at similar instances from the Democrats past actions regarding a topic, to the Republicans actions regarding that same topic. And compare how they were treated.
Example:
- Bush and the War in Iraq regarding U.N. approval
- Bill Clinton and the War in Kosovo regarding U.N. approval
- Bill Clinton and the War in Bosnia regarding U.N. approval
Bill Clinton got a free pass on both his Wars. Bill Clinton went and dropped bombs, and the next thing you know, the U.N. decides to tag along for the ride. Once peace-keeping was needed, Clinton got U.N. approval (had to be done to get blue-helmets on the ground) and that was that. He basically got U.N. approval after the bombs stopped falling.
http://www.mfa.gov.yu/FDP/sf211203_e.html
Yet Bush get's the cold shoulder treatment.
-
SixofNine
Well Kurtz, therein is the difference. If you don't see or understand the vast differences of Kosovo vs Iraq, you should. And if you really think Clinton got a free pass compared to Bush where it comes to wars and the press, your wrong, and it would seem willfully so.
-
Daga
Say, they found another dozen artillery shells filled with Sarin and mustard gas. I guess that doesn't count either. Just how much do they have to find before some of you will admit that it exists.