Posts by Colonel Kurtz

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

Colonel Kurtz

Sometimes karma stings a little, man.

I hear ya. Now pass me that doobie. Puff puff give.

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

Colonel Kurtz

I believe in non-violence. That said, if the United States were taken over by a foreign power, I would hope that we would have the courage and guts to fight it out like the resistance in Iraq is doing.

But the United States would not exist... because we/it (the United States) illegally occupied Indian land and repressed them. Would you like me to contact the Pawnee, Sioux, Comanche and all the other Indian Nations to continue the fight they stopped a century ago? If not, why not? I'm sure the young braves of today would just LOVE to learn to scalp just like their great grandfathers did before them.

"USA out of everywhere!" That's what the anti-war/peace activists say. Well... practice what you preach and DO IT! You are occupying sovereign Indian land. Get Out! **dawns feather covered headress**

"Resistance in Iraq"? Who are they? Do you know for a fact who they are (just like you claim you know for a fact Bush is lining his pockets from this). Provide your evidence of these "freedom fighters".

Do you know of Human Rights? Do you believe in upholding them? When someone is harming another, do you stop them? Do borders prevent help from being allowed to gain access to the needy? Or do you just sit back and watch?

Sure the USA has killed civilians in Iraq through accidental confrontation/collaterial damage. Every war it happens. But if THAT was the reason (innocent civilians accidentally being killed by Coallition military) these foreign "freedom/resistance fighters" are entering Iraq, why did they not enter the country and target Saddam & The Gang for purposefully killing innocent civilians? Coalition accidentally kills small number of civilians - BAD... Saddam a fellow Muslim, purposefully kills many civilians - GOOD! This is not resistance. It's fanatics wanting their 72 virgins.

I would hope that we would have the courage and guts to fight it out like the resistance in Iraq is doing. I don't think they are heroes, but they are doing what you are SUPPOSED to do when your country is attacked and occupied and under repression.

And the colonial army burned, dismembered and mutilated foreign civilians instead of their enemy. And the colonial army beheaded foreign civilans instead of their enemy. And the colonial army mass-murdered civilians in another country friendly to the enemy in order to trick/get the enemy to leave. And the colonial army used local and foreign civilians as shields against their will. And the colonial army took local and foreign civilians hostage and started making demands and threatened to kill them, if their enemy did not leave. And the colonial army strapped their's and others pregnant women with explosives and had them run up to the enemy. And the colonial army threatened and killed civilians who didn't support the resistance. And the colonial army used Ben Franklin while in France, to sail a boat full of explosives to England and ignite said explosives once it was placed next to a boat ferrying British school children to another port in England.

{sarcasm}What an excellent book of acceptable warfare you just wrote!{/sarcasm}

Yeah... "you don't think" is an understatement.

I will ask again, what about Bosnia and Kosovo? What about what France is doing in the Congo?

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

Colonel Kurtz

Speaking for myself:

Please, answer intelligently and honestly. How many shells filled with Sarin or mustard gas (which we've all been well aware of for a very long time) would you be willing to give you or your child's life for?

I think it would be wise to stop using the word "child". These are grown men and women you're talking about. Young adults. You are trying to use baby words to envoke the heart strings, while ignoring reality. The majority of parents who's son's and daughter's join a military field end up feeling very proud of them. In my opinion, it would be up to my sons or daughters choice. It's their decision. If they feel they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for others, that is their choice. Would I want them to? No. But then again, that's not my choice. It's theirs. Once they're 18, the world is their oyster. And if they choose to join the military, I will not dishonor them if and when they are deployed by becoming an Anti-War "We Support our Troops when they shoot their officers" activist.

Few people understand why someone will be willing to sacrifice themselves for others who spit venom from their mouths on them. We just celebrated D-Day anniversary and memorial day. Why in the world would those crazy men take the beaches of Omaha and Normandy? Why in the world would colonials fights for others inorder to bring freedom? Why in the world would white people die for black people? Why in the world would Christians & Jews die for Muslims?

In regards to WMD. Keep in mind. That stuff is hard to detect and easy to conseal. It's easy to transport (not the same with radioactive/nuke WMD). It doesn't take much bio-weapons to do damage in a large buildings water supply.... Or working at McDonalds. Chemical-Weapons can be placed in a buildings HVAC system. Sucked right in and dispersed through out an entire building. All you need is a beaker of some chemical agent. If Timothy McVeigh could do it stuff with chemical fertilizer, anyone can. USS Cole proved that.

Certain groups have been trying for over a decade to obtain various types of WMD. And once they do get ahold of that stuff, good luck trying to detect it from coming across ANY countries borders. Then you would definetly need a police state in place to catch that stuff.

How many shells (which we've all been well aware of for a very long time) would you say merit's killing innocent people with "collateral damage" (which is a fact of war)?

Since you seem to be "well aware of" these shells: Who has them, how many are there total, and where are they? You seem to be playing both sides of the fence. Those against the Iraq War says Saddam destroyed them (which is why the UN inspectors couldn't find them before March 20th.) Or Saddam hid/moved them. Which story is it that you believe? Obviously Saddam didn't destroyed them, or you wouldn't have brought up this "well aware" stuff. To me, it's not the number, it's who is in possession of them that worries me. Certain groups would love to get their hands on the stuff. I hate collateral damage.

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

Colonel Kurtz

Why are you calling me "Daga"? I will assume you're thinking I was another poster. *sigh* If you think I'm using multiple nicks/handles, contact the site admin and confirm my IP & traceroute. Is it because someone else is posting things that don't fit your world view, you jump the gun and assume these people are the same person?

Daga, you aren't even close, and worse, you seem to be using news clippings as proxy for a brain.

Where's your proof to backup your claims? Why is it that violence has been erupting, and rising? Why do the majority want Milosevic freed and restored to power?

As it happens, Clinton was right about Bosnia and Kosovo

Evidence? What exactly was Clintons justification for going into those countries? A humanitarian issues. And he inflated the numbers in order to get support from the American public.

(and why wouldn't he be right? he applied formidable brainpower and he listened to people who actually knew what they were talking about)

Who are these people? Who are these people that caused in 78 days of bombing, 100 billion in damage for a small country? Who are these people who killed more civilians then then the Serbs did before we started bombing?

and Bush was and is wrong about Iraq (and why wouldn't he be wrong?). This much is obvious.

{sarcasm}Yeah, and it's much obvious that in 1914 Jesus came to Earth invisibly, making it so that 1914 would be the end of times. And in 1975 the world will end also. Why, because I said so.{/sarcasm}

What about Somalia? 19 US soldiers dead in one day. 1000+ enemy/civilians killed. Bill Clinton was right! Why would he be?

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

Colonel Kurtz

What was the difference? "See" or "understand"? What are these vast differences you speak of? That the U.N., France and Germany didn't want to lose those Oil for Food kick backs in Iraq? One President was a Democrat, the other a Republican? That Bill Clinton/Wesley Clark/NATO bombing killed more civilians then the Serbs acts of genocide did with their 70+ day non-stop bombings? That Bill Clintion attacked multiple countries that never did anything to the USA or it's allies and call it "preventative", while Bush rightfully targets Iraq for targeting our planes in the No-Fly-Zone, did target our allies and US Interests, but then it is called "preemptive"? That Bush actually FOLLOWED local law (The US Constitution) by getting approval from congress AND by following International Law by attempting to get approval from the United Nations before hand (before bombs dropped), while Bill Clintion did neither in any of his cases?

Michael Moore supported General Wesley Clark for president. The very guy who ran that operation. Almost started WWIV by provoking the Russians on the ground. Ended up getting relieved over that incident. General Clark wanted a wider war... more bombs! And in Bowling for Columbine, MMoore was trying to make a case against violence. Yet he supports a man that admits NATO mostly targeted Civilian targets/infrustructure but didn't stop the bombing. Peace has yet to be accomplished there to this day.

Even a San Francisco newspaper says Iraq is more justified then just one of Clintons wars. San Francisco for crying out loud!

President Clinton gave this reason for going to war: "to protect thousands of innocent people...to prevent a wider war, to defuse a powder keg...the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting...dangerous to defenseless people and to our national interests... key U.S. allies could be drawn into a wider conflict - a war we would be forced to confront later, only at far greater risk and greater cost. ...our children need and deserve a peaceful, stable, free Europe." Clinton acted without ever requesting U.N. approval. In fact, Clinton never sought U.N. approval prior to striking Serbia, Sudan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Did Clinton lie to get his wars? http://eagleforum.org/column/1999/nov99/99-11-24.html

Can't forget Rwanda.

President Bush had this to say about the Iraq war: "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied... some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. The United States...will work to advance liberty and peace in that region...the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence...Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent." Bush spent a great deal of time getting U.N. approval, but was thwarted by Saddam's friend, Chirac of France.

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

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.

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

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?

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

Colonel Kurtz

<quote>This silence on the major points seems to me to be confirmation of them.</quote>

I'm typing that post. Give me a break. Don't jump the gun and get into a "because you didn't respond, I win" attitude.

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

Colonel Kurtz

<quote>Do one of your links supprt this claim?</quote>
Yes, give me time and I will find it.

Basically it goes like this:
On Michael Moores website back in March, he said he's been in the USA for a while editting/putting the finishing touched on the film F-911. On this update on his web page he says he cant finish the film entirely yet because his film crew has not returned yet from Iraq after filming the Iraq footage he wanted in the movie.

<quote>Wow, I have never seen such Lies and Made-Up Facts!!!!

I am talking about the New York Post review (posted above).

I could take it apart point-by-point, but it's late and I'm tired.</quote>
Well, when you wake up, be sure to prove that you can "take it apart point-by-point". Because if not, you're not being honest.

<quote>The movie did NOT say that "no" Senators had children in the military -- despite what the New York Post said. The Moore narrative said that "only one" Senator had a child in the Services. The NYPost lies that Moore said "none" and then proceeds to list all of THREE -- and one of them (Ashcroft) is not a Senator. Taking the remaining list of two as correct, it is very close to one and does not change Moore's basic point: the lawmakers are sending "other peoples children" to war, but their own children are grossly underrepresented in this service.</quote>
You know that for a fact, right?
Do you know for a fact how many politicians have sons/daughters in the military? Or do you just believe what Michael Moore told you?

<quote>Oh, and as for whether or not Moore went to Iraq: is that really important? Personally I did not think that Moore went to Iraq (based on the film), and never got that impression -- nor did I think that they portrayed that impression. But is this issue really important?</quote>
It is VERY important that he was there to film it.
Why? Because he's time and time again giving the impression in his speeches and public apperances that protestors/peace-activists/and-people-like-Moore (Bush Haters and those who publicly speak out against the US's actions in Iraq) won't be harmed by the "minutemen" in Iraq. To people like Moore (and it seems people like you for that matter) think Iraq is and always has been a "sovereign nation" filled with peace loving people and the "revolutionaries" (again, Moores words) would never harm an outsider who is apparently on their side. WHEN IT HAS BE PROVEN THAT EVEN PEACE ACTIVISTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN HOSTAGE AND KILLED. They are beheading people over there! They are killing civilian contractors who are building schools and running electrical power lines. You know, actually HELPING PEOPLE. You think Moore would risk his life and not pay someone else to do it?

It shows that HE DOESN'T BELIEVE HIS OWN WORDS THAT HE'S BEEN TELLING THE PUBLIC AND HIS FANS! He's a Hypocrit!

<quote>Last year, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) show The Fifth Estate did a show on some of the same topics: W Bush's financial connection to Saudi money; the Carlye group; Saudi jet leaving Sept 13 2001 when everyone else is grounded and when they might have valuable information.</quote>

<a href=http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm>Link</a>
They were questioned.
What would you have wanted Bush to do? Lock them up in Cuba? That is, after all, what the Anti-Bush crowd are against. That and questioning. To the anti-Bush crowd, just questioning these people after 9/11 would have been illegal. How DARE those evil repubilcans profile and target those dark skinned Arabs! They wouldn't have had the time to get the warrents for them all in that amount of time. They questioned the Saudis without lawyers present! Bush violated these people rights! The Horror! Call the ACLU! Bush = Hitler!

Everyone was grounded?
Including media helecopters? Organ delivery?

But that doesn't matter. What DOES matter is this:
How many acts of violence occured after Pearl Harbor on Japanese-Americans (right after pearl harbor, before internment and after internment)? Do you know? It's easy to forget. And since we were dealing with an evil man whom the world knew his name... his family name, do you not think that people would not attack and hunt down other bin Ladens and other muslims?
<a href=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/39283_intern18.shtml>Link</a>

"Thanks" to the leftist US media, they told the world, EVEN WHILE THE TWIN TOWERS WERE STILL STANDING AND BURNING, who might had been behind this (the government NEVER did that, that was what the media did. The media jumped the gun before the facts could be found). Osama Bin Laden was broadcast on the air the whole time. His name kept getting repeated over and over again "judging by past suicide attacks, this looks like it could be the work of Osama bin Ladens al qaeda network". And they were mentioning Muslim, Muslis, Muslim Islamic Islamic Islamic. That's the type of stuff the media was repeating. And because of what the media did in those early hours on 9/11, it was best to get bin ladens and other Saudis (that's right, it wasn't just bin ladens) out of the USA who were not citizens but were in the USA getting college educations.

Look, we all know how WWII got started in Europe in terms of people blaming others for their problems. Hitler was blaming Jews for Germany's problems, even without evidence. And look what happened... riots. Jewish homes burnt. Jewish Shops burnt vanalized. Jews dragged through the steets. Jews killed. This was all happening 5 years before they were sadly rounded up and gassed (holocaust). All this because Hitler mentioned "JEWS".... and the angry German mobs did the rest.

See the parallels? HAS THIS THOUGHT EVER POPPED IN YOUR HEAD? Anyone who took the time to think and has intelligence, it should've.

We learned from what American citizens did to Japanese-Americans, and we learned what Hitler caused to have happen to German Jews. We learned from the past. I would think the world would have appauded our actions. Sadly, they're/you're using them as a scapegoat for an anti-Bush agenda.

It just amazes me how some people will go so far to defame Bush and the USA. They just like to think up conspiracies instead of using common sence. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

102

9/11(Film) - Freedom burning alright

by catchthis in

so have you seen the film yet?

what was your impression of it?

here was mine: .

Colonel Kurtz

I apoligize for my formatting.
The way this web site's forum is setup, I'm having a hard time knowing which code to use. Is there a tutorial anywhere.

My political posts are not ment to flame, or pi** people off.

I get most of my news from blogs. There are Iraqi bloggers in Iraq telling what's going on, yet the media never report it. That's how the media is. They only report the bad. That draws viewers. They admit to this. And some people beleive that's all their is going on.