Micheal Moore's 9/11-Just seen it

[ninavain]

POWERFUL AWESOME... A MUST SEE!!!!

[KRL]

Yeh, that's what a lot of folks are saying.

What part is making people cry when they come out? I heard there was some scene with a mother getting word her son was just killed in Iraq or something.

[benc]

And you say Bush is like Hilter. It seems Moore is much closer to Hitler with his mastery of propaganda.

[frankthetank]

I must disagree, if it were such a powerful documentary then both sides would have been shown, instead bush was portraid as an evil mastermind who wanted this from the begining, yet fails to mention how many saddam killed, the info that bush received about iraq, and how many bin laden killed... if anything it made me pull more towards bush, and if I could vote for him if I was american I would vote for him, I am sure if I were to do a documentary on clinton looking into the camera looking stupid that wouldnt be hard to find... hell even kerry...the fact is that most of this movie was focused on making bush look stupid, hardly any facts that I havent heard before on CNN.

[xxxdesign-net]

Originally posted by benc
It seems Moore is much closer to Hitler with his mastery of propaganda.

lol.. coming from someone who hasnt seen the film...

[fuzebox]

I didn't like it at all.

[herbal logic]

Hezbollah likes it

[MikeHawk]

Originally posted by benc
And you say Bush is like Hilter. It seems Moore is much closer to Hitler with his mastery of propaganda.

Moore is an ASS.....
I can see why he has recieved many death threats...

[xxxdesign-net]

Originally posted by frankthetank
yet fails to mention how many saddam killed, the info that bush received about iraq, and how many bin laden killed...

Bush never went to war to save the Iraqui people... .. 2nd Osama...? why do you talk about him?

[JDog]

I've heard that alot too,.

jDoG

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by xxxdesign-net
Bush never went to war to save the Iraqui people... .. 2nd Osama...? why do you talk about him?

All over the news after 911 Bush was aiming at Bin laden, Bush even said on CNN that he lost loved ones in the WTC and would take action against bin laden and ANYONE WHO HAD PARTICIPATION, he got info that saddam was in on this...if I was presedent I would believe information that I got for someone who has been appointed to receive info and give it to me, in an unbiased manner...The reason I talk about this is because bin laden has his hands all over this and bush had info that saddam was in on it as well, which is what a leader would do is go after him as well.

[Easton]

how many more of these threads do we have to put up with?

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by Easton
how many more of these threads do we have to put up with?

hopefully not many moore

haha

[xxxdesign-net]

Originally posted by frankthetank
All over the news after 911 Bush was aiming at Bin laden, Bush even said on CNN that he lost loved ones in the WTC and would take action against bin laden and ANYONE WHO HAD PARTICIPATION, he got info that saddam was in on this...if I was presedent I would believe information that I got for someone who has been appointed to receive info and give it to me, in an unbiased manner...The reason I talk about this is because bin laden has his hands all over this and bush had info that saddam was in on it as well, which is what a leader would do is go after him as well.

guess you havnt heard about the 9/11 commission... The info linking Saddam with Bin Ladden were incomplete and weak and were used in a "irresponsible" manner , im being polite, to get the opinion of the american people on their side... Funny how a by partisan commission was able to conclude that there's no link between the 2... yet the Bush administration was not able to see that... mmmh.. .. guess the didnt really care to make sure...

[Tempest]

Originally posted by benc
And you say Bush is like Hilter. It seems Moore is much closer to Hitler with his mastery of propaganda.

Bush is like Hitler

Moore is like Goebels

Better???

[Tempest]

Originally posted by frankthetank
I must disagree, if it were such a powerful documentary then both sides would have been shown, instead bush was portraid as an evil mastermind who wanted this from the begining, yet fails to mention how many saddam killed, the info that bush received about iraq, and how many bin laden killed... if anything it made me pull more towards bush, and if I could vote for him if I was american I would vote for him, I am sure if I were to do a documentary on clinton looking into the camera looking stupid that wouldnt be hard to find... hell even kerry...the fact is that most of this movie was focused on making bush look stupid, hardly any facts that I havent heard before on CNN.

Perhaps you missed the point. The movie is supposed to be about Bush and what he's done, not Bin Laden or Sadam.

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by xxxdesign-net
guess you havnt heard about the 9/11 commission... The info linking Saddam with Bin Ladden were incomplete and weak and were used in a "irresponsible" manner , im being polite, to get the opinion of the american people on their side... Funny how a by partisan commission was able to come to conclude that there's no link between the 2... yet the Bush administration was not able to see that... mmmh.. ..

well if I were president and was told that saddam was a major threat (by someone that I did not appoint) then I would have done the same thing...it is always better to react to such a thing then sit back and see if it could really happen like the clinton admin did for 8 years....

[WWC]

it was sold out all night here in LA

[frankthetank]

btw...if this film was presented in a manner that showed both sides it would have been awesome...but the sad fact of the manner is that this moore has something against bush and wants to show a one sided view...hell even CNN and other media outlets 90% of the time have both sides represented

[Paul Markham]

What you have to do with all things like this is look at the message and the message carrier.

Has Bush disputed any of the statements put out in the film?

Is Michael Moore biased?

Who has been proven to be the more truthful?

Who has the power to do the more damage?

It's no good to just dismiss Moore becasue he's biased, that's a very American thing to do. Just because the message carrier is criticising it does not follow he is lying or hates the US. You have to prove these facts.

So far what has been shown is the war was started on the false premise that Saddam's Iraq was a threat to the US.

Where is the proof Saddam was supporting terrorism against the US. Yes he was vocal against the US, but other than that what proof is there?

Where is the proof he was in league with Bin Laden?

No one so far has been able to come up with proof that WMD existed at the time of the invasion.

Going to war, invading and occupying a country, killing hundeds of thousands, spending billions of dollars needs a little more proof and a lot less assumptions than we were given.

Who would you rather trust, Bush or Moore as the most truthful?

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by AdultLoungeRaffi
it was sold out all night here in LA

it was almost sold out here too, most were cheers but I can only imagine most were democrats...I went because I like to see what others have to say and I saw the film and saw it very one sided, unlike many others that automatically shoots down others views, I just feel this film was one sided.

[leg4]

he might have a serious meaning

but he is just capitilizing on something

[ZanyCash Larry]

What is a about, just kidding. Can't wait to see it.

[leg4]

on Conan,
Michael Moore just said that Kerry wouldnt send troops anywhere unless they were really attacking up.

"I wasn't threatened... you werent threatened"

What the FUCK was SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH fat fuck?

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by frankthetank
btw...if this film was presented in a manner that showed both sides it would have been awesome...but the sad fact of the manner is that this moore has something against bush and wants to show a one sided view...hell even CNN and other media outlets 90% of the time have both sides represented

So do you dismiss it entirely because the message man is biased?

Then you have to dismiss what Bush says and practically every thing you see, read or hear.

The film sets out to give you one side, to present the facts as Moore sees them, only a fool thinks he's unbiased. It's now up to the other side to present a counter argument and facts to present their case. It's called debating and a very powerful tool in a democracy.

Who would you think is more open to showing the facts Bush or Moore?

[Tempest]

Originally posted by frankthetank
I just feel this film was one sided.

Of course it was. Moore has been pretty straightforward in saying that he's presented the FACTs and HIS opinions. He doesn't like Bush and what he's done and so that comes out in the movie. Gotta just get past that and look at the facts, just like you have to with any news broadcast, or speeches given by republicans or democrats.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by leg4
on Conan,
Michael Moore just said that Kerry wouldnt send troops anywhere unless they were really attacking up.

"I wasn't threatened... you werent threatened"

What the FUCK was SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH fat fuck?

9/11 is not an excuse to invade any country you want to.

The invasion of Afghanistan, the removal of the Taliban and suppression of Al Queda was in response to 9/11 and the world largly supported it. This film and debate is about Iraq, don't try to cloud the issue by going on a side track.

[frankthetank]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by charly
[B]What you have to do with all things like this is look at the message and the message carrier.

Has Bush disputed any of the statements put out in the film?

I am not sure, the film was just released today and I have been getting drunk

Is Michael Moore biased?

YES, where is the other side...?

Who has been proven to be the more truthful?

Not too sure, do not no either moore or bush very much but I know the film I paid $10 for today was biased


Who has the power to do the more damage?

I imagine bush would have more power

It's no good to just dismiss Moore becasue he's biased, that's a very American thing to do. Just because the message carrier is criticising it does not follow he is lying or hates the US. You have to prove these facts.

So far what has been shown is the war was started on the false premise that Saddam's Iraq was a threat to the US.

Where is the proof Saddam was supporting terrorism against the US. Yes he was vocal against the US, but other than that what proof is there?


If the CIA gave me memos saying he was I would believe them...

Where is the proof he was in league with Bin Laden?

CIA memos

No one so far has been able to come up with proof that WMD existed at the time of the invasion.

If I was told that saddam was carrying WMD and I already knew that he was a mad man I would have done the same thing

Going to war, invading and occupying a country, killing hundeds of thousands, spending billions of dollars needs a little more proof and a lot less assumptions than we were given.

Who would you rather trust, Bush or Moore as the most truthful?

running a presidency is pretty powerful and there will always be critics but making a film of how bush is unintelligent is just messed up, I watched more then 60 minutes of bush and company staring into the camera without knowledge they would be shown to the world, if I had have know that I wouldnt have paid $10 for.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by Tempest
Of course it was. Moore has been pretty straightforward in saying that he's presented the FACTs and HIS opinions. He doesn't like Bush and what he's done and so that comes out in the movie. Gotta just get past that and look at the facts, just like you have to with any news broadcast, or speeches given by republicans or democrats.

Exactly.

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by charly
So do you dismiss it entirely because the message man is biased?

Then you have to dismiss what Bush says and practically every thing you see, read or hear.

The film sets out to give you one side, to present the facts as Moore sees them, only a fool thinks he's unbiased. It's now up to the other side to present a counter argument and facts to present their case. It's called debating and a very powerful tool in a democracy.

Who would you think is more open to showing the facts Bush or Moore?

Creating a documentary isnt meant to be showing a one sided view... it is to show facts of what happened and I was never told in that movie about numerous facts that I know what happened...I knew that going into the movie but this man makes it look like republicans do not care about the american public...let me just say that I personally think that everyone wants the best for americans and both have different views that are what is needed...neither are good and evil, look at it as good and bad decisions...sure republicans have made wrong decisions but so have democrats.

[leg4]

i guess im just pissed... in this situation

i would kill anyone that tried to harm YOU!
(yes, you... reading this now!)

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by leg4
i guess im just pissed... in this situation

i would kill anyone that tried to harm YOU!
(yes, you... reading this now!)

exactly, in any situation I think that ANY HUMAN BEING would attack anyone thought to have possesed any harm to the american people.

[Paul Markham]

frankthetank
So CIA memos are enough reason for you, pity history will not see it as so.

WMDs, the memos were BS, because were able to state where there were any WMDs. We were told at the time that revealing exact locations would be dangerous for spies working in Iraq. Well it seems the spies must still be in danger becasue nothing has been found to date.

Terrorism, where are the facts to back up these memos?

If you have a boss that wants to hear a message and you want to look good, you produce the message. Producing facts to back up the message are proving a little harder and the more investigating that is being done into the "Memos" the more doubtful they are looking.

A memo that there might be something, is a signal to produce facts and be on your guard. Not an excuse to invade a third world country that in truth could not protect itself and kill hundreds of thousands.

I have the utmost respect for the people in Iraq trying to hold everything together. I just learned that a friend has been promoted to 2 Commando, this means he's a front line soldier. If he gets injured or does not return I want to know his sacrifice was worth it.

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by charly
frankthetank
So CIA memos are enough reason for you, pity history will not see it as so.

WMDs, the memos were BS, because were able to state where there were any WMDs. We were told at the time that revealing exact locations would be dangerous for spies working in Iraq. Well it seems the spies must still be in danger becasue nothing has been found to date.

Terrorism, where are the facts to back up these memos?

If you have a boss that wants to hear a message and you want to look good, you produce the message. Producing facts to back up the message are proving a little harder and the more investigating that is being done into the "Memos" the more doubtful they are looking.

A memo that there might be something, is a signal to produce facts and be on your guard. Not an excuse to invade a third world country that in truth could not protect itself and kill hundreds of thousands.

I have the utmost respect for the people in Iraq trying to hold everything together. I just learned that a friend has been promoted to 2 Commando, this means he's a front line soldier. If he gets injured or does not return I want to know his sacrifice was worth it.

I just think that if I were given maps and memos saying saddam has WMD's and this is here they are located and also recieving memos that bin laden is looking for WMDs I would want to know exactly what saddam is up to and without him co-operating I would assume he is sharing these with terrorists. Personally I would rather bush do to much then to little so that we can never have anything as horrific as 911. I am sure the democrats would have done the same thing if it meant protecting the american people and the world for that matter.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by frankthetank
Creating a documentary isnt meant to be showing a one sided view... it is to show facts of what happened and I was never told in that movie about numerous facts that I know what happened...I knew that going into the movie but this man makes it look like republicans do not care about the american public...let me just say that I personally think that everyone wants the best for americans and both have different views that are what is needed...neither are good and evil, look at it as good and bad decisions...sure republicans have made wrong decisions but so have democrats.

No creating a documentary is meant to be presenting one side. You just have to wait for the other side to present their side.

And so far we are waiting.

Agian no disputes of the facts presented in the film, just critising the message man. Anyone who thinks Moore is unbiased really is too stupid to make a difference.

Dispute the facts, don't dismiss them.

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by charly
No creating a documentary is meant to be presenting one side. You just have to wait for the other side to present their side.

And so far we are waiting.

Agian no disputes of the facts presented in the film, just critising the message man. Anyone who thinks Moore is unbiased really is too stupid to make a difference.

Dispute the facts, don't dismiss them.

I am just trying to get the point across that most of this moview was not facts that I had not heard before, even if some were true which is totally believable. I am just trying to say that bush did only what I know I would have done and that is to protect the american people which I think he has done or atleast tried to do to the best he was able to do.

[bringer]

he claims he cares about the country. what an idiot

[Tempest]

Originally posted by charly
You just have to wait for the other side to present their side.

Anyone who thinks Moore is unbiased really is too stupid to make a difference.

Exactly. Either you believe in Freedom of Speech or you don't. You can't believe in it if it's only promoting your point of view.

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by Tempest
Exactly. Either you believe in Freedom of Speech or you don't. You can't believe in it if it's only promoting your point of view.

exactly, if I didnt believe in freedom of speech I would not have gone and saw this movie, I think in order to have a democracy there needs to be many sides of view and I do believe that everyone is really at the end of the day just trying to do what is best for americans and the world at large.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by frankthetank
I must disagree, if it were such a powerful documentary then both sides would have been shown

Are you serious or joking? It's hard to tell.

Rush Limbaugh listening Fox news watching right wingers who worship Bush, the most partisan president in recent U.S. history, complaining because Michael Moore isn't fair and balanced.

It has to be a joke.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by frankthetank
I just think that if I were given maps and memos saying saddam has WMD's and this is here they are located and also recieving memos that bin laden is looking for WMDs I would want to know exactly what saddam is up to and without him co-operating I would assume he is sharing these with terrorists. Personally I would rather bush do to much then to little so that we can never have anything as horrific as 911. I am sure the democrats would have done the same thing if it meant protecting the american people and the world for that matter.

So these memos stating where the WMDs are located, were they false or lies and why was no evidence produced to back them up.

And why were they not shown to the Weapons Inspectors?

As I said, they were pieces of paper and little else, with NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER TO BACK THEM UP.

Even George Tenet thinks Bush drew the wrong conclusions for the memos.

He suggested there were occasions when intelligence may have been misconstrued, as he put it, and insisted he did say so behind the scenes within the administration.

As I said, the memos were enough to go find the proof, not start a war. History will judge Bush.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by frankthetank
Creating a documentary isnt meant to be showing a one sided view...

You are wrong.

Stop letting Rush Limbaugh define words for you - try looking it up instead.

A non-fiction text using 'actuality' footage, which may include the live recording of events and relevant research materials (i.e. interviews, statistics, etc.). This kind of text is uually informed by a particular point of view, and seeks to address a particular social issue which is related to and potentially affects the audience."
--Paul Wells, "The Documentary Form: Personal and Social 'Realities,'" An Introduction to Film Studies, 2nd ed., ed. Jill Nelmes, 212.

"[A]ny film practice that has as its subject persons, events, or situations that exist outside the film in the real world."
--Steve Blandford, Barry Keith Grant, and Jim Hillier, The Film Studies Dictionary, 73.

"A nonfiction film. Documentaries are usually shot on location, use actual persons rather than actors, and focus thematically on historical, scientific, social, or environmental subjects. Their principle purpose is to enlighten, inform, educate, persuade, and provide insight into the world in which we live."
--Frank Beaver, Dictionary of Film Terms, 119.

http://www.docftv.com/definitions/

[MikeHawk]

Originally posted by charly
What you have to do with all things like this is look at the message and the message carrier.

Has Bush disputed any of the statements put out in the film?

Is Michael Moore biased?

Who has been proven to be the more truthful?

Who has the power to do the more damage?

It's no good to just dismiss Moore becasue he's biased, that's a very American thing to do. Just because the message carrier is criticising it does not follow he is lying or hates the US. You have to prove these facts.

So far what has been shown is the war was started on the false premise that Saddam's Iraq was a threat to the US.

Where is the proof Saddam was supporting terrorism against the US. Yes he was vocal against the US, but other than that what proof is there?

Where is the proof he was in league with Bin Laden?

No one so far has been able to come up with proof that WMD existed at the time of the invasion.

Going to war, invading and occupying a country, killing hundeds of thousands, spending billions of dollars needs a little more proof and a lot less assumptions than we were given.

Who would you rather trust, Bush or Moore as the most truthful?

Thats not the point...the point is as americans we must support our troops and the effort at hand. Living in the past and second guessing is for fools and people like moore.

I support our troops our efforts we are over there fighting and our guys are dieing, while you go to Starbucks and drink your coffee drinks not even knowing wtf is going on...

Wake up, the very freedom we have comes from the actions taken by a govtand our troops of the free world, support, dont tear appart...we must stand united or else we play into the hands of the very people trying to rip us apart...

[Paul Markham]

frankthetank
You may believe in a documetary being unbiased, unfortunately your President does not think so with a commission set up to investigate the facts.

Bush under fire over WMD inquiry

Or is it only the opposition that has to present both sides?

[frankthetank]

Originally posted by charly
So these memos stating where the WMDs are located, were they false or lies and why was no evidence produced to back them up.

And why were they not shown to the Weapons Inspectors?

As I said, they were pieces of paper and little else, with NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER TO BACK THEM UP.

Even George Tenet thinks Bush drew the wrong conclusions for the memos.



As I said, the memos were enough to go find the proof, not start a war. History will judge Bush.

anyways, I am pretty tired I encourage you to believe what you want to believe that is the great thing about america, I was just very dissapointed with this movie, because I thought I was going to be presented with more facts then I already knew which did not happen.

[bringer]

michael moores movies compair to a health campain telling amercians bigmacs are healthy because they have lettuce

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by MikeHawk
Thats not the point...the point is as americans we must support our troops and the effort at hand. Living in the past and second guessing is for fools and people like moore.

I support our troops our efforts we are over there fighting and our guys are dieing, while you go to Starbucks and drink your coffee drinks not even knowing wtf is going on...

Wake up, the very freedom we have comes from the actions taken by a govtand our troops of the free world, support, dont tear appart...we must stand united or else we play into the hands of the very people trying to rip us apart...

Have I said at any point I do not support the troops?

Standing up for freedom by invading a helpless country, nice twist.

[Tempest]

Originally posted by MikeHawk
Thats not the point...the point is as a americans we must support our troops and the effort at hand.

Support the troops. No one EVER says not to. But don't let your support of the troops blind you to someone that may be getting them killed for all the wrong reasons. THAT should get you more pissed off than anything if it's true. Blindly following a leader who is bad for a country is exactly what happened in Germany.

[Paul Markham]

Now we will see what the memos were based on.

US spymaster goes on the defensive

The focus of those questions is widening. Not only do they demand to know if politicians exaggerated the intelligence estimates to strengthen the case for war; they also demand to know whether the intelligence agencies got it right.

The administration has begun to step away from its position of certainty over the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

And the former weapons inspector David Kay has told Congress that he doesn't believe that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMD and questioned pre-war intelligence.

Now I suppose the BBC is biased.

[DirtyDave]

I am so sick and tired of everyone talking about why we went to war in Iraq.

It seems to me we should be talking about whether any war with Iraq could have been justified.

So lets take these into consideration:

1. Iraq was a known training ground for many of the terrorist organizations acting thoughout the entire world.

2. Saddam committed human rights atrocities on the order of Hitler. Hundeds of thousands of people gassed, tortured, flayed, and murdered.

3. Sadam and the radical religion he supported condoned the kind of treatment of women that hardly any other place on earth would subject animals to. Even test animals are treated better. Have you seen the pictures of women stoned to death because they accidently showed an ankle? How about the pictures of the girl that had battery acid thrown in her face because her sister rejected a suitor. And the men/attackers are never charged!

That is just off the top of my head. I'm sorry, but as a human being, I don't care what reasons were used to justify taking out Iraq. Saddam and his sons should have been killed a long time ago.

And here is my real name because if you can same I'm wrong with my above statement then

David Satchell