Fahrenheit 9/11

[TriplNipl]

Originally Posted by Karl

I have seen BFC, didn't like it. He uses facts in a misleading way, cuts and rearranges things. Doesn't present the whole truth only the part of the fact that furthers his point.

Surely you can back up your contention of his use of fact in misleading ways? Did you actually spend the time to research all of this?

[Jakanden]

I saw it the other day. Once again Moore proves that he is the master of portraying a false image without uttering a false word. I really don't like Michael Moore.

This is one of those movies where you will not convience someone to like it nor convience someone to hate it. Depending on someones political views it will be read as "Truth" or "Propaganda" and you will never convience someone to change that =)

This sums it up nicely:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040711

[Karl]

Originally Posted by TriplNipl

Surely you can back up your contention of his use of fact in misleading ways? Did you actually spend the time to research all of this?

I am not going to waste my time on Moore and his idiocy. If you want to hero worship him more power to ya.

[midgetcop]

Originally Posted by Karl

I am not going to waste my time on Moore and his idiocy. If you want to hero worship him more power to ya.

LOL.

[midgetcop]

Actually, I just saw the flick for the first time last night.

Overall I enjoyed it but that doesn't mean I don't have my own criticisms. Moore definitely has a bias and he definitely has his spin on the facts. But a lot of footage was *definitely* worth seeing and really *should* be seen by everyone. i.e. Iraq footage (U.S. soldiers, Iraqi citizens etc.), 9-11 widows, mothers of killed U.S. soldiers. Whether or not Moore is selectively using this footage to further his opinions really didn't concern me. Rather, it's footage that you won't see on CNN or Fox News and can effectively speak for itself.

All in all an interesting watch. Although I don't really feel that Moore is making any accusations that haven't been considered before, hence, I don't understand why people are so up in arms over him. I guess it's because he's the only one to make a feature length film on the topic?

As far as accuracy goes, I have yet to research criticisms against Moore because I hadn't yet seen the movie. But I'll definitely be looking in it....

[Octagon]

Originally Posted by TriplNipl

Surely you can back up your contention of his use of fact in misleading ways? Did you actually spend the time to research all of this?

Well, I just saw F911 yesterday and the real question ought to be can you point to a single instance when he DOESN'T do that.

As for specific examples of how he uses facts in misleading ways, well, that's easy...

He starts by touting the notion that the Bush brothers and the Supreme Court and the 1927 New York Yankees conspired to steal the 2000 election and he bases this on the claim that Gore would have carried Florida in the event of a statewide recount. What he fails to mention is that Gore never asked for a statewide recount and that even if every ballot in every county Gore challenged were recounted by hand Bush still would have carried Florida.

He also makes a big deal of the 'Bin Laden family' leaving the country after 9/11 but never mentions that Osama is one of like *fifty* children. But he did cite one example of one of those siblings *maybe* having some contact with him so presumably the entire family is just one big terrorist network or something. He also fails to mention that the flights out of the country did not in fact take place until the restrictions on general aviation were lifted. There were some flights *within* the US during the days immediately following 9/11 but the flights out of the US were a week or more later.

He talks about whether the FBI should have at least interviewed the Bin Ladens before they left the country. Well, he sort of conveniently leaves out the fact that the FBI in fact DID interview them before they left the country. This particular omission is all the more amusing because Richard Clarke is one of the people who says those interviews did in fact take place and Richard Clarke is also the 'administration official' who authorized some of the early flights. Why is this amusing? Because Moore plasters Clarke all over the screen when convenient but apparently doesn't even know he was alive with regard to these flights.

Moore claims that the Bush administration tried to "cut the pay of combat troops by 33%". This is a textbook example of the old adage warning against liars, damned liars and statisticians. Combat (or more accurately 'imminent danger') pay makes up a relatively small part of the total pay of combat troops. Eliminating combat pay *entirely* would not equal a 33% reduction in the pay of combat troops. So why didn't MM simply say 'cut combat pay' instead of 'the pay of combat troops'? Something about liars, damned liars and documentarians comes to mind.

Here's another good one. Moore says at one point that Iraq never so much as threatened a single American. Let's set aside their documented support for goobers like Abu Nidal and the fact that they spent almost a full decade taking potshots at American aircraft in the no-fly zones because, well, we need look no further that the FACT that they were conspiring to murder one of our former Presidents.

Oh, remember the bit about Oregon border patrols and 'the budget cuts'? Didn't it strike you as the least bit odd that Moore never quite got around to tell us exactly which budget got cut or by whom or by how much? Well, it didn't seem at all odd to me. It seemed pretty par for the course. Interviewing an Oregon State Police (an organization, to the best of my understanding, neither headed nor funded by the President of the United States) and making veiled references to unspecified budget cuts and hoping viewers will jump to the right (better make that left, actually) conclusions is very much Moore's style.

Ditto with that silliness about the infiltration of the Fresno peace group. This is a CLASSIC example of exactly the kind of 'post hoc propter hoc' deception and misdirection Moore's critics are talking about. Moore starts this bit by talking about the Patriot Act. Well, that part was true. Something called the Patriot Act was in fact passed. Then he goes on to tell us that 'law enforcement' infiltrated a harmless little gaggle of mom and pop peace activists. That part was true too (or at least I'm willing to assume that part was true for the sake of discussion). What he never quite gets around to telling us is what one has to do with the other. What, if anything, do the actions of some California sheriff's deputy tell us about the Patriot Act? Well, we're not supposed to bother ourselves with technicalities like that. We're just supposed to notice that it was raining, look down and see mud on the ground and conclude that it must have been raining mud.

But hey - if you want to look at this collection of half-truth and innuendo and consider it absolutely and categorically undeniable fact well, I imagine there's not much chance of anybody talking you out of it so knock yourself out.

[Octagon]

Originally Posted by midgetcop

Although I don't really feel that Moore is making any accusations that haven't been considered before,...

Actually there might have been one new charge in there. Prior to yesterday afternoon I wasn't aware that domestic airline regulations allow matches and butane lighters because Big Tobacco(TM) wants people to light up as soon as possible after landing

Originally Posted by midgetcop

...hence, I don't understand why people are so up in arms over him.

Nor do I. I can certainly understand why people might want to debunk or mock the Hero of Cannes but silliness like lobbying theater chains to refuse to show his film seems not only childish and petulant but counterproductive in that it gives him far more intellectual currency than he comes close to warranting.

[Jaster]

After losing my older brother on 9/11 in the Towers I agree 100% with this......

Subject: Michael Moore


This article by Michael Niewodowski regarding
Michael Moore's movie is right on the money!!

Was just sent this article by Michael Niewodowski, a chef
at the Windows on the World restaurant, who was supposed
to report to work there at the top of the World Trade Center
at 9:00 a.m. The first plane hit at 8:46.

He's not a professional writer, but his take on this human
pig of a man, Michael Moore, could not be better put.
~Ted
Michael on Michael

Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Michael Niewodowski



From Here to Eternity.
Tora, Tora, Tora.
In Harm's Way

These are three films made about Pearl Harbor. There have been more than 20 films made about Pearl Harbor, and over 200 films made about World War II. These films
inspire patriotism, courage, and nationalism. They tell us about the honor and bravery of the soldiers and the nation that supported them.

Two and a half years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the world watched American forces fight on D-Day. Two and a half years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the world is watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."


Moore's film is the first major motion picture about Sept. 11, 2001. This bears repeating. When future generations look back on the Sept. 11 massacre, their first impression, through the medium of film, will be a
work in which the president and the government are blamed for the attacks, and the soldiers who are protecting this country are defamed. Instead of a film version of Lisa Beamer's book, "Let's Roll," or Richard Picciotto's "Last Man Down," we are presented with this fallacy.

How could this happen?

It would be a colossal insult to insinuate that Franklin D. Roosevelt or the U.S. government were in any way responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor

Can you imagine the indignation of the men and women who lived during that period?

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is indicative of a nation that has become too apathetic, ignorant or deceived to face the enemy at the gate.

America ... where is your fury?

On Sept. 11, 2001, I stood across the Hudson River, watching the Twin Towers burn, knowing that if the plane had struck at 9:46 a.m. instead of 8:46 a.m, I would be dead. As a survivor and witness to the attack on the World Trade Center, I am more than insulted by this film. I am outraged.

This film is based on conjecture, hearsay and propaganda. At a time when this country desperately needs to rally in support of our brave soldiers and our strong leaders, Moore is content to spread discord and divisiveness.
The base of his argument is that the Bush administration had strong ties with the bin Laden family. However, sound facts are conspicuously absent from this "documentary."

The 9/11 commission did not indict President Bush.
According to the report, the president's actions before, during and after the attacks are fully justified, including the military action in Iraq. The commission did not find a
direct link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks A similar commission in the 1940s would not have found a direct link between Hitler's
Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor. In both instances, the threat was imminent; the president and the military acted decisively.

Could we have been more prepared for a terrorist attack on Sept. 10, 2001?
Certainly.

Could we have been more prepared
for an attack on Dec. 6, 1941?
Most definitely.

In the weeks and months following Pearl
Harbor, there were reports and criticisms
that the government and military should have been more prepared. The difference is that the people of the nation did not waste a lot of time pointing fingers at each other. Rather, they unified and engaged the enemy head-on. I guess that is why we call them
"The Greatest Generation."

How will future generations refer to us?

So, how do we explain Moore's film to future generations?
I wonder.

More than that, I wonder how I would explain this film to Nancy D., Jerome N or Heather H. I am sure you don't know their names, but their faces haunt me day and night. How would I explain to them that a film was made accusing the president
and vilifying the soldiers ... the same president and soldiers who are attempting to avenge their murders and protect other citizens.

Moore has not only insulted the nation,
he has insulted the victims of the terrorist attacks.

During his acceptance speech at the Oscars, Moore said,

"Shame on you, Mr. Bush."

Well, I say,
"Shame on you, Michael Moore."

Shame on everyone who supports this travesty of a film.
Shame on a society that allows this sham of a film.
You have weakened the nation.

Before you come here and bash me for what I believe think about how much YOUR life changed on 9/11. Think about what you lost on that date.
NOW think about what I lost. The days after 9/11 I was hurt but I was proud to see everyone behind the nation. Now we just seem behind.
I have held back on this for quite some time.
And yes I did try to watch the film (I would not give my money to Moore I was lent a bootleg) I was sickened with in 20 min.

[LifterMike]

100% agree with Jaster, Michael Moore is a pig. I dont give a **** what anyone says to the contrary, this guy is an expert at one-siding an argument, and making things appear other then they are.

[Luca Brasi]

Originally Posted by Jaster

The commission did not find a direct link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks A similar commission in the 1940s would not have found a direct link between Hitler's
Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Good call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[headhawg7]

Originally Posted by Karl

And there is no other President other than FDR that has had to deal with an attack on American soil. And the left despises Bush not the entire country, if that were the case then Kerry would be winning in a landslide in the poles. And where is this vendictiveness you speak of? The economy is growing jobs are being created, that might be why it's not such a hot topic in the media anymore. Why does the rest of the world dislike Bush, gee I don't know maybe he screwed up the gravy train the UN had going with Saddam. Maybe they resent the fact that the US is the only super power.
I feel no need to see F9/11, why becasue I don't agree with Michael Moore. I can do my own research and find things out I don't need to see Moore's version of the way he thinks things are.
I have no illusion that war is a clean politically correct thing where no one gets hurt.

You are dead on! Who gives a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks? Who on this board wants the USA to become part of some global alliance? As long as we are the only super power we will be hated. Here is a good analogy: the #1 team in college BBall or Fball is always hated and/or rooted against to lose.
I agree with Cursor when he mentions it is all propoganda because it is. The key is doing your own research as Karl mentioned.
Stay away from these movies if you are undecided. Do not let the masses make up your mind, make up your own mind.

[headhawg7]

Originally Posted by LifterMike

100% agree with Jaster, Michael Moore is a pig. I dont give a **** what anyone says to the contrary, this guy is an expert at one-siding an argument, and making things appear other then they are.

Here Here!
Jaster, sorry to hear about your brother. I did not know that and could not imagine what you went through.
Anybody who watches that film and comes away with a new perspective on our country is a total MORON.

[cursor]

Originally Posted by headhawg7

Stay away from these movies if you are undecided. Do not let the masses make up your mind, make up your own mind.

I think that this movie, and others like it, should be seen. Totally believing what's in it would be a mistake, however, without going through a comprehensive analysis for truth. Examine all sides of the issue ... then decide where you stand.

[headhawg7]

Originally Posted by cursor

I think that this movie, and others like it, should be seen. Totally believing what's in it would be a mistake, however, without going through a comprehensive analysis for truth. Examine all sides of the issue ... then decide where you stand.

I agree totally. When I said undecided, I really meant undecided and uninformed. That uninformed is the key word.