Fahrenheit 9/11

Biased against Bush? That's the point. Moore has made no secret of the fact that he wants his film to prevent people voting for GWB in the november Presidential elections.

That might be a noble aim - after all, Bush is an even bigger menace than Ariel Sharon - F-9/11 is a pretty poor film. In fact, with the possible exception of Bowling For Columbine, moore hasn't done anything decent since Roger & Me.

Kevin (Bob Dylan - Rolling Thunder Revue Live)

Arye,

So that's how it's going to be is it? Rather than answer the questions on your 'Hague' thread, pretend it doesn't exist and start a new one?

(A somewhat perplexed) JonR

On wednesday evening in Crawford Texas (The Presidents Own neck of the Woods)
one can see Mr Moore's "documentary" that's just broken the $100 Million
barrier. Mr Moore himself will be present at the old rented barn (with his own
cut of the film, just in case there's a problem ?) and Mr Bush has naturally
been invited to a front row free ticket, where the host has offered to pop his
corn for him if required ?


Fritz von Darnitlaurawe'restayinintoniteyerhear

Not seen it myself, far too mainstream ?

I think that it is a great movie; it is very interesting to see it from the beginning to the end.
The film shows a very good view of the pain of the war, the American woman who lost her child and the dead and wounded people and babies in the Iraqi side. I didn't know that there are more than 800 killed American soldiers in Iraq (until the movie was filmed).
It paints President Bush as a person who can't take decisions in a conflict time and this way of presenting him looks very authentic especially his reaction (or not reaction) when he was told that the first airplane hit the building.
The description of him taking so many vacations and the way he talks with journalists seems strange most of the times.
All these scenes were taking at the time it happened and it seems to be fully documentary.
I think that Moore is a very brave director to make such a film in his own country.
The connection of the Bush family with the Arab Saudi people is shocking - and the fact that they allowed people of Ben Laden family to leave the country while all the air traffic was grounded, is a shocking fact too.
I thought that maybe there are other explanations to what the film is showing, but if there are not, the film shows a very sad and hard facts about the person who leeds the most powerful country in the world.

Arye

His next documentary is reportedly going to be about free Speech/Press & Democracy in Israel, and America's part in supplying and supporting it's Nuclear and Strategic Weapons programme/Deterent, and future President Kerry's shortening of the anything goes leash.

Source: Totally invented & Made up: Reutereus Paper shop on the corner.

Fritz von Twighlight Zone:


P.S. Every Country on Earth has a natural right to self defence (The Sun)

Arye, you may be interested in reading "House of Bush, House of Saud" which examines the relationships among the Bush family, Saudis, Bin Laden family, etc. (I haven't read it)

And because I'm a nice guy here's a lovely review of the book by an Amazon.com customer (these are often more entertaining than the books):

"MOST HoS reviewers are imbalanced, vindictive liberals who?re impersonating into reviews defamations of Bush, with every frenetic conspiracy-theory their anti-government minds invent. Their reviews divulge the extreme of liberals? cancerously black detestation of Bush, that they?re shamelessly willing to stoop to unconscientious fraud by insidiously masking themselves as literates who?ve read it, really abusing that fa?ade as a screen to galvanize immaterial, conspiracy-theory, radically insane slurs!!!! If you?re afflicted with schizophrenic Bush-animosity, DON?T get pollutedly mistaught by these SICKOS; Unger?s book isn?t blinded, anti-Bush fanaticism like the sordid crap vomited by shameless demagogues so much as a history lesson, albeit a biased one. The otherwise informative book, chronicling Arabs? obsession with Islamic fundamentalism that was tactically used by the Reagan Admin. to help defeat the U.S.S.R. in the Cold War, is ruined by Unger?s prejudicial and stealthy selectivity in order-chronology and his sometimes worse misdeed on disadvantageously believing untrustworthy sources.
Unger?s thesis is Bush intimacies with Saudis may?ve facilitated profane, Islamic fundamentalism?s rise; something plausible. Unger begins by detailing the materialization of Binladen repatriation after 9/11, contending that, contrary to FBI?s insistences, they weren?t screened probingly as required, but received WH, FBI clearance. While true, Unger?s first wrongdoing is committed. Unger plagiarizes this fact from other books? and articles? sources, an illness he perpetrates for most of his book?s discussions, reducing his merit because he doesn?t investigate independently. Unlike other liberal partisans posing as authors, Unger at least balances his planned accusations that the WH jeopardized national security by not scrutinizing Binladen?s relatives with confessions that, in the Binladen repatriation, there?s only speculation regarding their connections to Osama, and the Binladens renounced him.

Parts dealing with the Saudi-American connection?s infancy are historically informative and edify that not only did Saudis begin their Americanization through Houston businessmen like Bath, but Demoncrats were also involved, like Carter?s director of the OMB, Bert Lance. The Saudis? ultimate goal was blatantly to infiltrate access to American power?s inner sanctum?the presidency. Saudis partook in particularly shrewd habits of having businessmen such as BCCI?s Abedi and Mahfouz rescue American politicians? companies that were in financial direness, even Bush?s Harken. Saudis would continue to ingratiate themselves in America?s interests by covertly assisting two Reagan policies: arming the Contras and Iraq to counter Iran, excellently strategic maneuvers. Unger puts in perspective that Iraq?s arming was actually CARTER policy; he encouraged Hussein to attack Iran to ultimately free the hostages. However, America realized that Iraq was gaining strength, so they?d backslide to once more financing Iran. For liberal scum who sanctimoniously, IGNORANTLY decry this, this isn?t a duplicitous policy as much as it?s savvy politics.

Ultimately, the Reagan Admin.?s dealing with Saudi Arabia developed into their defining tactic of Cold War victory: mujahedeen-financing in Afghanistan. Unger, by his intractable, liberal categorization, HAS to demeaningly ?argue? that constitutes American creation of the jihadist monster, but upon examining evidence Unger cataclysmically presents himself?that Egyptian Qutb and militant scholar Azzam indoctrinated students at Jeddah?s Aziz University with Wahabbi fundamentalism?there exists likelihood that LOTS of Arabs would?ve dilapidated independently into mujahedeen psychopaths. This policy was started by Carter Admin.?s Brzezinski to halt the Soviets? expansion.

America?s handled two winning approaches to Islamic and Communist threats, ensuing to the Gulf War, whose chronicling Unger treats less than perfectly, injuring his legitimacy. Unforgivably adverse is Unger?s selective reliance on untrustworthy, rabidly psychotic, anti-war sources for almost all of one chapter. Detailing the Gulf War, Unger exclusively abuses sources from the guiltiest anti-war forgers: the ?Disinformation Company? and John MacArthur, slippery dissembler. Instead of recounting the intriguingly supposed offer Binladen made to fight Hussein with his ?Afghan warriors? instead of the ?infidel? Americans in response to Hussein?s Kuwait invasion to reclaim Iraq?s ?stolen? oil, Unger descends into hazardously unstable, anti-war propaganda. Using MacArthur?s source blindly, Unger subserviently regurgitates the sham Hussein DIDN?T amass a large army into Kuwait. This is THE worst objectionable aspect of Unger?s otherwise decent effort, and citing another roguish ?reporter? from St. Petersburg Times, Unger fabricates that alleged Soviet satellite photos of Kuwait and Iraq DIDN?T show buildup except America?s own. Unger covers-up varying reasons the SAME experts he quoted offered as probabilities for said phenomena, including camouflage, wide troop dispersion, or glare. Another discomforting questionableness is Unger?s preoccupation with disproving ?Nayirah?s? credibility, which CAN?T be ?confirmed? other than on mentally ill, anti-war sites!!!!

Unger progresses to Clinton, his amoral partisanship lapsing conscience!!!! Unger lies through his teeth Clinton was first to ?identify? Al-Qaeda as the premier hazard; if you believe this, you?re a gullibly mistaught, liberal patsy-cretin. Unger?s casualty is his exorbitant dependence on Clarke the Liar for information. Unger?s so shameless, he humiliatingly discloses Clinton?s maltreated faults of ?anti-terrorism??1993?s WTC BOMBING, 1993?s Somalia-Ranger-KILLINGS, 1996?s 19-American-soldiers-killing Khobar Towers BOMBING, 1998?s Tanzania, Kenya embassy BOMBINGS, 2000?s Cole BOMBING?then still imposes Clinton ?proactively? retaliated by?get this; gets funnier!!!!?bombing a misconceived ?aspirin factory? in Khartoum!!!! When Unger stoops to subordinately swallowing all of Clarke?s purport that he presented Bush a plan to assault Al-Qaeda, after being stupid or fanatically virtuous enough to provide the Admin.?s reasoning that Clarke?s crippled ?plan? OMITTED to account for comprehensive methods to target both the Taliban?s AND Al-Qaeda?s inseparability, the book careens into impurity.

Unger arduously stumbles to close with conspiracy theories about three Saudi princes ?knowing? about 9/11 beforehand. If true, it?d ONLY put them in the same, helpless position as Bush who didn?t possess information about time or place, because Unger ruinously confesses they didn?t know specifics either. Unger?s deserving of only a half-rating since only the first two-thirds is responsibly uncovering history somewhat. Unluckily for Unger, the latter third?s where Unger?s afflicted by the irredeemable tumor all liberals are possessed with: hazardously degrading into skewed innuendo chicaned to his unsanitary worldview that Bush is evil. Unger excruciatingly massacres a decently fair chronology at the end by tyrannically recycling the now-infamous, liberal-practiced slogan liberals always perpetrate undependability in, which is Bush waged a ?phony? war and Hussein ?didn?t? have WMDs."

alexgerrard,

I didn't make the film, an American director made it. It is also clear to me now - at the beginning of the war I didn't think so - that there was no reason to invade to Iraq. I say this last sentence although the invasion to Iraq was a great step to weaken the enemies of Israel.

I don't think that there is something wrong with this attitude of mine.

Arye

Ludwig,
I read the article you brought here, I didn't read the site yet I can response from what I saw in the movie:

1. Letting the Ben laden family going back to their country while all the air traffic in the USA is grounded and there are people who are held in prison as suspects at the same time, seems to be a very strange thing to do.

2. The Saudi-American connection, the movie shows too that this connection is a very old one. It is also telling that a president of the USA earning (or costs) 400,000 $ a year, but Bush the father earned 1.4 billion $ from this connection at the last 30 years. The movie also tells that Bush the son, when was young, failed to run few companies and the money to assist him came from Saudi sources and not from his father.

3. Most of the other points I don't know, but the author keeps saying that these and these started at Clinton or Carter administration and so on... Well, I don't know if it is an excuse or it is not as I don't know if members here are thinking that there is a point in pointing for blames in the past or it is a pointless thing to do...

Arye

I heard John Simpson being interviewed on the radio. He is a personal friend of Michael Moore and made the point that the film was never intended to be neutral or unbiased and that it did contain some inaccuracies. John Simpson's main criticism of the film was that it showed the Iraqis in a state of idylic happiness before the coalition invasion. He said that he had spent many months in Iraq, had a number of close Iraqi friends and was generally very fond of the Iraqis and that this portrayal of pre invasion Iraq was the most misleading aspect of the movie.

Ayre, the allegation made that Saudi 'suspects' were allowed to fly out of the USA is interesting and, if true, bewildering. However, it is unproven and without much foundation.

I'm no fan of Bush, in fact I dislike him, however it seems to me that world politics are and have always been about expediency rather than moral or ethical rights and wrongs.

During the 1973 Arab oil embargo the USA found themselves in a position where they did not have the oil that they needed to supply their fleet and continue with the Vietnam conflict. The US' reliance on Gulf oil was so serious that they had talks with the Saudi king and made it clear that they would consider military action against Saudi Arabia to safeguard their oil supplies, if they didn't break the embargo. The Saudis unsurprisingly decided to supply the USA fleet with oil, while hiding this fact from their Arab allies.

I make this point to illustrate how vulnerable the USA was and is to interuptions to their oil supply from the gulf. When Bin Laden orchestrated the 9/11 catastrophe he arranged that 15 of the 19 terrorists involved should be Saudi nationals. Other than the pilots, I believe that all the terrorists were Saudis. His goal here was to drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia and this has been successful to a high degree. It seems likely to me that a large reason for the US invasion of Iraq was an attempt to safeguard their supply of Gulf oil in the event of further deterioration in the US relationship with Saudi.

I make no judgement against the USA here. They are the world's only super-power and, throughout history, super-powers have always acted in this way. World politics is little to do with moral or ethical imperatives and, unless and until mankind attains a higher state of enlightenment, expediency will rule.

Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music

Steve,

You are saying about the letting the Ben laden family leaving the USA that " it is unproven and without much foundation".

In the movie, they showed the documents with the people names and interviewed a person from the airport who said that they passed through a regular border checking and they were identified one by one by their names. I think this proves it.

Arye

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arye_Gur:
You are saying about the letting the Ben laden family leaving the USA that " it is unproven and without much foundation".

---

No, sorry if this wasn't clear. I'm saying that it is unproven that Saudi terrorist suspects were allowed to leave. There has been an independent 9/11 commission that has looked into this and draws the same conclusions (not that independent commissions are always right in their findings).

Some of Bin Laden's relatives were allowed to leave but Osama is considered to be the black sheep of the family. The other Bin Ladens are not suspects, just a high-ranking Saudi family. I believe.

Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music

Steve

quote:

---

Some of Bin Laden's relatives were allowed to leave but Osama is considered to be the black sheep of the family. The other Bin Ladens are not suspects, just a high-ranking Saudi family. I believe.

---

That's exactly what the movie says,Only Moore claims that is was a necessity to question these people because maybe they could give a clue to the FBI where to look for Osama.

Arye

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexgerrard:
Perhaps they were even shipped out because their lives were in danger from a hateful and vengeful American public.

---

That's a good point Alex. I wonder if the British would have been any different.

Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music

quote:

---

and the fact that they allowed people of Ben Laden family to leave the country while all the air traffic was grounded, is a shocking fact too.

---

by most accounts I have seen this is simply untrue. Moores 'evidence' is dubious to say the least.

Watch this film by all means but please don't believe what is said any more than you believe what Bush says.

quote:

---

his reaction (or not reaction) when he was told that the first airplane hit the building.

---

I'd have thought calmness in the face of a terrorist attack is exactly what was required. I'm not sure what Moore is trying to get over in this extract.

quote:

---

I'd have thought calmness in the face of a terrorist attack is exactly what was required. I'm not sure what Moore is trying to get over in this extract.

---

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
This link might clear this one up. Calmness isn't quite the same as the clueless inactivity which Bush appeared to exhibit

Interesting film. Finally got around to seeing it the other night.

Several thoughts come to mind.

a) if I were American then it could possibly change my voting habits and a film seen with friends is much more likely to do so than a book. Who buys a book that they know they're likely to disagree with?

b) the connections were generally well made but I agree with those who say that a connection is not the same as a conspiracy or guilt.

c) as ever with Moore he undermines his better made points with flabby film-making redolent of TV Nation. It was easy to film Lila Lipscombes' transformation from flag waving republican to a feeling of betrayal but the death of your son wouldn't necessarily do that by itself. Who gave her the information that changed her mind?

d) The first half of the film used a certain humour to make its' points. The second half was far more serious but Lila Lipscombe was a cheap shot. The pictures of the Iraqi and American casulaties spoke for themselves.

e) It was a film that needed to be made and should be made. Many people could have made a better film but the point is that they didn't and, frankly, someone (however imperfect) has to make such films.

f) A minor thing - the use of music in the film was amongst the best I have seen for some time. Obvious but effective.

Mike

Great Movie?

When I saw this movie, I had the expectation that it would be a great movie. Unfortunately MM missed the point.

The first thing that alerted me to it, was watching everyone streaming out of the theatre from the previous running of the movie. People were totally expressionless - the opposite of animated. For a movie that was meant to be contraversial, I expected a stronger re-action, positive or negative.

Then I saw the movie. Not the slightest hint of subtlety. Instead of making a powerful point and moving on, leaving the observer to develop a reaction, MM flogged the point over and over. Bush et al may be stupid, corrupt etc, but let the anger develop. Being wacked over the head too many times leaves you feeling like a zombi. And that was why the audience from the previous showing, and the one that I was in, left feeling totally drained and wondering why it wasn't only half as long. Even one fellow sitting behind me, who clearly thought that MM was a genius, responding with gusto to every point that MM made, left the theatre looking totally passive.

This all left me thinking of a movie I saw probably 30 years ago, called Z. I still remember my reaction. And sadly, I believe that MM really cannot make a good movie.

DM

It was bleedin hot in my local 7/11 last night I can tell you !


Fritz Von Shoplifter (Shop I said not Shirt)

Things are livening up !

Over in New York Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice has observed that Rupert
Murdoch has been going easy on Michael Moore. While rival networks ABC (prop:
Disney, which needs to remain on good terms with the government and its
regulators) and NBC (prop: General Electric, one of the US's main defence
contractors) have both weighed in with a series of attacks on Moore and his
latest film Fahrenheit 9/11, and the worst complaint made by hacks at Murdoch's
Fox network has been that he won't grant them an interview.
Meanwhile, Rupe's New York Post printed a strange editorial defending Moore against the federal
election commission, which has problems with some advertisements placed by the
larger-than-life polemicist. Why so friendly? Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice suggests that "Murdoch is covering his ass in case John Kerry wins".
Unfortunately Goldstein seems not to have noticed that Harper-Collins - also
owned by Murdoch - has just published Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man which purports to be an expose' of Moore's lies".

'Bookworm' Literary Review: P.E. August 2004. innit.

I've just finished reading the above link word for word which does IMDO definately portray a brilliant Contra argument to Mr Moores work(s). I'll make no personal comment, as I haven't seen the film, but do hope that Ayre who began this thread afterall has the time to read it through himself and possibly see what FREE speech is really all about ?


Cheers, I recommend reading it to all other theorists too, innit.


Fritz Von Mostimpressedgulliblefoolthatiam

Alex,

quote:

---

quote:
---------------------------------------------------
"Murdoch is covering his ass in case John Kerry wins"
---------------------------------------------------

Why bother, it's never going to happen.

---

Is Murdoch's ass too big to cover? I think we should be told just how large Ruppie's arse is.

Joe

Yeah interesting link. What did you make of the film itself?

It is an interesting link, and I am quite sure that many of the points are completely valid.

But, as with Michael Moore's work itself, how can we be sure? At one point he suggests French opinion is valueless on the basis that a spurious book was once published there. Even Moore wouldn't do that.

Unless you've seen something with your own eyes, all you can possibly have is someone else's opinion of it. Everything is propaganda.

I know that MM has invited legal action, and no-one seems to have taken him up on that (at least not gathering publicity about it) so the truth, I guess, is somewhere in the middle.

Frankly the actual unedited film moments in Farenheit 9/11 of GWB are enough to convince me he should not be the leader of anything more significant than a queue for the toilet.