Farenheit 9/11

[_Sin_]

Originally Posted by otakujohn

Moore aside...

Newsflash!!!! Bush is a retard!

Wow, that's a well backed up statement

dragonz20 and Sanjuronord, I really don't know what you are argueing about since we all know that all "documentaries" are biased - be they by Bush himself or by Moore. It's your job as reader/viewer to doublecheck these informations to make sure that they don't blindly make up stuff.

Also, Moores (or most likely anyone's) research is not 100% accurate nor could you expect it to be - because the 2h time frame is too small and it is directed by one man alone which happens to have his own oppinion about the US politics.
(I just forced me to write all the stuff above because I did not want to go off topic. Here is the "real post": )

Originally Posted by Sanjuronord

Course, I'm a pessimist so I think very low of the average American's intelectual capabilities, and even less of the current president.

I couldn't help but be reminded to that. Click on The Ratings Game and let the insults by the people who take the flash as the only truth be rolling. Feed me

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by _Sin_

I couldn't help but be reminded to that. Click on The Ratings Game and let the insults by the people who take the flash as the only truth be rolling. Feed me

For anyone that might not see it off the bat, you have to click on the decapitated head of Bush.

Love the way he says "Amurrica" in that.

[dragonz20]

Originally Posted by Sanjuronord

Y'know I knew I was just going to be wasting my time cause you utterly missed the point. I'm not argueing that website is wrong and Moore is right, I'm saying that website is crap because it's not making an effective arguement. It offers little to no proof on any of it's claims and says little other than "moore is wrong, we're right." That website could be 100% accurate but if they offer no proof it's meaningless. That's the kinda writing that if I turned it in for a grade, even in middle school, my english teacher would make it bleed red. There is no defense for most of their points and they require too many leaps of faith on the part of the reader.

-- how can you talk about leap of faith when iam sitting here listening to you defend all these supposedly "truths" with no real actual backup? So you listen to Michael Moore say it is so and you believe it? He types up a chart full of numbers and that's true then huh?.. That is so weak of an argument. It was well proven and known that Michael Moore is manipulative w/ his data. you talk about leap of faith but I don't see any "proofs" coming from Michael Moore. All he does is show a couple of scenes that are extremely moving and disturbing to arouse or "wake-up" the audience and then links it to several other stories (that may or may not be directly a cause or result of it) and then sells you his "truth". It's funny how you claim the papers are below middle school level but yet Michael Moore doesn't prove any of his theories and it has ALREADY been proven that some of his claims were wrong. He even admitted to a few of them. I believe you missed my point because everything that you have claimed about my sources can be applied to Michael Moore's material.

btw, I went on movies.com and Farenheit 911 already has reviews (they've seen in at Cannes) and it is mostly all positive but if you read all the reviews, most of them have casted their doubts (how truthful and accurate all his points are) on what he's actually trying to sell. But don't take my word for it, read all these
reviews yourself:
http://movies.go.com/movies/F/fahren...004/index.html

Originally Posted by Sanjuronord

Well prosecuting someone for a crime they've committed isn't wrong (though I doubt the motive was justice in this case) but it looks like the lawyers used some loophole to even get the Paula Jones case started since it was past the statute of limitations. The Lewinsky part was completely put in there to embarass Clinton, if the judge hadn't been off his rocker he'd have never allowed it into the case, since his affair w/ Lewinsky was consentual. I think anybody else, should have been tried for perjury, because it did look like he had lied under oath. However, it was such a blemish on the presidency and the government at the time they should have just let it go for the better good of the nation.
Well, I don't really think his name was that good, but I'll say to make it "dirtier".

Agreed.
Even after the scandal, he ended his presidency w/ the highest approval rating. I am just saying as a President, he was one of the best. or luckiest. or both.. (cause he came in at a good time...)

Originally Posted by Sanjuronord

Don't agree with your views on violent media, but do agree about the lack of good parenting. But calling violent media a bad influence, makes it sound like the good parenting (or lazy parenting if you think like me) is to just remove the material rather than explain it. This of course is impossible, you can't keep your child from bumping into these things at some point or another, and face it the more you try to keep them from it the more they're gonna want to see it.

I didn't say good parenting is 100% proof. I did say good parenting will override ALMOST anything didn't I? And good parenting involves both removing the material as well as explaining. And I believe that we are all definitely getting desensitized to the violence. I don't ever recall watching and listening so much violence when I was younger.. Or was it because I was sheltered? There is definitely more violence being shown now than ever and it is becoming more and more acceptable in our homes. I am not saying it will affect kids teenagers but what about really young kids (below 11-12)/ Behaviors are set at a very young and I just don't believe that it's healthy for them (mentally). but whatever... i am just preaching now. Again this is only my opinion on this subject.

Originally Posted by Sanjuronord

@AvatarADV
So Moore isn't allowed to make any jokes during his works? If he says the entire budget was wasted on something and only 80% was, than yes technically they didn't spend the full 100% on it. Is his point now completely wrong? That they spent a buttload of money on just one thing? If moore made a documentary that had no jokes/exagerations it would be 100% boring. Nobody wants to see chart, graph, chart, interview, chart, graph, chart, scan of document, cut in footage of Powell saying bullshit, chart, graph, chart. Course, I'm a pessimist so I think very low of the average American's intelectual capabilities, and even less of the current president.

How can the bible say it's okay to stone children and sell them into slavery and it's generally accepted that it's not meant to be taken literally. (it's uh, it's uhm, y'know a metaphor....for uhm..uh...guh...could it be satan?) Yet if Moore says all and the answer was 80%, all the critics hope on his back and say "nail in the coffin, lardbutt! nail in the coffin!" If I say I spent all day building a fence and technically I was only out there 12 hours....gasp!!! I'm TECHNICALLY wrong!!! Welcome to the english language..

Umm yeah.. try more like 20% The program was for 4-5 years.. Assuming it's a 5 years, that's 20% of the original total for each year. And any mathematician will tell you that 20% is as close to 80% as our sun is to the pluto. 20% of his actual claim here is a HUGE difference... But thanks for trying to twist the truth around ala Michael Moore to help your cause. Then again you could also be EXAGGERATING ala Michael Moore because you wanna make jokes just like him. And pulling up the Bible example.. LOL!. Welcome to the world of simple math...

[KristopherZ]

God I hate political discussions, but there is one thing I hate more than everything else. That is twisting the truth so you can create a message. Hitler manipulated the truth to create a message, bush manipulated the truth to create a message, and Micheal Moore is manipulating the truth to create a message. It irritates me when democrats are condemning bush then do a 180 and praise anything that Micheal Moore has made. You can't condemn someone for making lies and then promoting another man who is making lies, that is hypocritical regardless of politics.

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by dragonz20

-- how can you talk about leap of faith when iam sitting here listening to you defend all these supposedly "truths" with no real actual backup?

Okay you apparantly are still missing the point I'm trying to make...let me stress something before I go over it again. I am not defending Moore or his views! My argument is that the sites you posted and described as offering

Originally Posted by dragonz20

ample evidence of blatant lies and half truths found in his documentaries.

actually offer nothing but someone saying that Moore is lieing and then offering no proof. Welcome to the conversation, hope I've gotten you up to speed at this point.

Originally Posted by dragonz20

He types up a chart full of numbers and that's true then huh?.. That is so weak of an argument.

Moore gives numbers/facts and cites references, the site you posted did neither. They make claims that they have numbers on their side but show or reference nothing. Say what you will about it, but at least it's an argument, the site you posted was nothing more than a child saying, "nuh-uh".

Originally Posted by dragonz20

It's funny how you claim the papers are below middle school level but yet Michael Moore doesn't prove any of his theories and it has ALREADY been proven that some of his claims were wrong. He even admitted to a few of them. I believe you missed my point because everything that you have claimed about my sources can be applied to Michael Moore's material.

Not by the sites you posted it wasn't. I've seen him correct a few minor issues (like he renacted a scene in Bowling for Columbine..the dog w/ the gun on his back...OMG!!!), I have yet to see the total reversal on an issue. Doesn't prove any of his theories? Hard to prove a social theory like the ones he talks about, but if he backs up even one of his claims with even one shred of evidence it's one more than the sites you posted. Take bowlingfortruth.com, I disagree that alot of the stuff they point out is trivial, but they at least make good arguments and strong points(they even make reference to real newspapers that report facts, not stupid online biased ones like the ones linked to off the site you posted). So a poor written argument can debunk another poorly written argument? That is the most asinine thing I've heard all day. If an "argument" has no proof, it can prove nothing...

Originally Posted by dragonz20

btw, I went on movies.com and Farenheit 911 already has reviews (they've seen in at Cannes) and it is mostly all positive but if you read all the reviews, most of them have casted their doubts (how truthful and accurate all his points are) on what he's actually trying to sell. But don't take my word for it, read all these
reviews yourself:
http://movies.go.com/movies/F/fahre...2004/index.html

Those critics must not know that even the slightest of issues and problems completely detract from the film's message. You should go tell them...
I prefer rotten tomatoes but to each his own...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Fahrenheit911-1133649/

Originally Posted by dragonz20

Umm yeah.. try more like 20% The program was for 4-5 years.. Assuming it's a 5 years, that's 20% of the original total for each year. And any mathematician will tell you that 20% is as close to 80% as our sun is to the pluto. 20% of his actual claim here is a HUGE difference... But thanks for trying to twist the truth around ala Michael Moore to help your cause.Then again you could also be EXAGGERATING ala Michael Moore because you wanna make jokes just like him. And pulling up the Bible example.. LOL!.

I wasn't referring to anything in particular when I used that example(though looking back i used the same percents in the previous paragraph--my bad), just how even the smallest mistake will cause everyone to hope on his back like they've found the holy grail. That "all" must mean a literal "all" while something so one sided as that part of the bible can be passed off with little to no regard. An exagerated example like that tends to be the best way to demonstrate a flaw in logic in an argument.

As for that (incredibly stupid) plane...I fail to see the significance of your point. Moore makes a point about government waste on a plane(assuming this is the F-22 we're talking about) and the incredible crack defense is [in my best bush imitation] "We got it on a payment plan...".(So in a few more years the amount Moore said will be right, just a few years late) Meanwhile, I turn on the TV and see stories about people buying and sending body armor and supplies to their enlisted relatives in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when that next Ford truck w/ a terrorist in the back w/ a shotgun pulls up on them, they'll rest easy knowing that, even though they don't have sufficient armor, we're getting a slick jet(F-22 does look pretty slick...). But when that plane buzzes over them in the sky and they look up in the air w/ clenched fist and yell to the heavens "Maverick!!!" they'll completely forget that they just got shot and they're bleeding to death. Honestly, why do we need a new plane to fight terrorists (to quote Bill Maher: "They live in ****ing caves! It's not going to be a missile!" --this was in response to a comment from Ann Coulter(who is in fact a robot... ) about the need for a missile defense system to protect us from the terrorists...They must have used commercial planes because they were saving their intercontinental missiles for later...) or militants in Iraq? That money could and should be put to better use helping the troops on the ground(Holding onto territory in this war/fight on terrorism has to be most costly aspect and should be focused on more than a new stupid plane). No ifs, ands, or buts... (Bill Maher comment went a bit on a tangent but wanted to show I wasn't taking the quote out of context)

That said, this is my last post on this topic (at least until I see something else worth commenting on...like the movie ). Everyone is entitled to their opinion and there is no point fighting over who is right and wrong. But pointing to a site that ridiculously poorly done and saying it proves(yet has no proof) how poorly done Moore's work is, well, just ridiculous.

[xavier8200]

Well, as far as the movie goes I am definetly going to see it. Not because i am "brainwashed fan" or anything like that but I am interested in what Mr. Moore has to say, I willtake the information that I gather and make MY OWN OPINION. As a person that has seen his movies and read a couple of his books (Stupid White Men is a good one). I enjoy his work.

For those of you who say that he is one sided: OF COURSE HE IS ONE SIDED!!!! everyone is one sided, you name one scientist, writer or politician who is spread out over a topic and they cant prove anything or document any plausible research. You have to be one sided in this kind of work.

As for Bush, I personally believe that he is one of the worst presidents of my lifetime. But presidents are like cell phone companies (try to pick the one who is going to screw you less than the others) either way you are going to get screwed over. I cant see anoyone thinking that he is the president. He isnt my president, he didnt win the election, the majority of the country did not vote in his favor (read the first two chapters of his book stupid white men).

I am just curious about this movie and this man's opinion. The fact that he has taken the intiative to do a movie like this against the president speaks volumes for his character. Everyone always complains about things and talks about how to change things but he is actually trying to act on the problems which is a big step.

I cant say that I am totally on his side and I cant say that I am against his views, I have my own thoughts, opinions and beliefs and I will act on them in the way that I believe is best.

[Jinto]

I will watch the movie too. But seriously, after reading stupid white men I don't expect it to be documentary. Stupid white men i.e. was more a satire than a on fact based documentary. Still I like it, because it contrasts to what the actual government does (they both lie here and there, but in two completely different ways). I think many us citizens can be polarized with such things very easily, because they don't have a chance to always see behind the curtain (when I think about Fox News and stuff... that is not far from pro Bush propaganda).

Spoiler:

This is quiet OT thatswhy written as spoiler.

Bush cannot even argue against Fahrenheit 9/11 without admitting at least the half of its content to be true. Politics these days are strange, its more like voting for a religous leader, because it is far more based on feelings, pushed emotions and images/beliefs(virtual messages) than facts, too much personality cult. But some (many?) voters support this behaviour because they seem to be attracted by the politican with the biggest mouth or best media presence.

[xavier8200]

Well, I went to go and see the movie and it was very informative. I consider myself to be sort of up to date with the things that happen politically and there was alot of things in that movie explained through Moore, interviews etc. that I wasnt aware of.

I think that everyone should go and see this movie regardless of whether or not you like Moore, Bush or whatever. Please dont let your individual biases hinder you from learning of things and perspectives that you wont experience watching anime or at home or even out in public. Alot of people in the movie theater were crying clapping swearing and things like that. But there is still some things that arent going to change.

The people that saw the movie will go home, go to work, think about the movie a little bit, then either vote for Bush anyway, OR even worse not do anything at all to help the situation or to call Bush on the things that he did. I can talk about alot more but I do not want to ruin the movie for anyone. Like I said before everyone should at least attempt to read Moore's material because it is worth looking into.

I talked to some people after the movie and asked them about their reaction. Everyone said that they didnt know how bad the situation was, my response to them was that just because you didnt know about the situation doesnt mean that you are free of guilt for not taking action.

The bottom line is that you are guilty unless you take actionin some way and actually take the time to educate yourself about what is going on beyond your front door.

[Dopeskills]

I'll post a mini review from one of my friends...

So I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 today at 1pm. I had the honor of sitting right in the middle of a group of Democrats who were spouting out anti-Bush bullshit for 15 minutes before 9/11 started. Anyway, to sum it up I would have to say it was humorous at times, satirical and pretty boring. I thought Bowling for Columbine was filmed in a much more entertaining way. Aside from Moore not telling the entire truth about a couple things, you definately feel you are watching a documentary-type film; more-so than Bowling anyway.

I really don't feel like giving my thoughts on every segment of the movie so I'll just summarize a little.......

The movie starts off with scenes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice all getting make-up put on them before speaking on camera. The lady trying over and over to comb down a single strand of hair on Bush's head is pretty funny. Then it goes into talking about Bush being on vacation and then his trip to Florida on 9/11. We then see the scene where Bush it told about the attacks and him sitting there for 7 minutes. The argument that Moore (and some mouthy Democrat bitch sitting behind me) made was that Bush should have immediately excused himself from the classroom upon hearing this. I don't see what the big deal is here. What should he have done? What would any of us have done in that situation? I respect the man for being calm and not wanting to alarm the kids being around him.

One of the big things Moore tries to get across in the movie is that the White House (Bush) authorized the flights for the Bin Laden family to leave the country on September 13, 2001. What's funny is that he uses footage of Richard Clarke in the movie but fails to mention how Clarke admitted to authorizing the flights HIMSELF after getting permission from the FBI. He says so in his book which has been out for a couple months now.

Then we move on to the whole Bush Sr./Bush Jr./Cheney linkage to Saudi Arabia and the BinLaden family. From what I gathered Moore looked like he was trying to tell people that the Bush family was behind 9/11 and planned it in order to start the war in Iraq. I don't think the evidence he provided proved that at all. Sure there are business links between them all but to draw the conclusion that they planned 9/11 is rediculous.

Onto Iraq, we see a little footage of soldiers putting hoods on enemy POW's heads. Then a soldier takes a picture of another soldier standing next to him. Some footage is shown of soldiers grabbing a POW's dick and then laughing and commenting on it "being hard". I had heard about Moore filming some of this stuff and I expected more of it to be here but it lasted on a couple minutes. Some other footage is shown of soldiers raiding a home in the middle of the night. Also shown is the effects of napalm on a few people in the hospital.

Moving on....We meet the woman from Flint Michigan who loses her son in Iraq. She eventually makes her way to Washington to visit the White House. You see her walking up to a little anti-war display and talking to the woman there. Then all of a sudden a woman in red with sunglasses walks up and says "This is all staged!!! This is all staged!!!". The woman who lost her son turns to her and says "My son!" She told the woman where her son died and then walked off leaving her stunned. Then the Mom walks over and looks at the White House and talks about placing blame on Bush and Co. for her son being dead. In all honesty, these scenes with the Mom crying were sad but I felt like her placing blame on Bush for her son being dead dishonored her son. I feel sorry for her but it just didn't hit me like I thought it would.

Moore decided to go ask some congressman to have their kids enlist in the Army to go help in Iraq. The guy that just stared at Moore with a shocked look on his face was funny. Other congressman just walked past him.

The final scene in the movie is Bush giving his famous "Fool me once, shame on me" line which is pretty funny but just shows he's a normal guy who forgot the phrase.

Anyway, I walked into '9/11' open minded and wanting to be at least entertained. I walked out of '9/11' disappointed and wondering what all the hype was about. I felt as though I sat through a 2 hour summary of the past 4 years of anti-Bush rhetoric and criticism. It wasn't anything I haven't heard or seen before and I don't see how any of it would change anyone's mind about Bush who already has a positive opinion of him.

[xavier8200]

So, where is your review or opinion?
I do see what your friend is trying to say though. However, to me Moore didnt seem to try and place blame squarely on Bush's shoulders but lets be honest, if it wasnt for the Bush family 9/11 would have never happened period.

[Sanjuronord]

We then see the scene where Bush it told about the attacks and him sitting there for 7 minutes. The argument that Moore (and some mouthy Democrat bitch sitting behind me) made was that Bush should have immediately excused himself from the classroom upon hearing this. I don't see what the big deal is here. What should he have done? What would any of us have done in that situation? I respect the man for being calm and not wanting to alarm the kids being around him.

A publicity event shouldn't come before a disaster, whether it was an "accident" or an attack (at the time it wasn't known). Don't think anybody is saying he should have jumped up and started screaming or anything but whether or not 20 some odd kids are worried or not should be the furthest thing from his mind. What about all the kids(and adults) in NYC that just saw a plane crash into a building? Betting they were pretty worried at the time. I'd respect a teacher for not trying to worry his students, I'd expect more from the President.

However, hindsight is 20/20, and I'm sure even Bush wishes he'd done more looking back on it.

Durn movie isn't even playing around me, gonna have to drive out a ways to find a theatre playing it but definetly want to see it.

[Rheinhard]

Well, just got back from the 9:45 show at the AMC30 in Houston. I have to say, I was amazed at the turnout. It was in one of the larger opening theaters in the multiplex and the place was pretty packed, at least 85-90% full. For Texas, a state where we are led to believe that if you don't like Bush you'd better just shut your mouth if you know what's good for you, I think a positive effect of seeing a crowd like this is simply to let people know they're not alone. We're so bombarded with right wing propaganda here that if you have that feeling that something jus' ain't right, that there has to be something wrong with you and surely you're the only one around who thinks that. Seeing the lineup waiting to get in and the full theater will remind people they're not alone and will give more people the courage to speak up. Regardless of what you think of Moore, I think that is a good thing.

Some funny moments in the theater here were the hoots and cheers whenever Houston came up, sich as when showing the Taliban members visiting the oil companies here and the shots of Enron and Halliburton. Also when Moore talked about how mothers weren't allowed to bring breast milk for their babies on post 9/11 flights but the Homeland Security patrol allows up to 2 butane lighters and several packs of matches (shoe bomber, anyone??), several folks in the theater flicked their Bics, almost like a rock concert.

I really enjoyed the movie (haven't laughed so much in a while, and the fact that most of it resulted from Bush being himself helped), however there were a few points where even I felt the propaganda element was layed down with a trowel. The images of Iraqi children playing just before the skies explode with American bombs, followed by people buried in rubble, were very affecting, but even I could see how this was a bit over the top. As much as I feel the administration misled us about its motives, even I don't think they went in desiring to blow up kids and stuff like that. And when whacking the audience over the head with images too much, people who are on the fence might feel that they are being lectured too heavy handedly, which would turn some off to the more important messages.

[Bullsquat]

Ok, I've just seen the movie tonight. I'm still a little woozy because there were some traumatizing scenes which I would still rather forget quickly, and it's pretty late so I may be missing a lot of stuff in this post. Anyway. to answer some of Dopeskills' friend's review:

The movie starts off with scenes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice all getting make-up put on them before speaking on camera. The lady trying over and over to comb down a single strand of hair on Bush's head is pretty funny. Then it goes into talking about Bush being on vacation and then his trip to Florida on 9/11. We then see the scene where Bush it told about the attacks and him sitting there for 7 minutes. The argument that Moore (and some mouthy Democrat bitch sitting behind me) made was that Bush should have immediately excused himself from the classroom upon hearing this. I don't see what the big deal is here. What should he have done? What would any of us have done in that situation? I respect the man for being calm and not wanting to alarm the kids being around him.

I agree with him with this issue, totally. The whole idea of making Bush look like this really lazy president was completely unnecessary. There was also that footage where thousands of demonstrators were protesting Bush's arrival to the White Houses by throwing rotten eggs to his limousine which is also completely unnecessary. For every thousands of people denouncing him on that day, there are thousands of others welcoming him. Moore's prime objective here is to simply make him look bad.

Then we move on to the whole Bush Sr./Bush Jr./Cheney linkage to Saudi Arabia and the BinLaden family. From what I gathered Moore looked like he was trying to tell people that the Bush family was behind 9/11 and planned it in order to start the war in Iraq. I don't think the evidence he provided proved that at all. Sure there are business links between them all but to draw the conclusion that they planned 9/11 is rediculous.

I don't know if Moore ever claimed that Bush perpetrated the whole terrorist attack but I do have to agree (and he showed ample evidence on this) that the Bush administration are employing some of the most ignorant bastards on the face of the planet. I don't know if it was Rice or Cheney who said this but the whole comment about the warning being ignored because the message that Bin Laden is going to strike inside America is too vague angers me. He did show some evidence of linkage between Bush, the Royal Saudis, and Bin Laden family. This was no surprise to me and shouldn't be to anyone. Do I like it? Absolutely not. Does it mean Bush is secretly protecting Osama Bin Laden? Absolutely...NOT! The Royal Saudi family and Osama Bin Laden are two separate entities. I was quite curious though as to why they never get the chance to interrogate the bastard's family but as far as the US goverment authorizing Osama bin Laden to leave Saudi Arabia, the argument is really lacking believable proof. If it was a blunder, I'm sure it's something other than the US goverment letting it happen. The whole concept is just too ridiculous.

I might also add that the way Moore decides to portray the flaws in homeland security is in fact, really 'flawed'. Come on, the best he can do is interview a state trooper who patrols a beach area in the middle of nowhere, Oregon? If there were misinformations about terrorist targets like say that little town of which the name I can't remember, it's too far off to blame it on Bush. Obviously it was a mistake by a more local law enforcement.

Onto Iraq, we see a little footage of soldiers putting hoods on enemy POW's heads. Then a soldier takes a picture of another soldier standing next to him. Some footage is shown of soldiers grabbing a POW's dick and then laughing and commenting on it "being hard". I had heard about Moore filming some of this stuff and I expected more of it to be here but it lasted on a couple minutes. Some other footage is shown of soldiers raiding a home in the middle of the night. Also shown is the effects of napalm on a few people in the hospital.

Your friend wasn't giving the whole detail on this one. There were also footages of gruesome dead Iraqi people. One really traumatizing scene for me is when we see a kid getting his face reconstructed while he was still conscious, yelling and screaming and all. We also see two American soldiers stepping on landmine or something and we actually see their mutilated bodies afterwards. One of the soldier still conscious was also yelling and screaming. A word of warning to all you people who plan to see this documentary. Yes, it really angers me that we are bombing Iraq and Afghanistan when we should be interrogating the whole Saudi goverment. Especially after watching all that suffering. I thought Moore gave a great insight into why the whole Iraq campaign was propaganda. I believe him and it makes me irate. But then we shift focus to the business of oil in Iraq. Moore makes it seem like all of the money pouring out of Iraq is qoing the Bush's pocket. But that's not entirely the case. Countries all over the world are raking in the profits. I know I may sound insensitive on this issue, but when you have the second largest oil reserve in the world, some people are bound to want to have a piece of it don't they? It's just the greedy nature of humans.

Moving on....We meet the woman from Flint Michigan who loses her son in Iraq. She eventually makes her way to Washington to visit the White House. You see her walking up to a little anti-war display and talking to the woman there. Then all of a sudden a woman in red with sunglasses walks up and says "This is all staged!!! This is all staged!!!". The woman who lost her son turns to her and says "My son!" She told the woman where her son died and then walked off leaving her stunned. Then the Mom walks over and looks at the White House and talks about placing blame on Bush and Co. for her son being dead. In all honesty, these scenes with the Mom crying were sad but I felt like her placing blame on Bush for her son being dead dishonored her son. I feel sorry for her but it just didn't hit me like I thought it would.

Your friend is one insensitive bastard. Her son actually wrote her a letter about his regrets for going to war in Iraq. He wrote that Bush is a fool and that he was fighting for nothing. So if she was angry at Bush for her son's death, she was not dishonouring him. To think otherwise is just plain idiotic. Also for your information, this scene hit me the hardest. I felt like my heart just dropped. If in fact, the stories these soldiers are saying are true, that the goverment is lying about taking care of our soldiers, it's really the last straw for me. I'm definitely jumping off the Bush wagon. It's one thing to do business with the Saudis, but to treat our soldiers like that is unforgivable. Really...really...unforgivable.

In conclusion, this movie did have an effect on me. I didn't think it was necessary to make fun of Bush by showing those semi-bloopers scenes of him and his cabinet members. Nevertheless, I believe Moore did have some really strong points. I myself voted for Bush but my trust in him is quickly deteriorating and this movie is probably helping me think less of him. I also wish that my dear cousin doesn't get hurt out there in Iraq. Because if she dies for nothing, I don't know how I can't sleep again at night.

[LoveOfAnime]

Originally Posted by Bullsquat

.

In conclusion, this movie did have an effect on me. I didn't think it was necessary to make fun of Bush by showing those semi-bloopers scenes of him and his cabinet members. Nevertheless, I believe Moore did have some really strong points. I myself voted for Bush but my trust in him is quickly deteriorating and this movie is probably helping me think less of him. I also wish that my dear cousin doesn't get hurt out there in Iraq. Because if she dies for nothing, I don't know how I can't sleep again at night.

Thank You for a great review. I was already interested in seeing this movie but now it is even more something that I am sure I want to do........

Originally posted by DOPESKILLS
I'll post a mini review from one of my friends...

So I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 today at 1pm. I had the honor of sitting right in the middle of a group of Democrats who were spouting out anti-Bush bullshit for 15 minutes before 9/11 started. Anyway, to sum it up I would have to say it was humorous at times, satirical and pretty boring. I thought Bowling for Columbine was filmed in a much more entertaining way. Aside from Moore not telling the entire truth about a couple things, you definately feel you are watching a documentary-type film; more-so than Bowling anyway.

I really don't feel like giving my thoughts on every segment of the movie so I'll just summarize a little.......

The movie starts off with scenes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice all getting make-up put on them before speaking on camera. The lady trying over and over to comb down a single strand of hair on Bush's head is pretty funny. Then it goes into talking about Bush being on vacation and then his trip to Florida on 9/11. We then see the scene where Bush it told about the attacks and him sitting there for 7 minutes. The argument that Moore (and some mouthy Democrat bitch sitting behind me) made was that Bush should have immediately excused himself from the classroom upon hearing this. I don't see what the big deal is here. What should he have done? What would any of us have done in that situation? I respect the man for being calm and not wanting to alarm the kids being around him.

@ Dopeskills

Do you ever notice how republicans stoop to name calling and insulting behavior??

[Rheinhard]

Originally Posted by Bullsquat

"The movie starts off with scenes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice all getting make-up put on them before speaking on camera. The lady trying over and over to comb down a single strand of hair on Bush's head is pretty funny.

While it really doesn't convey any deep meaning (like you said, these scenes are basically a bit of agitprop to make Bushco look bad), I have to admit one of the more disgusting scenes in the early part of the movie was Paul Wolfowitz (undersecretary of Defense, and major Iraq war architect) getting prepped before the camera. This guy licks a huge comb, dragging it back and forth on his tongue, then runs it through his hair. (This prompted many cries of "Eeeewwww" from the theater!) Then the camera guy actually touches the hair himself to move a few strands (another "Eeewwww"), the Wolfowitz rubs his hair himself, then licks his hand again, and does it again ("Eeeeewww!").

This is the same guy who told Al Franken to STFU when Franken met him at a Washington dinner and said "Boy, that weak Clinton military really got its ass kicked in Afghanistan, didn't it?" (See Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them )

To see this guy, who has been made out to be a combination of Niccolo Machiavelli and Otto von Bismarck look like a sleazy used car salesman was pretty amazing.

[Sepiraph]

Having also seen the film, I want to address one thing. It is obviously the film is biased. However, every film ever made in this world is also biased in some way. In fact, everyone is biased, get over it. Now since the film is made in a documentary-style, I'd say that IMO it is more biased than the average documentary film. However, it is also the goal of the film to send out the message about the lies told in events relating to 9/11. In that respect, the narrating techniques used in the film is masterful and quite successfully convey the intended message to the audience. In that aspect alone, the film is excellent.

[JubeiYamazaki]

I saw it, and all I'm going to say is if anything that was presented in the movie was a bald-face lie with no concrete evidence PLEASE show me a link with supported facts And yes, that film was biased, but then again Micheal Moore, never said he wasn't.

[Sepiraph]

Originally Posted by JubeiYamazaki

I saw it, and all I'm going to say is if anything that was presented in the movie was a bald-face lie with no concrete evidence PLEASE show me a link with supported facts And yes, that film was biased, but then again Micheal Moore, never said he wasn't.

That's right, if anyone is saying that the materials presented in the movie were based on lies, I'd like to see some supported facts as well. Moore presented his evidence, now it's up to his critics to provide the counter-evidences. I'd be very interested to see, but I have yet to see anything.

[Sanjuronord]

Suppose this is kinda related to this topic, found it linked off Moore's webpage anyways, and it's about the war in Iraq. Anyways this story offers up some great news out of Iraq. What is that news? Well, that 99% of the Iraqis are still alive! Why they even have some pictures and a pie graph(!) to prove it!

BAGHDAD—As the Coalition Provisional Authority prepares to hand power over to an Iraqi-led interim government on June 30, CPA administrator L. Paul Bremer publicly touted the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"As the Coalition's rule draws to a close, the numbers show that we have an awful lot to be proud of," Bremer said Tuesday. "As anyone who's taken a minute and actually looked at the figures can tell you, the vast majority of Iraqis are still alive—as many as 99 percent. While 10,000 or so Iraqi civilians have been killed, pretty much everyone is not dead."

According to U.S. Department of Defense statistics, of the approximately 24 million Iraqis who were not killed, nearly all are not in a military prison. Bremer said "a good number" of those Iraqis who are in jail have been charged with a crime, and most of them have enjoyed a prison stay free of guard-dog attacks, low-watt electrocutions, and sexual humiliation.

U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt explained the coalition's accomplishments in geographical terms.

"There are vast sections of the country where one can go outside unarmed during the daylight hours," Kimmitt said, speaking from a heavily guarded base outside of Baghdad. "Even in cities where fighting has occurred, many neighborhoods have not been torn apart by gunfire. And, throughout the country, more towns than I could name off the top of my head have never been touched by a bomb at all."

Obviously, the Onion isn't a real news site; but this article still gave me a chuckle so thought some of you may enjoy it. If you liked that story might also enjoy this one. Could the 9/11 commission have been avoided?

[Dev Gun]

HOT Damn what a fuss!
i stopped reading a few pages back cause it wont change my opinions.

its times like these, i ask myself the simple question, what would anime characters do?
hmmm, Spike seems like a cool guy, so does Mugen from SC4, so what would they do?

THey wouldnt give a damn what happens,
welll i guess thats where i lie.