It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans behind effort to censor F-9/11

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Sorry, Colonel, I had to go to work. What'd I miss?

Looks like you were given evidence of Moore BS. Looks like you poo-poo'd it aside. Too bad. You claim to be a lawyer (something I really doubt, but don't worry, that is a good thing), so you know that if a document has any fraud in it, the whole document is tainted. That is a place for you to grow concerned.
Next thing to contemplate is if Moore has to make both false assertions, doctored statistics and twisted truths, he is not exposing any corruption at all, but pushing his own agenda, and that is not good for a documentary.

Colonel, you have stated many times your disdain for Republicans, and you've even way overstepped the bounds by even asserting that all Republicans are going to Hell. What you need to come to grips with is that your Democrats are no saints, and to be honest, they wrote the book when it comes to treachery and deceit.

Here's a couple of measuring sticks with which to measure what is right for the nation and what is wrong: The constitution and associated documents, and the KJV. The constitution was founded upon natural law, that is to say, God's law. Pay particular attention to the Old Covenant when relating to law. When you read the constitution, don't let some turd fro mthe last 50 years tell you what the Founding Fathers meant, get you a copy of the Federalist Papers, for starters, and see what they were talking about in their own words. It'll make you mad, not only at the Republiocans, but especially at the Democrats. If you have any intellectual honesty about yourself, you will be embarrassed at calling yourself either one of the parties. That is why I call myself merely a Conservative. Both parties have veered totally away from the truth. This guy, Moore, wants to drive the nation even farther from the truth. Go figure, he can't even base his spewing on any appearance of truth.




posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   
First of all, what you believe is irrelevant. I do what I do. Secondly, you yell at Moore for "lying" but you watch tyhat LYING channel FAUX news everyday which is reknown for just flash and lying---but yet Moore is bad for exposing what we all talk about here at ATS---the connection between the bin Ladens and Bush. Its ok to discuss this conspiracy here but when Moore puts it on screen its wrong? You and the ATS members are the biggest hypocrites then if this is their stance.

So, what's it gonna be? Talk about the conspiracy here but not let Moore show his film and be a hypocrite? Or, let Moore show his film and judge for yourself?



(Boo-yah!)



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Colonel,

Can you provide anything that shows FCC or any court judgments against FOX News for LIES?

We're not talking about news discreapancies here, where errors were made in honest pursuit (usually too fast) of a story. Were talking about slander, lible, out and out right false statements where some type of "diciplinary" action was taken as FOX was found in violation?



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   
It's amusing how some of you are so quick to judge the 'facts/lies' of a movie that hasn't even been released. How about we wait until we've all viewed the movie before commenting on its veracity?



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best.

The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact. My comments are in brackets [ ]s.
March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.

March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."

March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped. A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common. His points are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day (March 24). Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides.

March 24: Oliver North reports that the staff at the French embassy in Baghdad are destroying documents. [How could he know this?]

March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV.

March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents.

April 7: Fox, echoing NPR, reports that U.S. forces near Baghdad have discovered a weapons cache of 20 medium-range missiles containing sarin and mustard gas. Initial tests show that the deadly chemicals are not "trace elements."

April 9: The crowd around coalition troops toppling the Saddam statue in Baghdad looks strangely sparse despite the network's assertions to the contrary. The perspective is always in close and even then there is no mob storming the statue to hit it with their shoes. Just a handful of people. It's constantly asserted that there's a huge crowd. [I'm perplexed. Where's the huge crowd?!]

April 10: Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at Al Tuwaitha. [In the coming weeks this "discovery" was expeditiously shoved down the Memory Hole as well.]

April 10 (2:59 EDT): A report noting with surprise "how little" the Iraqis were celebrating the coalition invasion. [An interesting contradiction of the allegations of widespread celebration just the day before with the toppling of the Saddam statue.]

April 10 (3 p.m. EDT: Reporter Rick Leventhal) Fox "Breaking News" report: A mobile bioweapons lab is found. Video of a tiny tan truck—about the size of the smallest truck that U-Haul rents – which had its cargo bed and fuel tank shot up with bullets after a looter tried to drive it away. Repeated assertions that this is most definitely a "bioweapons" lab. A graphic sequence is shown of a large Winnebago-type vehicle that is massive compared to the tiny truck found. The irony of this escapes the Fox newscasters and defense "experts."

April 10: To show that France is in bed with Saddam Hussein, Fox begins running old footage of Saddam Hussein's September 1975 trip to Paris to meet with Jacques Chirac and tour a nuclear power plant. [Because Fox strives so hard to be "Fair and Balanced," it's all the more curious how it fails to inform its audience about another trip four years later, this one to Baghdad on December 19, 1983 made by Reagan envoy and then former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (see pic below). The network again, because it's so very "Fair and Balanced," also inexplicably forgot to tell its audience about another trip by Rummy to Baghdad, this time on March 24, 1984, the very same day that a U.N. team found that Iraqi forces had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent on Iranian soldiers. Rummy obviously wasn't too concerned about the charges of gassing, as in 1986 when he was considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination of 1988, he listed his restoration of diplomatic relations with WMD-using Iraq as one of his proudest achievements.

April 7: Repeated ominous footage of barrels buried in a below-ground shed near Karbala. The implication is that the Iraqi landscape is replete with these types of shelters, all of them brimming with evidence of chemical weapons. [These were revealed to be agricultural chemicals as well.]

April 13: Fox Graphic: "Bush: Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons."

April 15: Fox analyst Mansoor Ijaz claims that the top 55 Iraqi leaders (along with the whole stash of chemical and biological WMDs they have taken with them) are now living it up in Latakia, Syria. [This is the same 55 that appeared on the deck of cards and is still being captured – far from all living it up in Syria.] On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith completely breaks with any pretense of objectivity and openly mocks actor Tim Robbins after playing an excerpt of Robbins' speech to the National Press Club. "Oh, that was so powerful!" Smith mocked. [Impressive objectivity there, Mr. Smith.]

April 16: Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume blames the looting of the Iraqi National Museum on the museum staff. [Right now there are so many claims and counterclaims about the looting it's hard to tell what happened. In a Fox segment on May 19 a coalition official asserted that 170,000 items were definitely not missing. Of course he refused to give a ballpark estimate of what was missing, which he'd surely have in order to plausibly deny that the original estimate was wrong.]

April 18: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqis "ungrateful."

www.lewrockwell.com...

There's more there if you want to read it.


[edit on 15-6-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin
It's amusing how some of you are so quick to judge the 'facts/lies' of a movie that hasn't even been released. How about we wait until we've all viewed the movie before commenting on its veracity?


I think that past experience with Moore and all of his lies and inaccuracies (or as he terms them "ommissions") has left us all with a good idea that this movie will continue in the same way.

Once it is out I am sure that all of the Moore-haters will jump on it and point out all of the inaccuracies, thus saving us from wasting our time and money on another one of his godawful films.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I see no onehas dared answer this question...


So, what's it gonna be? Talk about the conspiracybetween bin Laden and Bush here but not let Moore show his film and be a hypocrite? Or, let Moore show his film and judge for yourself?



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I was going to start a new thread for this, but I figured why not post it here in this Moore-related thread...

Fahrenheit 9/11 apparently is dedicated a great deal to providing links and ties between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Well, I was doing a bit of searching through some websites and I stumbled across this site which actually links Moore to the Saudis and bin Laden (albeit in a roundabout way admitted by the website creator, but it's a lot like the way Moore tries to get his points across and make ridiculous assertions.) It uses Moore's own definition of the connection between the Bushes and bin Ladens (the Carylyle Group) to connect Moore to the Saudis and bin Ladens.


In Dude, Where's My Country, Michael Moore's conspiracy theory consists of tying the Bush family together with the bin Ladens and the Saudis . . . The ties to the bin Ladens, Moore maintains, run through the Carlyle Group, to which both Bush Sr. and Jr. have ties, and in which the bin Ladens had an investment.

And suddenly a company backed by an awful lot of bin Laden connected money (by his own definition) wants to pump millions into his film.

In short, I can (in about eight hours of research) produce a sample of paranoid ideation which is quite as plausible as Moore's Farenheit 911.


It's a pretty interesting and eye-opening read, if you want to take the time to check it out.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
I see no onehas dared answer this question...


So, what's it gonna be? Talk about the conspiracybetween bin Laden and Bush here but not let Moore show his film and be a hypocrite? Or, let Moore show his film and judge for yourself?


I think people are more pissed off at Moore's hypocrisy and blatant lies, rather than the content of what he's talking about. Well atleast that's the way I look at it. If he portrayed his stories with honesty and integrity, perhaps I'd be less aggrivated with him.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Well, in this film, he does little talking as he did in in BFC (from what Iheard). He just lets the camera and the subjects speak for themselves.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Well, in this film, he does little talking as he did in in BFC (from what Iheard). He just lets the camera and the subjects speak for themselves.


Yeah, Moore doesn't have to talk to lie. He lets the images, editing tricks, blatant changes in images, etc do the lying for him...

Here, check out this site, it was posted before, but maybe you didn't take the time to read it. This does a good job of uncovering a lot of lies and misleading information in BFC.
Truth About BFC

I read through it and let me say that after reading that info, it makes me very weary to believe anything Michael Moore has to say...



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   
How can you call F-9/11 a lie when you haven't even seen it? I read the link. Yeah, he has a real hate for the repugnants (like me). But, if he's such a liar then why are all the republicans up in arms? WHy is he causing such a commotion? Is it because beneath the exagerrated surface there lies the truth in what he's saying?



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
How can you call F-9/11 a lie when you haven't even seen it? I read the link. Yeah, he has a real hate for the repugnants (like me). But, if he's such a liar then why are all the republicans up in arms? WHy is he causing such a commotion? Is it because beneath the exagerrated surface there lies the truth in what he's saying?


Where are all of these republicans who are up in arms? The only commotions that are being made is the jingle jangle of money going into Moore's pockets.

But then again, I am sure he did not make it for the money.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Please read the opening topic of this thread, Cool Hand.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Please read the opening topic of this thread, Cool Hand.


I did, I even read the link you provided.

I don't see the whole entire Republican party up in arms about this, which is what you are claiming.

Can you point out direct statements from Repulican members of the government that show that they are completely opposed to the release of this movie. If you can't, then please stop making such grandiose claims.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Cool Hand, the title says "Republicans" not Republican politicians. The operators of moveAmericaforward are republicans. Evenhere, republicans are up in arms. I swear, talking to a republican is like talking to a spoiled child.



[edit on 15-6-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Cool Hand, the title says "Republicans" not Republican politicians. The operators of moveAmericaforward are republicans. Evenhere, republicans are up in arms. I swear, talking to a republican is like talking to a spoiled child.



[edit on 15-6-2004 by Colonel]


I have to question that when the article is written by a photographer and multimedia developer.

If we are going to use the article as the basis of the debate, then point out where it says that the Republicans are actively seeking to block its release. All your article says is that they have hired a PR firm to down play the movie and show how much of it is disinformation. Show us where they are actively attempting to censor or block this movie.

When I see a wall of Republicans blocking the entrance to my local theater I might start to believe you.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Its in the article:

In other words, Move America Forward is about as partisan as it gets without putting the GOP seal of approval on the web site. In short, Move America Forward's campaign is a Republican dirty trick designed to smear Moore and pressure move theater owners not to run his film.

"Time is short," the Move America Forward web site declares, "we must act now to have our voices heard in time to make a difference. Help us get messages from millions of Americans sent to these film industry executives."



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Its in the article:

In other words, Move America Forward is about as partisan as it gets without putting the GOP seal of approval on the web site. In short, Move America Forward's campaign is a Republican dirty trick designed to smear Moore and pressure move theater owners not to run his film.

"Time is short," the Move America Forward web site declares, "we must act now to have our voices heard in time to make a difference. Help us get messages from millions of Americans sent to these film industry executives."


In what way could they possibly pressure movie theater owners not to let them play that movie? That would work right into Moore's hands and he could parlay that into more money for him.

Give me a break. There is not a lot that the Republican party can do in this case.

You really do believe anything you read that is anti-Republican, even if it is lies.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Howard Kaloogian, an erstwhile California state assemblyman who also successfully led the charge to knock the CBS documentary “The Reagans” from network television, intends to pressure cinemas not to show the film. His not-for-profit political action committee, MoveAmericaForward.org, is behind the drive.

“This movie is nothing more than a political campaign advertisement against the war on terrorism, our troops and President Bush,” the organization asserts. “‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ should be shown as a recruiting video for Al-Qaeda, not in our movie theaters.”

“Since we are the customers of the American movie theatres,” it adds, “it is important for us to speak up loudly and tell the industry executives that we don’t want this misleading and grotesque movie being shown at our local cinema.”

www.rawstory.com...

You want more? Like fascists, you all did it with "The Reagans" and so you will try it with this film.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join