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.

 

This is a great F9/11 Review and should receive more credit.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
www.buzzmachine.com...

I've just been reading this and realized it is a very good sum-up of the situation.

I'd like to point out how sick I am of hearing people say how good the movie is...or bad really.

These people are hmm...High School Graduates...or if they went to college they most likely got their degrees in one of the most popular categories...BUSINESS.

Very few of them (and certainly none of the ones who say the film is FACTUAL) are Political Scientists.

I'd just like to point that little fact out, to some PS's they might find there are good questions in the movie.

But anyone who has gotten such a degree would realize that in 2 hours you can't present facts, or even evidence, all you can do is present images to try and arouse people's feelings.

It is like sitting down and watching a Nazi propoganda movie from 1938.

Good review.




posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
It is like sitting down and watching a Nazi propoganda movie from 1938.


Yes, yes it was.

:shk:

I denied ignorance with that movie.
Somehow I don't think most others here will.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The Chris Htchens article linked in the review is an excellent read. Here is a direct link.

slate.msn.com...



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Seth, thanks for the link. Gotta love Chris Hitchens. From the article:



To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.


Doesn't mince words does he?



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Looks like I should've read this thread before posting in the other F 9/11 thread!

Here's my thoughts on Michael Moore-
(copied from the other thread)

I must admit, Michael Moore is a great film maker, but one thing bothers me. Not about him, but about his followers. Alot of his most avid fans say that the government lies, america is evil, dont listen to what they tell you, etc...yet ANYTHING that comes out of Michael Moore's mouth is suddenly pure truth and godly.

EH/???

Michael Moore has become the America for people who hate America but still live here.

Its not Moore specifically though. its any anti-something movie, person, book. I mean, the movie JFK? So many people instantly believed EVERY WORD of that movie I was shocked!If you say the government lies, whats to stop those against the government fom l\ying too? People say that Americans are brainwashed by their government, but today it seems like more of us are brainwashed by those who hate it.

****

OK, so I haven't seen the movie, but thats how I feel about Mike. So far, without seeing it, here are my thoughts on the mo vie-

-He shouldnt have taken the name from Bradbury (Farenheit 451). Alot of people dont know about this book (surprisingly!) or just dont make the connection. Plus...no...you just dont take things from bradbury without thanking him.

...and since I havent seen the movie, all I know about it is the title.

OH! one more thing...Since when has there been a Michael Moore forum here at ATS???? Eh? I guess I missed the Shakespeare and Ghandi forums...oh...wait....they dont exist!

Someone please tell me this is just a temporary forum?!?!



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Scat, Shakespeare and Ghandi are things for the far more educated. This film, will be witnessed by teenagers who someday will be voters, who have no clue of the real world.

This film will drastically affect our lives if it manages to convince the lesser peoples of society (the ignorant and adle-brained) that the enemy is not Terrorists but the freedom loving and small government loving Republicans.

It doesn't really matter if it is Republican or Democrat, what matters is it will say to people that our Government must be over-thrown for a more "international" one.

One that will respect other nations and not look out for itself.

In the end, this film undermines the one doccument that matters most, The US Constitution.

It says to hell with defending that, we should be more concerned about doing what the rest of the world wants us to do.

Thus it gets a forum so this film which has far reaching imprecations may be discussed.

Also thanks for bringing up Chris Hitchens, I misnomered him as Chris Hickins.

He tore this movie to peices on MSNBC I loved it.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Wow, that is a good critique, it actually makes me want to see the movie more so I can be more involved in these Moore discussions. I was under the impression that a lot of it was fact because thats how I thought it was being portrayed on ads. Well, it kind of makes sense now why people call it propaganda as far as Moore putting on opinions for what seems like a lot of the movie. Cool, I'll see it and be back with further comments. I tried getting to it today, but I got to the theatre at the wrong time.

In particular, the ad of Bush playing golf seemed pretty funny actually after what he said. I just thought it was particularly interesting since it was an unbroken clip of Bush, it kind of made me think he wasn't as sensitive to the war on terror. This can be taken two ways, like some stipulate, either he doesn't care, or he was a strong leader who tried not to panic. But I thought it was interesting that he seemed to be having a lot of fun in a serious time. But the serious time wasn't discussed as far as the time frame this clip occured.

[edit on 26-6-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Scat, Shakespeare and Ghandi are things for the far more educated. This film, will be witnessed by teenagers who someday will be voters, who have no clue of the real world.

*****

In the end, this film undermines the one doccument that matters most, The US Constitution.


....im....a teenager.....ha!

I am not surprised about the talk on the constituion (i havent seen the movie, im just going on what you said, which is a bad move but i want to say this anyway). why does this not surprise me?

because the power of written documents is so extreme..ive been waiting for him to bring it up. sheesh, im a writer, my favorite subject is writing.

but honestly...does anyone know if this forum is temporary...please say it is! if itsnot, ill be a mighty bit upset.

[edit on 6-26-04 by Scat]



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scat

but honestly...does anyone know if this forum is temporary...please say it is! if itsnot, ill be a mighty bit upset.



That's the current plan, to keep the discussion in one place and easy to find while the fervor is high.
Subject to change if warranted in the future, of course.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Does Michael Moore talk about the anomalies regarding the 9/11 attacks? I was just curious because I think that would be a better start of point rather than the connections between Bush and bin Laden. The only connection i remember is between Harken, Bush Jr's oil company, BCCI, and BCCI's connections to terrorism. But Bush apparently claimed he didn't know about BCCI's connections.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Does Michael Moore talk about the anomalies regarding the 9/11 attacks?


Not at all.
Very little time is given to the actual 9-11 events.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Screw Moore! Go for Stewart!

Jon Stewart..yes...hes onthe fake news...but he said something in a report the other day that I think is much more interesting that michael moores views....

hes says....


"here, I'll list 4 things. umm...weapons of mass destruction, anti-US propoganda, harbouring and aiding terrorist groups, and oppression of its people....

you cant tell me what country im talking about.

and thats a problem...when you are talking about war."

wooo hooo! go jon! he did an interview with michael moore the other night but i missed it, i want to see his take on moore, see if hes a supporter ( maybe) or not (also possible...hes quite a surprise!)


df1

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
www.buzzmachine.com...
Very few of them (and certainly none of the ones who say the film is FACTUAL) are Political Scientists.


After 9/11, why was nearly every arab in the country at least questioned except for the bin ladens which were spirited out of the country by air when all other private aircraft were grounded?

The bin ladens should have been questioned. We will never know what could have been learned about 9/11 from the bin ladens, because that did not happen. This is not accusing the bin ladens of anything, it was just a smart and reasonable thing to do. Whatever else you may think of moore, he got that part right.

Save the excuses, spin and chest beating. Every reasonable american knows this was the right thing to do. Every reasonable american knows that the only reason this was allowed to happen is because the bush/bin laden financial interests are intertwined.

You can not disprove these facts, so all that remains for you is character assassination. Now you have it from a political scientist/historian with 30 years experience of getting the facts right. I could line up 10,000 political scientists with PHDs which agree with me and your chorus of false patriots would still remain in denial.
.

[edit on 26-6-2004 by df1]



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   
df1 I'll go down your points each.


  • This isn't true, "nearly every arab" is just so beyond reality that this is really not very beneficial to any argument.
  • Why should these members of the Bin Laden family have been questioned? Did we have some evidence they had anything to do with it? Was there some "indicator" that questioning them would have led to anything? No. So Moore hasn't anything write here.
  • No they aren't. Bush family and Bin Laden family have no interlocking investments. The Bin Laden family does not run oil companies nor does the Bush family, I fail to see how they truly have an "interlocking" interest. I don't see how allowing 9/11 to happen was beneficial either. It completely halted everything Bush wanted to do.
  • Yes you can and simply, if it isn't there going "I'm a fact" then it is not a fact. After studying WWI you learn how to understand how a leader's relationship and personality affect governance and what is going on between Bin Ladens and Bush has nothing to do with 9/11 or the "War on Terror". Because this attack against America began long before 9/11, Cole was in the year 2000, the first WTC bombing was in the year 1992 (3? I actually get thrown off on that one lol). Those two attacks happend in Clinton's administration. Clinton had a chance to arrest Bin Laden but didn't. Does this make Clinton a "terrorist" no...it just is a decision which at the time looked to be the right one, but obviously was the wrong one.



I could line up 10,000 political scientists with PHDs which agree with me and your chorus of false patriots would still remain in denial.


No you can not, and I am one who wouldn't line up, and that is just the dumbest statement I've ever heard.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   


It completely halted everything Bush wanted to do


That may be true, but it certainly accelerated the goals of members of the Bush administration such as Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others who were authors for the Project for the New American Century documents, in which they stated the importance of changing the military, which they said wouldn't happen that quickly if it weren't for a drastic change in America. Also, they stressed the importance of establishing a democratic base in the Middle East seperate from Israel, their country of choice being Iraq. Also, recognizing the importance of oil and complaining about the Taliban's lack of cooperation for building an oil pipeline that would run up to Israel.

BTW, these documents were released between 1997-2000 before Bush's election and their subsequent succession to the administration prior to the 9/11 attacks allowing for things they wanted to happen. Curious?

[edit on 26-6-2004 by Jamuhn]


df1

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
that is just the dumbest statement I've ever heard.

With only 4 years experience as a political scientist and with no apparent background in history I am not surprised at your remarks. Try to at look at things beyond the rose colored glasses of your own ideology. I suggest that you save your writings and read them in 20 years, you will simply be amazed that they were written by you. Trust me, been there done that.

My view is from a libertarian perspective, so I pretty much do not have a horse in this democratic/republican contest. And I generally dislike moore, disagreeing with him 99% of the time. IMHO electing either bush or kerry is a loss for the american people, so pick your poison.

I will not bother posting links as you will dismiss the sources as being too liberal, not being from a major media outlet or other bogus excuse. And given your obvious bias, I am not willing to waste my time giving sight to a blind man whose only affliction is a blindfold.
.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 02:18 AM
link   
df1, you being a libertarian has just discredited every bit of filth you could spout.

As a libertarian you are opposed to big military, but that is impossible (I watched once a professor of mine chew out a libertarian on just this very thing) because America is the only nation capable of supplying the world with "stability" for stable markets.

This is why nations like Caspian nations seek US military assurance over their oil claims in the Caspian against Russia.

This is why nations like France and Germany seek US military aid in former Yugoslavia.

Why we have troops in 179 nations.

Because the world needs us to provide that stability, no other nation is capable of doing it on their own.

I have nothing against libertarians either, two of my friends are libertarians and I love the State's rights policy.

But libertarians have no clue about foreign affairs, their views completely dismiss that there is a world. They focus entirely on individual affairs and the removal of government from individual life-styles.

The mere fact you even attempt to criticize my level of experience in Political Science, is like some filthy dog attempting to muddy the shoes of a great King.

And I have no problem of making such a comparison, because when your views on reality are in question, it is you with the rose colored glasses, not me.

And since you've posted things like "interrogated every Arab but the bin ladens" (you implied it) it just further supports my position.

And I have a significant background in History, it's all I ever read since I was 5.

And considering I once ran as a "Socialist" way back in a mock election and lost to the Republicans by 1 vote (ironically because the republicans broke from reality and said they'd legalize pot), I think I've already "read my stuff and been amazed".

Considering I am now far from a socialist.

Where you are concerned you've not "been there done that" not if you're a libertarian.

You've not seen how much this world needs American Military Muscle, you don't see how much our nation needs strong State Governments and how society needs social guidance.

Or else you're not a libertarian, when you aren't even in the right party concerning your beliefs, that brings up a volley of entirely different problems in your level of understanding that I don't need to bother going into.

-shrugs-

But we obviously mix in the "pick your poison" though I by far think Kerry is instant death and Bush is only a sore tummy.

But ever since 1867 this nation has always been about "picking your poison".

But anyways, I honestly did that (shared a common thought we have) out of feeling sorry for how much I can go off on you.

Rather I'd just leave you to study more about reality, not about some fantasy evil Bush with some evil big government and some "world domination" scheme or what ever crap you come up with.

If you are telling me I'm not one for history, then I would assume you already know that Al Qaeda is a response to the growing moderation of Islam and it sees the United States as the "evil culprit".

They will kill you, even though you defend them by not supporting this nation's foriegn interests.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I'll be seeing it tomorrow. A matinee, as not to give up too much money,
towards his "cause", whatever that is.



Don't forget to visit the Concession Stand





posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
This is still another archetypal example of diffusive hucksterism from the other side of the fulcrum--I mean, after all, the site hosting this appraisal of Moore's work IS MSN. The treatise I read is besieged with pointed use of satire-- which does indeed make for entertaining reading-- yet, the author's propensity for prolixity and prepossessing stylistic form of thought juxtapositions achieve more, or maybe less, in my mind than the underscoring 'facts' he cites as such. This was the redeeming coupon I eagerly presented my own mind after ambling through the critique.


""But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.""

Are we in a modern day Bonanza episode where quixotic, egoistic, chest-beating invitations to lexicon-wielding duals accomplish only self-aggrandizement? It seems the author is a living parody of Ben Cartwright. Well, this cannot come across as a rock thrown in one's face since he IS published by the MSN apparatus.


I think I will retreat back to my own provincial aristocracy of mediocrity now.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
i think these events took place because other countries that obtained information through leaks in our government knew what our country desired for its army. they knew we were gonna change our army, FOR THE BETTER. i say it once and i wont say it again. THEY KNEW EXACLTY WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO PUT US YEARS BEHIND, SLOW US DOWN, WHAT IGNORANCE WILL OUR SOCIETY DWELL ON NOW?

not questioning the BIN LADEN family is the most rediculous thought i have ever heard, if theyre not responsible then WHO the hell is?! COME ON PEOPLE, GET BACK TO REALITY BEFORE THATS NO LONGER POSSIBLE.


[edit on 27-6-2004 by topsecretombomb]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join