F911 Additional Features

[Lanny_MacDonald]

... for several reasons, but for the words of a Swedish Reporter who had some of his footage used in F911. This alone made the rental worthwhile. This reporter speaks the truth and has the footage to back it up. He makes comments that hit right to the heart of the matter and comes across as impartial and honest in what he says. He also speaks of the media and the abysmal job they are doing, basically being afraid to speak.

As well, another film maker, who also had footage used in F911, has a short that shows what Iraqi life was like prior to the occupation. While some here have argued that Moore tried to show an Iraq that did not exist, and that it was all a farbication on his part, the short does show the whole context and shows both sides. Its really depressing to think of what has happened to this country.

You may hate Moore for his sensationalizing of the facts, but the stock footage that is included with F911 hammers to pieces alot of the arguments that people have tried to use to knock the film. If you rent it, watch the extra features. They are worth the time.

[Reaper]

I watched the extra footage as well and it was really quite compelling.

While I know that Michael Moore has a tendancy to stretch the truth or get creative with editting I certainly had a more bitter taste in my mouth for George W. Bush after I saw Fahrenheit 9/11.

[arsenal]

If you have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, I would suggest seeing Fahrenhype 9/11 as well. It does a very good job at challenging what Moore states in his movie. Not everything, but the majority of items are challenged.

They talk to the people that Moore got footage of. The Oregon State trooper, and the soilder in the hospital that had lost his arms.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 18 2004, 09:32 PM
If you have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, I would suggest seeing Fahrenhype 9/11 as well. It does a very good job at challenging what Moore states in his movie. Not everything, but the majority of items are challenged.

They talk to the people that Moore got footage of. The Oregon State trooper, and the soilder in the hospital that had lost his arms.

I heard the Oregon State trooper say he didn't have a handbook on terroism, there's only a couple of people to patrol that coast as of then etc. What did he do a uturn on that? I mean it's not like Moore got him to say anything about Bush. Pretty small potatoes being discredited.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 18 2004, 09:32 PM
If you have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, I would suggest seeing Fahrenhype 9/11 as well. It does a very good job at challenging what Moore states in his movie. Not everything, but the majority of items are challenged.

They talk to the people that Moore got footage of. The Oregon State trooper, and the soilder in the hospital that had lost his arms.

Yeah, and I destroyed Farenhype 9/11's contentions in less than half an hour. Dave Kopel and his group of liers (come on, Ann Coulter is a source) are so transparent it isn't even funny. There is nothing in their movie but an attempt to discredit Moore and the Democrats, not the information contained within 911. If there was anything that they could have said in regards to the illegitimacy of the content, Bush would have hit Moore with a libel suit just like Kerry did with the slanderous scumbags behind Sinclair's little documentary.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 18 2004, 02:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 18 2004, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-arsenal@Oct 18 2004, 09:32 PM
If you have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, I would suggest seeing Fahrenhype 9/11 as well. It does a very good job at challenging what Moore states in his movie. Not everything, but the majority of items are challenged.

They talk to the people that Moore got footage of. The Oregon State trooper, and the soilder in the hospital that had lost his arms.

Yeah, and I destroyed Farenhype 9/11's contentions in less than half an hour. Dave Kopel and his group of liers (come on, Ann Coulter is a source) are so transparent it isn't even funny. There is nothing in their movie but an attempt to discredit Moore and the Democrats, not the information contained within 911. If there was anything that they could have said in regards to the illegitimacy of the content, Bush would have hit Moore with a libel suit just like Kerry did with the slanderous scumbags behind Sinclair's little documentary. [/b][/quote]
What are Moore's sources for his movie? People he decieved into filming (Oregon State Trooper)? Moore states in his moving to a CIA agent outside the Saudi Arabian Embassy: "I am filming a documentary". He didn't film a documentary. It is loosey based on facts, that he has twisted around.

One of the main arguments Moore makes in his movie for the conspiricy theory is the Bush's involvement with the Carlyle group. Well, your buddy Soros is also linked to the Carlyle group. I guess Moore forgot to mention that. Oh wait.. he didn't, becuase while he is trying to make Bush like nothing more than war mongering, money hungry fool, one of Bush's biggest independant opponets, Soros, is linked to the same group. That doesn't look to good now does it.

Also, Moore seems to think that the Bush's are the only Presidents that have been friendly with Saudi Arabia. WTF?? The US and Saudi Arabia have been friends for a very long time.

Taliban Visit to Texas 1998, while GW Bush is Govenor (sp). Well, yah, a rep from the Taliban did visit Texas. Who was President at the time? Clinton. Who could said "I don't want you to come to my country?" Clinton. Did GWBush know about the visit? Probably not, since the acting President doesn't have to mention to anyone who is comming to visit.
Now, if Bush was buddy buddy with the Taliban... for reasons of oil, as Moore claims, he couldn't find one video clip or transcript of Bush meeting the Taliban Delegate?


As far as discounting Moore or the claims he makes in his movie. Who do you think is going to discount it? The Democrats? Why? Why would they do that? You think they actually would hold each other accountable for missinformation getting out to the public? In an election year? I attribute Moores film for the race being as close at it is.
No party polices themselves. The only people that are going to discount what Moore says are the Republicans. If you think otherwise, you are living in a dream world.

As far as libel suits:
CAN LIBEL SUITS BE BROUGHT BY A PUBLIC FIGURE?

These suits are a bit dicer for the public figure.

A public figure may be an elected or appointed (a politician) or someone who has stepped into a public controversy (e.g., movie stars and TV stars, star athletes). Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the average person since they must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. Proving these elements makes the chance of a successful lawsuit slim.

From this website:
Libel Suits

Moore isn't dumb. He keeps his remarks rague, usually. There are the odd time he does go off the handle. But Bush has more important things to do, like run the country, than to fight Moore in a courtroom.

[troutman]

What are Moore's sources for his movie?

Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11: Section One

THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

[Bertuzzied]

Is Ann Coulter a porn star? i know for sure she has to be a part time nazi sex girl.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by troutman@Oct 18 2004, 03:22 PM
What are Moore's sources for his movie?

Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11: Section One

THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

And factual backup for the deciets in Fahrenheit 9/11, some of which are used in Fahrenhype 9/11.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

Thats on Moore's site, this is on Kopel's site. They both state their cases.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 18 2004, 10:30 PM
And factual backup for the deciets in Fahrenheit 9/11, some of which are used in Fahrenhype 9/11.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

Thats on Moore's site, this is on Kopel's site. They both state their cases.

Yup, and that's the site I completely destroyed in a matter of half an hour. Dave Kopel has no credibility and relies upon the old echo theory for making people buy his facts. Of the 59 points on Kopel's site, three have merit. The rest are BS and are not supported by fact.

[arsenal]

Alot of what Kopel says on his site is just clarification of what Moore has stated in his film. Moore in his film does the equivalent of the following:
Girl to Boy: "Do you have a girlfriend?"
Boy to Girl: "No I don't" When the guy is married.

He isn't lying, just altering the truth to meet his ends. Moore does the same thing in his movie. Kopel just brings those to fruition.

Weither or not you consider what Moore does as lying is your point of view. Some people see it as out right lying. Others see it as deceiption.

[sjwalter]

Moore is doing everything he does, "because he doesn't like Bush." After the election Moore will dissapear if Bush wins another term, the only reason he's around is because the Democrats want him around.

And i agree with arsonal, Moore is the one keeping the election close because of his bias movie.

My social teacher refused to show the movie to our class specifically because Moore made the movie to get Bush out of Office.

Why does Moore trace 9/11 only to Bush, i'm sure everyone knows that you are supposed to solve the problem before it affects you. Clinton did nothing when Bin Laden bombed the USS Cole, why doesn't Moore blame him for not doing anything for the War on Terror? I know where your views are coming from, but Moore isn't the best person to believe. If you call Dave Kopel a lier, i'll call Moore a lier.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Why is Moore refusing to do an interview with the director of this movie if his facts are so credible.

Need a credible source, search google for the refusing of the interview.

I believe 9/11 has to many deceits from what i have read, not that i believe everything, but i won't ever watch the movie basically because Moore isn't doing it to expose Bush's lies, he wants Bush out of Office.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 12:44 AM
Why does Moore trace 9/11 only to Bush, i'm sure everyone knows that you are supposed to solve the problem before it affects you. Clinton did nothing when Bin Laden bombed the USS Cole, why doesn't Moore blame him for not doing anything for the War on Terror? I know where your views are coming from, but Moore isn't the best person to believe. If you call Dave Kopel a lier, i'll call Moore a lier.

Have you even seen the film?

He isn't blaming Bush for 9/11. He's being critical of what happened after.

[sjwalter]

What happened after? I recall Bush acted with good response to the attack, showing poise and leadership to a country who was in bad need of it.

I said i haven't seen 9/11 and i probably never will.

And everything Moore says about what happened after, can all be traced back to how he is blaming Bush. Don't argue its obvious he is bashing Bush.

[FlamesAddiction]

What happened after 9/11 was a president and administration using fear to manipulate policies to meet their own personal agendas.

If you haven't seen it, then you really shouldn't be commenting on it. From what you are saying, I can tell that you don't even know what is in the film and are only making judgments based on what other people tell you.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

"Moore is doing everything he does, "because he doesn't like Bush." After the election Moore will dissapear if Bush wins another term, the only reason he's around is because the Democrats want him around."

Well, the Republicans also get a little of the credit here as well. If the Republicans would let 911 die, Michael Moore would disappear because his film focuses on 911 and the fall out. But the Republicans continue to run on the 911 platform, becaise everything else they have done has been terrible and they would get throttled.

"And i agree with arsonal, Moore is the one keeping the election close because of his bias movie."

How would Arsenal know, he hasn't seen it. He admits it himself. My suggestion is to watch the movie yourself and make your own call.

"My social teacher refused to show the movie to our class specifically because Moore made the movie to get Bush out of Office."

Really? I would hope that information doesn't get out because that is not your teacher's decision to make and that could be grounds for dismissal. That is a gross exaggeration of the intent of the movie. Again, watch the movie and decide for yourself.

"Why does Moore trace 9/11 only to Bush, i'm sure everyone knows that you are supposed to solve the problem before it affects you. Clinton did nothing when Bin Laden bombed the USS Cole, why doesn't Moore blame him for not doing anything for the War on Terror? I know where your views are coming from, but Moore isn't the best person to believe. If you call Dave Kopel a lier, i'll call Moore a lier."

Well, you're dead wrong there. Clinton did respond to the Cole bombing and to the African embassy bombings. He bombed the terror camps in Afgahnistan as well as Sudan. He also had a plan put in place to use a drone to take out bin Laden but could not get the military to used the then experimental technology to do so. Clinton responded which is why Moore did not crucify him. As well, Clinton's admin also set up many anti-terrorism mechanisms that did not exist prior to his Presidency.

Moore is a left winger, no doubt about that, but he is not a lier. He may use some clever editting to emphasze his point, but he is an honest guy. Yes, he makes a stand in his films and hits you over the head, but he does not lie. That is why he gets the respect and villification that he does. He calls it as he sees it, brings a well researched game plan, and makes an entertaining and usually thought proving film.

Kopel, is right winger. No doubt about that. But I will point out that Kopel is a recognized neo-con and uses two well documented liers like Ann Coultier and Sean Hannity as his "source of truth". That doesn't lend credibility to his cause in any fashion.

As I said, watch the film, do the research and make the call yourself. I have never liked Michael Moore, but F911 made me do some reading and really changed the way I saw things. There are some really good books out there that are unbiased and backup much of what Moore says.

[sjwalter]

You wanted the US to act like Russia is, do nothing after their children have been slaughtered in school?

Fight fear with fear, anger with anger, stride for stride, its the only way to beat the terrorists.

And i have read a good review about 9/11, thats where i'm taking my information from.

I can post the article if you want me too.

[FlamesAddiction]

Sure, post it.

And I am talking about using fear on Americans, not the terrorists.

BTW, Iraq has yet to be proven as a legitimate target for battling the terrorists who did the attack 9/11. That war is Bush's fabrication, and he used 9/11 as a way to get in there.

[sjwalter]

You make some good points here Lanny.

I diagree with most as usual.

Really? I would hope that information doesn't get out because that is not your teacher's decision to make and that could be grounds for dismissal. That is a gross exaggeration of the intent of the movie. Again, watch the movie and decide for yourself.

I probably explained this wrong, so i'll make it right. My teacher said that Moore is an obvious Left Wing Democrat, and unless he has a Right Wing movie with the same theories as Moore has he won't show the movie. Just like he won't let the Liberals come to our class and enforce their policies upon some kids where most don't know better then agree, he wants them to have all the party candidates come and we could then have a debate. Imagine a debate where only Kerry would answer questions, obviously then no one can get Bush's point of view, and i'm sure you agree with me here, its only right to see both sides of the issue before we decide what to believe. Showing 9/11 doesn't show both sides of the issue.

Well, the Republicans also get a little of the credit here as well. If the Republicans would let 911 die, Michael Moore would disappear because his film focuses on 911 and the fall out. But the Republicans continue to run on the 911 platform, becaise everything else they have done has been terrible and they would get throttled.

Thats one of the basis for their campaign election, 9/11 and what Bush has done since and all that. I don't think Moore will dissapear until he is publicly called out, and thats what Micheal Moore hates America is doing. I diagree with everything the Republicans have done is terriable, but i know where you're coming from, but i think any Democrat would have lead the country the same way after the attacks.

How would Arsenal know, he hasn't seen it. He admits it himself. My suggestion is to watch the movie yourself and make your own call.
I don't agree with opinion, but rather with the statement that "the movie 9/11 is what is helping the keep the election so close." Take that any way you want but i don't think Kerry is wise enough to win the campaign without things like this movie and others media happenings to help him. His record IMO damages his chances to much.

Well, you're dead wrong there. Clinton did respond to the Cole bombing and to the African embassy bombings. He bombed the terror camps in Afgahnistan as well as Sudan. He also had a plan put in place to use a drone to take out bin Laden but could not get the military to used the then experimental technology to do so. Clinton responded which is why Moore did not crucify him. As well, Clinton's admin also set up many anti-terrorism mechanisms that did not exist prior to his Presidency.
Clinton responded with a missile attack, that has been reported to have struck a hospital instead of the terror camps. If he would have really acted like you said he could have wiped out the terrorists before they became more powerful. And why does Moore the crucify Bush if he didn't crucify Clinton who you said responded, when Bush obviously responded well. And ground troops would have been a lot better for Clinton to send in and get the job done right. Thats all IMO as well.

Moore is a left winger, no doubt about that, but he is not a lier. He may use some clever editting to emphasze his point, but he is an honest guy. Yes, he makes a stand in his films and hits you over the head, but he does not lie. That is why he gets the respect and villification that he does. He calls it as he sees it, brings a well researched game plan, and makes an entertaining and usually thought proving film.
He stretched the truth to far IMO so he can be called a lier. And also considering that his sources have been sometimes also called lies, i'll stand by my opinion that he's a lier. And i don't know about the Honesty issue, to me it seems like honesty doesn't matter as long as he gets his point across.

Kopel, is right winger. No doubt about that. But I will point out that Kopel is a recognized neo-con and uses two well documented liers like Ann Coultier and Sean Hannity as his "source of truth". That doesn't lend credibility to his cause in any fashion.
Why call Hannity a lier? Have you listened to his show? To me he may be a Bush supporter but he has backup for every statement many which are true. He is widely recognized as a honest individual so i disagree with him being a lier. And i can't say anything about Coulter because i haven't read her stuff so i won't say anything about her.

As I said, watch the film, do the research and make the call yourself. I have never liked Michael Moore, but F911 made me do some reading and really changed the way I saw things. There are some really good books out there that are unbiased and backup much of what Moore says.

I'll stand by not watching the film, i think its too bias and like i was taught when writing a good essay, always show both sides of the issue, i don't think Moore did that.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 18 2004, 06:19 PM
Sure, post it.

And I am talking about using fear on Americans, not the terrorists.

BTW, Iraq has yet to be proven as a legitimate target for battling the terrorists who did the attack 9/11. That war is Bush's fabrication, and he used 9/11 as a way to get in there.

Used fear on the American people? I believe the terrorists stabbed fear into the heart of the people when they attacked on 9/11. Bush combated that fear.

Here is the article, long but worth the read.

Tom Neven - Fahrenheit 9/11

To call Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 a confused mess would be to dishonor confused messes. It’s basically a lie masquerading as a documentary.

Moore started his “documentary” film career with 1989’s Roger & Me. During that film he perfected his cheap-shot, ambush-interview technique by constantly hounding the then-chairman of General Motors, Roger B. Smith, about why GM closed a car-manufacturing plant in Moore’s hometown of Flint, Mich., thus devastating the region’s economy even while GM allegedly posted record profits.

Ten years and a half-dozen or so films later, Moore created Bowling for Columbine, another supposed piece of nonfiction about gun control and the infamous Denver-area school shootings in 1999. Ignoring the many distortions contained in that film—type “Michael Moore” into Google and you’ll find a whole host of Web sites dedicated to exposing his falsehoods—Hollywood somehow saw fit to award him the 2003 Academy Award for Best Documentary.

That put Moore in a position to now uncover the “truth” about 9/11 and the Bush family ties to Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family—yes, that bin Laden family. He weaves a self-contradictory web of half-connections, coincidences and sinister music to imply, among other things, that (take a deep breath) the war in Afghanistan was not a retaliatory attack for that country’s harboring of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda but because the Unocal Oil Company, which just happens to have headquarters in Texas, the same state where George W. Bush was governor, wanted to build a natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf, so the U.S. had to first conquer Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq to facilitate this profit-making venture (whew!).

What he doesn’t reveal is that Unocal pulled out of that deal before 9/11 ever happened.

For Slate.com, Christopher Hitchens, a left-leaning journalist, wrote, “To describe [Fahrenheit 9/11] as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.” He goes so far as to compare Moore to Leni Riefenstahl, who made those gorgeously photographed propaganda films for Adolf Hitler.

Hitchens does a yeoman’s job of disassembling Fahrenheit 9/11, a dissertation on which would be too lengthy for this forum. Sufficient here are a few examples of the cheap tricks Moore employs: He talks about President Bush retiring for the evening on the evening of Sept. 10, 2001, but the image on the screen is one of those Norman Rockwell-ish paintings of a mom tucking her young boy into bed. He also expends a lot of film time showing Bush administration officials preparing for TV interviews, having their faces powdered, their hair combed, and so forth. (Apparently Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz uses his own spit to slick back his hair.)

Moore devotes several more minutes of film to Attorney General John Ashcroft singing a patriotic song. Why? It can’t be because the singing is bad; Ashcroft actually has a nice tenor voice. Maybe it’s because Moore considers him goofy or stupid and assumes we all think the same.

Another trick: In the part of the film leading up to the 2003 Iraq war, Moore shows images of Iraqi children playing, flying kites, etc. Never does he show Saddam’s mass graves, images from his torture videos, and the dead women and children gassed by Saddam’s forces.

He shows a clip of George W. Bush speaking at New York’s Alfred E. Smith Dinner in 2000 where he jokes to the white-tie audience, “I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” What Moore does not tell you is that then-Vice President Al Gore was a co-guest of honor with Bush at that dinner, and that it’s traditional for politicians to poke fun at themselves at the annual bipartisan charity event sponsored by the Archdiocese of New York. Moore simply presents it as if Bush is buttering up the big-money crowd.

These are all tried-and-true tricks of the trade when it comes to making fictional films. Moore insists he's not creating fiction, but reporting facts. And that makes a huge difference.

Unfortunately for Moore (but providentially for those interested in truth), between his final cut of the film and its release, several things happened that undercut his account. Among them was the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion that nothing sinister was behind the post-9/11 flights that allowed some Saudis and members of the bin Laden clan to leave the United States. In fact, former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, otherwise held up as a brave hero by Moore, testified that he alone made the decision to allow those flights.

The philosopher Emmanuel Kant said we should never treat human beings as means to an end but only as ends in themselves. Moore isn't listening. Most deeply offensive to me as a veteran is his condescending treatment of the U.S. military. He ostentatiously dedicates the movie to soldiers from Flint who died in the war, but in the film itself treats soldiers and potential recruits as poor idiots who were duped into joining the military only for a leg-up out of the ghetto. The soldiers he interviews in Iraq come across as testosterone-crazed killers.

What should offend everyone is Moore’s letting the camera linger interminably on a mother in deep grief over the loss of her son in Iraq. One quickly senses that he cares less about the mother than the point he wants to make. She and her grief are simply means to his end.

Moore went to great lengths to defend himself before Fahrenheit 9/11 even hit theaters, and has threatened to sue anyone who attacks him or the film. (This from a man who depends on a very generous First Amendment to do what he does for a living.) He asserts every fact in the movie is true. But even if he's right, the overall project can still be a lie.

Harvard professor Sissela Bok dissects lies in all their varieties in the book Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. In its pages this truth emerges: If I state something that is false but I sincerely believe it to be true, I haven’t lied; I’m merely mistaken. But if I state a number of things that happen to be true but deliberately leave out a single exonerating fact or present information out of context, all with the intent to deceive, I have lied. What then, would Mrs. Bok think of Michael Moore?

Families trying to decide if wading into Moore's political swamp might prove a stimulating intellectual exercise in the art of debunking should be aware that one sequence features American soldiers using the f-word and playing an obscenely titled heavy metal CD. The film also shows many images of war dead and wounded, some of them quite gruesome. (One boy is nude.) A crude joke is made about erections. There's news footage of Americans being burned, beaten and dismembered in the streets of Fallujah, and footage of a public beheading in Saudi Arabia.

For these reasons, Fahrenheit 9/11 is appropriately rated R. Moore appealed the MPAA’s rating, and after being denied, said, “I encourage all teenagers to come see my movie, by any means necessary. If you need me to sneak you in, let me know.” I respectfully suggest otherwise.