Fahrenheit 911

[Foxer]

Michael Moore.

Who's seen it? I saw it yesterday.

Any thoughts?

[CORONA BEER]

it sux

[Foxer]

Why?

[Ex-FB]

My brother went to see it and thought it was rubbish. Now, my brother thinks Bush is a moron, even more than I do. But he said that Farenhiet 911 was so over the top and obviously biased that it comes across as pure unadultarated character assassination. It would have carried a bit more weight with him if there had been some counter point to some of the events, instead it is always assumed that the events that unfolded did so because of some maniachal plan by Bush, rather then posing possible alternate explanations.

He also said it was quite contrived at times.

I'm not going to waste my time watching it.

[DeadEyes]

The probem with Moore is that he creates propoganda not documentaries.
Now maybe you need this to counteract the government spin, but I'd still prefer a balanced approach.
As for his film from what I've heard there is nothing new here, If you have kept up with current events you would be aware of all this stuff.
Does it mention Granpa Bush selling weapons to the Nazis and baby Bush selling drugs in college(um, alledgedly)?

[Cander]

Michael Moore may not be a liar in his films, but he is purposely deceitful in the way he presents his 'truths'.

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by Gary Campbell
Why?

Cuz Michael Moore is a tree hugging fat bassard

[demotivater]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Cuz Michael Moore is a tree hugging fat bassard

Just from looking at the guy you can tell he smells.

[Foxer]

Being from the great land down under and relatively ignorant of US politics, was anything presented in that movie wrong?

Biased? Sure. Edited and slanted? Sure.

Wrong/non-factual? Yes/No?

If you consider all that was presented in that movie and consider even a small fraction was correct, can GW Bush expect negativity from the voting pubilc?

[Cander]

Yes. Because people are too influenced by film. Which is exactly what Moore wants. He knows people won't see the deceit and will make assumptions he has layed out for them.

Like the thing about Bush at the school during the 9/11 attacks. What could Bush have done? What would rushing out of the school, alarming the kids, done to help? Moore is counting on people seeing this as a weakness that Bush did nothing during this attack despite there was nothing he could do.

He uses tactics like "Mr. Johnsons brothers, sons, daughter is married to the distant cousin of a rich railroad tycoon." in order to deceive people into to thinking there is some relevant connection between Johnson and the tycoon and that was the reason Johnson clubbed a seal.

Again. the problem comes down to the US election's are too influenced by film and TV. So few are able to make informed opinions on their own. Its sad that I can bet that this year will be a huge yeart for turn out to the polls, but it will be alot of people who have had no political interest before 9/11 and will vote without any knowledge of who they are actually voting for or against. Like lsat election. Do you know how many people probably voted for Bush, just because he was the son of a former President? And conversely how many voted Gore just because he was VP? They had no clue what they stood for. 2 party system sucks!

[DeadEyes]

I would imagine that most of the people who went to see the film would be people who were not going to vote for Bush anyway.
Someone once said all politics is local. People will vote based on jobs, health, education and how much it costs to fill their cars.
As for the two party system...
It's just one party away from a dictatorship.

[JPicasso]

After sitting through "bowling" it's apparent that this guy is a complete idiot.

Not to say that the Bush administration doesn't deserve criticism, but
Moore is just, stupid.

anyway, I've not seen it, but apparently this guy did and had some issues.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

www.moorewatch.com has some interesting items, but it's just as right-wing
as moore is crazy.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I saw it, and generally enjoyed it. It was too over the top in some places. I didn't much care for the social commentary of the last few seconds, which I didn't think was supported by any of the preceding material, but I thought there were several issues that need to be raised a bit more often in this country.

I'm no fan of Bush, but not for most of the reasons pointed out in the movie, but leave that aside. Our military is largely composed of the uneducated poor, and it always has been. Those who gain the least from this system are the ones who are first called upon to support it (the Brits are familiar with this system, as well, dating back longer than the US has been around).

Cander laments the ignorance of the populace, and blames the two party system. Why blame that? The ignorance of the populace is what sucks. Bush hasn't done any good for the lower classes, but many support him without thinking it through. Were they to think it through, it is a bit unclear what answer they would come up with, though. Will Kerry do more for them than Bush? Maybe, but only in the long run by not allowing as much pollution. In the short run, neither party is likely to really help people right now.

Somebody pointed out that Republicans in the early 70's were far more liberal than the most liberal Democrats holding high office today, but the population was far more conservative than it is today. Now the politicians on both sides have shifted right, while the population as a whole has shifted left. Weird. The result is that the politicians will not do anything either progressive or inovative.

[Foxer]

I don't think there would be any statistics on this topic, but it would be interesting to see

- how much terrorist activity there was before the twin towers

- how much terrorist activity there was after the twin towers (include potential activity)

One thing that struck me in the move is all this heightened terrorist alert and all for what? Is terrorism really on the rise?

Despite the elevated alerts and the (presumed) increase in spending on home-land security, is terrorism really that bad?

Australia hasn't suffered an attack since 2001. There was the Bali bombing in Indonesia but I believe that target was chosen as a soft target.

An attack might happen one day and I might get hit by a falling meteor but really - is global terrorism as bad as the hype?

[mudfish]

Gary Campbell

I think it is so our government can control more aspect of our life, and take more personal freedom away from us! In the name of stopping terrorism! You can get kill by someone that is crazy or a bad driver quicker in the USA then by a terrorist!

[CORONA BEER]

We need less crooked cops...

[demotivater]

Originally posted by mudfish
Gary Campbell

I think it is so our government can control more aspect of our life, and take more personal freedom away from us! In the name of stopping terrorism! You can get kill by someone that is crazy or a bad driver quicker in the USA then by a terrorist!

So we should do nothing?

[mudfish]

demotivater

No that not what I mean! But do you want your phone tapped by the goverment, to see if you are a terrorist?

[demotivater]

Originally posted by mudfish
demotivater

No that not what I mean! But do you want your phone tapped by the goverment, to see if you are a terrorist?

As long as they don't take my bong, I guess that'd be ok.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I agree. In this society, we evaluate our risks in wacky ways. I tend to go off on long rambling hikes of weeks and months at a time. People are always freaking out about that. They seem to think that I'll be eaten by a bear, or get lost and starve to death, or something. They never worry about me being killed by a moose, or being hit by a drunk driver while on the drive to the woods. However, moose are more dangerous than bear, and statistically, I am in much greater danger of dying while driving to the woods than I am while hiking. As for getting lost, that's just crazy. I'm set up for weeks. There's nowhere in this country you can't walk out of in a week (as if I ever could get lost).

However, people think I should worry about these statistically insignificant threats, while ignoring the big ones. For instance, many people think I should carry a gun to protect myself from certain animals. But guns are very heavy. I have come close due to hypothermia, and falling trees. Were I to carry an extra five pounds of weight, it would be far more rational to carry five pounds of clothes, rather than five pounds of gun.

With regard to terrorism: Should we do nothing? Maybe. We don't have enough data to know. How much effort should we expend on this threat versus other threats we face? If the threat is truly small, we SHOULD do nothing, or at least very little. We can't do everything, and we aren't doing some things that are more likely to improve our lifespans.

Therefore, the argument "So we should do nothing?" is baseless. We have a so-so chance of thwarting a miniscule threat to our existence. We have a reasonable chance of thwarting a greater threat to our existence. The two cannot both be accomplished, which should we do? Obviously, we go for the second one. Now, the question remains whether terrorism is a great threat or a tiny one, and whether we can take effective counter measures in the "after the fact" method we currently employ.

[demotivater]

This is a long one - sorry - I don't have a link to it.
A good read and a reminder for those who have forgotten or were unaware of these events. I think it proves it's own point and pretty quickly answers the question - "is there a real terrorist threat?". Again - sorry it's so long.

HEY AMERICA, WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979, I had just recently got engaged, when over in the Middle East, in a country going through a religious and political upheaval, a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the next 23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then; President Carter had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had been decimated and downsized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more. Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more. Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber. The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the Snooze Alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US soil is continually attacked. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. America wants to treat these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. The Wake Up alarm is louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500 servicemen.

The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep. The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on October 12, 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979. The President is absolutely correct when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough.

There can be no more Democrat vs. Republican, left/right, you're for, you're against, anti this or pro that. America has been attacked. It is as simple as that. We are all Americans and have to act accordingly. It would be nice if diplomacy or a sanction here or there would be the answer, but these terrorists only understand one kind of language. And so our military has to be brought into the equation. Doves and hawks must unite behind one banner, the banner of freedom.

America has to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to hit the "Snooze Button" again and roll over and go back to sleep. We have to make the terrorists know that in the words of Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor "that all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant." My father and his generation rose to the occasion then with the full support of the country behind them. It is time for a new generation to rise up and lead the way towards re-securing our freedom and bestow freedom to others in the world that have never had a taste of it. Unfortunately, there can be no peace until there is a clear victory. Godspeed to all who don the American uniform.

[Shaggy Hiker]

My gut feeling is to laugh at that, but then I start feeling queasy.

What is he saying? That we should take up arms and go after the terrorists? Well....yes, that IS what he is saying. Let's see, he has lumped together the Beirut bombing (Labanese), the Lockerbie bombing (Libya), 911 (Saudi Arabians via Afghanistan), and a few others. He left out: bombing of the Atlanta Olympics, and Oklahoma City. Oh yes, those were done by white Americans, we can ignore them.

How strongly can you say this: By fighting terrorists with the military, we are punching water! What are we supposed to do? Should we invade Libya, kill hundreds of civilians in collateral damage, invade Lebanon (and Syria), kill hundreds of civilians in collateral damage, invade Saudi Arabia, kill hundreds of civilians in collateral damage, invade the southern US, kill hundreds of civilians in collateral damage? That's crap!!

The terrorists are the MINORITY in ALL countries in which they originate. Using the military will harm the MAJORITY in all countries from which terrorists originate. Some of the worst terrorists in US history were US born and raised. Should we invade the US to go after those bad apples?

Think what you are advocating by looking at McVeigh! We know people like him exist, and we have seen the damage they can do. You can't be thinking we should use the military to go after people like him (bombing US targets), why is it ok to go after terrorists in other countries by these means. The only possible answer is because THEY AREN'T US! That is the most evil possible answer you can come up with, but it is the only justification for using the indiscriminate hammer to swat that painful fly.

Half the deadly attacks perpetrated within the 50 states in the last decade have been conducted by right wing extremists. We are our own enemy, but you wouldn't think to advocate a solution against this enemy that you willingly accept for a foreigner. I won't bring race into it, but xenophobia clearly applies.

So what is to be done? Why are all these groups attacking us. Why aren't the same level of attacks being conducted against Britain (until they sided with us), Russia (oops, they are), Japan (oops, they are there, too, but by Japanese bio-terrorists), or China (who knows).

Still, the US stands out since we have been attacked all over the place. Sort of like Israel.

Well, doggone it, whenever I try to say why the US is special, I realize that there are other countries who have been dealing with terrorism far longer than we have, and still don't have an answer.

The bottom line is an unhappy one: WE CANNOT WIN THIS WAR!! The reason all these terrorists use terrorist tactics is because they have no other choice. There were plenty of fools calling the 911 terrorists cowards. That's funny. What did those idiots expect? Did they think the terrorists would announce a war on whatever, and come marching out with their guns at port-arms to attack the US military. Then they wouldn't have been cowards, they would have been stupid. And DEAD.

Terrorists use terrorism because it is the only tool that works for them. As long as it works, they will use it. WE CANNOT STOP THIS. Even the ultra-controlled Nazi Germany had a bomber try to kill Hitler. We could stop the terrorists only by giving them no cause to attack us, but that is unthinkable. Therefore, terrorism will continue from without and within, and that's all there is to it.

[Foxer]

If the war on terrorism can not be won (few ppl truely believe it can be won), it can most certainly be controlled to an acceptable level. The level of control will no doubt be proportional to the level of funding on counter-terrorism, intelligence, home-land security etc etc.

Whether we have the correct level of funding in light of the perceived level of threat is an arguement for intelligence staff and politicians I'm guessing.

Oh - and back onto Michael Moore - I found this website to be interesting. Sometimes a bit trivial but perhaps justified.

The Truth (perhaps)

[Ex-FB]

Demotivaters post was very interesting and well written, but I have to agree with Shaggy Hikers points about the last paragraph. Although the post is very stirring and makes you want to rush out and solve the problem, he loses the plot totally at the end. This is not a fight that can be won by force of arms. I believe the fight can be won, but firing weapons into buildings is not the way to do it. Your front line troops are now intelligence agents, your weapons are few as you are only trying to kill a few people. It's intelligence, intelligence, intelligence and then one bullet.

I think that's what part of the problem is here. American people are shocked that anyone would dare attack them, because they have such a massive military. And the instant response is to lash out and seek revenge by using that military. But this unfortunately plays directly into the terrorists hands and does them more good than harm. Aircraft carriers and tanks have no place in a war on terrorism. I'm afraid it's the CIA, FBI and accountants and lawyers who fight these battles, but that won't sate some peoples thirst for revenge.

I also noted (as SH noted) that he carefully ignores any white terrorist attacks - ELF, Timothy McVeige, Anti-Abortion.

The British learnt the hard way (unfortunately) that troops are not an effective tool against terrorism. I would have expected Blair to have passed that lesson on to Bush.

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
I think that's what part of the problem is here. American people are shocked that anyone would dare attack them, because they have such a massive military.

I dont think our military is that massive. Russia is prolly packing more than us, or China.

[Ex-FB]

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. America wants to treat these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. The Wake Up alarm is louder and louder.

Oh, and just a point, the Lockerbie bombers have been succesfully brought to trial. However you cut it, and however it sounds better in sound bites, this is not war in the conventional sense. There is no country to declare war on. They are still crimes. September 11th, horrific though it is, is still just a crime. To say that it is a war is pandering to the media networks wishes to glorify stories. It's a crime, and people are being held responisble, and such people should be caught and given a fair trial, as with any other crime. Otherwise, what are we, some mob of gangsters going to "war" with a rival mob, both sides killing indescriminently. If we go further down that road, are we really any better than them? At this stage, are we any better than Osama Bin Laden? How many innocents have died at our hands in our thirst for revenge?

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
I dont think our military is that massive. Russia is prolly packing more than us, or China.

China possibly, but it's still pretty massive.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Our military is not so massive in numbers, but it is massive in power. But this is a job for a knife, not a club.

I would tend to leave ELF out of terrorist lists, though they technically do belong. I'm not convinced they are a group so much as a credo, and they appear to avoid harming people.

But I also left out several domestic "terrorists". I use the quotes because these people or groups had the terror effect, but there motives were so obscure that they may or may not be technically considered terrorists: School shooters, DC sniper, Columbus sniper, Mr. Anthrax (nobody knows who or why, still), unibomber. Not your normal psychopaths, they seemed out to inflict fear on some populous, and succeeded. Mr. Anthrax, whoever that was, caused more widespread fear than 911, though the death toll was tiny. However, none of these groups can be easily classified, since most of them do not have a reason that we can come close to stating.

Terrorism is an interesting crime. The perpetrators tend to be among the victims, which makes prosecution impossible. Of course, this is not always the case, but we can't go after the actual perpetrators of 911, or Columbine. That makes the crime particularly intractable. There is no fear of punishment for a person who dies as an intentional part of their crime.

[Foxer]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
They are still crimes. September 11th, horrific though it is, is still just a crime. To say that it is a war is pandering to the media networks wishes to glorify stories. It's a crime, and people are being held responisble, and such people should be caught and given a fair trial, as with any other crime.

Well said.

Originally posted by Ex-FB
are we any better than Osama Bin Laden? How many innocents have died at our hands in our thirst for revenge?

Well said - again.

Did anyone click my linky above? There's a lot to read (I skimmed it but).

Any thoughts on that content?

[DeadEyes]

Hey America Wake Up. Is an interesting article listing attacks on American interests while ignoring American attacks on other countries.
Some CIA activities are listed here
These generally involve replcaing democratically elected people with dictators.
The point I'm getting at here is terrorist usually fight for a reason or against an injustice (real or perceived). The writer never once asked why these atttacks are happening, and because they "hate freedom" is not a reason.

[Foxer]

Thanks for the link Deadeye - will read it later.

[DeadEyes]

extract from the link that relates to part of what the WAKE UP article talks about

Iran — The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA’s backing of SAVAK, the Shah’s bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Getting back to topic I see Moore has released a clip of the new CIA boss where he states that he is not qualified for the job.
What Moore fails to point out is that the guy is talking about being a spy not about being the head of the organisation which requires different skills.

[demotivater]

Originally posted by DeadEyes

Some CIA activities are listed here

Liberal crap.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by demotivater
Liberal crap.

Ah - a few years ago it would have been communist crap. It's good to see that you have progressed.

[Cander]

I cant verify all those CIA attrocities, but I have always been under the impression that the CIA is too powerful and too out of touch with todays world for its own good. CIA is a problem that just needs to go away. They spend more time worrying about threats that no longer exist and harboring old grudges to concentrate on current threats.

I would bet before 9/11, CIA spent more time focusing on Cuba than al-Qaeda.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Originally posted by Cander
I cant verify all those CIA attrocities, but I have always been under the impression that the CIA is too powerful and too out of touch with todays world for its own good. CIA is a problem that just needs to go away. They spend more time worrying about threats that no longer exist and harboring old grudges to concentrate on current threats.

I would bet before 9/11, CIA spent more time focusing on Cuba than al-Qaeda.

Probably true, but also probably inevitable. Generals always fight their last war. We learn from experience, and don't throw it out to start fresh. In most cases, this is a good thing, but in the case of a situation that changes radically, this is a bad thing.

[demotivater]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Ah - a few years ago it would have been communist crap. It's good to see that you have progressed.

That was a typo - should have read:
Pinko Commie Liberal Crap!!

[Cander]

Generals always fight their last war.

Alot like military weaponry. Weapons are made to fight the previous war. The next big war finds the weapon unadapted to its environment.

[Pino]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Cuz Michael Moore is a tree hugging fat bassard

you can get an AMEN for that comment

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Oh, and just a point, the Lockerbie bombers have been succesfully brought to trial. However you cut it, and however it sounds better in sound bites, this is not war in the conventional sense. There is no country to declare war on. They are still crimes. September 11th, horrific though it is, is still just a crime. To say that it is a war is pandering to the media networks wishes to glorify stories. It's a crime, and people are being held responisble, and such people should be caught and given a fair trial, as with any other crime. Otherwise, what are we, some mob of gangsters going to "war" with a rival mob, both sides killing indescriminently. If we go further down that road, are we really any better than them? At this stage, are we any better than Osama Bin Laden? How many innocents have died at our hands in our thirst for revenge?

Interestingly, I read on the BBC site about a lawsuit being brought upon the US government by a soldier (a reservist or something probably) who says he can't be forced to serve the tour of duty in Iraq because the US hasn't declared war against Iraq Now that's pretty interesting. To the best of my knowledge there has been no formal declaration of war, for reasons everybody knows. Yet the Bush government seems to be on a drive to mobilize their reserve troops for the so-called 'war'.

.