Fahrenheit 9/11

RE*AC*TOR

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
I read recently that during the scene Moores was standing outside the senate askin Senators would they send their kids to Iraq, one of the Senators replied that his son has been in Afganistan for a number of months already. Naturally, this was promptly edited out!

It was stated on a number of occasions that only one member of the senate had a child in the army/marines etc.

jesus_thats_gre

Yes I am aware of that point.. That does not apprear to the true and it was some heck of a coincidence if he happened to stumble upon that one senator for an interview..

sceptre

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
I read recently that during the scene Moores was standing outside the senate askin Senators would they send their kids to Iraq, one of the Senators replied that his son has been in Afganistan for a number of months already. Naturally, this was promptly edited out!

That'd be Mark Kennedy. He doesn't have a son in Iraq, he has two nephews over there somewhere.

Hobbes

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Yes I am aware of that point.. That does not apprear to the true and it was some heck of a coincidence if he happened to stumble upon that one senator for an interview..

Hardly a coincidence if he did. Did you see the other guys run away, even the guy smoking legged it. It was clear they had been warned beforehand.

jesus_thats_gre

Possibly yes.. Something just struck me there. The lady he interviewed throughout the movie who was at first fully supportive of sending young lads off to war who later changed he mind completely after her son died....

How did Moore actually select this woman for interview. The son dying and her total change of mind sort suited him and his film perfectly... Or am I missing something there??

Hobbes

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Possibly yes.. Something just struck me there. The lady he interviewed throughout the movie who was at first fully supportive of sending young lads off to war who later changed he mind completely after her son died....

How did Moore actually select this woman for interview. The son dying and her total change of mind sort suited him and his film perfectly... Or am I missing something there??

She is well known in the US because she complained that the US government was heartless to dock her son 4 days pay because he was unable to work due to being dead.

She later did get those 4 days pay. She was still supportive of sending people to the military (her family are ex-military). He didn't like follow her before and after.

What she was against was Iraq war.

dathi1

Niall Stannage's spin on F 9/11 is his typical "everything America does is right" without question. Stannage like a lot of Moore's critics never seem to question the hard facts in the film and tend to focus on inconsistencies in past productions etc. He plays around with small parts in the film which may be open to question and says the film is "Flawed" and "lacking in coherence". Nothing in the film was news to me except the degree to which the Bush's are up the arses of the Saudis. I read there were links but jezus..
Anyway is a nice read: http://www.sbpost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-588624473-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FAgenda.asp

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by Hobbes
She is well known in the US because she complained that the US government was heartless to dock her son 4 days pay because he was unable to work due to being dead.

She later did get those 4 days pay. She was still supportive of sending people to the military (her family are ex-military). He didn't like follow her before and after.

What she was against was Iraq war.

Yeah I understand that. But wasnt she interviewed in the film before her son went away and was still alive. During this time she was fully supportive of the Military etc.. Then later her son died in Iraq and she changed her mind stance completely.

What I am asking/querying, is it just a coincidence that Moore choose to interview a staunch supporter who then later had a complete change of heart after her son died, i.e. her son dying was a blessing to the point of Moores movie... ( I am not imlying it is good he died if anyone wants to go down that road)...

BattleBoar

I'd say of all the reviews I've read of the movie, this one most closely approximates my feelings:

link

In the end and, perhaps most damningly, all the emotive huffing and puffing tends toward tedium, an absolute disaster for a film which relies on its crowd-pleasing potential to popularise a political message. As someone who was utterly opposed to the Iraq war and who believes wholeheartedly that Bush should not just be toppled but tried, I was surprised at how little empathy I felt for the polemical rhetoric of Fahrenheit 9/11.

As for Michael Moore, ask yourself this question: would you buy a used car from this man? Exactly.

Zombrex

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
What I am asking/querying, is it just a coincidence that Moore choose to interview a staunch supporter who then later had a complete change of heart after her son died, i.e. her son dying was a blessing to the point of Moores movie... ( I am not imlying it is good he died if anyone wants to go down that road)...

The impression that she was interviewed before her son died is just bad editing. Moore was going for the emotive impact of finding out her son had died after the film has we introduced us to this woman.

What people don't understand is that this is not a cold hard fact documentary. It is a protest film. Moore tells stories with the editing to get his point across. Through the editing of the interview we learn she was supportive of military service, but has questioned the Iraq war. Likewise Moore's point is that only one senetor has children in the army, and he made this point by asking senetors to sign up their kids. I'd imagine he asked all of them as they came into work.

BattleBoar

What I, as a scientist, resent is :

a. The deliberate misconstruing of information to suit one's political end, regardless of what that end may be

b. The production factor - this will only serve to take politics further away from the discussion of actual policy and more toward creating slick production films, trying to get film of the other guy in some unflattering act, and character assasination

c. The hypocracy of Moore himself - delivering in spades exactly what he claims is one of the things for which he despises the Bush administration

See this site for context:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Although I haven't posted here often, most here know that I opposed the Iraq war, still think it was a horrible policy decision, and still believe that Bush must go for the US to begin to repair its international standing. So why didn't I like it?

I suppose that whether you will like it or not depends on whether you are a person that believes ends justify means in any case. I do not. I think in the end, if we sell out our methods to drive toward a desired result, we do ourselves more harm than good. I personally believe Moore could have made a far more persuasive argument (and with less potential for backlash), had he resisted his urge to deliberately misled and taken out of context. The POLICY is itself damnng enough alone to make for a compelling case against Bush, as many of the informed people in this forum already know.

However, by deliberately misrepresenting the information at hand, Moore has undermined not just those bits that were false or misleading, but the entire film, as he is apt to do (see Bowling for Columbine). Whether there will be a backlash or not, we will have to wait to see, but I believe the sensationalism, misrepresentation, and especially character assasination of the film will have more negative reprecussions than positive for most swing voters after the initial shock wears off...I hope I'm wrong. I also hope I'm wrong that it is a very bad indicator of the direction in which political discussion is going, at least in the US. Then again, take my opinion for what it's worth...I'm hardly typical.

Regards...
BB

MrPudding

I haven't seen the movie yet but from what I've read here and heard from friends there are some "issues" with the movie. Moore himself has said that it is a biased production. I think it's value might be getting people interested enough to actually get up off their arses and do a bit of research onto things themselves.

MrP

Hobbes

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Yeah I understand that. But wasnt she interviewed in the film before her son went away and was still alive.

No she wasn't. Here point about hating peace protesters then changing her mind about it. But as I said earlier, she still thought the army was a good thing to join.

See this site for context:

That site is painful to read. Most of it so far is...

"This report compiles the Fahrenheit 9/11 deceits which have been identified by a wide variety of reviewers"

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

Trojan

Originally posted by Hobbes
No she wasn't. Here point about hating peace protesters then changing her mind about it. But as I said earlier, she still thought the army was a good thing to join.

Exactly.

It's a strongly pro-US, pro-military film with the proviso that is mentioned at the end:

But perhaps one of the most powerful moments is one of the final moments. Moore shows us pictures of our troops and tells us that they serve, so that we don't have to. That they are giving this country a gift. And that the only thing they ask in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary.

And he asks, will they ever trust us again?

Well, they'll never trust Bush again. Just as the rest of the world will never trust Bush.

dark_knight_ire

it does have some good points and i think the bush administration shoule see that but again people its very left wing working on what ifs i mean go see it but dont take every word as truth

scojones

Originally posted by Hobbes
If he isn't toast next election then the thing has to be rigged.

According to "Stupid White Men" the last election was rigged.
Anyway, i'm going to see the movie tomorrow. I have high expectations as i'm an avid Michael Moore fan, ever since "Roger & Me". I would have went sooner, if work didn't get in the way.

scojones

Anyone that has seen the movie please visit here [click on extended analysis of farenheit 9/11]
and here

jackofalltrades

See this site for context:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fif...renheit-911.htm

Have seen that link posted before on other forums.
Real difficult to read as the layout is appaling.

My favourite bit was:

Bush on September 11
Cheap Shot

Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.
_
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush’s action: “I don’t think anyone could have handled it better.” “What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?”…
_
She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and “helped us get through a very difficult day.”

This comment actaully made me laugh, what difference would the principals comments have made to the film. What if the school bus driver had said Bush did a terrible job, the fact is its completlely irrelevant.
How did Bush's presence help them through the difficult time, they didn't even know about he attacks until after he left.

After reading that little gem I kinda gave up on the article.

Batbat

Originally posted by Hobbes
If he isn't toast next election then the thing has to be rigged.

Last election was rigged in Florida, but it was still very close regardless, now this time, Bush is so unpopular, I just dont see any way he gets re-elected. I mean 1nce is a mistake but a second time would be just stupid.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Batbat
I mean once is a mistake but a second time would be just stupid.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again." url=http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/images/bushfoolhr.wmv]Daily Show[/url

satanta99

I've just seen the film today, about an hour ago and I just am compelled to get how i feel about it off my chest! I have a knot in my stomach I really just wanna do something but I feel powerless and I am. I feel like hopin on a plane and runing thru a Wall Mart screaming at George Bush and citizens of the US who are ignorant to what the hell is happening to their bloody country. I have enough I wished I could have been in the car park of the mall as those two marines tried to recruit people in the car park. It sounds irrational and crazy but all I wanted to do was throw some shower of abuse full of expletives at their feicin ignorant faces!!!
Sorry but this post is heavy on emotion and low on facts but jesus like how can we leave this go on!! What the hell is wrong with the sane people of the world!!!

TomF

Reading some of these postings makes me realise that propaganda really does work.

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
Reading some of these postings makes me realise that propaganda really does work.

You follow American politics, and only realise this now???

???

matthiku

Isn't the whole problem with current politics the lack of transparency?

Here: Does Bush has a hidden agenda? Why did he (resp. the Administration) ignore real and searious warnings about terrorist threats before 9/11 and later launches a war on Iraq without real and serious backing by intelligence?

There: The same could be asked about Blair. What exactly were his reasons to attack Iraq? Don't the soldiers and his country have a right to know that?

What will be the consequences of those investigations in both countries revealing these discrepancies?

As for the politicians currently in power, apparently nil.

Most of the information and facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 were already published and well known before. Moore puzzled them together to bring a point across. The difference between this film and our daily shower of news is that it asks, even begs, for action and consequences.

It is like somebody recording all the pre-election promises of politicians and then constantly comparing them to the post-election behaviour and decisions.

There are always brave people out there who still support those politicians. It's obvious that they do not want to have their leaders (and their own ideals/beliefs) exposed to such scrutiny. So I'm not suprised that people resort to attack the man and not the message.

But those who are seriously interested in the truth, should at least investigate themselves and not rely on hearsay. Here is a starting point with many refernces to external sources: http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

Drexl Spivey

" The deliberate misconstruing of information to suit one's political end, regardless of what that end may be"


Those anti-Fahrenheit 9/11 argue that the information is biaised, they talk about the editing by MM etc.. But they are themselves trying to mislead the truth :

It is not because if some information is wrong, that all information is wrong.
+
They usually don t provide counter argumentation.
+
Some FACTS are left alone (Facts about Bush, and other facts too ..)
Yes or No was Bush making his funny faces before announcing the war in March 2003 (not that this impacts world geo politics, but it shows a serious mental issues with the world leader) or are those people saying that Moore used special effects.


I would actually find interesting to see those anti Moore argumentation and see if themselves are Neo Conservatives fabrications, trying to discredit Moore and his wonderful Work.

Drexl Spivey

" The deliberate misconstruing of information to suit one's political end, regardless of what that end may be"


Those anti-Fahrenheit 9/11 argue that the information is biaised, they talk about the editing by MM etc.. But they are themselves trying to mislead the truth :

It is not because if some information is wrong, that all information is wrong.
+
They usually don t provide counter argumentation.
+
Some FACTS are left alone (Facts about Bush, and other facts too ..)
Yes or No was Bush making his funny faces before announcing the war in March 2003 (not that this impacts world geo politics, but it shows a serious mental issues with the world leader) or are those people saying that Moore used special effects.


I would actually find interesting to see those anti Moore argumentation and see if themselves are Neo Conservatives fabrications, trying to discredit Moore and his wonderful Work.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Jeff Bond
I would actually find interesting to see those anti Moore argumentation and see if themselves are Neo Conservatives fabrications, trying to discredit Moore and his wonderful Work.

That "wonderful work", as you put it, is so full of holes that it's a bit disheartening to hear so many people call it as such. The links to Moore's rebuttals of arguments are present in the link I posted earlier.

It's that very attitude that allowed Bush to get away with distorting facts to people about Iraq in the first place - they already made up their mind and they wanted to believe it, so they did...without paying any attention to points that may have rebutted their stance. I'm sure if any other scientists are in here, they can attest that were you to run an experiment and selectively pick out only certain data points you collected, you could, to an extent, "manufacture" a result you wanted.

That said, seems to me like Bush and Moore deserve each other to a certain extent. Both are guilty of cherrypicking data to support a predetermined conclusion in an effort to manipulate the "truth"...Bush with the Iraq war intelligence report to congress and Moore with his movies. The problem is, too many people are all to willing to support anything that supports what they already believe, and too willing to dismiss anything that doesn't.

RossFixxxed

Sorry I've taken my post down.

matthiku

I've seen the film now. Finally. Am totally impressed 'cause I would say it's an excellent piece of work. It was amyzing that after 3 weeks, this "documentary" still has a packed audience. I've rarely experienced such magnitised silence and emotions in a cinema.

But whatever you might say about the way in which Moore presents his case, and whether he might have edited too much - those facts remain and have never been smitted togehter in a better way:

1. Mr. Bush's election was a scandal - the first president being not elected but appointed by the Supreme Court

2. Mr. Bush's (+ family's) tight connection with the War industrie including the Saudi's money machine

3. There never was a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq - this war had no justification whatsoever (note also the report from the Sept. 11 commission in the USA released just yesterday confirming this)

4. Sept. 11 was used to take away more civil rights

Those are the facts and nobody in this thread and anybody else has ever succeed to prove otherwise.

3.000 Americans killed in the 9/11 attack never justify those tens of thousands killed in the subsequent wars, including many many, American soldiers. America never intended to bring democracy to those places nor to "liberate" the people. If there was any other reason then oil and money I haven't heard it yet.

Launching an attack on a souvereign state, thereby killing - no, - murdering innocent people will never ever resolve anything but create more hatred and further instability. The behaviour of Bush and his administration haven't reduced at all the terrorist thread.

Flukey

I have seen it and I thought it was good. It put a bit more meat on the bones of the facts that any of us who have paid any attention to what was going on already knew. It is a bit ironic that people are knocking the film for misrepresenting facts when it was Bush and co misrepresenting facts to start this war in the first place. Why didn't Bush bomb Sweden or Costa Rica or Christmas Island after 9/11? After all, Afghanistan and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with those attacks either, but he bombed them!!