Fahrenheit 9/11

SkepticOne

Flukey wrote:

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!!

Agree with you on Iraq, but there are certainly links with Afghanistan (assuming you believe Al Quaida was behind the attacks).

Stabshauptmann

There was nothing in that film that I didnt know already. For me no eyes were opened.
They way it was told wont win over that many ppl, it looks too much like proparganda. In fact he made a few mistakes which asks questions about the whole movie.
IMO Moore is an asshole. He's not very smart, he's not very funny (just my own taste) and from what Ive read he's ignorant and a bully. I was reading about ppl who thought they should have got royalties and other ppl who wouldnt let him use their material in his movie and how he started a campaign against them.
He's just another american who IMO is not very different from conservatives and the way they are stubbern and wont listen to others. There are things about him I dont trust and dont like but I cant put my finger onb them.

I'll go get some links if I can find some on the internet (most things I read are newspapers and magazines in Real-life TM


BTW: I'm hoping bush loses the election btw, but I dont think the democrats are a whole lot better. I'd probably support Nader and the greens.

Hobbled

SkepticOne wrote:

Agree with you on Iraq, but there are certainly links with Afghanistan (assuming you believe Al Quaida was behind the attacks).

Which makes you wonder why the US entertained the taleban then when they knew OBL was in afganistan.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bobbyjoe

Saw f911 last week. Most of the stuff were things that were already known. The biggest feeling I got from it is they way in which the poorest in society end up risking their lives for the richest, who stay at home and rake in the bucks.

Read the Dave Kopel 59 deceits thing most of his points are very petty.
The tone was set early on with this comment below.

One of Moore's "war room" officials is Chris Lehane; Lehane, as an employee of Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark (who was also supported by Moore), is alleged to have spread rumors to the press about John Kerry's alleged extra-marital affair, although Lehane denies doing so.

Why add that if not to muck rake?

For anyone who is interested there is a much better documentry linked to below. Like f911 but much more serious and better researchd.

The Whole Truth About The Iraq War
Robert Greenwald - 87 minutes: Windows Media

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm

Hobbled

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You mean you forgot all about how in 1994 Pakistan and the US funded the Taliban to overthrow the Northern Alliance (then having a different name) so as to make the country stable?

Or prehaps the UNOCAL report for the US government which said they needed a "regime change" in Afganistan for it to put a pipeline through.

or prehaps that two of those employees from that same company now hold major posts in the running of Afganistan, one of them the president of Afganistan.

Or that after the president was in place only a couple of months that very same pipeline deal was secured.

Not that big a difference.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbled

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Moore only covers some what went on.

Yes there is a difference. You were making allegations of collusion with the Taleban a second ago and now you're talking about the pressure to get rid of them!!??

No I am saying the US helped put them into power thinking they would help put the pipeline in. They didn't. In fact they found them annoying to deal with. Adding to that to the public pressure they were getting dealing with the taliban (as shown in moores documentry) they had no other choice.

Also the president of Afghanistan had CIA connections prior to 9/11 and was being actively used by them to arrange meetings with the US.

Also along with Unocal dealing with the Taliban, so was CentGas, which has links to Cheny (via Halliburton). A relative (of an ex CIA Director ) working for Centgas is the one responisble for the houston meeting.

The Taliban were even meeting with US government officials close to 9/11.

So don't tell me the US government (Bush and friends) had no dealings with them.

They got their pipeline deal, Afganhistan is still a mess.

Flukey

Skeptic, there were some links in terms of some training occuring on Afghanistani soil, but that did not justify bombing innocent civilians who probably wouldn't even know where New York was. You could also argue that America was connected, insofar as the pilots trained in America, the planes and airlines used were American and they took off from American airports. Those links are as strong a link to America as the links to Afghanistan!

SkepticOne

Flukey wrote:

You could also argue that America was connected, insofar as the pilots trained in America, the planes and airlines used were American and they took off from American airports. Those links are as strong a link to America as the links to Afghanistan!

No, I don't think I could argue that. While one might argue that, for example, Osama was merely an inspirational figure and that the training camps in Afghanistan did not specifically train for the WTC bombing (I don't think anyone knows exactly what went on there), there is no way that the American airports or airlines can be held responsible for the bombings, except for lax security, but that is a different issue. This would be like blaming the Americans for Pearl Harbour because they weren't on sufficiently high alert and not the Japanese who actually planned the raid.

You might as well say that because the WTC buildings that were bombed were in America this establishes a link with America.

Flukey

That is exactly my point Skeptic. It wasn't the fault of the American airports etc. that 9/11 happened and equally it wasn't the fault of Afghanistan that it happened either, so why was it bombed?

gandalf

The organisation that took credit for the attacks of September the 11th 2001 was based in Afghanistan and was protected by the Taliban government so it was a legitimate target (at the time I was against that attack but on hindsight it was justified).

The problem is the US made a half assed effort at this invasion and the attempted tracking down of the real criminal mastermind of this attack because the administration was distracted by their desire to attack Iraq who had nothing to do with the attacks on New York & the Pentegon. The most frightening statistic to come out of this film is there are more police in Manhatten than there are US troops in Afghanistan!!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Flukey

The Taliban may have been a legitimate target, but that is no who suffered as a result of most of the bombing in Afghanistan. The same can be said of Iraq and Saddam. Saddam is gone, which is good, but that job could in effect have been done with one man, one gun and one bullet, and that bullet might not have even had to be fired. There is nothing that justified the invasion that took place. None of the reasons given for it, stand up to scrutiny. Around the world America has often toppled democratic governments to put in dictators for example. I haven't time now, but all the other reasons given also have no foundation when examined. It comes down to one thing: Operation Iraqi Liberation.

Hobbes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Look at the connections of the Taliban vs Bush and friends.

As for Clinton, I said US Government. Why is it when ever something is pointed out the rebuttel is a republican/democrat was/ in power/connected. Anyway Clinton bombed the hell out of OBL camps when the US was attacked, he didn't sit on his ass for two months.

Voting issues in Florida? Each district was over looked by a democrat, yet they had no real control over what happened. No democratic senator signed the petition for the investigation (in florida elections). Does that make it right? I don't think so.

Flukey

It is ironic that the two self-proclaimed greatest democracies in the world both have heads of state that were not elected and who only got the job because their daddies had it before them!

matthiku

This is really worth reading:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002046.shtml

I guess some of you may know the law scholar Lawrence Lessig. In his blog, he criticises the not very moderate moderator (presenter) of foxnews Bill O'Reilley. He had invited the son of one of the vicitms of the September 11th attacks but then attacked him and kicked him out of his show. The reason: because he had a different polotical opinion then himself. In the following months, the moderator begun to present the events more and more independent from reality. And that's what Lessig now documents and why he asks for an apology from O'Reilley.

<edit>
The links in his blog are really helpful in getting the facts around sept.11. It's probably a bit more tedious then simply watching the film.

After reading most of the sources, I don't believe Moore has distorted the facts. But he had to edit the film to make it attractive for John Doe.
</edit>

sovtek

gandalf wrote:

The organisation that took credit for the attacks of September the 11th 2001 was based in Afghanistan and was protected by the Taliban government so it was a legitimate target (at the time I was against that attack but on hindsight it was justified).

I have to disagree with you on justification of attacking Afghanistan.
Considering that 9/11 has just now been investigated, with obstruction and delay by the people who should be most concerned about the facts of the matter...it's even hard to say that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.
As well the Taliban were protecting a guest to their country. When Bush demanded the hand over of Bin Laden, the Taliban did the most uncivilized and barbaric act of asking for evidence of his guilt before doing so (also considering that the US had no extradition treaty with Afghanistan)...and what was the immediate response of that bastion of civilized democracy and freedom? "We don't negotiate with terrorists!". Now I wonder what would happen should....ummmm say Nicaragua ask for America to hand over Negropointe or prior to his death....Reagan (or maybe even some of the Contras who are now living in America) for their organizing the terror against their country? Of course the difference with the Nicaraguan and Afghani situations are that the perps of the terror against Nicaragua is proven, Bin Laden isn't by a longshot.
Now what would be the appropriate response of the Nicaraguans towards America in that given situation?

thejollyrodger

Is it just where I live or Is 9/11 not coming out on the cinemas here in ireland?

esquier

For an analysis on the ongoing Iraqi situation this site might be of interest

http://www.juancole.com/

matthiku

check out at: http://www.filminfo.net/core.html

It was showing in Limerick since the beginning of July and in Ennis since end of July. I heard that initially, there were only a few copies around in Ireland, so they staged the showings between various towns. But apparently, te demand is so high, that they had to order many more copies.

In Limerick, for instance, they are showing it 4 times a day from Sun - Sat plus an extra show on Fri + Sat. Nobody expected this. Not much in the news about this. It runs better then much other highly praised movie. If it doesn't show in your theater, ask for it.

dahamsta

Played in two cinemas down here anyway. Have a look around for your location here.

Ain't seen it yet, anyone in Cork wanna go?

adam

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

Now I wonder what would happen should....ummmm say Nicaragua ask for America to hand over Negropointe or prior to his death....Reagan (or maybe even some of the Contras who are now living in America) for their organizing the terror against their country? Of course the difference with the Nicaraguan and Afghani situations are that the perps of the terror against Nicaragua is proven, Bin Laden isn't by a longshot.
Now what would be the appropriate response of the Nicaraguans towards America in that given situation?

Appropriate in what sense? Morally, I would have no problem if Nicaragua - believing that someone in America was responsible for the Contra terrorists - demanded the hand over of that person and, if America failed to do so, then initiated punitive actions against America.

From a pragmatic point of view, of course, it would be inadvisable given the relative lack of strength of Nicaragua.

sovtek

SkepticOne wrote:

Appropriate in what sense? Morally, I would have no problem if Nicaragua - believing that someone in America was responsible for the Contra terrorists - demanded the hand over of that person and, if America failed to do so, then initiated punitive actions against America.

Are you saying then...that it is ok if one countries government BELIEVES that another countries citizen committed a crime in their country, then asked for them to be handed over (without providing proof) and if the accused's country refused until such proof was provided...that it is indeed ok to bomb that country?
Or are you saying that if one country proves that the citizen of another country did commit a crime in their country and that country refused to turn over said citizen...that only then is it ok for that country to bomb the other?

Now that's not even considering what the UN Charter makes of all this.

From a pragmatic point of view, of course, it would be inadvisable given the relative lack of strength of Nicaragua.

Well supposedly they were sending people in 80's to take over America, one of the justifications for creating death squads and giving military support to the Contras (or am I mixing it up with another Latin American country that my government interfered with?).
I remember one quote "..they are only two days drive from Harlingen, Texas".

What if the Nicaraguans contracted Bin Laden out?

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

Are you saying then...that it is ok if one countries government BELIEVES that another countries citizen committed a crime in their country, then asked for them to be handed over (without providing proof) and if the accused's country refused until such proof was provided...that it is indeed ok to bomb that country? [/b]

No, I'm not talking about a simple crime by a foreign national. If you consider the contra activities in Nicaragua to be a proxy war by the US then, in my view, Nicaragua is entitled to retaliate as with any war. The situation is far fetched, of course. No way would Nicaragua act in this way in reality; they would simply be bringing about their own destruction.

Or are you saying that if one country proves that the citizen of another country did commit a crime in their country and that country refused to turn over said citizen...that only then is it ok for that country to bomb the other?

Prove to whom? The alleged offending country - if they are knowingly harbouring the person perpetrating the attrocity, they are hardly likely to accept any proof no matter how good it is.

Now that's not even considering what the UN Charter makes of all this.

Sure, if every country respected the UN Charter, we wouldn't be having the contra situation in the first place.

Well supposedly they were sending people in 80's to take over America, one of the justifications for creating death squads and giving military support to the Contras (or am I mixing it up with another Latin American country that my government interfered with?).
I remember one quote "..they are only two days drive from Harlingen, Texas".

They were financed by US private interests, and on at least one known occasion, the US administration was found to be sending them money (Iran/Contra scandal, Oliver North etc.)

Hobbes

SkepticOne wrote:

No way would Nicaragua act in this way in reality; they would simply be bringing about their own destruction.

So by that we can determine that US actions will bring about more terrorism.

Intresting you say about bringing about their own destruction. That was a point brought up in Bush Documentry thread.

The alleged offending country - if they are knowingly harbouring the person perpetrating the attrocity, they are hardly likely to accept any proof no matter how good it is.

Wrong. Actually the Taliban were willing to agree to proof, and they then even offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral country so he could get a fair trial when the US wasn't forthcoming with the evidence.

SkepticOne

Hobbes wrote:

So by that we can determine that US actions will bring about more terrorism.[/b]

That would depend on a lot of factors in reality, but these are pragmatic issues and should not be confused with a countries right to retaliate.

Intresting you say about bringing about their own destruction. That was a point brought up in Bush Documentry thread.

Why is it interesting? Fairly obvious, I would have thought. Any overt action by a small country against a large power such as the US, Russia, China, etc, would be followed by a fairly swift response, even if the country in question was involved in covert action within that small country. Not nice, but there you are.

Hobbes

SkepticOne wrote:

Why is it interesting? Fairly obvious, I would have thought. Any overt action by a small country against a large power such as the US, Russia, China, etc, would be followed by a fairly swift response, even if the country in question was involved in covert action within that small country. Not nice, but there you are.

Did you see the documentry? They pointed that not only was there no link with Iraq and Terrorism/AQ against the US they also pointed out (as you did) the assured destruction of Saddam if he did do such a thing, and that is something which dictators fear the most.

SkepticOne

Hobbes wrote:

Did you see the documentry? They pointed that not only was there no link with Iraq and Terrorism/AQ against the US they also pointed out (as you did) the assured destruction of Saddam if he did do such a thing, and that is something which dictators fear the most.

OK, I'll let you off.