Farenheit 9/11

[Rangdo]

Rangdo

You admit it's biased. Other posts on here have highlighted inaccuracies. That just makes the film one person's opinion dressed as facts. I don't want bias, I want objectivity.

Just because its his opinion doesn't mean that it isn't fact. I said the film was biased meaning that it is focused from one point of view. That doesnt mean that the things that he says aren't true. I will fully admit that he's gunning for Bush (which I can't blame him for) but the point of the film is that the American public are pumped full of pro-Bush propoganda that he is trying to show them the things that they are not told on TV.
If you tell me which bits are incorrect and your evidence as to why this is so then I will accept it. You just saying things aren't true doesn't make it so.
As the film-maker it is his job to demonstrate that his facts are true. He did this with documents, interview footage, and witnesses so where are the inaccuracies?

 

[Albion Dan]

AD - just because someone has a different opinion to you it does not need they have their head in the sand.

Or shall I just agree with everything you say from now on to make you happy.

So are you going to watch the film to see the other side of the argunment Gareth or are you going to stick your head in the sand and decide its shit anyway?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I might watch it just to please you Dan, when its out on DVD.

 

[m20gull]

Just because its his opinion doesn't mean that it isn't fact. I said the film was biased meaning that it is focused from one point of view. That doesnt mean that the things that he says aren't true.

so where are the inaccuracies?

For someone else's opinion on the inaccuracies of the film

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

 

[readingstockport]

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

And deceipts 11-15 give the BIG lie to this bit of rubbish from the anti-moore camp. He cherry picks the date of 13th and claims that because the flight restriction had been eased Moore is incorrect. IIRC the easing of the flight restriction was for national security purposes, NOT SO MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY RELATED TO THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY PLANNED THE ATTACK COULD GO HOME.

There WERE flights on the 12th and 13th September, they WERE authorised by the Bush administration and they DID carry members of the house of Saud and members of the Bin Laden family. Close members of the Bin Laden family including brothers.

You can pretend that this is a deceipt all you like but the US national air transportation authority and the CIA and FBI have acknowledged these flights took place.

 

[looney]

the best thing about the Fahrenheit 9/11 is thinking about people like Looney going to see it and squirming with anger and then rushing home to their PCs to start picking holes in anything in it they can.

1. I wont waste my money on the flix for that, I'll wait for TV to show it. I'm waiting for Spiderman2.

2. From what I gather with reading reveiws is that he's overdone it. Meaning people would swallow it if he wasn't so googly eyed. The economist mag said that it may sway some floating voters or just remind them that the US left tend to blame america for all the worlds problems(Bunch of fence sitiing arseholes!).

3. I did watch M.Moorons TV show and bullshitting for Columbine, so I like most others know what kind of fair he serves up. Sorry no squirming.

 

[m20gull]

The deciet lies in creating an impression that members of Bin Laden's family responsible for 9/11 were rushed out of the country straight after 9/11 before anyone else could fly and without vetting. As the 9/11 commission report says the Bin Laden flight was on the 20th, not the 12th or 13th.

 

[London Irish]

Suck it up guys! Moore's movie has exceeded even the wildest expectations of his supporters in terms of its box office success! If the main accusation against him is that he's a propagandist, well, he appears to be a very successful one

m20gull, I bet even you haven't read that 59 pettifogging, convoluted reasons article, it's not written in English but fluent Turgid. I gave it a go but it makes the fundamental mistake that Moore can be destroyed by little gnat-bites of detail - I'm afraid not, rightwingers like you have to confront Moore on the big issues because that's where he's winning converts.

Still, nice to see another rightwinger pop his head over the barricades on NSC, should be fun!

 

[looney]

No they do not. Their news service is riddled with bias and distortion. They are one of the worst offenders.

How do I detemine this? By taking in data from all sources, looking for consistency between sources and with previous data, identifying consistent bias and obvious misrepresentation.

Ive done that for 6 weeks and its f***ing scarey how well the bbc templates the gaurdian newspaper.

Saw on teletext a few weeks ago how they now refer to Conrad Black as "Canadian born" when they dont do that to Lewis or Rudeski.

 

[Easy 10]

By twisting and distorting the facts to suit his own agenda, Moore is no better than the people he is taking to task for doing exactly the same.

 

[London Irish]

By twisting and distorting the facts to suit his own agenda, Moore is no better than the people he is taking to task for doing exactly the same.

I see. So Moore started a war that slaughtered 11,000 lives in Iraq, eh? Yes, I could see why you would put him on the same moral plain as the people he is criticising.

 

[m20gull]

m20gull, I bet even you haven't even read that 59 pettifogging, convoluted reasons article, it's not written in English but fluent Turgid.

I have read it, though it's hard going. Pettifogging is a good description for some of it, but it is well provided with sources, many of which are no less turgid. What it does do is highlight Mr Moore's intent, which is to edit facts to suit his own purpose.

I want objective journalism, honestly and completely presented - this is not it (and neither is Stone's risible JFK).

What is clear from the 59 deceits (as was clear anyway) is that the more you find out, the more that neither one extreme or the other can be justified. Somewhere between Moore and Bush lies the truth. You don't trust Bush, I don't trust Moore or Bush.

Does that make me a right-winger?

 

[alan partridge]

Ive done that for 6 weeks and its f***ing scarey how well the bbc templates the gaurdian newspaper.

Saw on teletext a few weeks ago how they now refer to Conrad Black as "Canadian born" when they dont do that to Lewis or Rudeski.

lewis was born in London Michael Mo...I mean looney

 

[looney]

lewis was born in London Michael Mo...I mean looney

Well that prooves it is sloppy journalism AND Bias at
the BBC then.

 

[alan partridge]

lewis was born in London Michael Mo...I mean looney

Well that prooves it is sloppy journalism AND Bias at
the BBC then.

wasn't I quoting you there then?

 

[looney]

Why am I rightwing?

I may appear that way but I may just be centreleft to you exstremists.

 

[London Irish]

Does that make me a right-winger?

Oh, I think so, yes. Shame you have not quite developed the confidence yet to defend your politics fully on NSC but hopefully that will come and we can look forward to some interesting and honest discussions.

From what you've said in this thread alone, you fit the profile very well, you already gone through some fairly typical Pavlovian rightwing responses to Moore, Panorama, the BBC, etc.

And then you came out with this:

"It can't have surprised anyone that America was going to finish what it (with UN blessing) started in Iraq. Just think how much they have been spending on the Deny Flight operations and the whole Gulf operation in the intervening 10 years. America IS the only global superpower with a commitment to democracy and free speech. And now it seems to be prepared to spend money to prove it."

This paragraph is chocked full of about 5 or 6 separate rightwing assumptions. What's that phrase, "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck"?

I'm proud to be a socialist, so come on, m20gull, don't come over all coy about your politics.

 

[looney]

I read on the BBC site, or on TV that LL was born in canada, or raised there. hairsplitter.

 

[alan partridge]

I read on the BBC site, or on TV that LL was born in canada, or raised there. hairsplitter.

oh you just love going off track with me baby.

nah, born here then went to canada apparently

 

[Easy 10]

I see. So Moore started a war that slaughtered 11,000 lives in Iraq, eh? Yes, I could see why you would put him on the same moral plain as the people he is criticising.

I'm not comparing the relative moralities of Bush compared with Moore, or what they are and are not responsible for doing.

It just strikes me as being a bit rich for the likes of Moore to produce a high-profile piece of propaganda attacking Bush, and exposing the lies, corruption and hidden agendas which led to the invasion of Iraq, when many of the claims he presents as facts are nothing of the sort.

I'm sure there are plenty of fascinating factual insights included in this film which will make for very uncomfortable viewing for the likes of Bush and Blair, so why not stick to the agenda and present the facts ? Havn't we already been fed enough bullshit from all parties over this whole damn affair without Moore adding to it ?