Farenheit 9/11

[Easy 10]

The rightwing smear merchants are of course indulging in the humbug tactic of taking the humour and artistic licence bits of the film and pretending they are the serious parts that need to be "corrected" - bollocks, he's taking the piss out of the rightwing ghouls, and more power to him. A similar thing Easy would be some bore taking you to task for the "factual inaccuracies" in the skits you often write for NSC.

Fair comment - but I wouldn't pretend that my skits have anything like the same kind of subtlety as a Michael Moore pisstake on an issue like this. Its pretty obvious that I'm just clowning around, certainly by the final paragraph anyway...and I'm not working to any particular agenda to discredit or embarrass anyone.

Moore, however, is toying with facts that can colour widespread opinion. Not everyone has such a questioning mind as the likes of your good self L I, or that inbuilt cynacism that is needed when reading a newspaper, listening to a politician, or watching a documentary. Michael Moores pisstaking and "artistic licence" is just adding to the plethora of bullshit and misinformation that is already out there. And while the likes of Blair and Bush have contrived their own agenda's to justify their war, that shouldn't give Michael Moore licence to do the same, just to peddle or pad out his own agenda.

By all means, discredit these people making the decisions. But stick to the facts, because the case for the prosecution can only be stronger for it. When it comes to this subject, I'd rather be bored by the cast iron truth, than get a cheap laugh from a lie.

 

[London Irish]

OK, I was hoping my previous post would at least forestall this whole "Moore is a liar" thing until at least people had seen the film and had put some effort into reading the case for and against.

OK, as Easy has not taken that advice, but has persisted with this accusation against Moore, let's thrash this issue out. I invite him, or other Moore critics, to simply list Moore's "lies" in plain, simple language so we can all understand what we are talking about.

Feel free to crib from the anti-Moore websites that m20Gull has posted if you can make out any substantive argument they are making - God bless you

 

[London Irish]

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.

I'll kick off with the only substantive "deceit" that Moore critics have been able to come up with so far on this thread, it's a popular one because I think I've also heard it referred to by Fox News's Bill O'Reilly.

It has already been well answered by Reading Stockport, but let's recapitulate for the hard of understanding.

No where in Moore's film does it accuse, or "create an impression" that, any of bin Laden's family flown out of the USA after Sept 13 were involved in the 9/11 atrocity, that's a BIG LIE by you m20gull.

Moore uses this to illustrate the close ties between the Saudi elites and the US elites, which explains why US foreign policy in Saudi Arabia is not the spread of "freedom or democracy" as you earlier stated m20Gull, but support for a barbaric and despotic dictatorship there.

Moore's film states the bin Ladens were flown out "after September 13th" not on the 12th and 13th, I will be generous with you m20Gull and say you are making a mistake here rather than deliberately lying.

OK, next Michael Moore "lie" please.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

He is a fat bastard and thats no lie.

 

[Zeitgeist]

He is a fat bastard and thats no lie.

As usual, a reasoned argument from the true axis of evil's biggest admirer. The attemted smears of America's conservative right have been dealt with one-by-one on Moore's own website. I believe somebody posted the link here earlier. Bush and all his string pullers are in a panic because of the impact F. 9/11 has had on potential voters in the US. Interestingly, it has been the aftershow surveys in traditional Rebublican area's that have been revealing with many traditional voters saying they would never vote for Bush again. The corruption of this regime is finally out in the open for all to see. Gonna put your money on him winning in November G.G. ? May as well keep your tradition of backing losers! Michael Moore, the fat bastard for Prez one day?...

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Hopefully Hilary Clinton will take the office well before " fat bastard " Moore ever gets a sniff of the Whitehouse.

And yes he is a smug, self opinionated, self righteous fat bastard and you buy any old shit he will feed you. I suppose your just as bad as the " yanks " who buy all the pro war propoganda really aren't you.

 

[Easy 10]

OK, I was hoping my previous post would at least forestall this whole "Moore is a liar" thing until at least people had seen the film and had put some effort into reading the case for and against.

OK, as Easy has not taken that advice, but has persisted with this accusation against Moore, let's thrash this issue out. I invite him, or other Moore critics, to simply list Moore's "lies" in plain, simple language so we can all understand what we are talking about.

Feel free to crib from the anti-Moore websites that m20Gull has posted if you can make out any substantive argument they are making - God bless you

1. I havn't seen the film yet
2. I can't access the anti-Moore websites from work.

If you are saying that everything in Michael Moores film is absolutely the Gods honest truth, then having not yet seen the film, I am not in a position to argue the toss over the contentious issues. I have however read a number of inependent reviews on this film (mainly on rottontomatos.com) and a recurring theme of the reviews from a multitude of sources, as well as some people on here who have been to see it, is that Michael Moore has in some instances taken liberties with the facts. Are the reviewers lying then, or just plain wrong ?

You say its all truth, and are prepared to defend Moore, fair enough. But theres no middle ground here - Moore is either presenting a distortion of the facts, or he isn't. I'm just voicing an opinion here that if Moore is guilty of distorting the truth, then his credibility is no better than those who he is criticising.

 

[m20gull]

No where in Moore's film does it accuse, or "create an impression" that, any of bin Laden's family flown out of the USA after Sept 13 were involved in the 9/11 atrocity, that's a BIG LIE by you m20gull.

Moore uses this to illustrate the close ties between the Saudi elites and the US elites, which explains why US foreign policy in Saudi Arabia is not the spread of "freedom or democracy" as you earlier stated m20Gull, but support for a barbaric and despotic dictatorship there.

Moore's film states the bin Ladens were flown out "after September 13th" not on the 12th and 13th, I will be generous with you m20Gull and say you are making a mistake here rather than deliberately lying.

So how many people were "flown out" after September 13th? Of what nationality? And how many of them were related to known terrorists? The deceit is that, in a film about 9/11, it allows the viewer to infer a connection.

Of the 142, about 120 were not related to Bin Laden. So why use the name unless you are trying to imply a connection?

So some time after 9/11 some Saudis not related to Bin Laden got on a plane, big deal.

So there's a connection between the Saudi elite and the US elite. Big surprise that there might be some financial connection between individuals running two large economies with significant shared interests.

I never said US foreign policy in Saudi was about establishing freedom and democracy. The sooner that that tribalist monarchy is replaced by a more representative regime the better. US foreign policy in Saudi is about maintinaing global financial stability and encouraging an Arab regime that does not, as a State, support terrorism. Yes some Saudis support terrorism, knowingly or otherwise, given the way terrorism is funded. But Saudi Arabia, as far as I know, does not. And it is not shocking that an oil-dependent economy like the US has an interest in a stable Saudi Arabia.

I will concede a mistake on the detail of the film. I have no choice as I have not seen it! My quibbling is not about detail but about impression. The quote by Condoleeza Rice is another example. I have never seen it stated that Iraq had a hand in 9/11 and don't believe that it did either. That does not mean it did not, as a State, actively encourage terrorism in a number of ways. The invasion of Irag is far more involved than part of a "war on terror". Otherwise why did the US not invade Libya? Because Libya did not invade and occupy a neighbour and brag about its long-range and nuclear weapons capability.

 

[m20gull]

I doubt whether Moore has lied. He must be able to afford enough advisers to stop him being that stupid.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Bush isn't perfect but I think a lot of people want to hate him a little too much.

America is an incredible force for good in this world. It has saved Europe twice in the last 65 years (WW2 and the cold war). I'm glad that they are the worlds most powerful country.

 

[readingstockport]

So how many people were "flown out" after September 13th? Of what nationality? And how many of them were related to known terrorists? The deceit is that, in a film about 9/11, it allows the viewer to infer a connection.

No it's not in a film about 9/11. It's in a film that is about the close links between the bush family and the family of OBL and the house of Saud. From everythin I hear it uses 9/11 as the jump point to investigate the close business ties that exist. THAT is the point being made by stating the fact that 24 members of OBL's family were allowed to leave America in the days after 9/11 despite the US having bloody good intelligence that OBL was behind the attack.

 

[New York Geezer]

Latest from the BBC:

"The Bush administration is reported to be investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in the event of a terror attack."

Democracy or "the enemy within"?

Yeah, interesting concept - coming out of watching the film I thought those crooks in the White House are more than capable of attempting to delay the return of the Democrats - and hey presto, it's already a possibility, all that is required is a 'convenient' attack - could they stoop that low? Personally I doubt it, but there are plenty of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 - which I hvae noted, along with the stream of bungling/miss handling of intelligence in the years and months prior to 9/11. And as I have a somewhat deep rooted personal interest it makes me somewhat pissed off.

 

[m20gull]

No it's not in a film about 9/11. It's in a film that is about the close links between the bush family and the family of OBL and the house of Saud. From everythin I hear it uses 9/11 as the jump point to investigate the close business ties that exist. THAT is the point being made by stating the fact that 24 members of OBL's family were allowed to leave America in the days after 9/11 despite the US having bloody good intelligence that OBL was behind the attack.

From the 9/11 Commision report.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.

 

[Soton Seagull]

Couple of points -

M20gull - the point Moore seems to make about Bin Laden's family is that it is indeed strange to allow the family of known terrorist to leave the cuntry straight after an attrocity, as in many crimes world wide, Police begin by interviewing a suspects family when they cannot be tracked down. Putting them out of the FBI/CIA reach seems curious behavior, and backs up the 'favours' that the US seem to give the Saudi's, whi it is pointed out, own between 6-7% of the entire US!

Easy - My undersatanding is that the facts have been triple checked by sh*t hot lawyers. What can be argued with is Moore's conclusions and/or opinions throughout the film. The hard facts, howvere, seem fairly hard to dispute. In any narrative there will be a sway in the direction of the creater's opinion. After all documentaries are made to 'expose' or provoke debate.

The biggest weakness in the film is the mistaken attempt to portray Iraq in March 2003 as a happy place to live. It was a horrible fear ridden place. It is better off without Saddam, but Bush & Co had no right to invade in the way they did. Bush Snr should have backed up the 10,000 strong rebellion he encouraged (and promised to support) after desert storm, insttead allowing them all to be slaughtered and Saddam remain in power. 2 generations of corrupt idiotic Bush Presidents

 

[m20gull]

The conclusion that Saudis own 7% of the US seems to be disputable. But even if its true, its not a surprise that rich people will invest their money in a wealthy high-spending economy. And the Saud family are indisputably rich. And it then is not a surprise that the US is kind to them to encourage investment in the US. There's no political mileage in the US encouraging Saudis to invest in Russian real estate.

The sway in the direction of the creator's opinion is why I am not minded to go and see it. He is peddling his opinions, not being objective.

 

[Dandyman]

Bush isn't perfect but I think a lot of people want to hate him a little too much.

America is an incredible force for good in this world. It has saved Europe twice in the last 65 years (WW2 and the cold war). I'm glad that they are the worlds most powerful country.

So, WW2 was nothing to do with the Soviet Union ?

You might want to check out the importance of Stalingrad, Kursk, 20 million Soviet war dead and the number of Axis Divisions that fought on the Eastern as against Western fronts.

 

[m20gull]

So, WW2 was nothing to do with the Soviet Union ?

Of course it has. Stalin's complicity with Hitler allowed the invasion of Poland that kicked it off.

I am aware that the invasion of Poland is not the start of WW2. I trace its origins back somwhere in the mid 1800s.

 

[m20gull]

You might want to check out the importance of Stalingrad, Kursk, 20 million Soviet war dead and the number of Axis Divisions that fought on the Eastern as against Western fronts.

Undeniably true.

 

[fatbadger]

The sway in the direction of the creator's opinion is why I am not minded to go and see it. He is peddling his opinions, not being objective.

Exactly - and quite right, too. Even with its strength, it doesn't even come close to counterbalancing the propaganda for the other side we are bombarded with on a daily basis. Do you switch off the telly every time you see Bush, Rice, Rumfseldt, Blair, Hoon, Straw etc peddling their opinions, not objective truth?

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

Ok, I’ve been to see the film so here’s my interpretation of it. First off it’s what I would describe as agit-prop. It’s pretty crude and it’s pretty obvious that it’s not going to be neutral. Its title might mislead some people into thinking it’s an investigation of the attacks on 9/11. It is not. The attacks themselves aren’t covered in detail. You won’t find questions about the hijackers or an investigation into whether the attack on the Pentagon actually happened.

Most of what is featured in the film isn’t major groundbreaking news. Type “Bush” and “Saudi Arabia” into Google and see how many links you come up with. The close, intricate ties between the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia and one of the ruling families of America are well known and well documented. Quite a bit of the film is lifted from Moore’s book “Dude where’s my country?”
Reading facts and figures on page is very different from seeing images. For some reason most of us find it much easier to relate to images, which’s why the Mirror had to come up with those photos of troops abusing prisoners. Without the image, the story is nothing in today’s world. I cannot remember seeing the footage of Bush’s inauguration before, it shocked me more than most things in the film. The sight of the newly elected President of the United States being driven past sidewalks packed with people booing, holding up banners and throwing eggs was shocking. The sight of a blacked out, armor plated, limousine speeding past the people whilst surrounded by gun toting secret agents didn’t instantly make me think of the land of the free.

The graphic images of dead and injured civilians were strange to watch. Sitting in a cinema, watching a film, I had to remind myself that these images were real. That little girl with half of her arm blown open, exposing the shattered bones and shredded nerve tissue, she was real. The two soldiers who we seen being blown up by a roadside bomb, they are real. I guess we’ve become sanitized to violence and graphic images of death, they are featured so much in films that it has become hard to separate reality from fiction. Maybe if we saw those images on the news, if Fox News and what have you actually showed real pictures of the latest casualties instead of stats on a blue background we might start to see the reality of what is being done in our name. We see war all the time on the news, but in another way we don’t. We see the sanitized version, the director’s cut. Maybe we might see a little less rabble rousing if we saw the reality every day in our living rooms. Sitting down with your tea as the news shows the latest images of the dead for that day.

The woman whose son died in Iraq moved me. I’m a bit of a hard cynical bastard when it comes to these sorts of things, but the scene where she talks to an anti-war protestor and is then accosted by a loud, pro-Bush woman was so good I half wondered if it WAS staged. The look on the Bush woman’s face when the grieving mother tells her that she lost her son in Iraq is amazing. You can almost see her loud shouts being rammed back down her throat. When confronted by the reality her words become meaningless. What can she say?

Michael Moore hardly features on screen at all. He narrates the film, but his physical presence is missing. When he does appear it seems somehow out of keeping, I’m thinking in particular of the bit where he drives round the Capitol in an ice-cream van reciting the Patriot Act. There’s only one real “confrontation” and that doesn’t really add a lot to the film. There are quite a few bits that you could question. I guess you could say that the footage of Iraq before the invasion makes it look like a lovely place, no mention of Sadaam or his secret police. The jokey introductions to some of the countries that supported the invasion are patronizing at best.

The mainstream media have been silenced. Maybe that’s why this film is creating such a stir. You’d like to think that in a society so open and free as our one, this film shouldn’t have created a stir at all. We would all already know the things that are set out in 9/11. Yet we remain in the dark, never to be informed. We are told what the people in charge want us to be told. Those who step out of line are marginalised, silenced or mocked. If this film is as irrelevant as so many right-wing commentators like to tell us, then why go to all this fuss to try and discredit it? Why go to all the effort of trying to find holes, publishing books, trying to get cinemas to ban showing the film? Why are people so desperate to tell everyone else to ignore a film?
Maybe it’s because the film, for all its flaws, asks the question that none of us really want to be answered:

Why are people being killed out there? What did they die for?

Those in charge cannot find a suitable answer to the question. They tried to use Weapons of Mass Destruction, a concept that seemed pretty neat and tidy. It even came with a handy abbreviation; WMD. All you had to do was say WMD and that would suffice. Saadam had WMD; he was going to use them against us, so we have to take him out. Simple.

But it wasn’t was it? Because we began to find out that these terrible WMD were proving very elusive, they didn’t seem to be around in the huge amounts we had been told about. In fact, we were having trouble actually finding ANY. Tony Blair made this the central plank of his reasons to send off British troops. Even President Bush had more sense than that. So now we have the Prime Minister of this country admitting in public that the reason why we sent soldiers to a war in a far-off nation was bogus. No one does anything. Life carries on as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened.

Maybe that’s because of the second answer. This one is even better than WMD. Sadaam was linked with al-qaeda. The number one evil organization in the world. Nobody has actually come up with any real, solid, evidence about this. Oh sure, we’ve got plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are sorts of evidence. Somebody might have met some Iraqi in Prague. Maybe. That’s good enough for most of us isn’t it? You know it’s even easier to come up with evidence to support the idea that it was Mossad who was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Maybe it was to help free the Iraqis. Yeah, that’s our new reason. We just wanted to make things better for the Iraqis.

Bullshit.

As if any of us give two shits for how Iraqis live. As if all those right-wingers now preaching this message really think that the life of an American serviceman is worth the freedom of Iraq. I doubt the likes of Rush Limbaugh would have rushed to support a war with the basic premise of “we’re going over there to do some good”. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq when the Kurds from the North and the Shi’ites from the South rose against Sadaam? Well it doesn’t really matter if they would have or not. Saudi Arabia didn’t want Sadaam to be deposed they wanted him to remain as a bulwark against extremists. So we didn’t help the Iraqis and they got a pretty bad beating.

What do we get out of it? That’s what we want to know. You don’t give them their freedom and not get something in return.

Here’s how the war looks to me:

A bunch of poor American kids going over the blow up some poor brown people and make some rich white men even richer.

That’s it.

Forget your WMD’s, your al-qaeda operatives, your “helping out the Iraqi people”. America went to war, it is losing hundreds of young men and women and it is getting something in return. It is getting natural resources, a compliant state in an area that is deeply suspicious and hostile to American interests and a large staging post for any future attack. We get the chance to maybe get a piece of that pie. Is that worth all those deaths? I don’t think so, maybe some of you do. That is the reality of the World.

The most revealing scenes in the film come towards the end at a trade show held in Iraq for American corporations. The guy from the Iraqi council tells the reps that “there is big money to be made out here”, that “they have a lot to gain”. They certainly do. How much is Halliburton making? They seem to run the US military admin department. They keep the soldiers fed; they give them their communications. Other companies make the machines, provide the ammunition. All making a lot of cash, big profits that need to be sustained. This is the military-industrial machine in action and ain’t she a beautiful sight! Corporate power is the future and we can see it all around us. Again I think this is bad, some of you may think it is goo, but it is a fact.

Yes, Michael Moore is a rabble-rouser. He is crude, an unsympathetic character. He gets muddled on some issues (Bush is wrong to send troops to Afghanistan, then he is wrong because he hasn’t sent enough) and he is an unashamed populist. He gets things wrong. He gets widespread coverage dedicated to proving him wrong, those who try and show errors in the global media struggle to make their voices heard.

The film is pretty crude, but then subtlety has failed so far. Maybe it was time to use the old paint-splash technique. When you’ve tried to make your point and nobody has heard you, it’s time to shout out loud. It has mistakes, but it’s got people talking. It’s got people thinking. That will be its legacy.