Fahrenheit 9/11

[karizma]

Fahrenheit 9/11

Communism -
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

I'm sorry Uni, but I don't see where Michael Moore fits into the definition of communism. Please help me out with your interpretation of the word.

Karizma

 

[John]

Fahrenheit 9/11

Isn't it good Sadam is gone? Isn't it good no one pays the family of sucide bombers $25000 for sucessfully raising a killer? Isn't it good the torture chambers in Iraq are closed? Isn't it good Libya has gone over to the light side? Isn't it good the entire middle east is not ruled by Sadam? Isn't it good that democracy has begun to drain the swamp of extremist muslims? Isn't it good that instead of ignoring massive murderous attacks on the US we have responded and thus now extreme mulsims realize that our response will not be nothing to their attacks?...instead of 8 years of doing mostly nothing?

To answer your questions, read the following poll taken about GWB around the world and especially the part about his foreign policy:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Ele...ort09_08_04.pdf

I think that answers the mostly "baited" questions you have proposed. The world says Bush has made them less favorable and look poorly towards the U.S. by his foreign policy and prefer Kerry. Even our closest ally, UK, prefers Kerry over Bush. Keep in mind that ANSWER, CNN, CBS, ABC nor NBC had anything to do with this poll as it reflects a non partisan organization, so that argument does not sustain itself.

 

[Unintentional]

Fahrenheit 9/11

With this post I will sign off this thread, I think.

I just saw FahrenHYPE-911 and it blows Fahrenheit 9-11 away. It answers Moores accusations so soundly that it makes Moore look like a total fool. One of the funniest scenes in FahrenHYPE, it questions what Moore calls a "vacation". It goes through one week of President Bush's so-called vacation time and the President probly did more work than most presidents do in a few months.

In total sum I would recomment everyone see Fahrenheit 9-11, but only if they will definitely see FahrenHYPE 9-11 also.

:dry:

 

[Unintentional]

Fahrenheit 9/11

Originally posted by John@Oct 20 2004, 05:15 PM

Isn't it good Sadam is gone? Isn't it good no one pays the family of sucide bombers $25000 for sucessfully raising a killer? Isn't it good the torture chambers in Iraq are closed? Isn't it good Libya has gone over to the light side? Isn't it good the entire middle east is not ruled by Sadam? Isn't it good that democracy has begun to drain the swamp of extremist muslims? Isn't it good that instead of ignoring massive murderous attacks on the US we have responded and thus now extreme mulsims realize that our response will not be nothing to their attacks?...instead of 8 years of doing mostly nothing?

To answer your questions, read the following poll taken about GWB around the world and especially the part about his foreign policy:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Ele...ort09_08_04.pdf

I think that answers the mostly "baited" questions you have proposed. The world says Bush has made them less favorable and look poorly towards the U.S. by his foreign policy and prefer Kerry. Even our closest ally, UK, prefers Kerry over Bush. Keep in mind that ANSWER, CNN, CBS, ABC nor NBC had anything to do with this poll as it reflects a non partisan organization, so that argument does not sustain itself.

​

Are you saying that America shouldn't make America (and the world) safer because it will make America unpopular? According to Michael Moore (and these are his own words), we have "made too much of 9-11". In other words, we shouldnt have done anything in response to 9-11 (well at least no more than what we did the first time the twin towers were attacked).

Today, 10-20-2004, Iran test fired a nuclear capable missle that went over 1000 miles. Thanks to President Bush, instead of having to worry about Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and North Korea; we only have to worry about Iran and North Korea out of that list.

 

[Unintentional]

Fahrenheit 9/11

Originally posted by karizma@Oct 20 2004, 11:00 AM
Communism -
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

I'm sorry Uni, but I don't see where Michael Moore fits into the definition of communism. Please help me out with your interpretation of the word.

Karizma

​

No, I mean communist as in they have no qualms about numerous murders in achieving their goal.

If someone did 9/11 to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California - these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!
Michael Moore

I also mean communist as in outlawing religion and being aethist.

There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the best device used to mislead them.
Michael Moore

I also mean communist as in anti-American.

These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.
Michael Moore
\"Should such an ignorant people lead the world? How did it come to this in the first place? 82 percent of us don't even have a passport! Just a handful can speak a language other than English (and we don't even speak that very well.)\"
Michael Moore

Here is an article noting the amazing similiarities between Lenin and Moore:
http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/m.../michael_moore/

? When war broke out in Europe in 1914, and the czar committed to Russian involvement, Lenin saw his chance: He could seize power by undermining czarism through anti-war activity. \"ut for the war,\" he wrote, \"Russia could have gone on living for years and decades without a revolution against the capitalists.\" Lenin encouraged soldiers \"to turn their guns on their officers\" and stated that military disaster should be exploited to \"hasten the destruction ... of the capitalist class.\"
?Meanwhile, Lenin also labeled colonialism an intrinsic evil of the capitalist system. Lenin said in \"Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism\" that \"imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable under such an economic system ... Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of 'advanced' countries.\"
?Lenin's goals, then, were: 1) to undermine the legitimacy of the ruling czarist system, 2) to do so through anti-war activity, and 3) to undermine capitalism by denouncing it as exploitative.
?Lenin had an \"excuse\" for undermining the czarist system of government ? it was dictatorial, even if Lenin and his successors would end up as far more brutal dictators than any of the czars.
?Michael Moore has no excuse. America is a republic, and Moore is a threat to the republic.
?He appears to pursue Lenin's goals. After dropping out of University of Michigan-Flint to pursue political activism, Moore started the Flint Voice, an alternative newspaper that became the Michigan Voice. Soon, he edited the radical-left Mother Jones magazine, where he was fired, supposedly for backing the communist Sandinista rebels.
Now he is a big backer of the terrorists in Iraq.

 

[pauli]

Fahrenheit 9/11

sigh...

Yes Uni, people tend to think that just because the Russian gov't failed that Communism is no longer something to be concerned about. It is a thing of the past. Unfortunately, the threat is still potentially out there being as there are many in the U.S. who hold to Marxist ideas and would like to reform our political system to reflect more Marxist themes. This would be a complete disaster for us. The U.S. has been pampered and shielded from totalitarian systems because of the representative republic that our founding fathers created.

I am concerned because I see that many of the young people in the university system since the 1960's have been brainwashed with Marxist/Leninist political ideas. This type of thinking has permeated our culture to such an extent that we don't feel it - but like the frog in the pan on the stove, we are being slowly cooked alive.

I remember when I started attending my local community college in the early 80's there was a teacher who placed as part of her reading requirements, The Communist Manifesto. I was appalled! I could not understand why this teacher was requiring us to read a book that I felt was innappropriate. But, she was in love with it and wanted to teach us about Communism - even though the book, if I recall, was O.T. to her course. When I went to graduate school, I was exposed to liberal thinking, aka "progressive," aka "politically correct." These terms, if I remember correctly, are used by the socialists and communists to disguise the true nature of their political leanings. And, anyone who has had experience in the university for the past 20+ years can tell you that this sort of thinking is the norm in college. The teachers are very happy to teach you "progressive" ideas, but they are completely totalitarian if you confront them with different ideas. You are supposed to be "tolerant" of everybody elses' ethnicity, sexual-orientation and/or lifestyle. But, G-d forbid, if you talk about anything that is "right of center." Once you cross that line, the tollerance ends and the totalitarianism begins. So, there is tollerance for everything, except for a free exchange of ideas.

This is why I feel Michael Moron's (forgive me I thought Michael Savage's word was funny! ) movie is alarming. People are just so willing to believe it uncritically because he is saying what they want to hear, that they don't even look to see that behind the "Great and Powerful Oz," there is really just a propagandist who wants to lull people to sleep with half truths and dodgy editing. It scares me that he is even taken seriously.

 

[John]

Fahrenheit 9/11

Originally posted by Unintentional+Oct 20 2004, 05:24 PM--><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-John@Oct 20 2004, 05:15 PM

Isn't it good Sadam is gone? Isn't it good no one pays the family of sucide bombers $25000 for sucessfully raising a killer? Isn't it good the torture chambers in Iraq are closed? Isn't it good Libya has gone over to the light side? Isn't it good the entire middle east is not ruled by Sadam? Isn't it good that democracy has begun to drain the swamp of extremist muslims? Isn't it good that instead of ignoring massive murderous attacks on the US we have responded and thus now extreme mulsims realize that our response will not be nothing to their attacks?...instead of 8 years of doing mostly nothing?

To answer your questions, read the following poll taken about GWB around the world and especially the part about his foreign policy:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Ele...ort09_08_04.pdf

I think that answers the mostly "baited" questions you have proposed. The world says Bush has made them less favorable and look poorly towards the U.S. by his foreign policy and prefer Kerry. Even our closest ally, UK, prefers Kerry over Bush. Keep in mind that ANSWER, CNN, CBS, ABC nor NBC had anything to do with this poll as it reflects a non partisan organization, so that argument does not sustain itself.

​

Are you saying that America shouldn't make America (and the world) safer because it will make America unpopular? According to Michael Moore (and these are his own words), we have "made too much of 9-11". In other words, we shouldnt have done anything in response to 9-11 (well at least no more than what we did the first time the twin towers were attacked).

Today, 10-20-2004, Iran test fired a nuclear capable missle that went over 1000 miles. Thanks to President Bush, instead of having to worry about Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and North Korea; we only have to worry about Iran and North Korea out of that list.

[snapback]12680[/snapback]​

[/b][/quote]
How, exactly, is America and the world safer with Iran and N. Korea further advancing in WMD and the country (Iraq), that according to bush had Al Qaeda ties (which it didn't until after the war thanks to the course of action Bush took) and WMD (which it didn't have which Bush wouldn't wait with our allies to verify ), is now in chaos and a breeding ground for t'rr? Al Qaeda membership is booming, according to numerous news reports, due to the distrust and low image of America that Bush has exhibited throughout the world via his "go it alone" policies. That is what I am stating about Bush's foreign policy, he sleeps on the real issues, turns our allies away, and acts without caution. All hallmarks of bad leadership. These polls reflect that.

 

[Unintentional]

Fahrenheit 9/11

Originally posted by John@Oct 21 2004, 09:47 AM

How, exactly, is America and the world safer with Iran and N. Korea further advancing in WMD and the country (Iraq), that according to bush had Al Qaeda ties (which it didn't until after the war thanks to the course of action Bush took) and WMD (which it didn't have which Bush wouldn't wait with our allies to verify ), is now in chaos and a breeding ground for t'rr? Al Qaeda membership is booming, according to numerous news reports, due to the distrust and low image of America that Bush has exhibited throughout the world via his \"go it alone\" policies. That is what I am stating about Bush's foreign policy, he sleeps on the real issues, turns our allies away, and acts without caution. All hallmarks of bad leadership. These polls reflect that.

​

The world is safer because instead of Iran, N. Korea, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan further advancing in WMD there is only Iran and N. Korea. Doing nothing about Iraq neither moved along or slowed down Iran or N. Korea, but it did take Iraq and Libya out of the picture. The US is certainly safer without Afghanistan. Al-Queda information recovered in Afghanistan leave no doubt that if the US did not retaliate there would have been further attacks. Do you even need evidence to agree with that?

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pilau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan make up the coalition in Iraq. I would not consider that going alone.

The UN, thanks to France, was never going to allow a SECOND resolution authorizing force in Iraq. Yes, that's right, 1441 which was passed by the security counsel unopposed said in words not much different that my paraphrasing here, "start complying with the last 16 resolutions you broke that were passed on you after you invaded Kuwait or face serious consequences." When Iraq didn't comply with 1441, there was a choice. Either give him serious consequences or pass yet another resolution. Apparently those who voted for 1441 and wanted another resolution after he broke that one consider passing another resolution a serious consequence.

After Afghanistan, many Al-Queda did go to Iraq (Zarcowie to name one). How were we to stop Sadam from building WMDs and giving them to terrorists? Keep issuing UN resolutions? Resolutions don't mean ANYTHING unless you from time to time back them up. Ask the murdered victims in Rwanda or Sudan if UN resolutions are working. Tell the people who have been displaced, murdered, and/or raped to hold on, right now celebrities are picketing the Sudan embassy in US and they are certain that will do something. Hey, and on top of that the Security Council passed a resolution threatening to "consider" sanctions against Sudan at some point, though at no time soon. Even more laughable is that the UN is currently doing a "study" to see if genocide was committed in Sudan. I think the entire world will breathe a sigh of relief if the U.N. finds that it is not genocide. Well, everyone except for the half-million people who were murdered there. It must have been a civil war in which only one side was fighting.

The point is, NO ONE can rely on the what the UN thinks in regards to your own security. Even though that is what the Bush adminstration probaly thinks, they still did NOT "go it alone" (see coalition list) or without a UN resolution (1441).

The IISS reported that al-Qaeda's recruitment and fundraising efforts had been given a major boost by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It estimated that bin Laden's network today commands some 18,000 men, of which about 1,000 are currently inside Iraq. After almost three years of President Bush's war on terror, the IISS offered the following assessment of the movement's prospects: "Although half of al-Qaeda's 30 senior leaders and perhaps 2,000 rank-and-file members have been killed or captured, a rump leadership is still intact and more than 18,000 potential terrorists are still at large...

Hardly what I would call thriving.

Bush did give time for our allies to verify if Sadam had WMDs. ALL of them agreed that he did have them. The scary thing is that at least two of our allies who agreed that he had WMDs (France and Germany) refused to do anything about it. France, who agreed that he had Mads, even lobbied against the coalition in Iraq and had an agreement with Satem that "France would never allow a US led invasion of Iraq". (Don't believe me, read the Dahlmer(spelling?) report.

No terrorist have been "bred" by the US current war on Iraq. The people attacking coalition forces in Iraq have been "bred" since the day they were born to hate the west.

 

[John]

Fahrenheit 9/11

My response to about the world being safer and you claiming that Al Qaeda is not thriving in Iraq:

Source Time Magazine, "Why al-Qaeda Thrives
President Bush says Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, but security experts say Iraq is the reason Bin Laden's movement is growing" :

...the president's characterization will hardly have resonated with his Iraqi audience, who see al-Qaeda as a problem brought into their country by the U.S. invasion rather than by Saddam Hussein. Even the U.S. intelligence community has long maintained that Saddam's regime had no connection with the 9/11 attacks, while U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq say that foreign terrorists constitute only a small fraction of the insurgency facing Coalition troops there.

If, indeed, there is a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, it may not be the kind the Bush campaign is likely to dwell on. The same day the President spoke, the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies released its annual survey that found, among other things, that far from dealing a blow to al-Qaeda and making the U.S. and its allies safer, the Iraq invasion has in fact substantially strengthened bin Laden's network and increased the danger of attacks in the West. ...

So why is al-Qaeda continuing to grow and prosper despite the loss of its Afghan sanctuaries and so many of its personnel, and the fact that it has been relentlessly hounded by security services across Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia? The consensus among security analysts is that the key to eliminating al-Qaeda as a threat is to transform the permissive political environment in which it operates in the Muslim world. Instead, the opposite has occurred ? Muslim anger at the U.S. has reached an all-time high and continues to grow, driven by outrage at U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by Israel's actions against the Palestinians. The precipitous decline in support or sympathy for the U.S. in the Muslim world after 9/11 has meant fertile ground for al-Qaeda recruiters.?

Authoritative voices from the IISS to former U.S. commander for the Mideast and Bush administration envoy to the region General Anthony Zinni to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies have lately warned that the achievement of U.S. goals in the Middle East depends on its ability to revive and complete the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The administration's approach has been to leave that issue on the back burner while pursuing Iraq on the assumption that ousting Saddam's regime would facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians ? an argument dismissed as spurious by Zinni, Cordesman and others. Instead, the Iraq occupation and the ongoing conflict in the West Bank and Gaza has burnished al-Qaeda's appeal in relation to the pro-U.S. Arab regimes it hopes to supplant, because these regimes appear powerless to affect the plight of the Palestinians and Iraqis. With seemingly no Arab leaders capable of protecting Arab interests, bin Laden paints himself and his politics of suicidal jihad as the path to redeeming Islam's lost honor.

About the WMD you claim Iraq was going to give to terrorist. Here is Bush's own words:

Source: Herald Sun

\"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq,\" he said.

No weapons equals no trades between him and the terrorists right? But wait, maybe they were planning to build weapons of mass destruction. Nope, we didn't find that he even had the capacity. Oh wait but he was tied to the Al Qaeda right, oh wait the "Dahlmer(spelling?) report" says that their were no ties. So maybe Bush is a mind reader now, that can read Sadam's mind, and divinely knows that Sadam had the intent, even though there is no proof for that either.

About Lybia, it's nice they dropped the Nuclear program. But they were getting the nuclear fuel from the same place Iran and North Korea were getting there's Pakistan. So Bush went for the drug user but left the dealer alone.

Source: Washington Post, "Libya's Uranium Linked to Pakistan ":

Traces of enriched uranium discovered on recently surrendered Libyan nuclear components appear to have come from Pakistan, a critical black-market supply hub that also made deliveries to Iran and North Korea, U.N. inspectors reported ...

As for the "Grand Coalition" you speak of, please read the following article:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faes...ng-in-iraq.html

Man this year's presidential election, and F 9/11 are heated topics. Un, about fareinhype(sp) can you rent it at a video store? I'd like to see it.

 

[StarLord]

Fahrenheit 9/11

Uni, did I read you right? Did you NOT consider 18,000 potential terr. a thriving concern? Personally, those are virus type numbers.... I would perhaps agree if the number was around 200 or so, but 18,000? Great Googly Moogly!! thats's alot of ants to keep an eye on.