Farenheit 9/11

[Rupertvdb]

This film provided fairly good viewing, the content was obviously completely biased and his language was agressive and chosen with the intent to aggrivate the audience but it still provided some interesting points.

For instance the section where the Senator is dumb struck by the concept of actually reading the laws they are required to vote on. He is actually indignant at the thought of being expected to read the Patriot act before voting it through.

If anyone can point the way to an article that expresses where the films liberal director extended the truth so that i can get a more balanced picture would be doing me a huge favour.

Anyhow, what did you guys think of the film?

 

[kidrock450]

1. Moore is a liar I am sure he lied his way through farenheit 9/11 just like he did with bowling for columbine.

2. Hes just trying to make money off of the war.

3. If he was an American maybe I would take him seriously.

 

[JimmehH]

Oh man, this is such flamebait.

1. Moore is a liar I am sure he lied his way through farenheit 9/11 just like he did with bowling for columbine.

2. Hes just trying to make money off of the war.

3. If he was an American maybe I would take him seriously.

1. I don't know if he lied outright or not, but if he did don't you think there'd be a lot of media stories and outspoken right wing editorials on the subject.

2. Isn't everybody? I'm serious. I thought one of the justifications for the war to help the failing US economy.

3. He is American, dingbat.

 

[el Chi]

1. Moore is a liar I am sure he lied his way through farenheit 9/11 just like he did with bowling for columbine.

2. Hes just trying to make money off of the war.

3. If he was an American maybe I would take him seriously.

1. Moore is not a liar. He is clearly biased but not an out and out liar that so many politicians are.

2. No he's not. That would be the politicians again. And the oil/military execs they're friends with. I'm not saying that the war was created to help make money for those people (well, not necessarily), but they sure have done well out of it.

3. If you cut out all this "Moore is un-American" bollocks than I might respect you. "Un-American" is merely the new buzz word to denounce someone and attempt to nullify their integrity in the same way that "Communist" was during McCarthyism. If someone does not agree with the politics of their country that does not mean they hate the country. Once people get that through their heads then they can stop using that crappy argument and gain some credibility.

 

[ductonius]

Oh man, this is such flamebait.

1. I don't know if he lied outright or not, but if he did don't you think there'd be a lot of media stories and outspoken right wing editorials on the subject.

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

I do not wish to get in another bantering arugment about MM. They're like land wars in Aisa, they all turn out bad.

This link is also appropriate: http://atlas.imagemagician.com/images/68skylark/aw.JPG

 

[el Chi]

"The third part, on Iraq has several outright falsehoods... the regime's connection with al Qaeda"
- From ductonius' link.
I believe Moore mentions this very briefly. Ironically, the US and the UK stated this time and again before finally leaving that excuse to go to war by the wayside because it was clearly nonsense. The Ba'ath party are/were secular whereas al-Qaeda are an extremist Islamic group. Let us ponder how disparate that makes them. By all accouynts, and perfectly plausibly, the two groups hated one another. What they did share in common was that they had both received funding and/or weapons from the US (and the UK in Iraq's case).
I haven't read the rest yet, so that may not be the only thing I object to here.

 

[JimmehH]

I haven't read the rest yet, so that may not be the only thing I object to here.

Save it all up and make one really big post.
It takes so much effort to read a big post that no one ever has the energy to argue with it afterwards

 

[kidrock450]

Moore is a nobody.

 

[el Chi]

There's no point. As ductonius said, these debates string on and on, with each side claiming the other has false and/or ridiculously subjective and/or selective materials/proof. There are those who make sensible coherent posts and then there are those who spout uninformed bollocks - not to want to sound self-righteous or petty, but I honestly find these people to sit in the anti-Moore camp. We have an example on this very thread.
No-one is really won over by them as we are all fabulously stubborn

 

[Rupertvdb]

i'm checking out that article link now... ah it's a biggy, from the couple i have read there are some good points, Moore is obviously primarily a story teller, saying that there are some seemingly dumb points.

Claiming that Gore was shown having a celebration party for his victory at the start of the film...that's just wrong, or at least that is in no way the impression i got from watching it. I'll read it all and comment if this thread still exists in a bit.

 

[63]

Moore is a nobody.

You're a great debater.

 

[Bling]

fahrenheit 911 is a great movie, i loved it.

i like moores work, one of the best documentary film makers, IMO

 

[CyberSh33p]

I liked the film. That is all.

 

[Foxtrot]

Moore is a nobody.

You're a nobody! Stupid head!

 

[Fender357]

You can get pissed about the few parts of the movie that were just Moore's opinion. But the whole friggn' rest of the movie was just fact. And its not just a bunch of lies. Moore made sure that every single thing he put in the movie was an undebateable fact. In the credits you can see the long long list of law offices (or some kind of agencies, cant remember) he consulted to make sure everything was the truth.

 

[el Chi]

You can get pissed about the few parts of the movie that were just Moore's opinion. But the whole friggn' rest of the movie was just fact. And its not just a bunch of lies. Moore made sure that every single thing he put in the movie was an undebateable fact. In the credits you can see the long long list of law offices (or some kind of agencies, cant remember) he consulted to make sure everything was the truth.

Much as I like Michael Moore, I'm not going to deny he has his flaws; one example is that he will often things that, one suspects, are pretty much there just to try and be edgy and vaguely funny.
As many people have said, one of his greatest flaws is that he is particularly selective about his editing. No doubt it was the same here. So, whilst what you say may be true, he was certainly careful how he used the information.
Even so, what you say is very interesting - it's a shame it's not more obviously stated because it would make his audience slightly less cynical right at the start. I'm sure many people went to see it waiting to pounce on the first word.

As an aside: His next project is, apparently, a film about Tony Blair. Hopefully by the time he gets around to it, Gordon Brown'll be at the healm.

 

[Fender357]

Much as I like Michael Moore, I'm not going to deny he has his flaws; one example is that he will often things that, one suspects, are pretty much there just to try and be edgy and vaguely funny.

Yeah, but some of those parts are still a little upsetting. Like when he did a kind of ride along with the army recuters in where ever it was. That was one of those sort of funny things, but it was still really screwed up the way they went about it.

I mean, they lied to that one kid saying "give us your address and phone number so we can take you off our list". When they had just walked up to him on the street.
And then they tryed getting the guy who was going into a store with his wife and baby.
And the fact that they stick to the poor areas to recrute.


He can get pretty edit happy though, your very right about that.

 

[el Chi]

I mean, they lied to that one kid saying "give us your address and phone number so we can take you off our list". When they had just walked up to him on the street.
And then they tryed getting the guy who was going into a store with his wife and baby.
And the fact that they stick to the poor areas to recrute.

You're right - that was horrible what they were doing. I mean o course if they come up to you and say "Hi, join the military and have a snazzy uniform like ours" you can just reply with "No, your uniforms are crap and you can stick them up your bum" (except more politely) But even so, I just felt there was something wrong and intrusive about it all. Plus, the way they confurred whilst deciding who to pick next seemed so predatory and intimidating.

 

[N0N1337H41]

It's very true that he edits things to make them look more one way than the other, but let me ask you this: what documetary filmmaker doesn't? Even documentaries on the history channel are COMPLETELY biased.

The current media does a wonderful job on NOT showing many of the things that moore shows. I think his strongest points are made when he's not talking, and just letting the videos role.

And ductonious' link provides only a few sources for it's information. Moore's site has (at current) six pages of sources. If there were so many lies in the film, don't you think that someone would have filed suit already? I mean the movie has been in the top 5 list since it came out. The conservatives are surely wanting to get it out of the theaters. I firmly believe that if there were truely any slander in the film bush's cohorts would have filed suit opening night.

And again, someone mentioned how all of his other movies were full of lies, then man has been sued two times. The first suit he won and the second he lost. But the second suit had nothing to do with his facts, it was with him showing McVeigh's acquaintance's gun collection. It was ruled as a violation of his privacy.

Since this man is doing so much damage to whomever he goes after, wouldn't it make sense for people to try and take him down so they could restore their "good name" if his movies were all lies?

It's certainly a good thing to think for yourself, and not just take someone's word for something. But do your own research on what moore is saying. Don't look just on anti-moore sites or pro-moore sites (as a matter of fact you could probably just stay away from both). Do some fact checking on your own. Whatever it is that you think to be a lie, disprove it. Find several independent sources and then bring it up.

While it may sound like I'm a moore fanboi, i'm not. I actually already knew around 95% of what moore showed in the film. But not from watching the evening news/cnn/fox/msnbc/<insert favorite news channel>, i got this info mostly from news sources OUTSIDE of the US. Hell, BBC News is a great source for news here because they're much less biased. All of this info was out there in the first place, moore just brought it all together in a very powerful, yet very biased way.

 

[kidrock450]

You're a great debater.

Thank you.

 

[Neutrino]

Thank you.

Oh, please.

 

[Korgoth]

Ah, thanks for making this topic, i just watched this movie last night and wanted to talk about it, but i was to scared to make a new topic on it
Anyway, sure its biased, anyone who goes in there expecting a completely neutral report on the events should get smacked in the head, i mean, you can tell by the damn commercials for it, its biased.
Secondly, i don't think he ever really over extended the truth. I could easily tell what was factual information and what was his opinion, there wasn't any grey inbetween. Its hard to overextend the truth, when its actually caught on video...
I can see now however why this movie is rated R, i didn't expect to see such graphic images, but man, it really put a lot of things in perspective for me. I think they should show that stuff on the news. Sure its very disturbing, but people should see what war really is, if we can get rid of the misconception that war doesn't affect innocent people and that only faceless enemies are getting killed, then maybe less people would be for the idea of war.
And that conservative lady who tried to say that the women crying for her dead son in iraq was staged, man she was such a b*tch, now everyone in america who watches this movie will see how ignorant that lady was haha.
This movie was great, I live in the south, the theatre where i saw it was in a small town. The room was packed and the movie ended to a STANDING ovation from the audience. I'm assuming ol' dubya has something to worry about come november.

 

[Neutrino]

Ah, thanks for making this topic, i just watched this movie last night and wanted to talk about it, but i was to scared to make a new topic on it
Anyway, sure its biased, anyone who goes in there expecting a completely neutral report on the events should get smacked in the head, i mean, you can tell by the damn commercials for it, its biased.
Secondly, i don't think he ever really over extended the truth. I could easily tell what was factual information and what was his opinion, there wasn't any grey inbetween. Its hard to overextend the truth, when its actually caught on video...

What's this? An actual intelligent, well thought out, and reasonably objective post on the question of bias in the movie? That's just unnatural.

But seriously I agree completely. Of course it is a form of propaganda. It's trying to make a political statement, thus is going to use methods to prove a point. However, that doesn't make the entire thing invalid as a lot of people seem to think. If you just watch it objectively and intelligently there's a lot of information to get out of it.....a lot of disturbing information in my opinion.

 

[Korgoth]

exactly what i was trying to get across neutrino, i hadn't seen a michael moore movie before this. So going into it, i was ready to see a lot of bias. Like you say, watch the movie open mindedly and you will gain a lot of knowledge from it, whether it be pro political or anti politcal. And yes, disturbing information for sure. I would love to know where he obtained some of the footage that he did, he had some crazy video in there.
You have to be objective and know where you stand on issues before you watch any news program, any politcal movie, or read any politcal book. Even if it doesn't change your mind, it should at least open it to other possibilities. My view is and always has been, that no matter who the candidate (be it democrat, republican, green, or other) if they hold the office of the president, they should be scrutinized for EVERY action they take. They make the decisions that affect all of our lives, and they should be under the finest of magnifying glasses when it comes to their policies. But thanks for the compliment

 

[Javert]

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

I do not wish to get in another bantering arugment about MM. They're like land wars in Aisa, they all turn out bad.

This link is also appropriate: http://atlas.imagemagician.com/images/68skylark/aw.JPG

I've read both. And I was none the wiser. These people are clearly getting very desperate.

 

[N0N1337H41]

What's this? An actual intelligent, well thought out, and reasonably objective post on the question of bias in the movie? That's just unnatural.

And my post wasn't? :cheers:

Anyway, yes it is good to see some other people here that have opened their minds to possibility that they have been lied to constantly for about four years now.

I'll be the first one to admit that I was all for going over there and getting those WMD's out of Saddam's hands. While I didn't think all of the carpet-bombing was called for at all, I was scared at the thought of someone launching a three stage ICBM at us. So in effect is was an early war supporter. But then I started getting suspicous that the WMD's hadn't been acquired. I mean, Colin Powell went before the UN and told them that we KNEW where they we were, and that we had water-tight intelligence. So if we knew where these things were, why weren't they the very first things we went after? As it turns out, this intelligence that the CIA gave the whitehouse was based on one person.

I say all that to say this: I truly believe that we as a country have not only been lied to by Bush, but by his whole cabinet. Am I biased? Hell yes I'm biased. When I'm duped into supporting the slaughtering of innocent people, yeah I'm going to be a bit biased. And I think moore does a great job of showing people how they've been duped.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but please don't be afraid to retort with a good argument (as long as your argument isn't "u r teh sucks"), because I'm always up for a good debate.

 

[ComradeBadger]

1 little point here. The Bin Laden's were a respectable family.. until Osama came along. That's why the Bush family had ties.. Osama Bin Laden was a promising engineering student at first. He's a black sheep. The whole family aren't terrorists.

 

[Korgoth]

yeah, true... Isn't one of his sisters/neice like a pop singer or something? Either way, his parents probably knew where he was before 9/11 and after the cole bombings, he was already a wanted man, do you think they should have been doing buisness or finding an international terrorist?

 

[N0N1337H41]

1 little point here. The Bin Laden's were a respectable family.. until Osama came along.

Like Innervision said, that's true. But moore makes that point in the movie. The point he tries to get across is that they should have been thoroughly questioned before leaving. While this is a bit of a weak/invalid point, he never accuses them of being in cohorts with Osama.

 

[Synthos]

Well hell? Why not question them.. They're his family.. Although they "disowned" him.. they still visited (his wedding i think?)...

In any case.. Whether there are lies or truth, there is certain amount of truth in what moore does. Whether or not a certain fact is truth or lie... the main message is : THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON IN THE GOVERNMENT WHICH THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU.

At least Moore has the balls to question his own government. Sounds like some of you may be deceived by the government's lies.. If anything, I think the governement's lies should be the ones we are talking about..

 

[Rupertvdb]

I read through that Dave Kopel article and it comes up with some very interesting points, i advise anyone that has seen the film to read it.

First off i wholeheartedly disagree with some of the 'deceits' that Kopel cites, for instance there are a few points that follow the general line of....well outside the film Moore's opinions are different so he is lying in his film. There are only 4 or 5 of these if that but it is disappointing to see an intelligent man blunting his valid arguements with what appears to be debate stalling whining.

However he does raise some mightily interesting points such as the Saudi's permission to fly was nothing sordid and that the airspace had been reopened.

Another general point but this time a good one is when he points out how Moore lied about the representation of congressman's children in the war. He got the fact wrong and didn't change it, he also ignored the fact several children or relatives are in different warzones and not just cushty placements.

He makes a shit point about the funny part showing how Bush's (Attourney General?) loses to a dead guy. The point is valid, it wasn't like the dead guy was going to run the place but still anyone with a mite of intelligence could see the humour in the event.

There are a lot of misquotes and mudying of waters in Moore's film. It is also interesting to note he is getting huge support in Eastern countries and he himself is profiting from the war and it is causing further Anti-American feelings.

I still think there are several things to take from Moore's film, of note, for me, was the direct quote from a senator showing indignation at the prospect of having to read each act they pass through the senate. He was literally amazed that he should be expected to have read and understood what he voted for. The mind does boggle....

 

[N0N1337H41]

However he does raise some mightily interesting points such as the Saudi's permission to fly was nothing sordid and that the airspace had been reopened.

This is one fact that many people have gotten wrong/misconstrued. There was at least one flight with saudi's on it that was allowed to leave before the airspace had been reopened. I believe it was some newspaper in St. Petersburg that broke the story, but then they were quickly silenced. Like I said before, moore makes too big of a point out of this.

But I think it's wonderful to question these things.

"Think for yourself. Question authority."
-Dr. Timothy Leary

 

[Neutrino]

And my post wasn't? :cheers:

Oops, sorry had missed reading your post somehow. :cheers:

I too found myself in support of the war in the beginning. Now I find myself ashamed that I ever was.

 

[Synthos]

I supported the war within Afghanistan.. Everyone was shocked and horried at the events that occured. I wanted revenge, everyone did. NATO went in and mopped up the government. Lost Binladel (DAMN!), and now we're working to re-establish things there...

But when Bush started harping on about Iraq.. My first thought was "Where the hell did THIS come from?!!" Iraq hadn't been a problem for years, and it certainly wasn't shaping up to be...
It appeared later that "intelligence was flawed", but me, I don't really buy that..
I don't think it was for the "weapons of mass destruction" or even to rid the world of a tyrannical leader (should've taken him out in the first war!)
It was either that the government was scared shitless and paranoid of another attack on the US, which may rightly be so...
Or there was something and still is something going on in the background behind all the facades of the "orange alert", "yellow alert".

Perhaps, perhaps, the US feels stupid about never ridding Iraq of Hussein in the first place, or that they themselves put him into power there, and they want to make up for it..

In any case, it was a wastefull war. A waste of money, a waste of trust and a waste of lives.

 

[N0N1337H41]

Perhaps, perhaps, the US feels stupid about never ridding Iraq of Hussein in the first place, or that they themselves put him into power there, and they want to make up for it..

I consider myself part of the US (as I've lived here all my life and joined the Navy in my support of this country) and i didn't feel stupid about ridding Iraq of Hussein, nor did I put him into power. Now some idiots who have run/run my country may feel this way, but it scares me when people start making blanket statements about the US/Americans. As you can see here, there are many of us who don't agree with what our government does. It's like some jackasses over here blaming all middle eastern people for our dead soldiers.

In any case, it was a wastefull war. A waste of money, a waste of trust and a waste of lives.

On this point we are in full agreement.

 

[umop]

Moore is a nobody.

You are in dire need of a glass bellybutton.

Also, if Moore's intentions are to make money from it, WHY in the world would he PROMOTE downloading the movie online and distributing it amongst your friends and family as long as you dont gain profit from (sell) it? Sounds like a typical case of denial to me.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think this is the best movie I've seen. Not a documentary though. It's more like an essay in movie form.

I see the purpose of the movie as being a way of trying to find the motive to invading Iraq. It's a conspiracy theory. Well-researched and compelling but, most of all, far more plausible than that 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'freeing Iraq from Saddam' bullshite.

I think that's the point. The movie shows us that no-one knows the real motives behind the invasion. Thousands of people are dead and dying, and no-one knows the real reason behind it. The best Moore can do is guess.


The most interesting part of it was something that happened outside the movie though.
On the IMDb forums there's a huge debate about the validity of this movie, so one guy made a thread, and the first post was this:

Why would you hold Michael Moore to a higher standard of accountability than G. W. Bush?

It was bumped and linked to about a hundred times, but no-one anti-Moore has yet replied with an answer.

 

[Korgoth]

Mechagodzilla that quote is the same thing i've been screaming around here for god knows how long, and truer words have never been spoken....

 

[N0N1337H41]

Why would you hold Michael Moore to a higher standard of accountability than G. W. Bush?

I think the true answer is that people are scared that they have been lied to. Having to wrap you mind around the fact there are over 1000 of our peers that have been killed because the president of our great country may have caused all of this for his personal benefit is a very scary thing.

 

[pingu]

by watching that documentary, it has now confirmed my beleifs, that america is the most ****ed up country on the planet and im glad i dont live there