Official....Review of Fahrenheit 9/11

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Baltazar325

Senior member
Jun 17, 2004
363
1
0
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Originally posted by: Baltazar325
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Originally posted by: Baltazar325
Wow, I can tell by your post that you are the most intelligent person here. Of course your truth is the truth. No other fact is the truth, only the links you post. Everything else is a lie. A half truth is a lie as well. I wouldnt just run around calling people stupid. You may find that many of us are more educated than you think. But hey call people names and talk down to them becasue that is the real way to win an argument. I'm sure you are a complete badass sitting behind your computer....
Great, another one!... OK MR. educated, prove my conspiracy theories wrong then.

According to you and bush bandwagoneers, what's on FOX News, and the media, must be truth. So, I'm just grabbing tid bits of information from your credible news source and point out what is obvious, that make me wrong?

If anything that I've stated as fact and you can disprove it, then by all mean, please show me the light. Base on those facts, my opinion, and many others, can interpret them the way that they would appear most sensible. If you chose to think otherwise, then it's your opinion, but that doesn't mean the truth are not facts.

Did you read the last two pages, at least?

Yes, it has been known that I have a temper, but for you to assume that I only talk hind a monitor, well... let's hope that it's an assumption base on your own character.


I never called people names, and I'm not acting like I am a badass. On the other hand your tone is very aggressive. It makes me laugh to think of you sitting there, steaming with rage because you are the only smart person on Earth that truly knows how to read and that everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. I think it is great fun and I am not even a troll. You may want to calm down before you rupture something.

On the other hand this could be a Bush conspiracy to get you to have a heart attack because you are so in the know!

Actually, reading posts like this gives me great laughs, they serve more as a comedic literature (if I can classify these as literature) than anything else.

Yup, just more of beating around the bush (pardon the pun) than any actual worthwhile arguments...

I never said anyone that disagree with me is an idiot, but for some one to keep at the same issue with nothing to back up their arguments (other than disagreeing with my facts), now that's stupidity.

For some one as educated as you are, I'm sure you'll see my point. You can do one of two things, either prove me wrong, and/or provide some validity in your arguments; or just sit there and spout some more rhetoric nonsense about me trying to be a badass.

Oh, I see your point. I just dont have the time or energy to look all over the internet just to find facts that dispute yours. Even if I did, you would just say that they are wrong. So it is a pointless circle. The problem is not with the facts anyway, it is the conclusions that you draw from them. Not everything is a dark conspiracy, and not everything is innocent. Bush is not better or worse than past Prez when it comes to the skeletons lurking in the closet.

The funny thing is, this thread has gone on for so many days that I dont even remember what was really going on it it. I just dont like your attitude of calling people stupid and acting superior.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
34
91
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Originally posted by: Baltazar325
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Originally posted by: Baltazar325
Wow, I can tell by your post that you are the most intelligent person here. Of course your truth is the truth. No other fact is the truth, only the links you post. Everything else is a lie. A half truth is a lie as well. I wouldnt just run around calling people stupid. You may find that many of us are more educated than you think. But hey call people names and talk down to them becasue that is the real way to win an argument. I'm sure you are a complete badass sitting behind your computer....
Great, another one!... OK MR. educated, prove my conspiracy theories wrong then.

According to you and bush bandwagoneers, what's on FOX News, and the media, must be truth. So, I'm just grabbing tid bits of information from your credible news source and point out what is obvious, that make me wrong?

If anything that I've stated as fact and you can disprove it, then by all mean, please show me the light. Base on those facts, my opinion, and many others, can interpret them the way that they would appear most sensible. If you chose to think otherwise, then it's your opinion, but that doesn't mean the truth are not facts.

Did you read the last two pages, at least?

Yes, it has been known that I have a temper, but for you to assume that I only talk hind a monitor, well... let's hope that it's an assumption base on your own character.


I never called people names, and I'm not acting like I am a badass. On the other hand your tone is very aggressive. It makes me laugh to think of you sitting there, steaming with rage because you are the only smart person on Earth that truly knows how to read and that everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. I think it is great fun and I am not even a troll. You may want to calm down before you rupture something.

On the other hand this could be a Bush conspiracy to get you to have a heart attack because you are so in the know!

Actually, reading posts like this gives me great laughs, they serve more as a comedic literature (if I can classify these as literature) than anything else.

Yup, just more of beating around the bush (pardon the pun) than any actual worthwhile arguments...

I never said anyone that disagree with me is an idiot, but for some one to keep at the same issue with nothing to back up their arguments (other than disagreeing with my facts), now that's stupidity.

For some one as educated as you are, I'm sure you'll see my point. You can do one of two things, either prove me wrong, and/or provide some validity in your arguments; or just sit there and spout some more rhetoric nonsense about me trying to be a badass.

But see, that's the problem. How can I prove you wrong? You are making assumptions based on the small bit of information that we know : Halliburton is there to repair the Iraqi oil fields. We know this. But you are making an assumption that Halliburton is the only one who is operating, controlling, profiting, etc. from the Iraqi oil fields and the Iraqis don't see a penny of it. How can I prove an assumption based on a single fact correct?

This discussion reminds me of Office Space's 'Jump to Conclusions' mat.

Oh noes! A company that Dick used to be a part of us over there fixing the oil wells for the Iraqis! Let's jump to conclusions! They can only be over there because it's making people rich and that's why we went to Iraq! Let's jump to conclusions!
 

imported_Tomato

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2002
7,608
0
0
Originally posted by: Bovinicus
Originally posted by: Mill
1. Correlation of business deals with the Bin Laden family, or the House of Saud have no bearing on Osama Bin Laden. They've been estranged for a very long time. Some minor relative going to a wedding in Afghanistan is hardly showing any type of shady dealings.

The business dealing with the House of Saud was not supposed to show any relation to Osama Bin Laden. If it was, then that is not how I interpreted it. It was supposed to show that a country which is harboring just as many, if not more, terrorists as either of the countries we attacked as a result of 9/11 has a large amount of money invested in this country. A sizeable chunk of that money has gone into the Bush family's hands. It is interesting to note that we did not attack Saudi Arabia despite this fact.

2. One Congressman he interviewed already said his interview was edited so that it appeared differently than what occurred. If you paid attention throughout the film you'd see the changes in a segment as editing took place. Basically it would be the virtual usage of ellipses. He'd ... and then ... of what someone actually said/did. It is a common trait used when you want to misrepresent something.

I'm sorry to hear that this is the case. I don't really have a rebuttal for this, as I don't agree with this tactic. Granted, not the entire length of any interview is going to be shown. However, if it was edited in such a way as to distort the message, then that is something different entirely. Which congressman was it?

3. He distorted what troops were talking/cheering about, what Bush was talking about, what certain people were talking about. He did the same with Charleton Heston and others in Bowling for Columbine. He will start a segment about X, but then he'll through in an interview from a MUCH different time period to make it appear as if person X was talking about Subject X. Typically this is not the case, and if you are familiar with some of the footage he used, or paid attention to the background in some of the pieces you'd understand that.

Could you be more specific and point out certain instances? It seems to me like this is not really a separate point from #2 that you presented. #2 is merely an example of this.

4. Moore has someone claim that the Saudis had a 7% stake in our economy. Again, not true. Total personal wealth is estimated in the 40-60 trillion range. The number used by the man Moore was interviewing was 860 billion. Moore conveniently rounded that to 1 trillion, so I'll be "fair" and use that number. Do you know what that means? Saudis account for about 2% of total wealth in American, and the was no PROOF that the numbers expressed(the one trillion) was even accurate. It wasn't even an estimate, but a total guesstimate. Remember this was INVESTMENTS and MONEY in American companies, banks, etc. It isn't talking about GDP, but person wealth. Once again a complete distortion/lie.

This may be true, but the point is the Saudis have quite a large sum of money invested in this country.

5. The National Guard Video was edited to make it appear as if no one is ever told they might be called up. True that the National Guard has rarely been used for Overseas deployment, but our ranks were very thin after a period of military reduction from 92-00. Anyone who VOLUNTEERS for something should know the risks of it. Moore also makes it appear as if the only opportunity for someone in Flint is to join the military. This is simply not true. There are a variety of grants, loans, scholarships, etc available to students out there. Grants simply require you to have a low net-worth or income. If you looked at the family in Flint you'd see their problem wasn't a lack of money -- their house was actually quite nice. It was because they had a very large family. Finally, scholarships are available to those even in the terrible schools. You can still make decent grades in a terrible school -- in fact I'd hazard to say it might be easier. Anyone can go to a library, use public internet, or read their texts. Having decent grades, decent tests scores and some extra-curriculars will get most people a scholarship in something. Those that can't get grants or a scholarship can get loans. If people are unwilling to do either then joining the service is a good idea.

Where did he make it appear as though no one thought they might be called in for duty? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I can't recall specifics that would make someone think this way. It didn't prompt me to think this way. Obviously the volunteers realized that this was a risk of joining armed forces.

Also, I think you are exaggerating how easy it is for people to get scholarships. I know plenty of people that don't have money for school, yet they were turned down for a scholarship. Only a certain number of people get scholarships each year. That means a certain portion of people who apply are going to get turned down. I think the main idea behind those statements is that the lower and middle class fight the wars, but the upper class declares the wars.

Finally, someone who actually saw the movie with some valid points. I can understand your dislike for the points you presented, but I still feel there was useful information being presented in the movie:

-It's quite possible that Bush did not deserve to win the election in the first place. It was very sad that the people trying to present their case in relation to the African American voters not being counted in Florida were not able to share their case due to a technicality.

-The reaction that Bush had to hearing that this country was under attack was quite the display. I understand that being President in a situation like that is an enromous task. However, I don't think Bush could've handled it too much worst than he did. Also, the fact that Bush ignored the memo from the CIA stating that Bin Laden planned to attack the US with aircrafts (I read this report myself) is not something I appreciate my President doing either.

-The name of the man that was removed from the report related to Bush's military records was an interesting thing to note. I'm not sure how conclusive this was in terms of proving some kind of underhanded connection, but I found it very curious nonetheless.

-Although this idea was the overriding theme in Bowling for Columbine, I think it was important to bring it up again: the element of fear tactics. It does seem as though the invention of the terror alert system was nothing more than a device to bring about fear. What good did it, or could it, possibly serve? In fact, I think he should've spent more time on this point.

-No WMDs have been found in Iraq to date, and it has been well over a year since invasion. This was one of the main reasons for our attacking Iraq in the first place.

-He mentioned that Iraq did not attack us first. This is a good point, because what if other countries just started attacking people because they didn't trust them? War is supposed to be a line of self-defense, not an offensive move.

-Iraq had no connection with Al Queda. Period. The 9-11 commission, which Bush appointed, declared this themselves. Once again, another reason we went to war that was proven incorrect.

-The body count of American soldiers in Iraq as well as footage of Iraqi people dying. This shows how our losses have been very significant, despite quotes from Donald Rumsfeld claminig that this would not be the case. Also, it gives the Iraqi people more of an identity when you see the result of our attacks.

There were plenty of valid points in the movie. However, I do respect your constructive criticism of the movie, because a lot of people simply say, "I hate Michael Moore. He is fat and needs to shave!" I see their point, but it is worthless in connection with the content of the movie.

Very well put. I saw the movie last night and was really surprised at Bush's reaction upon first hearing the news (what was the time lapse again, 7 minutes? during which time he picked up and flipped through a children's book?).
 

FuZoR

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2001
4,422
1
0
... thread topic... review of F 9/11

Enough with the P&N debates.. go back to that category! lol
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
Originally posted by: BaboonGuy
Originally posted by: Karsten
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584

Quote of the final wrap for thouse who don't have the patience to read the whole thing:

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Hm what an unbiased review! I don't think the guy realizes that there are other methods to solve problems other than war.
There are? Would those be the economic sanctions that get placed on such a country ... only to not work? I'm interested in hearing your ideas.

Not work? It worked on Iraq! It didn't get rid of Saddam, but he had no WMD and a military that was all but useless. Who knows, in time there might have been a toppling of the government thanks to the sanctions.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
I saw F911 today. It is definitely propaganda, and I take a lot of the "expose" aspect of it with a grain of salt (in particular the financial ties between the Bush family and the Saudis, which I think are more attenuated than the way they're portrayed in the film). That said, it is tremendously moving, and I think you'd have to be a pretty low person not to be at least choked up by it - I think just about everyone in the theater either cried or came close to it.

On balance I thought it was reasonably effective at doing what it set out to do. I have not liked Moore's prior efforts much, but it would be tough to watch F911 and completely pooh-pooh it.
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
Originally posted by: Chumster
Originally posted by: Yossarian
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
You'll never find anything that is clear cut enough to convince everyone that he lied. He's that good at twisting things and telling half-truths. Even if it is exposed that such and such is true it really doesn't matter to them because in their mind HIS version is the only true version.


I read your reply before reading what you quoted. It's kind of funny that without the quoted bit, it's impossible to tell whether you're referring to Bush or Moore.

The scary part is that one is just an independent film maker and the other is the leader of the free world.

Chum

LOL, so true, Fingolfin269 is a liberal ... or perhaps a NeoCon. ;)
 

cheezy321

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2003
6,218
2
0
Just finished watching the first part (2nd half was corrupted, gotta get a new version)

I love it how Michael Moore talks about all of Bush's buddies and how they are all bad and all that and gets a bunch of people to say that he is a bad person. The people that are saying this about Bush are the same people that hate him as well. The movie is basically an extreme left point of view knocking down the right-winged point of view.

After watching the first part(it stopped about 40 minutes into it) I am beginning to think this movie is a joke. Is Michael Moore really trying to imply that Bush allowed Septemer 11th to happen? I think that this is beyond rediculous.

I also noticed in some interviews you keep on hearing michael moore talking with the person who is being interviewed. It seems as if he is leading the person being interviewed into saying what he wants to hear. The person interviewed keeps on talking and Moore keeps him talking and saying everything that he wants to hear (See the part where he talks to the retired FBI agent about the saudis leaving)

I also believe that a lot of quotes from people get taken out of context. There was one part where Bush was talking about someone, saying he doesnt really pay much attention to him, and Michael Moore made it sound like bush was talking about Bin Laden. I want to know what Bush was really talking about.

I also liked how he even said in the movie that most of the bin laden family is estranged from Osama, but he still takes 20 more minutes of the movie to explain all of the ties the Bin Laden family has with the US. IIRC, the Bin laden family rarely talks to Osama, so what does this have to do with him at all??
 

Great flick, i would hope all responding with comments would go see it before giving their opinion.....
 

Moore is the master of not telling the truth without lying. One example, this snippet from the film:

http://weblog.bbzzdd.com/media/lies.mp3

It ends with "...largest number of American military deaths since Vietnam"

This is a common Internet troll tactic. While technically true, it's totally out of proportion. 60,000 American troops died in Vietnam. Less than 1,000 have died in Iraq. 300 people died in Operation Desert Storm back in 1991. Was that "the largest number of American military deaths since Vietnam" before this war?

Moore likes throwing out facts that sound jaw-dropping to uneducated people. When they are pulled apart you see most of his "facts" are 99% hot air and gross exaggerations.


For those interested: my full review
 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
Originally posted by: dwell
Moore is the master of not telling the truth without lying. One example, this snippet from the film:

http://weblog.bbzzdd.com/media/lies.mp3

It ends with "...largest number of American military deaths since Vietnam"

This is a common Internet troll tactic. While technically true, it's totally out of proportion. 60,000 American troops died in Vietnam. Less than 1,000 have died in Iraq. 300 people died in Operation Desert Storm back in 1991. Was that "the largest number of American military deaths since Vietnam" before this war?

Moore likes throwing out facts that sound jaw-dropping to uneducated people. When they are pulled apart you see most of his "facts" are 99% hot air and gross exaggerations.


For those interested: my full review

...largest number of American military deaths since Vietnam is true regardless of what your own ideas are about what proportion is needed before one can say this. the fact that we have wasted 1000 troops in Iraq is pretty jaw-dropping to me.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: cheezy321
Just finished watching the first part (2nd half was corrupted, gotta get a new version)

I love it how Michael Moore talks about all of Bush's buddies and how they are all bad and all that and gets a bunch of people to say that he is a bad person. The people that are saying this about Bush are the same people that hate him as well. The movie is basically an extreme left point of view knocking down the right-winged point of view.

After watching the first part(it stopped about 40 minutes into it) I am beginning to think this movie is a joke. Is Michael Moore really trying to imply that Bush allowed Septemer 11th to happen? I think that this is beyond rediculous.

I also noticed in some interviews you keep on hearing michael moore talking with the person who is being interviewed. It seems as if he is leading the person being interviewed into saying what he wants to hear. The person interviewed keeps on talking and Moore keeps him talking and saying everything that he wants to hear (See the part where he talks to the retired FBI agent about the saudis leaving)

I also believe that a lot of quotes from people get taken out of context. There was one part where Bush was talking about someone, saying he doesnt really pay much attention to him, and Michael Moore made it sound like bush was talking about Bin Laden. I want to know what Bush was really talking about.

I also liked how he even said in the movie that most of the bin laden family is estranged from Osama, but he still takes 20 more minutes of the movie to explain all of the ties the Bin Laden family has with the US. IIRC, the Bin laden family rarely talks to Osama, so what does this have to do with him at all??


I think you missed the point (and if you failed to watch the second half of the film, you missed the most powerful part, by far).

I am not a Moore fan, particularly, but you appear to have misunderstood some pretty fundamental aspects of the film.

He is not arguing, directly or indirectly, that President Bush allowed 9/11 to happen (though he correctly observes that the President was warned about possible attacks by UBL within the US).

President Bush did say he was "not that concerned" about bin Laden's whereabouts, in the quote you mentioned. From this White House press conference:

Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

The movie points out that, although UBL does not have frequent contact with his family, he still has some connection to them, and he went to a nephew's wedding attended by the rest of the family in the late summer of 2001. As such, it would presumably have been worthwhile to interview them after 9/11, not because they were involved, but because they might know some useful info about his whereabouts.
 

gururu

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
2,402
0
0
Dwell's review
"The 30+ minutes of ?the horrors of war? were totally over the top. Yeah war is horrible. We get it Michael. Are we supposed to feel bad for the Iraqi b$tch screaming, ?Let Allah burn down [the Americans] houses,? just because her brother?s house got bombed by accident? That?s right, she was a f$cking b$tch. If I saw an American woman on TV after 9/11 saying, ?I hope Jesus comes down and kills all the Arabs,? I would think the same of her."

the United States of America, a sovereign nation, killed her family. When Japan, a sovereign nation attacked Pearl Harbor, we basically said, " Who needs Jesus, we got a damned bomb!".
 

Originally posted by: gururu
Dwell's review
"The 30+ minutes of ?the horrors of war? were totally over the top. Yeah war is horrible. We get it Michael. Are we supposed to feel bad for the Iraqi b$tch screaming, ?Let Allah burn down [the Americans] houses,? just because her brother?s house got bombed by accident? That?s right, she was a f$cking b$tch. If I saw an American woman on TV after 9/11 saying, ?I hope Jesus comes down and kills all the Arabs,? I would think the same of her."

the United States of America, a sovereign nation, killed her family. When Japan, a sovereign nation attacked Pearl Harbor, we basically said, " Who needs Jesus, we got a damned bomb!".
That woman was an idiot. She was the Iraqi version of a redneck.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: dwell
Originally posted by: gururu
Dwell's review
"The 30+ minutes of ?the horrors of war? were totally over the top. Yeah war is horrible. We get it Michael. Are we supposed to feel bad for the Iraqi b$tch screaming, ?Let Allah burn down [the Americans] houses,? just because her brother?s house got bombed by accident? That?s right, she was a f$cking b$tch. If I saw an American woman on TV after 9/11 saying, ?I hope Jesus comes down and kills all the Arabs,? I would think the same of her."

the United States of America, a sovereign nation, killed her family. When Japan, a sovereign nation attacked Pearl Harbor, we basically said, " Who needs Jesus, we got a damned bomb!".
That woman was an idiot. She was the Iraqi version of a redneck.

How dare you two talk that way? That woman saw her family members killed, and their homes destroyed, in an offensive attack by a country who her nation even threatened. You two go on to call her a "f$cking bitch" and a "redneck" because she dared to be upset about this. Morons.

Look back and remember your own reactions to 9/11 and tell me whether you are any better. Hell, look back at the archives of this board from that era, and you will hear a lot of commentary to the effect that we should turn the entire middle east into glass.
 

cheezy321

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2003
6,218
2
0
President Bush did say he was "not that concerned" about bin Laden's whereabouts, in the quote you mentioned. From this White House press conference:

Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

The movie points out that, although UBL does not have frequent contact with his family, he still has some connection to them, and he went to a nephew's wedding attended by the rest of the family in the late summer of 2001. As such, it would presumably have been worthwhile to interview them after 9/11, not because they were involved, but because they might know some useful info about his whereabouts.[/quote]

Well that is very interesting about what George Dubya said. I would rather be skeptical about Michael Moores quotes than believe what he says right away. He has been known to take things out of context and make them seem like something else. But thanks for that link, that was very interesting to read
 

Originally posted by: DonVito
How dare you two talk that way? That woman saw her family members killed, and their homes destroyed, in an offensive attack by a country who her nation even threatened. You two go on to call her a "f$cking bitch" and a "redneck" because she dared to be upset about this. Morons.

Look back and remember your own reactions to 9/11 and tell me whether you are any better. Hell, look back at the archives of this board from that era, and you will hear a lot of commentary to the effect that we should turn the entire middle east into glass.
That's exactly my point. We vilify the people who said we should carpet bomb the Middle East after 9/11 (an unannounced offensive attack on civilians) but we are somehow supposed to be sympathetic to an Iraqi saying the same thing? Stop being PC for a second and realize the hypocrisy. They both suck. That is my point and I stand by it.
 

gururu

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
2,402
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito


How dare you two talk that way? That woman saw her family members killed, and their homes destroyed, in an offensive attack by a country who her nation even threatened. You two go on to call her a "f$cking bitch" and a "redneck" because she dared to be upset about this. Morons.

Look back and remember your own reactions to 9/11 and tell me whether you are any better. Hell, look back at the archives of this board from that era, and you will hear a lot of commentary to the effect that we should turn the entire middle east into glass.

please read again donvito. i was making a point
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: dwell

That's exactly my point. We vilify the people who said we should carpet bomb the Middle East after 9/11 (an unannounced offensive attack on civilians) but we are somehow supposed to be sympathetic to an Iraqi saying the same thing? Stop being PC for a second and realize the hypocrisy. They both suck. That is my point and I stand by it.

You're full of crap. Nobody "villified" anyone for their reactions to 9/11, though they may have disagreed. This woman literally saw her family killed (in an offensive attack, in which it was never "annouced" that civilians needed to flee to avoid American precision-guided munitions), and she was reacting out of raw emotion. This doesn't mean she "sucks," it means she's a human being. This is not at all the same thing as an American, completely detached from any 9/11 victim, suggesting widespread bombing of the middle east.
 

Originally posted by: DonVito
[You're full of crap. Nobody "villified" anyone for their reactions to 9/11, though they may have disagreed. This woman literally saw her family killed (in an offensive attack, in which it was never "annouced" that civilians needed to flee to avoid American precision-guided munitions), and she was reacting out of raw emotion. This doesn't mean she "sucks," it means she's a human being. This is not at all the same thing as an American, completely detached from any 9/11 victim, suggesting widespread bombing of the middle east.
How would it be any different if a hypothetical American woman had her husband die just for going to work in the WTC and she said on national TV, "I hope Jesus comes down and kills all the Arabs"?

You think you would ever see an American director ever using THAT sound byte in a film? What would you think of that woman three years later if you heard that quote? Just because the woman in Moore's film was an Iraqi she is somehow giving a free pass to make malicious remarks? Not in my book. I am calling her on it.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: dwell

How would it be any different if a hypothetical American woman had her husband die just for going to work in the WTC and she said on national TV, "I hope Jesus comes down and kills all the Arabs"?

You think you would ever see an American director ever using THAT sound byte in a film? What would you think of that woman three years later if you heard that quote? Just because the woman in Moore's film was an Iraqi she is somehow giving a free pass to make malicious remarks? Not in my book. I am calling her on it.

If it was literally in the moments after she found out about her husband dying (and even then it is only a gross analogy, in that the hypothetical 9/11 widow would not have seen her dead husband die in person, nor would he have had his property destroyed), I would feel really sorry for the woman, and feel her comments were regrettable but understandable.

I will say, too, that the analogy is imprecise in another way: al Queda != the United States. They are a widely-hated terrorist organization, but we are the most powerful nation on earth, and the self-proclaimed moral authority for how other nations should conduct themselves (what other legitimate reason was there for OIF?). If we of all people undertake an offensive war, and kill thousands of civilians in the process (as we have), it's hardly surprising we would engender that kind of response.

Moreover, calling for Allah to take vengeance on America is NOT the same thing as an American wishing death on all Arabs. OIF was undertaken by the leadership of the US government, whereas 9/11 was undertaken by a small terrorist cabal, and was not indicative of the feelings of all Arabs or their leaders.

None of this is meant to endorse her comments, but I think you'd have to have more balls than a driving range to stand in judgment of her for what she said within the context in which she said it.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your question, "What would you think of that woman three years later if you heard that quote?" - Can you clarify? I just don't get it in that context.
 

Here is what the woman said. You decide:

"The slaughtered us. Allah will destroy their houses!"
"Allahu Ackbar! (God is Great)"
"Allah destroy their houses!"
"Victory to Iraq!"
"I pray to Allah to avenge us!"
"I can only count on you Allah!"

Nice woman, really.

For the record, she didn't have anyone of her relatives die. If so you can bet Moore would have played on it. She said her uncle's house was destroyed and five people died since the war started.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your question, "What would you think of that woman three years later if you heard that quote?" - Can you clarify? I just don't get it in that context.
What I mean is that if you were to hear that hypothetical soundbyte again today you would probably think, "Wow, that woman's a racist."
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: dwell
Here is what the woman said. You decide:

"The slaughtered us. Allah will destroy their houses!"
"Allahu Ackbar! (God is Great)"
"Allah destroy their houses!"
"Victory to Iraq!"
"I pray to Allah to avenge us!"
"I can only count on you Allah!"

Nice woman, really.

Uhh . . . huh. Why does this bother you? Do you think she should have calmly said, "Well, there were bound to be some collateral damage in the admirable American quest to liberate Iraq from our brutal dictator"?

Who are you to stand in judgment of this statement?
 

Originally posted by: DonVito
Uhh . . . huh. Why does this bother you? Do you think she should have calmly said, "Well, there were bound to be some collateral damage in the admirable American quest to liberate Iraq from our brutal dictator"?

Who are you to stand in judgment of this statement?
It bothers me because Moore whored her out for his political motivations. And all emotions aside, she was telling God to burn down our houses. To this day I don't ask Jesus to kill Bin Laden. Me > Her