FAHRENHEIT 9/11

[conus]

Sometimes I think the lefties put sympathy over survival which is just wrong. You gotta balance your sympathy with some common sense some times.

Kids with guns count as enemy combatants, end of story.

My point was that the thousands of children killed by American airstrikes in both Panama and Iraq were not combatants. They were unarmed civilians. But the above quotes say a lot. If you invade someone's village and a child tries to defend it, gun him down.

[Brandon]

conus = mesobe

[Perndog]

I agree.

[AChimp]

If you invade someone's village and a child tries to defend it, gun him down.

Yeah. Duh. He's trying to gun you down.

[conus]

Yeah. Duh. He's trying to gun you down.

Interesting pronoun choice. Not long after the war began I heard one of my neighbors say, "We're really kickin' their ass," although neither he nor I were kicking anyone's ass. In truth we were standing in his front yard. I just took his statement to mean, "I'm really not a middle-class wimp! You can tell by what I like on TV!"

[ranxer]

oh man, kids with guns? give me a break. the throngs of people that surrounded the americans that i know that visited iraq had no weapons.. ive yet to hear anything about 9 to 15 year olds with guns in iraq. i'm willing to admit that maybe 1 to 5% of those 55% children have guns available by some means but again i know several people that spent weeks there and never saw one.

sad that americans are so quick to treat them as combatants.

id say it has something to do with racism.. its much easier to judge these people if we assume they are all hating zealots.

the folks i know were treated to a ton of hospitality even after the iraqis lost loved ones to our bombs. that says a lot about thier lack of a rush to judgement. i'm sure if the iraqi government accidentally blew up a few houses in my neighborhood they wouldnt be treated anywhere near the same if they visited here. :/

[punkgrrrlie10]

"The folks you know" are specific instances. When you are in a situation where your survival depends on always being on your guard...yes you treat everyone as a potential enemy...

And I think Chimp's pronoun choice had less to do with "we are kicking everyone's asses" and more to do with what he would do in a given situation where a child in front of him had a gun and it was him or them. You would react the same way that "they" would.

[Sethomas]

Episdode Two: Attack of the Clones?

[GAsux]

Kevin,
Sorry I missed this earlier as it's slipped so far it's become a moot point in the direction of the thread. I hate when real life gets in the way.

Regardless, here's what I'm saying with regards to the bin Laden family. The familes activities, connections, etc are well documented. They've been traced, followed, etc for the better half of the 90s. When the CIA created is "bin Laden" team, they basically obsessed themselves with everything Usama.

The reason I beleive it's NOT a valid argument is because I believe that bin Laden's family connections had already been exhaustively studied, with the conclusion being they had virtually no ties, almost no communication (there was indications that he contact mom a few times) and no control or persuasion over anything he did.

It wasnt as if bin Ladens family was living here in the U.S. and all around the world for years while we were targeting him as a chief backer of terrorism without pursuing that avenue. It was already done and over at that point and there was no reason to believe that they had any worthwhile information in the first place. Therefore, my point being they had no more knowledge of bin Laden's activities than O.J's mom did of his. Or Tim McVeighs of his, if you prefer to use the analogy on a grander scale.

[Stabby]

Originally Posted by GAsux

The reason I beleive it's NOT a valid argument is because I believe that bin Laden's family connections had already been exhaustively studied, with the conclusion being they had virtually no ties, almost no communication (there was indications that he contact mom a few times) and no control or persuasion over anything he did.

Well, studied or not, what would the harm have been in maybe kicking up an investigation after something of the magnitude of 9/11?

Apparently two of the bin Ladin's in the U.S., Omar and Abdullah, were involved in a group called the World Assembly of Muslim Youth which was labeled a "suspected terrorist organization." Now wheter it was or not, don't you think there maybe could have been an attempt at investigating any connection between them and their brother Usama, rather than rushing them out of the country? I thought the movie did a good job with this part.

Basically I agree with everyone on the movie in general. I thought it started out great, it presented you with a ton of information right away, and even though I had already heard all of it before, it made you think about it all over again and all at once. And for someone who may not be as inundated in Bush politics and criticism, like the theft of the election and the family/money connections, It hink it was good in that it will give them something to at least think about.

At some point though the movie seemed to slow down. We spend a lot of time in Flint and start to steer away from the big picture. And it sometime seemed like Moore didn't know what he wanted to say, but just wanted to take any stance opposite Bush, like as been mentioned already.

Still, if you haven't seen it you should, just for the sake of the hype if nothing else. If the Passion can get people all excitied over jesus, maybe this will at least get them excitied over something that really matters, like the dirction our country is going in.

[GAsux]

If they already knew, based upon over five years of tracking, phone tapping, etc., what would be the point? You're saying they should have done a dog and pony show to keep them even though they had nothing, just to make it appear that they were doing something? That's absurd.

The thing is, I will bet a large amount of money that all of those connections were ALREADY examined well prior to 9/11, with no results. By several accounts, the agents working in the bin Laden unit were considered to be almost cult like. In fact, they repeatedly challenged the Clinton Administration and George Tenet for NOT carrying out more strikes in Afghanistan when they had the chance.

They had sophisticated survelliance on bin Laden's routes, his safe houses, the methods he used to communicate with,etc. They had even used bin Ladens family as a source to get to him, asking for appeals from the family.

The reason they did not investigate after 9/11 is because they already knew there were no ties.

[The Retro Kat]

No, it's in fact absolutely nothing like that at all. 3,000 Americans had just been murdered. The United States of America had been attacked. Like Moore says in the film, I don't care if we have to inconvenience a few members of the Bin Laden family, you fucking do it. This is not a tiny point, I think it's in fact one of the strongest arguments he makes in the film.

And you're right, but Moore used the most useless fucking connection. He had a guy that was on for maybe 20 seconds say, "Bin Ladens are closer than you think, (I give you no evidence) recently there has been word that Osama was seen at a wedding"


OH SHIT SON THERE IS WORD ON THE STREET BITCHES, HE MIGHTA BEEN AT A WEDDING MUTHAFUCKA NO

[GAsux]

To further express what I'm getting at, the bin Laden family thing is suspect at absolute best. There has been no connection or indication of bin Laden having any type of communication with his family. Even if there had been an investigation, what could the possibly have hoped to get.

Rather than marginalize the argument with heresay and paper dragons, why not address the fact that at least half of the people who ACTUALLY COMMITTED the acts of 9/11 were on suspected terrorist "watch" lists, yet still managed to gain access to the country and live for several years in some cases, completely unmonitored.

Why not focus on real issues instead of arguments that lead nowhere? The bin Laden argument seems to imply that Bush is somehow mysteriously complicit in the 9/11 attacks, although the connection is vague and blury. It still gives the feeling that something sinister was afoot. The inability to stop suspected terrorists from entering the country in the first place or monitor their suspicious activities once they were in the country speaks more to beauracracy and mismanagement, which is far less sexy and sells far fewer books/papers/movies.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by GAsux

Why not focus on real issues instead of arguments that lead nowhere? The bin Laden argument seems to imply that Bush is somehow mysteriously complicit in the 9/11 attacks, although the connection is vague and blury. It still gives the feeling that something sinister was afoot. The inability to stop suspected terrorists from entering the country in the first place or monitor their suspicious activities once they were in the country speaks more to beauracracy and mismanagement, which is far less sexy and sells far fewer books/papers/movies.

Moore seems much more interested in making the Bushies out to be pure evil. Case in point? Intercutting video of Lila Lipscomb's grief with video of Bush smirking, blinking, or just generally looking clueless.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by GAsux

Regardless, here's what I'm saying with regards to the bin Laden family. The familes activities, connections, etc are well documented. They've been traced, followed, etc for the better half of the 90s. When the CIA created is "bin Laden" team, they basically obsessed themselves with everything Usama.

The reason I beleive it's NOT a valid argument is because I believe that bin Laden's family connections had already been exhaustively studied, with the conclusion being they had virtually no ties, almost no communication (there was indications that he contact mom a few times) and no control or persuasion over anything he did.

I'm fairly certain that if you took a poll of Americans, and askedthem the number one failure that may have led to 9/11, more people would point to CIA intelligence failures than to the Bush/Bin Laden links. You say that the Saudi/Bin Laden point had already been harped upon, when it reality it's only post 9/11, and more specifically post 9/11 panel hearings, that those matters have taken on a wider debate within the general public. Yes, intellectuals and ex-CIA operatives have been writing books for years. But those people are always writing books and are always expressing opinions on how the world does or should function. In contrast, a small cottage industry has appeared to pop up in regards to intelligence failures, more books have been written, and it has become "common knowledge" that our intelligence is supposedly poor.

Moore was presenting, from his partisan perspective, a more nefarious argument that implcates the President more so, and strips him of that deniability. I think you're wrong when you argue that the Bush/Saudi link has been exhausted. Perhaps amongst a select few, but the debate is just now taking it's place in the spot light, and rightfully so, IMO.

It wasnt as if bin Ladens family was living here in the U.S. and all around the world for years while we were targeting him as a chief backer of terrorism without pursuing that avenue. It was already done and over at that point and there was no reason to believe that they had any worthwhile information in the first place.

So why not let more people fly? As Moore himself points out, why ground harmless Ricky Martin? The comparisons to O.J., and McVeigh's mom, and whoever, just don't apply to this scenario. Once again, IMO, "exhausted outlets" could endure just a bit more "exhausting" when 3,000 Americans die.

And who says they had no worthwile information? You don't even question them? Fine, granted, let's say they were exhausted resources. Why do they get special exceptions? Why does this government scoop them up around the country? And please, don't give me the American backlash argument. They could've been protected in that case.

I'll say it again-- it's a day or two after arguably the worst attack on American soil ever, and you're going to tell me that we can go ahead and give them the green light to leave as a special exception, because the resource had been "exhausted" already.....?

[GAsux]

I wont get into all of that because it becomes a long winded argument which Im too lazy to engage in on a Sunday night.

But does not that then rationalize the argument to detain prisoners at Gitmo? There very well may be no charges against them either, and perhaps they are guilty of nothing more than association as well, but by that logic it seems to me to justify detention of them as well. In fact, the folks at Gitmo are probably MORE connected to terrorist attacks and Al Qaeda than bin Laden's family.

I agree they should have had to wait just like everyone else. But that's not the heart of the argument. And again, it alludes to a veiled reference that Bush was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by GAsux

But does not that then rationalize the argument to detain prisoners at Gitmo? There very well may be no charges against them either, and perhaps they are guilty of nothing more than association as well, but by that logic it seems to me to justify detention of them as well. In fact, the folks at Gitmo are probably MORE connected to terrorist attacks and Al Qaeda than bin Laden's family.

IT WASN'T EVEN A WEEK AFTER 9/11!!!!!!! YES, detaining potential terrorists or terrorist-links is a GOOD thing, but detaining them with no trial for an undetermined amount of time at Gitmo seems to me like a BAD thing, but I digress....

They should've waited like everyone else, and more importantly, they should've been investigated again in light of their relative attacking our country. If we can detain people with Arabic names, or probe people who opposed the war in Iraq, then we can certainly inconvenience the fucking Bin Laden family for a few extra days. Put them up in a nice hotel, treat them like the royalty they certainly think they are. Do whatever, but keep them, probe them, and MAKE SURE.

And again, it alludes to a veiled reference that Bush was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

I disagree. I think the point he was making was that the Bush family would/will kowtow to the Saudis, and that they would kowtow so much as to let people with possible terrorist attachments fly out like beloved diplomats. I don't think Moore ever argues for Bush complicity with 9/11, although you could certainly argue that his ambiguity dances on the line at times throughout the film....

[GAsux]

Can we at least agree that you're probably better educated on the subject and more grounded than 70% of the country who will see this movie?

While someone who's relatively informed and interested in the subject may have the ability to determine what is or isn't being conveyed, how many do you suppose will have that same ability?

Moore in my opinion has been purposely ambigious on many fronts, not just the bin Laden issue because it makes his case much stronger than if he got into the detials. Veiled references leaving the viewer to draw their own conclusions about what hes hinting at is far more effective. Regardless of the validity of the argument.

[ScruU2wice]

Some one made an interesting point about the whole Iraq playground scene, that we were totally being prepped for the war by the media but it musta been a total suprise to the people in Iraq. I think the whole playground thing was that people were living life as they do and all of a sudden America invades outta nowhere.

[george]

i plan to see this movie mostly because i already hate bush, and seeing him lampooned will amuse me. i dont care if moore is right or not, you can not want bush out of office ENOUGH as far as i am concerned.

ok, earlier there was sympathy for bush avoiding hard questions on the golf course by getting them to watch him swing the club, because he is on the golf course and what else should he be doing? HE SHOULD NOT BE ON THE FUCKING GOLF COURSE!!!!!! HE IS ON FUCKING VACATION WHILE AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND CITIZENS ARE BEING FUCKING MURDERED IN A MOTHERFUCKING WAR THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER FUCKING EVER STARTED

I REALLY DONT KNOW WHY THAT IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU. IF YOUR BUSINESS IS FAILING, YOU STAY AT THAT MOTHERFUCKING JOB UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS FIXED. we all live like this, except for the laziest, lowest morons. he is playing fucking golf while i am paying five fucking dollars a gallon for milk to pay for american soldiers to be murdered. "now watch this swing" indeed

and for those of you in the 18 to 25 range, unless you feel like a mandatory vacation in southwest asia, you better get on the anti bush wagon, cause the government is preparing for it. they have been slowly hiring people into the selective service offices, and laying the groundwork.

bush IS evil, and there are so many reasons that it could make you puke if you reviewed them all ( i will start another thread for that idea), and no one seems to see it.

i am just glad moore is adding fuel to the anti-bush fire.

[Perndog]

"murdered" soldiers

It's not murder if you volunteer for military service. Military = war = people die.

[ziggytrix]

But it IS murder if they capture you, then decapitate you while you are their prisoner.

[george]

they chopped the head off a marine yesterday.

the marine was enaged in the occupation of a country we should have never invaded. even if you accept the occupation of iraq as something we should have been involved in (and being a dumb ass you might) then you can not seriously think that getting kidnapped and having your head chopped off is perfectly normal conduct during a war. it is murder no matter how you stand on the iraq issue.

it is easy for you to say "they volunteered for it". no they did not. they volunteered to defend their country against foes foriegn and domestic, not be the instruments for US oil policy. just cause somebody with more guts than your sorry ass will ever have made a commitment to serve the needs of his country does not mean that that pledge should be abused and misused and then shoved in their face to show them where they stand. it is especially people like you that make me disgusted by the current state of our country, you sit there in all your wussy splendor minimizing the loss of brave people with a smug "they volunteered for it" while you have never volunteered to do anything more signifigant than to buy the next round.

[Perndog]

Yawn. Ad hominem is fun, right? Especially when you don't know anything about your target, right? And when you're on the Internet so you don't have to provide any evidence at all, right?

Being taken prisoner is normal conduct in a war.

Having your head chopped off is normal conduct in a Middle Eastern prison.

I don't have anything more to say on the topic.

[george]

i somehow doubt i was far off the mark.

yes, yawn, you have nothing to worry about. you are perfectly safe in your middle class insignifigance.