the documentary fahrenheit 9/11

[careyprice31]

the documentary fahrenheit 9/11?
by michael moore?

what did u think of it?

This is a post I made at another forum not long after the anniversary of sept 11, 2007. I had seen the doc that night. Just thought I'd throw it on here to get input from you and see what u think.

Here's what I think. As a 4th year history student @ university i thought that if the so called evidence that moore gives in this movie were ever presented in a good court it would never hold up. He suggests that the 2000 election was rigged somehow. He only said that the governor of florida was bush's brother but there is no real evidence or actually digging into archives to try and find out the truth. He brought up the link between the bin laden family, bush's family, and saudi arabia, but that is not even really evidence for his theory that bush had something to do with 9/11. As was mentyioned in the doc, Bin Laen was condiered the black sheep of the family and many of his own family had disowned him. Bush's relations with saudi arabia's family and the bin ladens isnt evidence that bush is partly to blame for 9/11 since osama was disowned by his own family. There is also the idea that bin laden also wanted to be in charge of saudi arabia, overthrow the royal family, and rule himself. Since he didnt like his own family, nor saudi arabia, attacking america, saudi's ally, would try to drive a wedge and an iron curtain between them and the americans. Michael Moore in a sense is giving osama ammuntion and actually the documentary is helping osama becase it suggests the bush family collaborated with the bin ladens to commit 9/11.

Next he refers to the war with iraq. moore never gives the" evidence " that iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, though a commission had said he never had them, but moore never said that. He never gives any evidence for anything, not real evidence, anyway. I've been down in archives of my university, looking through real documents. Those are not even secret becuse they are open to the univ public. I can imagine the us government has archives not accessible to the common shmuck. Yet in the documentary there is nothing to suggest moore even set foot inside an archive to do any real reearch, investigation, or detective work.

To conclude, imo, the whole "documentary" is hearsay and just use of videos and clips of scraps of things that its like everyday things you'd see on the news fit together to try and make bush look bad. I've watched hundreds of documentaries and have listened to real historians who do real researh to try and seek the truth. Moore's show is just something put together as propaganda to influence people's thinking, but it is not real and imho would never fool a real honest and thinking individual.

And the man himself. Going to the credibility of Michael Moore himself, he is a film maker, a journalist, he isnt even a real historian, he probably doesn;t even have any business making something like this that tries to pass itself off as a legit documentary. It's obvious there was no real research being done, sneaking into archives to try and find out what really happened. This is obvious to me, and i'monly a 4th year history student.

and i heard the show either received, or was nominated for an academy award. Whoever decides these things imho most have very few brain cells. It is not good enough to receve a nomination or w/e, even if u left out the part about lack of real research and the man's credibility. I have no idea who the hell was b00ming on what kinda shr00ms the time they chose to nominate that show.

Just thought I'd bring this up seeing as how i saw the show last night and it came on not long before the anniversary. I'd like to know what do u guys think of the show.

Just so you know, I really dislike Bush. But i've got my doubts that he was involved in 9/11 (why would they want to hurt and destory their own country, the most powerful an d well known government in the world, want to hurt their own people?) The us is very much scrutinized by te whole world, it being so influential and all. If they even lifted a finger to scratch their nose (or choked on a pretzel lol) everyone knows about it. It would be very bad if they were involved with 9/11. The whole world would trun against them if they were there would be nothing good come out of it, the big reasons i have my doubts about them being involved in it.

What do u guys think?

[Psy]

Yes Moore is a lazy bastard that doesn't do any real research so you shouldn't look at anything Moore does as proof of anything. Also his movie was released far too soon as few facts existed back then.

Regarding 9/11, real researches have raised questions why the Bush admin stone walled the 9/11 investigation for so long and when he had no choice but to have a investigation he put people loyal to the party at the head of the investigation, letting Democrats ask questions but the Republican Party having the only say of what gets put in the official record. The co-chair Lee Hamiton even said the final version of the commission's report is completely watered down from what the 9/11 commission was able to find out.

Why did Cheney change his story of when he went into PEOC but the investigation went with Cheney's latest version of events that put him in PEOC much later then everyone other then Cheney testified?

Then you had Norman Mineta testimony where an officer was reading out the distance of flight 77 and at 10 miles out the officer asks if the orders still stand and Cheney yelled that they did. Then you had Richard Myers promoted, when he didn't provide any defence, if we are to assume Cheney was talking about an order to shoot why was Richard Myers promoted for failing to carry out of the order? And from Richard Myers own testimony "The exercises actually enhanced the response" saying everything was already deployed for the war game of an attack against the capital. So wait, Cheney gives an order to shot flight 77 down, Richard Myers says they were already fully deployed to counter an attack on the capital due to the war game, and after 9/11 he was promoted for failing to intercept flight 77 when they already had everything deployed needed to defend the capital for the war game.

You have to admit something is really fishy.

[EricTheRed]

Just FYI, the 2000 elections were rigged;

www dot michaelparenti dot org/stolenelections.html

[R_P_A_S]

can you say the same about SiCKO?

[erupt]

All the hate against a social democrat just because he's not a blatant revolutionary?

At least the guy is trying, somehow, to get the people to awaken in anyway. If people like Moore weren't doing things like these documentaries, I'm sure more people would still be behind the American imperialism in the Middle East.

[EricTheRed]

Just so you know, I really dislike Bush. But i've got my doubts that he was involved in 9/11 (why would they want to hurt and destory their own country, the most powerful an d well known government in the world, want to hurt their own people?) The us is very much scrutinized by te whole world, it being so influential and all. If they even lifted a finger to scratch their nose (or choked on a pretzel lol) everyone knows about it. It would be very bad if they were involved with 9/11. The whole world would trun against them if they were there would be nothing good come out of it, the big reasons i have my doubts about them being involved in it.What the hell do you do with your history books? Use them as pillows? It doesn't seem like you read them, at least.

The American empire is willing to do anything it takes to start a war - including hijack a plane, crash it and blame it on another country (Cuba.) I don't think that Bush gave the orders, but you would deny that they wouldn't do something like this? Seriously?

At the very least, we know - as we knew then - that the administration was briefed about the threat a month or so into Bush's presidency and they did jack shit about it.

[careyprice31]

What the hell do you do with your history books? Use them as pillows? It doesn't seem like you read them, at least.

The American empire is willing to do anything it takes to start a war - including hijack a plane, crash it and blame it on another country (Cuba.) I don't think that Bush gave the orders, but you would deny that they wouldn't do something like this? Seriously?

At the very least, we know - as we knew then - that the administration was briefed about the threat a month or so into Bush's presidency and they did jack shit about it.

would have to agree with you there. They didnt do a whole lot to prevent it.

and the americans have a history of making things up and using it as an excuse to go and start something. Like Vietnam. in that the americans claimed a ship was sunk by vietnamese and they used that to start the vietnam war. But in a documentary a pilot flying overhead at the time saiud that no such thing had ever happened and that the americans had lied.

[Faux Real]

Just FYI, the 2000 elections were rigged;

www dot michaelparenti dot org/stolenelections.html
They're all sham elections.

[EricTheRed]

would have to agree with you there. They didnt do a whole lot to prevent it.

That was the premise of Michael Moore's argument.

In fact, almost every point you made in the original post sounded like you pulled it off of a nutcase right-wing site like MooreWatch.


and the americans have a history of making things up and using it as an excuse to go and start something. Like Vietnam. in that the americans claimed a ship was sunk by vietnamese and they used that to start the vietnam war. But in a documentary a pilot flying overhead at the time saiud that no such thing had ever happened and that the americans had lied.

True enough, but they've also gone to lengths to kill people - even their own citizens - to achieve their ends. 2,000 people ain't shit to the American government, to be honest. If they can't get their way through lies, they'll do it by just outright massacring the people.

Really - I'm extremely surprised that we're even having this discussion on a leftist board, much less a revolutionary leftist board. This is a discussion I'd expect to have at FreeRepublic or some other Libertard/Conservatrash website.

[careyprice31]

That was the premise of Michael Moore's argument.

In fact, almost every point you made in the original post sounded like you pulled it off of a nutcase right-wing site like MooreWatch.



True enough, but they've also gone to lengths to kill people - even their own citizens - to achieve their ends. 2,000 people ain't shit to the American government, to be honest. If they can't get their way through lies, they'll do it by just outright massacring the people.

Really - I'm extremely surprised that we're even having this discussion on a leftist board, much less a revolutionary leftist board. This is a discussion I'd expect to have at FreeRepublic or some other Libertard/Conservatrash website.


well i have doubts about Michael Moore.

Im a 4th year history student, and im going to go to graduate school of history for my masters.

I've been to real archives and studied real, documents.

The moore documentary wasnt convincing imho. He did not go to archives and real study to try and get the cold hard facts before making that

Thats not reactionary to have doubts about him.

Blind loyalty and accepting things just because they are done by a leftist or from a leftist point of view without studying further into it and just blindly accepting it is a fool's choice.

[EricTheRed]

well i have doubts about Michael Moore.

Im a 4th year history student, and im going to go to graduate school of history for my masters.

I've been to real archives and studied real, documents.

The moore documentary wasnt convincing imho. He did not go to archives and real study to try and get the cold hard facts before making that

Thats not reactionary to have doubts about him.

Blind loyalty and accepting things just because they are done by a leftist or from a leftist point of view without studying further into it and just blindly accepting it is a fool's choice.

Really?

It's not blind loyalty. These are arguments that pre-dated Moore's documentary. I'll have to go watch it again, but what I got from it was it was almost completely accurate, with one or two non-sequitors thrown in for good measure. But, the points that you complain about, at least, you've made no attempt to refute. If they're such bad arguments, and you've supposedly been to the archives, then refute the bad arguments - it shouldn't be that hard. Don't mouth right-wing talking points.

That you're a 4 year history student is entirely irrelevant, btw.

[careyprice31]

Really?

It's not blind loyalty. These are arguments that pre-dated Moore's documentary. I'll have to go watch it again, but what I got from it was it was almost completely accurate, with one or two non-sequitors thrown in for good measure. But, the points that you complain about, at least, you've made no attempt to refute. If they're such bad arguments, and you've supposedly been to the archives, then refute the bad arguments - it shouldn't be that hard. Don't mouth right-wing talking points.

That you're a 4 year history student is entirely irrelevant, btw.

so because i don't accept michael moore that is mouthing right wing?

He claimed that Bush was actually in league with osama and was responsible for 9/11 attacks by saying that Bush was friends with some of Osama's family, Sorry, but being friends with the family of a terrorist does not mean that Bush is responsible for 9/11.

Osama's own family, most of them, have disowned him, as the documentary pointed out.

This weakens his theory, not strengthens it.

That is a very weak justification for making such a serious charge as the Bush administration being involved with 9/11.

One would need more evidence to claim that.

[EricTheRed]

so because i don't accept michael moore that is mouthing right wing?

I never charged anything like that, nor implied it. You're just mouthing right-winged talking points. It's that simple.


He claimed that Bush was actually in league with osama and was responsible for 9/11 attacks by saying that Bush was friends with some of Osama's family, Sorry, but being friends with the family of a terrorist does not mean that Bush is responsible for 9/11.

Osama's own family, most of them, have disowned him, as the documentary pointed out.

This weakens his theory, not strengthens it.

That is a very weak justification for making such a serious charge as the Bush administration being involved with 9/11.

One would need more evidence to claim that.Except he never said anything of the sort in the documentary. Go back and watch the documentary again. This time, though, don't try so hard to find arguments that aren't there.

He questioned why everyone else's flights were grounded, but not the bin Laden family - and why the government didn't question them, at all. The only implication that is made is that, the reason for this is because George Bush has business ties with the family. Perhaps someone who was looking for the argument that George Bush == Osams bin Laden could find it, but the only reason why they would think that is because they missed the nuances.

More over, the charge isn't that Bush was involved in 9/11 - the charge was he knew that something was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. Which, we know now, is absolutely true.

Now, there is some questionable editing, but Moore's intention, I don't think, was ever to be fair - as well, his intents don't have to be that. The right-wing isn't in the business of making fair arguments... in fact, they, often, just lie. At least, with this, everything in the documentary is factually correct. Presenting a fair argument is a different thing, but it's not necessarily the goal. The goal was to show people that Bush tricked the American public and shoved us into a war to benefit his oil buddies.

It's like the Sicko documentary. He's not looking to give the pharmas air-time because they've had enough air-time. Just as Bush has had enough air-time. It's time to start showing people the bullshit.

Seems to me that you've missed nearly the entire point of the documentary. I also question why you decided to use right-wing attack points to lay out your argument, and why you have not made any effort to refute Moore's arguments, at all.

[careyprice31]

I never charged anything like that, nor implied it. You're just mouthing right-winged talking points. It's that simple.

Except he never said anything of the sort in the documentary. Go back and watch the documentary again. This time, though, don't try so hard to find arguments that aren't there.

He questioned why everyone else's flights were grounded, but not the bin Laden family - and why the government didn't question them, at all. The only implication that is made is that, the reason for this is because George Bush has business ties with the family. Perhaps someone who was looking for the argument that George Bush == Osams bin Laden could find it, but the only reason why they would think that is because they missed the nuances.

More over, the charge isn't that Bush was involved in 9/11 - the charge was he knew that something was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. Which, we know now, is absolutely true.

Now, there is some questionable editing, but Moore's intention, I don't think, was ever to be fair - as well, his intents don't have to be that. The right-wing isn't in the business of making fair arguments... in fact, they, often, just lie. At least, with this, everything in the documentary is factually correct. Presenting a fair argument is a different thing, but it's not necessarily the goal. The goal was to show people that Bush tricked the American public and shoved us into a war to benefit his oil buddies.

It's like the Sicko documentary. He's not looking to give the pharmas air-time because they've had enough air-time. Just as Bush has had enough air-time. It's time to start showing people the bullshit.

Seems to me that you've missed nearly the entire point of the documentary. I also question why you decided to use right-wing attack points to lay out your argument, and why you have not made any effort to refute Moore's arguments, at all.

I do not need to watch the documentary again. have always wanted to see it, and when it came on tv I paid very close attention to it and what was said and what was involved, especially so because over the years ive watched thousand documentarie, and wanted to know how Michael Moore did.

I know for a fact itr is not a genuine documentary, and Moore is not a historian, and he did not even do any real research. I know this for a fact. Ask any historian or history prof, they would agree with me.

Moreover, I wrote this analysis posted first in this thread just after I watched it, in fact not more than a few hours after, so my memory of what it contains are quite accurate.

It is you who is assuming things without asking for the facts.

And again, I must5 tell you that doubting Moore is not right wing. It seems you are confused. I do not doubt that there is a possibility of the us government, if not being involved directly, than of knowing about it in advance and doing nothing. The possibility exists , I am a history student and know about the actions of various US administrations over the decades and centuries moreover. They have tried to kill people, they have invaded other countries, they have annexed, they have conquered, they have sought to establish their own empire. They have not been angels. So the possibility exists.

However, I do not believe that Michael Moore proved his case with this documentary. It is not a true historical documentary (wasnt even put on the history channel for god's sake) it is something by a journalist used for propaganda purposes, not to seek the truth, to find the truth, to live the truth.

Historians seek the truth, but not only what happened, but also why it happened. That is another thing about Michael Moore. He does not even attempt to explain anything of why things happen.

He cannot be trusted, and anyone who does believe him and such is being foolish. Im sorry to be rude, but that is how I see it. Blind loyalty because of something that is leftist. Even thinking leftists would have to agree that you cannot automatically trust whatvere someone says just because they are leftist.

There has to be more than that.

I do not doubt that the administration could have known and done nothing. But I doubt Michael Moore's documentary. There is a difference between doubting the theory altogether and dismissing it outright, and doubting one person who says it.

That being said, I do not dismiss Moore altogether. He is a journalist, and so would have access to information about different things. But, he is not a historian, and to approve a documentray done by him to be just as valid as a deep work looked into by real, true historians, is quite silly.

Michael Moore completely missed the whole point. Essentially, he was trying to get a point across to the masses. That is fine, except that he fell into the trap of leaving much out, in the mistake of sacrificing academia and real research and instead replacing it with propaganda that really has no background.

There is a way to communicate your thoughts to the masses in simple language that is easy to understand, but without sacrificing any of the homework that needs to be done. But falling into the trap of skipping deep intellectual and well thought out documentary for simplistic propaganda isnt the way.

[EricTheRed]

I do not need to watch the documentary again.have always wanted to see it, and when it came on tv I paid very close attention to it and what was said and what was involved, especially so because over the years ive watched thousand documentarie, and wanted to know how Michael Moore did.

Well, evidently, you didn't take much away from it. It sounds like you jumped on some right-wing Moore-hating website and C&Ped their criticisms into your OP.


I know for a fact itr is not a genuine documentary, and Moore is not a historian, and he did not even do any real research. I know this for a fact. Ask any historian or history prof, they would agree with me.

Again, you completely missed the point. In addition to this, you've constructed a huge straw-man. I hope that you brush up on logical fallacies and how to avoid them, for your sake, if you ever decide to do a Masters dissertation or a PhD thesis. You will not be a respected student-of-history (I hate the word "historian") if you can't keep your arguments truthful.

But that's the crux of the situation; Moore is not a "historian", nor did he ever claim to be. He is a journalist, and a pretty fine one at that, despite his very reformist tendencies. It's not a journalist's job to be a historian - it's to report the facts, which Moore does in his documentaries.


Moreover, I wrote this analysis posted first in this thread just after I watched it, in fact not more than a few hours after, so my memory of what it contains are quite accurate.

You were either actively looking for arguments that weren't in the documentary, or you have a shit memory - which is unbecoming of a student of history, I have to say.


It is you who is assuming things without asking for the facts.

Nay. I've looked at Moore's arguments. The "problem" isn't the facts - the facts are straight and they're there. What people have a problem with - though conflate, erroneously, with presenting a fact-less argument - is the view point he was presenting the facts in. The time the documentary came out, the American public were on their patriotic high horses and didn't dare question the commander-in-chief. You were pretty much a pariah or a communist (of course, not saying that's a bad thing - :cool:) if you did.

Had Moore released this documentary right now, I highly doubt we would've seen the same bru-ha-ha now as we did then - including the meaningless OP. In fact, he probably would've been contacted by Obama or Hillary to fill in as a position of some kind of adviser.


And again, I must5 tell you that doubting Moore is not right wing. It seems you are confused. I do not doubt that there is a possibility of the us government, if not being involved directly, than of knowing about it in advance and doing nothing. The possibility exists , I am a history student and know about the actions of various US administrations over the decades and centuries moreover. They have tried to kill people, they have invaded other countries, they have annexed, they have conquered, they have sought to establish their own empire. They have not been angels. So the possibility exists.

And, yet again, you're constructing strawmen. I never said that doubting Michael Moore is right-wing. There's plenty to criticize him about and to doubt him for, from a leftist perspective. However - I say again - the arguments you were presenting in your OP, and continue to present, are right-wing mouthings; that he got the facts wrong or that he accused Bush of being "in" on the 9/11 attacks. It's just not true. He doesn't claim to be fair, and he doesn't claim to be a "historian".

But, frankly though, I'm surprised to hear a supposed leftist - Marxist, even - having a quarrel with the context of how the facts are presented. You think that when Marx was writing that he thought to level the playing field and present a "fair" picture of the working class in-relation to the capitalists? No. And why should he? The point isn't to placate the capitalists, or bourgeois analysts looking for "fair" arguments. It's was to present the view for the working class and calls for action.

Similarly, let's take Zinn, for an example. When he set out to write the People's History, was he looking to write a fair book of history - that wouldn't have favored the oppressed, and the people? No. He wrote that book from the view-point of the oppressed people. Not to be fair to the oppressors.

So, like Zinn and like Marx, Moore is not setting out to create a "fair" representation of the Bush administration or their policies. And focusing on really petty shit, or just plain making things up, indicates that you either didn't take it seriously enough, didn't pay attention or were looking for these things and are merely suffering from an over-active imagination.


However, I do not believe that Michael Moore proved his case with this documentary. It is not a true historical documentary (wasnt even put on the history channel for god's sake) it is something by a journalist used for propaganda purposes, not to seek the truth, to find the truth, to live the truth.

I can't believe that you're a four-year history student. You think the validity of a historical documentary is it's ability to get onto the friggin' History Channel? Are you kidding me?

But, even so, that's entirely irrelevant. The point wasn't to produce a historical documentary. The point was to show people what the Bush administration was doing, why they were doing it and who had to benefit from it - and he did a damn fine job. I challenge you to go through the documentary and try to debunk it. Not present empty off-topic arguments.


Historians seek the truth, but not only what happened, but also why it happened. That is another thing about Michael Moore. He does not even attempt to explain anything of why things happen.

More over, I can't believe that you actually saw this documentary. Most of it is explaining why we went to war and why we were attacked. Is this your reputation on these forums? For being an idiot?


He cannot be trusted, and anyone who does believe him and such is being foolish. Im sorry to be rude, but that is how I see it. Blind loyalty because of something that is leftist. Even thinking leftists would have to agree that you cannot automatically trust whatvere someone says just because they are leftist.

And I never said that leftists had to believe everything that he said, or even most. However, it's clear, to me at least, that the documentary we're discussing is mostly true, if not completely true. You've yet to address anything in the documentary or even try to debunk it, so why should we trust you or your arguments?


I do not doubt that the administration could have known and done nothing. But I doubt Michael Moore's documentary. There is a difference between doubting the theory altogether and dismissing it outright, and doubting one person who says it.

But you seem to conflate the two in your posts. Again, the arguments that Moore presented in that documentary pre-date the making of it. In fact, a lot of them were brought up by leftist skeptics right from the get-go.

Because of your innate distrust of Moore, you're throwing the baby out with the bath-water. You are disregarding the arguments because it's Moore saying it. But, you don't have to trust him. Chomsky has presented the same arguments - I believe Zinn and Parenti have, also.


That being said, I do not dismiss Moore altogether. He is a journalist, and so would have access to information about different things. But, he is not a historian, and to approve a documentray done by him to be just as valid as a deep work looked into by real, true historians, is quite silly.

This is crap. You just complete wrote off Moore not a paragraph ago. If you're going to spew bullshit, at least get it straight.


Michael Moore completely missed the whole point. Essentially, he was trying to get a point across to the masses. That is fine, except that he fell into the trap of leaving much out, in the mistake of sacrificing academia and real research and instead replacing it with propaganda that really has no background.

It is propaganda, but so effing what? The point was explained clearly and he had evidence and circumstances to back them up. No one, not even you, has even tried debunking his arguments. So, if you have such a damn problem with it, then debunk!

[Lector Malibu]

Here's a link I posted the other day. It is related to this discussion though. I also do not like the man that the commentary is made by. In fairness though he is spot on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy2QYoT4LWw (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy2QYoT4LWw)

[EricTheRed]

Here's a link I posted the other day. It is related to this discussion though. I also do not like the man that the commentary is made by. In fairness though he is spot on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy2QYoT4LWw (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy2QYoT4LWw)

That is fucking hilarious.

The night that F 9/11 premiered, Alex Jones was at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin PRAISING Moore.

[Lector Malibu]

That is fucking hilarious.

The night that F 9/11 premiered, Alex Jones was at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin PRAISING Moore.

Yeah , I didn't know that and there has been talk that he is a fraud and whatnot, but really I remember 9/11 like it was yesterday and I remember noticing things that he talks about that the news would let slip than they would go back and change things so really as much as I hate to admit it he's on the mark in this case.

[EricTheRed]

Yeah , I didn't know that and there has been talk that he is a fraud and whatnot, but really I remember 9/11 like it was yesterday and I remember noticing things that he talks about that the news would let slip than they would go back and change things so really as much as I hate to admit it he's on the mark in this case.

I don't think so. The standard MO for Jones and the other MIHOP 9/11 Truthers is that they will scour the archives for obscure articles and then cherry pick information from them.

Jones largely questioned why Moore didn't basically say that Bush made 9/11 happen; the reason is because there is no strong evidence to support the assertion. While it's entirely possible - it's not beneath our government to do such things, as Jones did correctly point out - there's no evidence at this time. The LIHOP theory (which is partly what Moore had presented in the film) has a lot more credibility to it because it has a lot more evidence behind it, now that we know what happened from the upper levels from leaked documents, government officials and so on.

[careyprice31]

Well, evidently, you didn't take much away from it. It sounds like you jumped on some right-wing Moore-hating website and C&Ped their criticisms into your OP.



Again, you completely missed the point. In addition to this, you've constructed a huge straw-man. I hope that you brush up on logical fallacies and how to avoid them, for your sake, if you ever decide to do a Masters dissertation or a PhD thesis. You will not be a respected student-of-history (I hate the word "historian") if you can't keep your arguments truthful.

But that's the crux of the situation; Moore is not a "historian", nor did he ever claim to be. He is a journalist, and a pretty fine one at that, despite his very reformist tendencies. It's not a journalist's job to be a historian - it's to report the facts, which Moore does in his documentaries.



You were either actively looking for arguments that weren't in the documentary, or you have a shit memory - which is unbecoming of a student of history, I have to say.



Nay. I've looked at Moore's arguments. The "problem" isn't the facts - the facts are straight and they're there. What people have a problem with - though conflate, erroneously, with presenting a fact-less argument - is the view point he was presenting the facts in. The time the documentary came out, the American public were on their patriotic high horses and didn't dare question the commander-in-chief. You were pretty much a pariah or a communist (of course, not saying that's a bad thing - :cool:) if you did.

Had Moore released this documentary right now, I highly doubt we would've seen the same bru-ha-ha now as we did then - including the meaningless OP. In fact, he probably would've been contacted by Obama or Hillary to fill in as a position of some kind of adviser.



And, yet again, you're constructing strawmen. I never said that doubting Michael Moore is right-wing. There's plenty to criticize him about and to doubt him for, from a leftist perspective. However - I say again - the arguments you were presenting in your OP, and continue to present, are right-wing mouthings; that he got the facts wrong or that he accused Bush of being "in" on the 9/11 attacks. It's just not true. He doesn't claim to be fair, and he doesn't claim to be a "historian".

But, frankly though, I'm surprised to hear a supposed leftist - Marxist, even - having a quarrel with the context of how the facts are presented. You think that when Marx was writing that he thought to level the playing field and present a "fair" picture of the working class in-relation to the capitalists? No. And why should he? The point isn't to placate the capitalists, or bourgeois analysts looking for "fair" arguments. It's was to present the view for the working class and calls for action.

Similarly, let's take Zinn, for an example. When he set out to write the People's History, was he looking to write a fair book of history - that wouldn't have favored the oppressed, and the people? No. He wrote that book from the view-point of the oppressed people. Not to be fair to the oppressors.

So, like Zinn and like Marx, Moore is not setting out to create a "fair" representation of the Bush administration or their policies. And focusing on really petty shit, or just plain making things up, indicates that you either didn't take it seriously enough, didn't pay attention or were looking for these things and are merely suffering from an over-active imagination.



I can't believe that you're a four-year history student. You think the validity of a historical documentary is it's ability to get onto the friggin' History Channel? Are you kidding me?

But, even so, that's entirely irrelevant. The point wasn't to produce a historical documentary. The point was to show people what the Bush administration was doing, why they were doing it and who had to benefit from it - and he did a damn fine job. I challenge you to go through the documentary and try to debunk it. Not present empty off-topic arguments.



More over, I can't believe that you actually saw this documentary. Most of it is explaining why we went to war and why we were attacked. Is this your reputation on these forums? For being an idiot?



And I never said that leftists had to believe everything that he said, or even most. However, it's clear, to me at least, that the documentary we're discussing is mostly true, if not completely true. You've yet to address anything in the documentary or even try to debunk it, so why should we trust you or your arguments?



But you seem to conflate the two in your posts. Again, the arguments that Moore presented in that documentary pre-date the making of it. In fact, a lot of them were brought up by leftist skeptics right from the get-go.

Because of your innate distrust of Moore, you're throwing the baby out with the bath-water. You are disregarding the arguments because it's Moore saying it. But, you don't have to trust him. Chomsky has presented the same arguments - I believe Zinn and Parenti have, also.



This is crap. You just complete wrote off Moore not a paragraph ago. If you're going to spew bullshit, at least get it straight.



It is propaganda, but so effing what? The point was explained clearly and he had evidence and circumstances to back them up. No one, not even you, has even tried debunking his arguments. So, if you have such a damn problem with it, then debunk!


Ok Im ending this right now. I would have just simply decided to agree to disagree.

BBut the very fact that you are resorting to personal attacks , name calling, and many assumptions such as me being "the forum idiot" when they are not true......I do not talk with nor debate with such people.


And the very fact you seem to equate Moore to Marx and say Marx did not base his theories on facts when he did, based on what he saw growing up in the industrial revolution era, living in different countries, spending hours and hours of his own time in the library researching and analyzing.......meeting many many of the eras very famous and well known revolutionaries of the time from different countries and tryingto learn just what was wrong and why it happened.

Im just done with this thread now.

by the way nobody else came here and thinks im an idiot or that my ideas and thoughts are wrong. And this is a forum full of thinking , philosophical people who think about life.

You joined lately, march 2008, so you simply assumed im the 'forum idiot' when people here just do not think this.

[EricTheRed]

And the very fact you seem to equate Moore to Marx and say Marx did not base his theories on facts when he did, based on what he saw growing up in the industrial revolution era, living in different countries, spending hours and hours of his own time in the library researching and analyzing.......meeting many many of the eras very famous and well known revolutionaries of the time from different countries and tryingto learn just what was wrong and why it happened.

Before you cop out of the thread and leave my questions unanswered, I'd like to correct this piece of misinformation;

In fact, I never said that Marx did not base his theories on facts. What I did say, however, if you read the fucking post, is that Marx did not present those facts in such a way that was fair to the capitalists - and rightly so. Just as Zinn didn't write the People's History to be fair to the imperialists and the oppressors. And just as Moore didn't create this film to be fair to the Bush administration or the war supporters.

You have a bit of trouble with reading comprehension.


Im just done with this thread now.

by the way nobody else came here and thinks im an idiot or that my ideas and thoughts are wrong. And this is a forum full of thinking , philosophical people who think about life.

You joined lately, march 2008, so you simply assumed im the 'forum idiot' when people here just do not think this.

First impressions are strong ones. You've consistently misrepresented my posts and have failed to back up your own points - all the while, you base your arguments on being a four-year history student, which is a red herring. If you're concerned with my impression of you, maybe it would do good for you to stop misrepresenting my arguments and actually address them.

Simple enough, don't you think?

[careyprice31]

Before you cop out of the thread and leave my questions unanswered, I'd like to correct this piece of misinformation;

In fact, I never said that Marx did not base his theories on facts. What I did say, however, if you read the fucking post, is that Marx did not present those facts in such a way that was fair to the capitalists - and rightly so. Just as Zinn didn't write the People's History to be fair to the imperialists and the oppressors. And just as Moore didn't create this film to be fair to the Bush administration or the war supporters.

You have a bit of trouble with reading comprehension.



First impressions are strong ones. You've consistently misrepresented my posts and have failed to back up your own points - all the while, you base your arguments on being a four-year history student, which is a red herring. If you're concerned with my impression of you, maybe it would do good for you to stop misrepresenting my arguments and actually address them.

Simple enough, don't you think?

I think i have backed up my points well. No one else has said anything about what i posted. only you. If they were wrong, and these are articulate, thoughtful people in revleft, they would be correcting me. These are people arent afraid to say what they think.

My post doesnt bother them......it seems to bother you though.

Actually, i thought about caring what you think. But when you talk like this, um.......no.

You sound like that Stalinist I had a debate with few weeks ago. Wouldnt accept anything of what I had to say and dismissed it altogether, said i hadnt proved my case that defendants at the moscow show trials were under duress and still calls me an anti- communist.

[careyprice31]

I did not pull anything off of a right wing site. I have never ever read anyone's opinions on michael moore. Nor do i care. I formed my own opinions of just his 9/11 movie, and not him as a whole, after watching it and applying what i have learned through my years of study and watching documentaries and things, to it.

You don't have to agree with me. But don't resort to personal attacks and flames. Please. I was enjoying our talk about this with you actually until I read your second last post with more of that than anything you previously said.

[Lector Malibu]

I don't think so. The standard MO for Jones and the other MIHOP 9/11 Truthers is that they will scour the archives for obscure articles and then cherry pick information from them.

Jones largely questioned why Moore didn't basically say that Bush made 9/11 happen; the reason is because there is no strong evidence to support the assertion. While it's entirely possible - it's not beneath our government to do such things, as Jones did correctly point out - there's no evidence at this time. The LIHOP theory (which is partly what Moore had presented in the film) has a lot more credibility to it because it has a lot more evidence behind it, now that we know what happened from the upper levels from leaked documents, government officials and so on.

Well that's true too. Again Jones and other's are not high on my list :) In my opinion Bush did not make 9/11 happen. Osama Bin Lauden did. Bush was yes a part, but he was not involved outside of allowing it to happen. That's why there is not evidence to say Bush was the master mind behind 9/11, because he wasn't. He was part of a team that stood to gain in various areas if it occurred.

[EricTheRed]

I think i have backed up my points well. No one else has said anything about what i posted. only you. If they were wrong, and these are articulate, thoughtful people in revleft, they would be correcting me. These are people arent afraid to say what they think.

My post doesnt bother them......it seems to bother you though.

Actually, i thought about caring what you think. But when you talk like this, um.......no.

It bothers me because you haven't actually backed up your points or addressed any of my questions. You keep constructing strawmen and presenting red-herrings.

Saying that Moore is a propagandist, saying that you're a four-year history student and that Moore is no historian, when he never said he was, is not backing up your arguments.


You sound like that Stalinist I had a debate with few weeks ago. Wouldnt accept anything of what I had to say and dismissed it altogether, said i hadnt proved my case that defendants at the moscow show trials were under duress and still calls me an anti- communist.

Another red-herring. I'm not accepting anything you have to say because you haven't said anything that's worth of consideration - mainly because a lot of what you said has had nothing to do with the topic.

It will be a lot less frustrating to have this discussion if you would a.) stick to the topic (that is, don't put words in Moore's mouth, stop bringing up irrelevant things) and b.) backing up your arguments (that is, debunking whatever it is you think Moore got wrong, addressing my points, and so on.)

[careyprice31]

well now I'll tell you the same thing I told Intelligitimate, the young Stalinist I debated with (who actually was really nice to talk with and never flamed a word)

I don't really want a debate where you actually go do research and find sources and evidence to really back up your point. I am capable of dsoing that as I do it in univ all the time, but I really don't do it on internet forums.

They are forums to me, good for information and light debates and so on, but no one actually really does this. Oh they may get a source or two and name examples of things, but they won't really go deep into it.

I am not sure, but it sounds like that is what you want.

May be I am wrong but I do not wish to get into it that much. I'd rather do it for my university, my degree and my masters thesis when i apply for grad school.

I posted a light opinion of fahrenheit 9/11, did not really want to prove it that much.

That would be work for an essay, not a little posts on internet forums.

If I do happen to do some research on it when i get time and finds some evidence, I will post it for you though.

Right now it isnt a big priority for me.

[EricTheRed]

The thing of it is, this doesn't take heavy research. These are known arguments. It's, literally, a search or two in Google kind-of-research.

In any case, though, why would you level relatively heavy accusations against a work and then not do the research? It's just laziness.

[careyprice31]

The thing of it is, this doesn't take heavy research. These are known arguments. It's, literally, a search or two in Google kind-of-research.

In any case, though, why would you level relatively heavy accusations against a work and then not do the research? It's just laziness.

Because I just wanted to write my opinion just from seeing it. Then write on my thoughts just from what i saw and drew from some of my own studies of historiography at univ. Thats all.