Fahrenheit 9/11 Review Thread

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Millane

thats why i said i did, i wasnt playing funny buggers
well youve missed the point, im not sure whether Nerdanel was asking for sympathy for them its just that terrorist and terrorism are being thrown about so often nowadays purely for political gain and at the expence of humans emotions....
hmmm now i think we can fit that into your nice little definition, politicians scaring innocent civilians for political gain.

yeah - i suppose 9/11 really didn't happen did it? let me see - if I drive 45 minutes from MY house do I still get to look on the twin Towers? Why no - I don't. There is terrorism around - whether you want to believe it or not. You can live in your little world of where America is the bad guys if you want - that is fine. I guess what you are basically doing is calling my brother and cousin and Beor - terrrorsts then.

and i read them as i thought they were intended, as questions, once you start making inferences from them you start thinking things like this

They weren't meant as questions. They were meant as an accusation that we have no right to determine what they are called. Are you that blind?

what about bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that a terrorist act JD?

No it wasn't - both those cities had military purposes to them. The US WARNED Japan that we would bomb if they did not surrender - they chose not to. It was a war which cost millions of american lives. Sorry - but the japanese chose to attack us in Pearl Harbor, the chose to bring us into the war. Was it terorrism that over a MILLION civilans died for the fight to Berlin?

[Millane]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

yeah - i suppose 9/11 really didn't happen did it? let me see - if I drive 45 minutes from MY house do I still get to look on the twin Towers? Why no - I don't. There is terrorism around - whether you want to believe it or not. You can live in your little world of where America is the bad guys if you want - that is fine. I guess what you are basically doing is calling my brother and cousin and Beor - terrrorsts then.

no reagrdless of what your hoping for, im not saying America is the bad guys and im not saying that 9/11 didnt happen, you get whingy when people put words into your mouth, well stop doing it.
And that last sentence amuses me a tad, how the hell did i call your brother and cousin and Beor terrorists?????????

They weren't meant as questions. They were meant as an accusation that we have no right to determine what they are called. Are you that blind?

ok if thats what she was thinking thats what she was thinking, im talking of them as questions.

No it wasn't - both those cities had military purposes to them. The US WARNED Japan that we would bomb if they did not surrender - they chose not to. It was a war which cost millions of american lives. Sorry - but the japanese chose to attack us in Pearl Harbor, the chose to bring us into the war. Was it terorrism that over a MILLION civilans died for the fight to Berlin?

this is where your getting confused JD im NOT saying people are terrorists and people arent, im asking. let me ask you now regarding Nagasaki and Hiroshima,did america "use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Millane

no reagrdless of what your hoping for, im not saying America is the bad guys and im not saying that 9/11 didnt happen, you get whingy when people put words into your mouth, well stop doing it.
And that last sentence amuses me a tad, how the hell did i call your brother and cousin and Beor terrorists?????????

Well aren't innocent people dying in Iraq and Afganistan because of us? That is your argument basically. You might not have said it - but all you arguments basically point that we are the terrorists (your reference to Vietnam and WWII, namely Nagasaki and Hiroshima). I see no difference in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima than the bombing of Dresdan or the current bombing of Najaf or Kabul. If that is the case - then you feel that my brother is a terrorist, just as I said, whether you want to admit it or not.

ok if thats what she was thinking thats what she was thinking, im talking of them as questions.

Fine - I'm not taking them as questions, I'm taking them as comments.

this is where your getting confused JD im NOT saying people are terrorists and people arent, im asking. let me ask you now regarding Nagasaki and Hiroshima,did america "use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

My dear Millane - no -IT WAS A WAR, the bombing was NOT for politcal purposes - nor was the intent to kill innocent lives. The purpose was to end a bloody war, which the Japanese started, with the LEAST amount of lives lost. See there is a difference - terrorists really don't care about the lives of innocent people at all. Terrorists take journalists hostage, terrorists take construction workers who are working to rebuild the infastructure hostage and cut of their heads, terrorists take Italian women who are teaching children and giving humanitarian aid hostage and threaten them. Terorists bomb night clubs in Bali, terrorists bomb trains during rush hour, terrorists bring down plane such as Pan Am 103 - which my father was initially booked on. Terrorists hold a thousand school children in russia with bombs all around and guns pointed at their heads.

With WWII - a full frontal attack on Japan would have cost many more lives, including innocent lives. Both cities were military targets, just like many of the German cities which were bombed into nothing and had thousands and thousands of civilians killed. What makes Nagasaki and Hiroshima different? Because a nuclear bomb was used? Give me a break. We could have gone in their with full squadrons of planes and caused just as much devestation. The outcome was the same - the only thing is that it ended the war quicker, with actually fewer lives lost than the alternatives. We didn't start world war II - but we sure as hell ended it. I'm not at all sorry for the way we ended it. My grandfather was in the Pacific fleet - that action may have saved his life.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well aren't innocent people dying in Iraq and Afganistan because of us? That is your argument basically. You might not have said it - but all you arguments basically point that we are the terrorists (your reference to Vietnam and WWII, namely Nagasaki and Hiroshima). I see no difference in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima than the bombing of Dresdan or the current bombing of Najaf or Kabul. If that is the case - then you feel that my brother is a terrorist, just as I said, whether you want to admit it or not..

no because that is not my opinion all im trying to say is that it isnt always as clear cut as you would have it.

My dear Millane - no -IT WAS A WAR, the bombing was NOT for politcal purposes - nor was the intent to kill innocent lives.

it doesnt even have to be for political purposes according to that definition you looked up which makes it a whole lot broader and incriminating a whole lot more people in your terrorist pile.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Millane

no because that is not my opinion all im trying to say is that it isnt always as clear cut as you would have it.

yeah you're right. They're actually just misunderstood. If we talked to them - they might stop cutting people's heads off - right? So then tell me - are they or are they not terrorists? And if it's not so clear cut - then what would they be?

Oh and I don't look at things in black and white like you claim. You might want to look at my many posts from 3 years ago. I just find it funny when people have this new Age look at the world and refuse to look at the way the world actually is - but instead only want to look at it in terms of an utopian society "if we all just got a long or war is never the answer"

it doesnt even have to be for political purposes according to that definition you looked up which makes it a whole lot broader and incriminating a whole lot more people in your terrorist pile.

yeah according to that definition - then most things could be terrorism - that is why I think that it has to be purposely directed at innocent people.

I looked up on Websters.com which gives more defintions - they conform to mine...

ter·ror·ismn

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state"

n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

[BeardofPants]

Guys, last time I checked, this thread was for the reviewing of the movie by wotshisface, not a political debate thread. There are already existing threads to discuss these issues in.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

I'm renting it next week on DVD. Does the movie actually put a positive spin on terrorism or is it just critical of the Bush presidency?

It certainly does not do the former!

What it does do is call into question the Bush administration's use of terrorism as a smokescreen for its policies. Of course, it is critical to the Bush lie to portray anyone who questions them as a friend of terrorists.

I'd be interested to hear your take on it once you've seen it.

On a side note, reading JD's definition of terrorism, it sounds like a very precise description of "Shock and Awe", the Pentagon's strategy for (for want of a better word) terrorising an enemy population en masse and forcing a quick surrender. CBS report re: Iraq

[Khamûl]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Guys, last time I checked, this thread was for the reviewing of the movie by wotshisface, not a political debate thread. There are already existing threads to discuss these issues in.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Khamûl

You took the words right out of my mouth.

You're right. Anyway the movie is in the entertainment/fiction section where it belongs anyway. Oh and Khamul - like your avatar. I'm going to use it. I was going to make my own - but I'm too lazy at the moment.

Gaffer - what Shock & Awe was was a strategy to end the war as quickly as possibly with the LEAST amount of innocent deaths - somethings terorists don't care about. Again you try to suggest that America and Bush is a terrorist.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Cirdan - it is service men question kerry's service record. So who is more patriotic then? The person who went before Congress and said that everyone fighting in vietnam was committing war crime?

Easy. The guy who speaks what he believes is the truth to an official body at the time it is relevant is the patriot(he didn't say "everybody", btw. nice try). The guy who appears with Kerry supporting him during Senate campaigns and then finally, when some long green is offered decides to trash him thirty years after the fact is a low life who can be bought and sold.

Kerry's unit suffered greater than 100% casualties during the war. I think the Purple Hearts are real. Republicans had no problem calling Clinton a draft dodger. Bush was a draft dodger too. Not because he opposed the war politically, but because he didn't want to get hurt (aka coward). Kerry talks the talk AND walks the walk.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Again you try to suggest that America and Bush is a terrorist.

Point of information: I've never suggested that America is a terrorist.

But I'd be interested to know how, exactly, is Shock and Awe supposed to work if not by terrorising an entire population?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Of course, it is critical to the Bush lie to portray anyone who questions them as a friend of terrorists.

"Bush lie"? What did he lie about, and do you have proof it's a lie? I don't get this "lie" thing. To me, a lie is an intentional deception.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"Bush lie"? What did he lie about, and do you have proof it's a lie? I don't get this "lie" thing. To me, a lie is an intentional deception.

You mean like them repeatedly saying "Bush lied about the WMD" - even though they know that he was going off of the same intelligence that everyone else had which said that Iraq DID have WMD?

Gaffer - see that's where you don't understand the Shock & Awe - it wasn't directed at the population. If that was the case - we would have "Shocked & Awed" the entire country. It was a show of force against the Iraqi military and also - it's purpose was to try taking Hussein out with the least amount of civilian casualities.

And you don't say that America is a terrorist - you just imply that. Again you imply that we are a terrorist with your lack of understanding of "Shock & Awe".

[Rían]

Yes, that's what I'm referring to, and I'm guessing Gaffer is referring to. It's an unfounded charge, IMO. I think it's much more likely to say Kerry lied about his Vietnam service, esp. with that tear-jerker "Christmas in Cambodia" story. Yet I won't say Kerry lied about Cambodia (even tho I think he did), because I don't see proof of it.

[HOBBIT]

yes, this thread is supposed to be about the movie.

please only discuss the things that transpired in the movie. only discuss facts that are in the movie..........

JD and Rian, did you two actually see the movie? Or did you just read articles about how wrong it is? If one or both of you have not seen the movie - i dont see how you can effectively review the film. In fact, I know that you cannot.

[Rían]

I wasn't reviewing the movie, I was commenting on Gaffer's comment. I'm the Queen of Rabbit Trails, you know! But I'll leave now ...

[Snowdog]

I did see this political ad (on a pass given to me by a friend) and I am happy to say I spent no money seeing it. I can't believe people actually paid to see it.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

I did see this political ad (on a pass given to me by a friend) and I am happy to say I spent no money seeing it. I can't believe people actually paid to see it.

Wow. Did you sit through the whole thing even though you didn't like it?

I think when it came out people went to see it because they felt they weren't getting a critical view from the news media, an excellent point made by the movie.

While Moore plays very fast and loose with the facts and even resorts to excessive video clip montages (out of context), some of it was very moving and disturbing. Every president has sucked up to the Saudis (and the Chinese) for that matter so that wasn't terribly shocking even though I find it disgusting. The most interesting parts were of the military operations and the life of the Iragis prior to the war. It seems to me after all Saddam had put them through in the past that they needed peace more than democracy. There were some interesting special scenes on the DVD, includiong footage of Abu Grahib from before the scandal.

I thought the film was well crafted (not great) but too bias to be useful in political consciousness raising. But if Cheney can go around saying that we'll all be killed by terrorists if Kerry is elected then what's the harm. The political waters couldn't be muddier.

I feel sorry for first time voters with no experience having to sieve through this much bull.

[HOBBIT]

i wanted to see this film again and see the special features. i wanted to take it out of the library (only 1$ donation for DVD rentals as opposed to $4.99 for blockbuster and hollywood).

Let me tell you: there is a HUGE waiting list to borrow the movie. I put my name down, and it will be at least 1 month til a copy will get to me.

[jerseydevil]

Edited by Azalea -- contentious post