Fahrenheit 9/11

Villain

Well I watched FAHRENHEIT 9/11 this evening and I was pretty much blown away by it, its a serious eye opener to what has been going on in the US in relation to 9/11 and dealings long before that between the Bush family and Bin Ladens family.

I'm not even going to try and list all the content as I think people would be best served by going and seeing it for themselves.

However I was wondering if anyone here has seen it and what they thought??

I was quite surprised at how it is almost totally centered around Bush, I thought it would have been more about 9/11 and it's lead up etc.

I found some of the info hard to believe, the amount of money that the Saudi's invest in the US is sureal.

So if you have seen it did you think it was just simply some Anti-Bush Propaganda or a well told documentary that gave us an insight into what really happens.

I was going to do a poll but I doubt that many people have managed to see it yet and well I think we have enough polls on politics without me adding to it.

Capt'n Midnight

I have not seen it but juging by what I have heard it's about the changes in the US of A since 9/11 and how 9/11 is used as an excuse for censorship...

Also the title is slightly rememiscent of Farenheit 451 which dealt with censorship too.

Yeah the Saudi's have been dumping money abroad - you'd think that the fundamemtalists were trying to take over or something.. In fact so much so that they'd nearly make more money by selling fuel cheap so their investments grow !

real problem is I don't this would sway people much - Bush has pretty much divided opinions all through.

bunnicans

i havent seen it either but i've seen a few interviews.seems some masterful editing went on in the making of this documentary and i think its important that we take this into account before we all jump on the anti-american wagon.i'm not taking sides in this debate,god knows its a very risky subject,but the documentary is clearly bias.it would be very interesting to see the other side of the story in a documentary.

sceptre

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Also the title is slightly rememiscent of Farenheit 451 which dealt with censorship too.

I really don't want to be a smarmy smarty pants but I suspect that's why the title was chosen. Isn't one of the taglines for Moore's movie something along the lines of "the temperature at which freedom burns"? And Ray Bradbury's been making whiney noises[1].

I haven't seen it either though I'll go to see it. Nothing to do with the "message" of the movie but Moore is due some credit in removing the interview with Nicholas Berg from the final cut (although you could say that had he left it in there would have been a nasty backlash that would have overshadowed the movie)


[1]Don't worry about Ray. There's a Fahrenheit 451 remake coming next year via Frank Darabont so Ray will presumably get paid for that one

Devilman

I haven't seen it but I too have heard that there is some masterful editing in the film.

I have read and seen a lot of Moores work..and I do know that he can sometimes drift onto the side of propaganda and away from fact, so it will be interesting to see if he does that here.

On a side note..it seems this film has ruffled a few feathers in the White House, they seem unsure how to deal with it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3838243.stm

read the closing paragraphs...

clearz

Originally posted by bunnicans
i havent seen it either but i've seen a few interviews.seems some masterful editing went on in the making of this documentary and i think its important that we take this into account before we all jump on the anti-american wagon.i'm not taking sides in this debate,god knows its a very risky subject,but the documentary is clearly bias.it would be very interesting to see the other side of the story in a documentary.

Go and watch the film then come back in here and tell us the other side of the story because I cant think of one. Is there another side to what bush has been at 'I dont think so' This film displays hard facts about bushes government with only a few of Moores points of view thrown in.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Devilman

clearz..the only reason there has been no "other side to the story" is simply because Bush won't "get into a debate himself with that little filmmaker guy".

However this does suggest that he definitely has something to hide...

ChipZilla

It's out here on the 9th of this month, but you can download it if you can't wait that long..

@bunnicans: You haven't seen it so you'd do well to reserve your speculation until you do. How can you say its important to take into account this "masterful editing" if you haven't seen the film? I'm definitely not interested in your views until you've seen it for yourself.

What the hell was Bush doing in that school on the morning of 9/11? He was like a bunny caught in headlights. The secret service had to practically drag him away in the end cos he didn't have a clue what to do.

Why were average americans so gung-ho about invading Iraq? The interview with the mother of the soldier from Moore's home town was a good example. She thought it was a great idea until her son came back in a body bag, at which point she was against the whole thing.

More issues are raised than I have time to write about here, and I sincerely hope it kick starts american voter's brains into action in time for the elections.

Just my 2¢ worth.

clearz

<mod> Whoops, linking to warez. Bit of a no no. </mod>

There is a link on that page to a copy of the film. Moore himself has said that he does not mind people downloading his film as long as it is not for profit. Be adviesed it is not very good quality (Some Guy with a camera in the cinema) but you get for what you pay for. It is not out here yet and im such a Moore fan I could not wait.

Hobbes

Originally posted by clearz
There is a link on that page to a copy of the film. Moore himself has said that he does not mind people

Moore might not mind, but then he doesn't own the rights to it, so copying it is in fact illegal.

Movies out tomorrow as preview.

A lot of it is true, but a fair bit is creative filming.

sovtek

I don't think Moore is the best source for information. He is, however, a good place to start for the uninitiated.
I find predictable that the media in America is trashing the film. They usually start by saying how biased he is and then never really debunk the facts.
Then there's people like Russert, O'Reilly, Limpjaw and Coulter out there.
That being said I haven't seen the movie and I don't know when it comes out in South Africa.
If you want to see some great journalism in regards the movie then go to Moore's website. Also www.dailyhowler.com has some great examples of Washington press corp professionalism regarding the movie as well.

Villain

Well I kinda wish I hadn't started this thread now, I thought there might have been a few people who would have seen it.

Its kinda hard to discuss the the film when people are only going on reviews etc.

I agree do that there was some very noticeable editing, they showed clips of Bush making speechs but cut him off in the middle of the sentence's quite a bit which left you wondering in what context what is it been said.

But having said that they were some interviews that edited or not showed the swing of the Bush administration, especially in relation to saying Saddam wasn't a threat then after 9/11 saying they were 100% certian WMD were in Iraq and he was a serious threat.

The film also shows the scary connections between Bush the Bin Laden family and the people close to Bush who stand to make a lot of money from investments in Afganastan (gas pipe line) and the rebuilding of Iraq along with the weapons industry.

Cork

Originally posted by irish1


I agree do that there was some very noticeable editing, they showed clips of Bush making speechs but cut him off in the middle of the sentence's quite a bit which left you wondering in what context what is it been said.

This seems to be the kernel of my problem with this film. Michael Moore is entitled to his view.

Is it a definiatative view? Debatable,

It is the view of Michael Moore.

cartman

i searched days to get this movie, finally got it 3days ago,
i dislike moore but i think hes great at what he does, hes a f00kin idiot though,

The movie is very good but i expected alot more, i kinda thought i had known all this before , there was no new or hidden dirt on the devil[bush]..

well as long as it keeps him from being reeleceted which it will.

p.s alot of the footage is amazing, how did he get his hands on any of this?? all the footage of bush just sitting there before he goes on air, abotu sept 11. makin his gestures that he was going to do, found it quite funny, but where does moore get these?
does anybody know

Magnolia_Fan

Micheal Moores whole purpose of making the movie was the same purpose everybody makes a movie for, money...alot of the "facts" in the movie are unproven and Moore has admitted being anti-bush and not fair, as on John Stewart this week. He is just tyring to stir controversy so people will go see the movie, he also wants profit off the hoardes of Liberal in the U.S and most Europeans who will flock in thousands to see this movie. The Best analgy I've seen of this movie so far is The majority of people who go to see this movie go in with a bad attitude towards Bush and leave with a bad attitude against Bush.

cartman

you can go on bout how moore is biased and facts are unproven but tbh if youve seen the movie most of his points are VISUAL fact, its all videos of bush and everthing he is on about,

the film is mostly fact proven by himself, of course he made it for a profit but he made this so bush wouldnt get relected and that is gonna happen,

and its not all anti bush people watchin the film, tbh my father is pro bush before watching it and tbh hes near enough anti now after because its there in colour video that bush is an evil **** its not moore sitting infront of the camera talkin....

Hobbes

Originally posted by Krispie
you can go on bout how moore is biased and facts are unproven but tbh if youve seen the movie most of his points are VISUAL fact, its all videos of bush and everthing he is on about,

First up, a lot of the facts have been proven, however in some instances Moore bends them.

One example. He mentions that Bush had a plane ready to take the Bin Laden family out of the US.

Truth: After the first day flights were allowed start up again. However all commercial flights spent a whole day shuffling. So it was day 3 when flights started up again.

However private jets were all working fine. So the point that Bin Laden family were ready to fly out of the US is speculative.

He also tries to tie things together where they are not linked. Saudi money being put into the US for example. He fails to mention that SA told Bush to GFH some months before 9/11 and had started removing business money from then (and still continues to).

Moore is his own worst enemy.

Cork

Originally posted by Hobbes
.

He also tries to tie things together where they are not linked. Saudi money being put into the US for example. He fails to mention that SA told Bush to GFH some months before 9/11 and had started removing business money from then (and still continues to).

Moore is his own worst enemy.

Has Moore come up with any thing new?

Villain

Well the movie is released in cinemas here today, so go along and see yourself.

Oh and make sure and come back and let us know what you think.

Hobbes

I went and saw it.. Feck me there was more there then even I remember.

The first President to be egged into office. The public denouncement of disenfrancised vote by Congress with no sentors helping. He relation calling into Fox to say he won.

The connections and massive amount of cash he has made despite running every company into the ground.

Enron connections too.

He should be impeached and jailed for profiteering. He is not fit to clean a real presidents shoes. Anyones shoes.

If he isn't toast next election then the thing has to be rigged.

Edit: The earlier comment about the plane leaving. The movie points this out to be false, the SA ambassdor with the help of the FBI removed the whole Bin Laden family from the US. They were not even interviewed by the FBI.

por

Originally posted by Hobbes

If he isn't toast next election then the thing has to be rigged.

If he isn't toast next election then it's the Demcrcate fault for not doing their job correctly, surley if there is such a wealth of mud do sling at Bush the Democrats should exploit it. And also make sure their voters get out and vote....

RE*AC*TOR

Saw the movie - i think most people who keep themselves informed will be aware of 95% of the facts in this movie. I would imagine a large proportion of Americans, however, are largely unaware of a lot of the information presented. As a movie - I enjoyed it (as did the audience in UGC - it got a minor round of applause). I didn't think the edting was particularily introducing false impressions. For the most part, the information presented is all on the public record, apart from a few of Moore's own opinions - but these are clearly phrased as questions - not as facts.

On the re-election topic, there is probably 33% of the population who will ALWAYS vote republican, 33% who will always vote democrat. the other 33% are changeable - these should really favour Kerry after the hole Bush has dug himself over the last few years. However, Ralph Nader is mooting running again and he has the potential to take away a lot of votes from Kerry (not so much Bush) - also interesting that Republicans are donaating a lot of money to Nader with this in mind (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/09/NADER.TMP)

Tom Dunne

Went to see it last night.

I was fascinated to see Bush "egged into office" (nice way of putting it Hobbes). It was apparantley the only time in the history of the US that a president did not make the walk to be sworn in. Just shows the contempt for Bush began at day 1.

I think it was a lot of anti-Bush propaganda. I did enjoy it, and I really enjoyed Moore taking quotes out of context, but I think it was too one-sided. If Moore had provided a more balanced arguement, perhaps it would sway more people.

One thing that really struck me, and I see it in work all the time (I am Irish, working in the US), is the complete and utter un-questioning of authority. No matter how big a tosser is in charge, subordinates respect that authority figure. Managers in my job are simply not questioned, what they say goes, period. It is the same with Bush. He is the president of the United States of America. You don't question the president of the United States of America, no matter how corrupt he is (even a lowly RTE reporter dare not). Unfortunately, Kerry does not provide a strong enough alternative.

This is why I fear Bush will be back in the White House come November.

jackofalltrades

Just saw the film there. Honestly can't see what all the controversy was about.
Most of the editing that certain people complain about was actually fairly funny and wasn't intended in a serious light.

The film really drives home the reality of the war and the human suffering that is involved. Most noteably when the woman who lost her son in Iraq meets a lady who is protesting about the Iraqis dying and then an American woman comes in and add's her 2 cents, where she moronically blames Al-qaeda for the death of the ladies son.

The only problem I would have with the film is that Moore reinforces the lie about the identity of the alleged hijackers by displaying pictures of men, who have been proven to be alive.

cartman

you know, bush most likely wont get back in, but i think that wont bother him too much, he got what he wanted, did was his father couldnt , got all his cronie friends set up in the oil business, there all makin millions which im sure he is makin more and that it, only reason he wanted to be president in the first place and the ****er did it all in 4year..

i hate that man

the_syco

Before the film;
slightly anti-bush
pro-US
pro-war

After the film;
slightly more anti-bush
pro-US
pro-war

=====

Bush is the cause of the war, the cause of the soldiers having to ask their families to send them kelver, the cause of lack of funding...

As for the CIA... all you fcuks that complain about the warning's going up and down; they were like that before 9/11, and no-one took any notice, as it was about a "vague warning..." and yet when they give you the vague warning, you still complain...:rolleyes:

radiospan

Originally posted by the_syco
As for the CIA... all you fcuks that complain about the warning's going up and down; they were like that before 9/11, and no-one took any notice, as it was about a "vague warning..." and yet when they give you the vague warning, you still complain...:rolleyes: [/B]

I think the "warning system" (seems like everything in America is being dumbed down since 9/11?) was only introduced a few years ago.

jesus_thats_gre

I read recently that during the scene Moores was standing outside the senate askin Senators would they send their kids to Iraq, one of the Senators replied that his son has been in Afganistan for a number of months already. Naturally, this was promptly edited out!

feylya

You have to wonder how much was edited out to make the film appear was it is.

Wrestlemania

Saw this film last night and my idea's have changed being an ex-military person who has seen combat several times, well I relate and join arms with the service men in it.But from the US soldiers (some of them) interviewed they are very immature and unprofessional and a solider who talks about killing or degrades his enemy prisoners well that is unethically as a solider and disgusting as a human being.


My idea's on Bush have changed, he is indeed a muppet a true muppet using nice words....yes i knew the war was down to oil but not as bad as what was portrayed last night in that film and the getting out all the bin ladens from the US after 9/11....
mmmm f*ck this are they right in the head....

I am going to have another look tonight at the film as it was slowing sinking in last night.


As I am usually against anti-war and anti-peace protesters i dont agreed with there somewhat outrageous methods but I now understand there principals.

Bush being replaced mmm i dunno ??? I dont think he will why because there will be to much cheating going on by his side to keep Kerry out...

Last night made me furiously angry as that administartion and more knowledgeable about what really goes on.

RE*AC*TOR

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
I read recently that during the scene Moores was standing outside the senate askin Senators would they send their kids to Iraq, one of the Senators replied that his son has been in Afganistan for a number of months already. Naturally, this was promptly edited out!

It was stated on a number of occasions that only one member of the senate had a child in the army/marines etc.

jesus_thats_gre

Yes I am aware of that point.. That does not apprear to the true and it was some heck of a coincidence if he happened to stumble upon that one senator for an interview..

sceptre

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
I read recently that during the scene Moores was standing outside the senate askin Senators would they send their kids to Iraq, one of the Senators replied that his son has been in Afganistan for a number of months already. Naturally, this was promptly edited out!

That'd be Mark Kennedy. He doesn't have a son in Iraq, he has two nephews over there somewhere.

Hobbes

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Yes I am aware of that point.. That does not apprear to the true and it was some heck of a coincidence if he happened to stumble upon that one senator for an interview..

Hardly a coincidence if he did. Did you see the other guys run away, even the guy smoking legged it. It was clear they had been warned beforehand.

jesus_thats_gre

Possibly yes.. Something just struck me there. The lady he interviewed throughout the movie who was at first fully supportive of sending young lads off to war who later changed he mind completely after her son died....

How did Moore actually select this woman for interview. The son dying and her total change of mind sort suited him and his film perfectly... Or am I missing something there??

Hobbes

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Possibly yes.. Something just struck me there. The lady he interviewed throughout the movie who was at first fully supportive of sending young lads off to war who later changed he mind completely after her son died....

How did Moore actually select this woman for interview. The son dying and her total change of mind sort suited him and his film perfectly... Or am I missing something there??

She is well known in the US because she complained that the US government was heartless to dock her son 4 days pay because he was unable to work due to being dead.

She later did get those 4 days pay. She was still supportive of sending people to the military (her family are ex-military). He didn't like follow her before and after.

What she was against was Iraq war.

dathi1

Niall Stannage's spin on F 9/11 is his typical "everything America does is right" without question. Stannage like a lot of Moore's critics never seem to question the hard facts in the film and tend to focus on inconsistencies in past productions etc. He plays around with small parts in the film which may be open to question and says the film is "Flawed" and "lacking in coherence". Nothing in the film was news to me except the degree to which the Bush's are up the arses of the Saudis. I read there were links but jezus..
Anyway is a nice read: http://www.sbpost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-588624473-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FAgenda.asp

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by Hobbes
She is well known in the US because she complained that the US government was heartless to dock her son 4 days pay because he was unable to work due to being dead.

She later did get those 4 days pay. She was still supportive of sending people to the military (her family are ex-military). He didn't like follow her before and after.

What she was against was Iraq war.

Yeah I understand that. But wasnt she interviewed in the film before her son went away and was still alive. During this time she was fully supportive of the Military etc.. Then later her son died in Iraq and she changed her mind stance completely.

What I am asking/querying, is it just a coincidence that Moore choose to interview a staunch supporter who then later had a complete change of heart after her son died, i.e. her son dying was a blessing to the point of Moores movie... ( I am not imlying it is good he died if anyone wants to go down that road)...

BattleBoar

I'd say of all the reviews I've read of the movie, this one most closely approximates my feelings:

link

In the end and, perhaps most damningly, all the emotive huffing and puffing tends toward tedium, an absolute disaster for a film which relies on its crowd-pleasing potential to popularise a political message. As someone who was utterly opposed to the Iraq war and who believes wholeheartedly that Bush should not just be toppled but tried, I was surprised at how little empathy I felt for the polemical rhetoric of Fahrenheit 9/11.

As for Michael Moore, ask yourself this question: would you buy a used car from this man? Exactly.

Zombrex

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
What I am asking/querying, is it just a coincidence that Moore choose to interview a staunch supporter who then later had a complete change of heart after her son died, i.e. her son dying was a blessing to the point of Moores movie... ( I am not imlying it is good he died if anyone wants to go down that road)...

The impression that she was interviewed before her son died is just bad editing. Moore was going for the emotive impact of finding out her son had died after the film has we introduced us to this woman.

What people don't understand is that this is not a cold hard fact documentary. It is a protest film. Moore tells stories with the editing to get his point across. Through the editing of the interview we learn she was supportive of military service, but has questioned the Iraq war. Likewise Moore's point is that only one senetor has children in the army, and he made this point by asking senetors to sign up their kids. I'd imagine he asked all of them as they came into work.

BattleBoar

What I, as a scientist, resent is :

a. The deliberate misconstruing of information to suit one's political end, regardless of what that end may be

b. The production factor - this will only serve to take politics further away from the discussion of actual policy and more toward creating slick production films, trying to get film of the other guy in some unflattering act, and character assasination

c. The hypocracy of Moore himself - delivering in spades exactly what he claims is one of the things for which he despises the Bush administration

See this site for context:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Although I haven't posted here often, most here know that I opposed the Iraq war, still think it was a horrible policy decision, and still believe that Bush must go for the US to begin to repair its international standing. So why didn't I like it?

I suppose that whether you will like it or not depends on whether you are a person that believes ends justify means in any case. I do not. I think in the end, if we sell out our methods to drive toward a desired result, we do ourselves more harm than good. I personally believe Moore could have made a far more persuasive argument (and with less potential for backlash), had he resisted his urge to deliberately misled and taken out of context. The POLICY is itself damnng enough alone to make for a compelling case against Bush, as many of the informed people in this forum already know.

However, by deliberately misrepresenting the information at hand, Moore has undermined not just those bits that were false or misleading, but the entire film, as he is apt to do (see Bowling for Columbine). Whether there will be a backlash or not, we will have to wait to see, but I believe the sensationalism, misrepresentation, and especially character assasination of the film will have more negative reprecussions than positive for most swing voters after the initial shock wears off...I hope I'm wrong. I also hope I'm wrong that it is a very bad indicator of the direction in which political discussion is going, at least in the US. Then again, take my opinion for what it's worth...I'm hardly typical.

Regards...
BB

MrPudding

I haven't seen the movie yet but from what I've read here and heard from friends there are some "issues" with the movie. Moore himself has said that it is a biased production. I think it's value might be getting people interested enough to actually get up off their arses and do a bit of research onto things themselves.

MrP

Hobbes

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Yeah I understand that. But wasnt she interviewed in the film before her son went away and was still alive.

No she wasn't. Here point about hating peace protesters then changing her mind about it. But as I said earlier, she still thought the army was a good thing to join.

See this site for context:

That site is painful to read. Most of it so far is...

"This report compiles the Fahrenheit 9/11 deceits which have been identified by a wide variety of reviewers"

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

Trojan

Originally posted by Hobbes
No she wasn't. Here point about hating peace protesters then changing her mind about it. But as I said earlier, she still thought the army was a good thing to join.

Exactly.

It's a strongly pro-US, pro-military film with the proviso that is mentioned at the end:

But perhaps one of the most powerful moments is one of the final moments. Moore shows us pictures of our troops and tells us that they serve, so that we don't have to. That they are giving this country a gift. And that the only thing they ask in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary.

And he asks, will they ever trust us again?

Well, they'll never trust Bush again. Just as the rest of the world will never trust Bush.

dark_knight_ire

it does have some good points and i think the bush administration shoule see that but again people its very left wing working on what ifs i mean go see it but dont take every word as truth

scojones

Originally posted by Hobbes
If he isn't toast next election then the thing has to be rigged.

According to "Stupid White Men" the last election was rigged.
Anyway, i'm going to see the movie tomorrow. I have high expectations as i'm an avid Michael Moore fan, ever since "Roger & Me". I would have went sooner, if work didn't get in the way.

scojones

Anyone that has seen the movie please visit here [click on extended analysis of farenheit 9/11]
and here

jackofalltrades

See this site for context:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fif...renheit-911.htm

Have seen that link posted before on other forums.
Real difficult to read as the layout is appaling.

My favourite bit was:

Bush on September 11
Cheap Shot

Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.
_
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush’s action: “I don’t think anyone could have handled it better.” “What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?”…
_
She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and “helped us get through a very difficult day.”

This comment actaully made me laugh, what difference would the principals comments have made to the film. What if the school bus driver had said Bush did a terrible job, the fact is its completlely irrelevant.
How did Bush's presence help them through the difficult time, they didn't even know about he attacks until after he left.

After reading that little gem I kinda gave up on the article.

Batbat

Originally posted by Hobbes
If he isn't toast next election then the thing has to be rigged.

Last election was rigged in Florida, but it was still very close regardless, now this time, Bush is so unpopular, I just dont see any way he gets re-elected. I mean 1nce is a mistake but a second time would be just stupid.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Batbat
I mean once is a mistake but a second time would be just stupid.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again." url=http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/images/bushfoolhr.wmv]Daily Show[/url