Fahrenheit 911
07-03-2004, 08:27 AM
#11
I saw it last night, in no way shape or form was that a documentary. It was clearly biased towards MM's point of view, and a lot of dialogue was taken out of context to prove his point.
To say that's a "documentary" is ridiculous mainly because he only highlighted the bad points he could find.
I'm not saying I agree that Bush should've gone to war and what not, I'm just saying people should take the movie as what it is supposed to be, a movie, and not think too seriously about what MM is trying to portray.
To say that's a "documentary" is ridiculous mainly because he only highlighted the bad points he could find.
I'm not saying I agree that Bush should've gone to war and what not, I'm just saying people should take the movie as what it is supposed to be, a movie, and not think too seriously about what MM is trying to portray.
07-03-2004, 08:27 AM
#12
2000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,417
Yes, but why attack a country at the time that had no bearing on the situation, sure they where in the hunt for the chemical warfare and what not but just to bomb someone just because you can was stupid, bombing them under a legit reason sure although states proved nothing, sure they caught Sadam but where's the proof of the chemical warfare that they where in hunt for? It could be just me but I don't recall hearing anything on the findings?
07-03-2004, 08:32 AM
#13
2000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,417
Originally posted by JohnnyToronto:
I saw it last night, in no way shape or form was that a documentary. It was clearly biased towards MM's point of view, and a lot of dialogue was taken out of context to prove his point.
To say that's a "documentary" is ridiculous mainly because he only highlighted the bad points he could find.
I'm not saying I agree that Bush should've gone to war and what not, I'm just saying people should take the movie as what it is supposed to be, a movie, and not think too seriously about what MM is trying to portray.
I saw it last night, in no way shape or form was that a documentary. It was clearly biased towards MM's point of view, and a lot of dialogue was taken out of context to prove his point.
To say that's a "documentary" is ridiculous mainly because he only highlighted the bad points he could find.
I'm not saying I agree that Bush should've gone to war and what not, I'm just saying people should take the movie as what it is supposed to be, a movie, and not think too seriously about what MM is trying to portray.
07-03-2004, 12:26 PM
#14
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 519
i saw it last week, and i liked it.
if you get upset at Michael Morre you are missing the point. yes it is biased and yes it might even be considered slight propoganda, BUT....
if you set the playing feild level, and we will call that equilibrium the TRUTH, then this film is NOT as far off to the left as EVERYTHING else in the media is off to the right.
i never knew Bush couldnt take his inaugural walk to the whitehouse because of American protesters, that is HUGE... and what about the disenfranchising scandal with all the the african american communites having their votes nulled.
sure i knew it was tight in florida, but as far as i knew bush won fair and square... i do not believe that for a second now. and MM didnt only suggest it, he showed the footage of the community representatives in the senate where they were abandoned by their senators. that is powerful stuff.
and the letter written by the dead american soldier should stand out as a good representation of the sentiment amongst american troops in Iraq.
some might call it melodrama, which it may be, but that letter is real and will likely be in this centuries "letters of the century" book.
if the war were actually political, then the political world would have supported it. if the UN did not support it, how can it be a politcal war?
u need only look at what has happened to the support for Tony Blair to see waht becomes on non-americans who support the war.
our media is americanized, it was great to see something agaisnt the grain.
AND....
MM left out some things that would have hammered it home even further.
the American memo's that were leaked 10-15 years ago where they explicitly stated that they needed a crisis on american soil to trigger pre-emptive military actions on other nations, specifically middle-eastern nations in the pursuit of american dominance in the 21st century.
these documents were discussed and shown in their entirety in a canadian documentary on the national post several months ago. i was sure MM would present those documents, that were written under Wolfiwitz / rumsfeld etc. under the previous bush admin.
if you get upset at Michael Morre you are missing the point. yes it is biased and yes it might even be considered slight propoganda, BUT....
if you set the playing feild level, and we will call that equilibrium the TRUTH, then this film is NOT as far off to the left as EVERYTHING else in the media is off to the right.
i never knew Bush couldnt take his inaugural walk to the whitehouse because of American protesters, that is HUGE... and what about the disenfranchising scandal with all the the african american communites having their votes nulled.
sure i knew it was tight in florida, but as far as i knew bush won fair and square... i do not believe that for a second now. and MM didnt only suggest it, he showed the footage of the community representatives in the senate where they were abandoned by their senators. that is powerful stuff.
and the letter written by the dead american soldier should stand out as a good representation of the sentiment amongst american troops in Iraq.
some might call it melodrama, which it may be, but that letter is real and will likely be in this centuries "letters of the century" book.
if the war were actually political, then the political world would have supported it. if the UN did not support it, how can it be a politcal war?
u need only look at what has happened to the support for Tony Blair to see waht becomes on non-americans who support the war.
our media is americanized, it was great to see something agaisnt the grain.
AND....
MM left out some things that would have hammered it home even further.
the American memo's that were leaked 10-15 years ago where they explicitly stated that they needed a crisis on american soil to trigger pre-emptive military actions on other nations, specifically middle-eastern nations in the pursuit of american dominance in the 21st century.
these documents were discussed and shown in their entirety in a canadian documentary on the national post several months ago. i was sure MM would present those documents, that were written under Wolfiwitz / rumsfeld etc. under the previous bush admin.
07-04-2004, 07:09 AM
#17
Ya it was an OK movie yadda yadda, I just don't think MM's opinion is worth ****.
Go here, http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
it shows how more lies, and edits to get his point of view across. There's also a couple of other sites, www.moorelies.com ... but you get the picture.
He doesn't show the full story, the fact that he staged that bank scene in bowling for columbine is absolutley ridiculous.
Go here, http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
it shows how more lies, and edits to get his point of view across. There's also a couple of other sites, www.moorelies.com ... but you get the picture.
He doesn't show the full story, the fact that he staged that bank scene in bowling for columbine is absolutley ridiculous.
07-07-2004, 05:58 AM
#20
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,649
I was told that it's more of a rental then anything. Entertain value was slim if you're looking to go to a movie theatre, eat popcorn and get "entertained". So I'm waiting it out to watch it at home. From those I've heard from, it's one sided and a statement piece............ some pretty gross and disturbing images too. One thing I'll say is this, I think I'm pretty ok about something like this being released though. It's interesting to see/hear the "other" side of what's going on, or at least what someone else's take is on it.
