You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fahrenheit 9/11
- Thread starter it290
- Start date
Well, I'm certainly not an expert on what's needed in Afghanistan, so I can't say with certainty that we do need more troops there, but if we already have all the people we need there, why hasn't Osama been found yet? I know there is a sticky situation with the Pakistan border region, but I haven't heard of any major sweeps in months (that could just be the lack of press coverage, though). And why is it that we're not putting nearly as much effort into establishing a viable government in Afghanistan? Because they're economically unimportant?
As for the terrorist thing, I'm not sure I agree with you. The Palestinians are a perfect example. Sure, many of them are willing to become suicide bombers at the slightest urging from Hamas, etc... but I doubt they would have gotten to that state if not for years of occupation. The same goes for Iraq. Don't you think someone is more likely to turn against the US if their house was unjustly searched, or one of their relatives was killed by collateral damage? I'm not saying the soldiers aren't doing their job correctly, but regardless, occupying a country is going to turn people against you. I don't think there's any way to deny that.
As for the terrorist thing, I'm not sure I agree with you. The Palestinians are a perfect example. Sure, many of them are willing to become suicide bombers at the slightest urging from Hamas, etc... but I doubt they would have gotten to that state if not for years of occupation. The same goes for Iraq. Don't you think someone is more likely to turn against the US if their house was unjustly searched, or one of their relatives was killed by collateral damage? I'm not saying the soldiers aren't doing their job correctly, but regardless, occupying a country is going to turn people against you. I don't think there's any way to deny that.
I mean, from the start of this Movie, moore explains that the Bush administration stole the 2000 election in Florida because of "high friend" officials and Brother Gov Jeb Bush, then he attempts to make a link that the Bush family was in bed with the Saudis, and the Bin Laden family.
Just wanted to reply to this as well. Lyzel, are you going to deny that the Bush family has had close personal ties to the Bin Ladens and other powerful Saudis? Do you really think that's some kind of 'black helicopter' theory? Because that much, at least, is pretty much indisputable.
The movie doesn't come right out and make the point this way AFAIK (transcripts are floating around now), but I got the impression that the Saudi's aren't so much specifically linked to Bush as they are both part of a moneyed elite and happen to run into each other and have business relationships because they both know where the money is. I've heard it said that e.g. Richard Scaife and George Soros are much in the same class.
No, they are linked. One of the things mentioned in the film is that a man whom the Bin Ladens hired to invest money in American oil companies put some money into W's first company. There are also other connections that the film doesn't go into detail about - for instance, that Bush Sr. has met privately with members of the Bin Laden family on several occasions; I believe one even stayed at his home. I'm not saying any of that is damning, but still, there's no point in denying it.
Originally posted by it290@Jul 8, 2004 @ 04:28 PM
1 Because they're economically unimportant?
2As for the terrorist thing, I'm not sure I agree with you. The Palestinians are a perfect example. Sure, many of them are willing to become suicide bombers at the slightest urging from Hamas, etc... but I doubt they would have gotten to that state if not for years of occupation. The same goes for Iraq. \
3. Don't you think someone is more likely to turn against the US if their house was unjustly searched, or one of their relatives was killed by collateral damage? I'm not saying the soldiers aren't doing their job correctly, but regardless, occupying a country is going to turn people against you. I don't think there's any way to deny that.
1. Exactley
2. THere was no official palestine before there was an Isreal , just a couple wandering Bedwon , then all of a sudden it became prime real estate .
3. Of coarse I said these people dont even need a reason to get active heres some very good reason right here . Ask them or there nieghbors why they do what they do and theyll say nothing better to do , money , its all i know . Believe it or not those are in the top ten maybe not one or two but up there .
1. Exactley
So, you think it's okay to leave a country essentially in a state of chaos because they don't have economic resources that are important to us?
2. THere was no official palestine before there was an Isreal , just a couple wandering Bedwon , then all of a sudden it became prime real estate .
I don't think it's quite accurate to say that some of the most contested and sacred ground in the world 'suddenly became prime real estate'. But regardless, the point was simply that people will resort to violence rather easily when put in a situation like that.
3. Of coarse I said these people dont even need a reason to get active heres some very good reason right here . Ask them or there nieghbors why they do what they do and theyll say nothing better to do , money , its all i know . Believe it or not those are in the top ten maybe not one or two but up there .
I see. So you believe the majority of terrorists have no good reason at all to hate the US?
No, they are linked. One of the things mentioned in the film is that a man whom the Bin Ladens hired to invest money in American oil companies put some money into W's first company.
I find it hard to characterize this as anything more than a Big Money / "Good Ole Boys' Club" link. It doesn't suggest that there was actually any collaboration between GWB and the Saudis (though it's nigh-undeniable that there is some now, given that Abdullah has been to Crawford).
2. THere was no official palestine before there was an Isreal , just a couple wandering Bedwon , then all of a sudden it became prime real estate.
"Palestine" is a historical Greek name that is much older than the modern state of Israel. It does not refer to a nation, but to the region, which is of considerable historical, cultural, and strategic importance to the entire world. Depending on who was ruling different parts of it at various times, there have been several "official Palestines". It did not "suddenly become prime real estate", it has been highly valued for millenia by various empires due to its geographical significance. It did not magically pop into existence with the advent of the Balfour Declaration.
In general, trying to reduce the Israel/Arab conflict to an equivalent of "some uppity (Arabs/Jews) decided to move in and start a ruckus" is tremendously inconsiderate at best and serves to fuel bigotry at worst.
Originally posted by it290@Jul 8, 2004 @ 09:03 PM
No, they are linked. One of the things mentioned in the film is that a man whom the Bin Ladens hired to invest money in American oil companies put some money into W's first company. There are also other connections that the film doesn't go into detail about - for instance, that Bush Sr. has met privately with members of the Bin Laden family on several occasions; I believe one even stayed at his home. I'm not saying any of that is damning, but still, there's no point in denying it.
I'm not going to spent hours arguing all the misleading comments on this movie. For one, it is not worth it, and second IF YOU ARE REALLY INTERESTED in the truth, you can search for it with google.
Anyways, you keep spitting out nonsense that were in this movie. How about you provide real facts with your claims.
Originally posted by it290@Jul 8, 2004 @ 03:28 PM
Well, I'm certainly not an expert on what's needed in Afghanistan, so I can't say with certainty that we do need more troops there, but if we already have all the people we need there, why hasn't Osama been found yet? I know there is a sticky situation with the Pakistan border region, but I haven't heard of any major sweeps in months (that could just be the lack of press coverage, though). And why is it that we're not putting nearly as much effort into establishing a viable government in Afghanistan? Because they're economically unimportant?
What? If it was so simple to find someone, as you say.. Then we would have already captured all criminals everywhere and put them where they belong. Things may seem so simple to you in paper, but it's not how it is.
The US may not have that many troops in Afganistan, but that doesn't mean they aren't getting anything done. The US is conducting operations jointly with the Afghan government, and their troops. Logically, that seems better because they know their terrains better than us.
If you combine the US, and Afghan troops... it is not as small as you think it is. (or as misleading as this movie make it to be)
Originally posted by ExCyber@Jul 8, 2004 @ 11:54 PM
"Palestine" is a historical Greek name that is much older than the modern state of Israel. It does not refer to a nation, but to the region, which is of considerable historical, cultural, and strategic importance to the entire world. Depending on who was ruling different parts of it at various times, there have been several "official Palestines". It did not "suddenly become prime real estate", it has been highly valued for millenia by various empires due to its geographical significance. It did not magically pop into existence with the advent of the Balfour Declaration.
In general, trying to reduce the Israel/Arab conflict to an equivalent of "some uppity (Arabs/Jews) decided to move in and start a ruckus" is tremendously inconsiderate at best and serves to fuel bigotry at worst.
Very informative history lesson , thank-you . Ive read the bible or whatever you want to call it so I have an idea of a little bit of its history .
I understand that all these countires have been around since before written history , I was stating that at the time there was no formal government or officially declared country .
But yeah what it boils down to a long running biblical family fued that has had brothers killing each other for close to 7,000 years . You can call them uppitty if you want but I didnt .
I dont like that my country has been drawn into thier problems with no agreeable/forseeable solution in sight .
Originally posted by Curtis@Jul 8, 2004 @ 11:39 PM
And what do "real facts" look like, Lyzel? Using Google to find "real facts" is a joke. You'll find as many lies and half truths with Google as facts, and I'll bet my life that you couldn't tell the difference, at least with some of them.
heh, if you can't decipher the truth by researching and comparing.. then you're a lost cause. Though, the only people that know the real truth, are those that are affected, present.
Of course, you're taking my comments to the extreme.. but I expected that from you.
Go die now 🙄
I'm not going to spent hours arguing all the misleading comments on this movie. For one, it is not worth it, and second IF YOU ARE REALLY INTERESTED in the truth, you can search for it with google.
Anyways, you keep spitting out nonsense that were in this movie. How about you provide real facts with your claims.
Dude. How many times do I have to tell you, I am not drawing all my information from the movie, nor do I blindly believe everything in it. If you can point out ONE THING that I've said that is inaccurate, go ahead and list a reputable source saying so, and I will check it out. But don't just keep saying that every statement I make is untrue, or assuming that all of it is from the movie, because that's just not the case. As I stated a while back, if you dispute the number of soldiers in Afghanistan, or the Bush family's ties to the Bin Laden family, then tell me why. Otherwise, your 'I'm not going to spend hours arguing' excuse rings pretty fucking hollow.
But yeah what it boils down to a long running biblical family fued that has had brothers killing each other for close to 7,000 years . You can call them uppitty if you want but I didnt .
Statements along the lines of "there is no state called Palestine" and "the area was mostly deserted until after the Balfour Declaration" are particular favorites of those who advocate Israeli annexation and/or "ethnic cleansing" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I guess I don't see the purpose in repeating them if you acknowledge that the conflict is much more complex. And I do not call them uppity, that was just a characterization of the polarized views that many people hold on the subject. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
Originally posted by Lyzel@Jul 8, 2004 @ 11:52 AM
Of course, you're taking my comments to the extreme.. but I expected that from you.
I'm taking your comments at face value and pointing out that you are unlikely to find "the truth" (your words) though Google. That's not "taking my comments to the extreme". They are your words, not mine.
Go die now 🙄
Be civil, or leave. Yes I will enforce that if you pull that crap again.
Originally posted by Curtis@Jul 9, 2004 @ 12:59 AM
I'm taking your comments at face value and pointing out that you are unlikely to find "the truth" (your words) though Google. That's not "taking my comments to the extreme". They are your words, not mine.
Be civil, or leave. Yes I will enforce that if you pull that crap again.
Don't preach about being civil, when you say "I'll bet my life that you couldn't tell the difference" crap with me.
Originally posted by it290@Jul 9, 2004 @ 12:26 AM
Dude. How many times do I have to tell you, I am not drawing all my information from the movie, nor do I blindly believe everything in it. If you can point out ONE THING that I've said that is inaccurate, go ahead and list a reputable source saying so, and I will check it out. But don't just keep saying that every statement I make is untrue, or assuming that all of it is from the movie, because that's just not the case. As I stated a while back, if you dispute the number of soldiers in Afghanistan, or the Bush family's ties to the Bin Laden family, then tell me why. Otherwise, your 'I'm not going to spend hours arguing' excuse rings pretty fucking hollow.
While I have mostly ignored your opinions (They seem to be more assumptions than facts), you have referred in previous posts to the movie. E.g. U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Bush=Bin Laden=Saudi link, etc.. You claim there was a link, but can't seem to provide any weblinks .
Salt Lake Tribune article about the number of troops in Afghanistan:
here
A page with extensive documentation about Bush Administration - Saudi/Bin Laden connections:
here
now that I've posted those, why don't you post some references that disprove all that information, since you claim to be so extremely knowledgeable?
here
A page with extensive documentation about Bush Administration - Saudi/Bin Laden connections:
here
now that I've posted those, why don't you post some references that disprove all that information, since you claim to be so extremely knowledgeable?
Just wanted to point out the irony.
Anyways, it, Lyzel wants google links. Otherwise it's not real news. Or wait, was it google was real news but if you don't sort it in his/her methodolgy, it's just lies and propaganda? I forget.
Arguing with Lyzel is like watching a debate with Ann Coulter on TV. It just leaves you angry, annoyed, worried about the state of the world (and evolution) and in a desperate need of a bath. ;-)
Ahh well, I'm out.
Oh my gosh! I give up! Geez!!!
Anyways, I can see where this thread is going so, I'm out.
Anyways, it, Lyzel wants google links. Otherwise it's not real news. Or wait, was it google was real news but if you don't sort it in his/her methodolgy, it's just lies and propaganda? I forget.
Arguing with Lyzel is like watching a debate with Ann Coulter on TV. It just leaves you angry, annoyed, worried about the state of the world (and evolution) and in a desperate need of a bath. ;-)
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K
