Fahrenheit 9/11

[reX dart: eskimo spy]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 5, 2004 @ 09:46 PM



So you think the 9/11 commission's statement on the Al Qaida link was insufficient? Also, what reasons do you suppose Bush had for opposing and delaying the formation of the commission? Can you justify that?

Also, Bush not only did not increase anti-terrorism funding, he actually cut it. It may not have been 'high on anybody's list of priorities', but he was aware of potential attacks, including the use of airplanes.

As for countries that we did/didn't attack, what about Pakistan? Why weren't there any consequences for them leaking nuclear secrets to the North Koreans? Merely because they decided to play ball with us (and not very well, at that). BTW, I'm not saying I think we should attack/should have attacked any of the named countries; I just don't think there was any reason to go after Iraq in particular, especially if that means taking people away from tracking down Osama and his buddies.

I admit that I didn't follow the commision very closely, as I doubted they would arrive at any meaningful conclusions. The whole thing seemed too wrapped up in its own politics to ever be productive in any way. However, from what I've heard, they only concluded that Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11. I don't think they ever went so far as to claim that Iraq was not connected to Al Qaeda. And I think to only see those connected with 9/11 as our enemy is rather short-sighted. I can't imagine anyone criticizing FDR for sending troops to Europe, on the grounds that Hitler had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

All I can say is that hindsight is 20/20. I can't blame Bush for something that I wouldn't have cared about at the time. Additionally, I'm not quite sure how anti-terrorism money is spent. What exactly would this money have done to prevent 9/11? Increase airport security? Stricter border patrol perhaps? Neither of those sound very likely to me, but I'm no expert.

Then again, the question is irrelevent to my point. I don't consider it fair to hold someone responsible for not being able to predict the future. After the 1993 bombing of the WTC, I remember President Clinton saying that those responsible would be brought to justice. No one was expecting him to launch a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan, and I don't think any one can (logically) blame him for not doing so either.

Pakistan is more a threat to India than to us. At least, that's my opinion of them. They have agreed to enter into negotiations with India, and things are looking better than they once did. Still, I don't think any of the threats they pose could have been solved through invasion.

North Korea... North Korea fascinates me because of how utterly fucked up it is. It's really rather depressing. I really hope someone is able to do something to improve N. Korea, because no human being should be allowed to live the way some North Koreans are. But as you said, they are "play[ing] ball with us." I fully agree that something needs to be done about North Korea, but I don't think they take away from the threat Saddam posed.

However, removing Saddam from power has been on America's "to-do" list for quite some time. His long history of enemity with the U.S. was likely a contributing factor. It also seems that Iraq was seen as an easier opponent than North Korea. The U.S. was keen to involve the rest of Asia in their discussions with North Korea, and one might assume that the Bush administration is hoping the rest of Asia will help deal with the problem of North Korea. There's really no country near Iraq that America could have turned to for help.

But really, I could come up with theories for a long time. I simply don't know. But I do trust in Bush's decision. And I don't believe that the invasion of Iraq has reduced our efforts to find Osama. We're the biggest military power in the world. It doesn't seem like that's too much of a stretch for our resources.

Sorry for the length.

 

[it290]

It has already been proven by the Media outlets that many of the things said on this movie is misrepresented (*cough*propaganda*cough*).

etc etc...

Hmm, actually I've been drawing my facts from a number of sources, including numerous newspapers, magazines, and online news agencies. I find it odd that you would speak out to criticize my sources when you are referring to 'the Media outlets'... care to clarify what in the hell that means, exactly? As I've said, I'm pretty critical about what I read and otherwise take in. If you'd care to dispute the number of troops in Afghanistan, go right ahead. Otherwise, your claiming that I'm some kind of naive conspiracy theorist just seems petty. After all, I could just as easily fire that right back at you, since most of your statements seem to echo the Bush camp's party line. If you just want to attack me personally without actually adding anything of substance to the debate, I think you're better off just staying out of the thread, as you said.

I admit that I didn't follow the commision very closely, as I doubted they would arrive at any meaningful conclusions. The whole thing seemed too wrapped up in its own politics to ever be productive in any way. However, from what I've heard, they only concluded that Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11. I don't think they ever went so far as to claim that Iraq was not connected to Al Qaeda. And I think to only see those connected with 9/11 as our enemy is rather short-sighted. I can't imagine anyone criticizing FDR for sending troops to Europe, on the grounds that Hitler had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Good point, I hadn't really thought about that. But still, the only proven links between Saddam and Al Qaida are extremely tenuous (IIRC, something to the effect that one agent stayed in Iraq for some period of time and met with a few officials).

All I can say is that hindsight is 20/20. I can't blame Bush for something that I wouldn't have cared about at the time. Additionally, I'm not quite sure how anti-terrorism money is spent. What exactly would this money have done to prevent 9/11? Increase airport security? Stricter border patrol perhaps? Neither of those sound very likely to me, but I'm no expert.

Then again, the question is irrelevent to my point. I don't consider it fair to hold someone responsible for not being able to predict the future. After the 1993 bombing of the WTC, I remember President Clinton saying that those responsible would be brought to justice. No one was expecting him to launch a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan, and I don't think any one can (logically) blame him for not doing so either.

You are certainly right about that. No one can be held responsible for not being able to predict the future. And Clinton's record certainly wasn't spotless when it came to fighting terrorism (however, I think that Administration did a somewhat better job than pre-9/11 Bush. Not by a big margin, though). I'm not saying I think Bush or his team could have prevented 9/11. He should not, however, be given all that much credit for valiantly fighting the war on terrorism. Pre-9/11, he failed to act upon intelligence briefings regarding Bin Laden, and post-9/11, he decided to concentrate on Iraq rather than terrorism.

However, removing Saddam from power has been on America's "to-do" list for quite some time. His long history of enemity with the U.S. was likely a contributing factor. It also seems that Iraq was seen as an easier opponent than North Korea. The U.S. was keen to involve the rest of Asia in their discussions with North Korea, and one might assume that the Bush administration is hoping the rest of Asia will help deal with the problem of North Korea. There's really no country near Iraq that America could have turned to for help.

True, but even if it was absolutely necessary to topple Saddam (I don't think it was, and I believe it will contribute to instability in the region for quite some time, not to mention creating more terrorists), I think there were better options than total invasion, such as assassination. Had we supported the Shiite uprisings after the Gulf War, the whole thing could have been achieved with much less blood spilled.

But really, I could come up with theories for a long time. I simply don't know. But I do trust in Bush's decision. And I don't believe that the invasion of Iraq has reduced our efforts to find Osama. We're the biggest military power in the world. It doesn't seem like that's too much of a stretch for our resources.

Well, it is a stretch. Invading and occupying a country is just about the most expensive thing you can do, even for a country like the US. True, the percentage of our economy devoted to the Iraq war is small compared to WWII, but that's to be expected. Even if you don't think that the Iraq war has taken resources away from the search for Bin Laden and Al Qaida (although it has -- troops have been moved from Afghanistan to Iraq), if we have more resources at our disposal, why aren't they on the ground looking for Al Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Sorry for the length.

Not at all, I enjoy the debate.

 

[Xavier]

Well i dont think the resources have been strained that much theres nearly 2 million people in the Us Military 100,000 plus a couple in Iraq hasnt made as much of a strain as the press reports . The people in Afghanistan are highley trained at blending in reconing and smoking out the enemy , im not sure basic infantry artillery or tankers logistics or engineers are needed to badley there especially after a foot was put in the door and troops were safeyy on the ground . BTW most of these type people are only pulled from Afghanistan for a month or two to go to Iraq then there sent back ..poor souls . Pat Tillmans a perfect example he was in Iraq only for a few months then shipped back .

 

[Xavier]

Also you dont need to give terrorist an excuse theyll be terrorists simply because they have nothing better to do . Somebody bought htme lunch , gave them money , gave them a group to be a belong to . I can go on and on .

 

[it290]

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.

 

[it290]

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.

 

[ExCyber]

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.

 

[it290]

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.

 

[Xavier]

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 .

 

[it290]

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?

 

[ExCyber]

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.

 

[Lyzel]

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.

 

[Lyzel]

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)

 

[Curtis]

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.

 

[Xavier]

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 .

 

[Lyzel]

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

 

[it290]

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.

 

[ExCyber]

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.

 

[Curtis]

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.

 

[Lyzel]

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.