"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[Fragbait]

Hi,

Just wanted to add my 2 cents:

real people into interviews, or takes real footage and then edits it into the story he wants to tell.

- that's exactly what documentarians do. They want to tell a story, because just reciting events and statements in their natural order is boring to watch for most of the people. Simulations and theories in documentaries are nothing else - they try to tell a story. Even documentarians need audience, you know, otherwise they'd be underground/independent film makers. And then they wouldn't have the slightest chance to win an Oscar or the 'Palm D'Or'. ;)

But let's be honest, since this is a hotbutton-issue, and none of us seems to convince the other, why don't we just drop the topic? Just a suggestion.

Greetings, Fragbait

[Jester]

"You believe that what Moore offers the public is fact, while I belive it is film so edited and distorted as to make it fiction."

No. While you can write (for instance) a terrible, innacurate encyclopaedia, that doesn't make it a novel.

Clearly (not that this wasn't obvious from the s*%tstorm the movie set off when it came out) you aren't the only person who thinks Mike is playing fast and loose. But presenting facts in leading or even misleading ways does not create fiction. A "fact" which is false, or presented out of context, or in a way which is intended to draw false conclusions, is not a "fiction". It's just a fact behaving very badly. Like, for instance, Colin Powell's presentation about Saddam's WMD program. Not a bit of it was true, except for statements like "we believe" and "we think". But he wasn't giving a fictional presentation.

Indeed, here's the point, from the third article down:

"Post-war filmmakers gave us the documentary, Rob Reiner gave us the mockumentary and Moore initiated a third genre, the crockumentary."

A mockumentary, like a novel, or an epic poem, is an intent as well as a form. What would a misleading, factually incorrect documentary be? I can't think of a better term than crockumentary. But it isn't the same thing.

Jester

P.S: Believe him or not, I will point out that most of the suggested errors in the fourth link have been answered by Mike, of course in the overwhelmingly negative. At least according to him, he did walk away from the bank with a gun exactly as shown and implied in the movie, and that the Lockheed-Martin plant has both a long past and a busy present producing exactly what he said they were producing, and so on. Mike's responses can be found a ways down on the page on the right sidebar. Not saying that everything he says is true either, but I'm fairly certain many of the earlier criticisms are "gotcha"s that weren't checked thoroughly enough.

[kandrathe]

Ok, yes. I can agree with that. :)

And, Fragbait... you are also correct. We're done.

[TaiDaishar]

Ok, yes.  I can agree with that.  :)

And, Fragbait...  you are also correct.  We're done.

Nah-uh, the beer has yet been opened.

[nobbie]

At least we know now that Americans take off their masks only on Halloween :P

[Cybit]

Aye, the Hardy response to Moore's response to his attacks is very illogical, since Hardy makes the assumption that Moore is responding to HIS charges and not someone else's, and then declares victory when Moore doesn't respond to his charges. Of course, he fails to look at it for more then a couple of seconds, for then he might have realized Moore may not be responding to him at all, but someone else.

We may not know how much is true and false, but neither does Hardy.

[Cougar]

I cannot say I know a lot about US laws ( I do not know anything about laws in general) but I don't think you should rub that in too much. Apparantly even GWBush must now it is not allowed to torture prisoners. Difference between me and GW is that he is president of the US, and I'm just a lurker. So if you want to talk about laws maybe you should consider sending him an email. :D

So Abu Graib is now the President's fault...

It's a shame how quickly Internet debates can degenerate into ignorance and/or childish ad hominems.

Hehe, I obviously don't normally post at these forums, but that statement really raised my eyebrows and required that I address it. ;)

[Jester]

"So Abu Graib is now the President's fault..."

If, by that, you mean the recent goings-on at that cheery little facility in Iraq, then yes, it really is.

In addition to starting a totally unneccessary war, he appointed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence. Rumsfeld then authorized all sorts of thoroughly questionable appointments and orders designed to obtain information to combat "terrorism". Those appointments and orders then suffled down through the ranks, first in Afghanistan, then at Guantanamo, and finally in Iraq, to result in the abuse of prisoners contrary to the Geneva conventions. Worse, the abuses are systematic (according to the Red Cross, a well known Islamic media outlet) and we haven't seen the worst yet (Rumsfeld).

Now, we know that Rumsfeld had reports from both internal allegations and the Red Cross six months prior to this scandal breaking into the mainstream. If he didn't know, he's stupid, and I think we can be fairly sure he isn't stupid. Dubya, who very well might be stupid, has expressed his full and public support for Rumsfeld, therefore dealing himself into the game at the current state, even if we are to forgive both his rather shady choice of Sec. of Defence, and going to war in the first place.

So, yes, it is Bush's fault, on a few different levels. Not only his fault, of course, but there's plenty of fault to go around.

Jester

[Cougar]

In addition to starting a totally unneccessary war...

*sigh* How I tire of hearing this. People who oppose dealing with a grotesquely brutal dictator hated by all and who consistently caused or encouraged unrest in the Middle East simply cannot be reasoned with. Too often, they abandon reason for a blinding desire to acuse the Bush administration of scandal and incompetence. While such single-mindedness may not be the case in this situation, I must say I am entering this discussion without high hopes.

Rumsfeld then authorized all sorts of thoroughly questionable appointments and orders designed to obtain information to combat "terrorism".

If unconventional methods aren't going to be used to extract information, information will not be gained by the good guys. More innocent Americans will die simply so that maniacal extremists receive the same rights as a petty shoplifter.

America's enemies in the modern era do not follow the same rules we do. Certainly, the abuse at Abu Graib was disgusting, and those Reservists had no business getting their punk-asses involved in the U.S. military. However, people whining about discomforture and psychological torture need to shut their holes.

Now, we know that Rumsfeld had reports from both internal allegations and the Red Cross six months prior to this scandal breaking into the mainstream.

Sure did. He also had investigations ongoing for six months before the story was released.

Released, not broken into the mainstream. The military let the media in on the abuses, it was not the media that uncovered some vile cover-up.

[Guest]

Aside from the extremist overtones that haunt Michael's movies/shows, it is nothing but pure truth. Take any FACT (not an opinion) that the M man says, and try and disprove it. He's not lying, and he uses the truth and some suggestion to prove his point to the viewer. Personally, I get a blast out of Michael annoying some person who I'm never going to be as rich as. I'm bitter, I'll admit it -_- Even if you don't agree with his opinions, can you really sit through one of his movies without laughing?

How I tire of hearing this. People who oppose dealing with a grotesquely brutal dictator hated by all and who consistently caused or encouraged unrest in the Middle East simply cannot be reasoned with.

What I don't get is where it became the American's responsibility to replace Sadaam with another dictator. You can bet that if the middle-east was oil-dry, the American government would be out of there faster than an Inner Cloister run (the dead rogue that spawns by the cloister, in case anybody was wondering).

[Fragbait]

Hi Cougar,

if the war was (is) necessary or not is arguable. That it had been justified by the danger of Saddams wmds is not.

People who oppose dealing with a grotesquely brutal dictator hated by all and who consistently
caused or encouraged unrest in the Middle East simply cannot be reasoned with.

It's not that the world hadn't seen that what Saddam did wasn't altogether creating a paradisic state. But neither are many other states on this planet, including China and, yes, the U.S.

the good guys

Whom do you mean? Surely the U.S. Let me throw just a few words to you: Immunity for War Crimes at Den Haag. Guantanamo Bay. You're seeing this way to 'black and white' here, nobody's utterly good anymore nowadays.

desire to acuse the Bush administration of scandal and incompetence

Righto, the desire is there. But even without it, a mere factual report would suffice to prove that.

How I tire of hearing this

Tired already? I think you're going to here more sooner or later. The Bush administration and their world-police-masquerade to enlarge their influence in the Middle East for whatever reasons won't stop with their masterplan right now. Example? Even after the democratic president is elected in Iraq, U.S. troops won't withdraw from Iraq terra. No sir.

America's enemies in the modern era

Maybe it would be good to one-time define who are the enemies of America, instead of steadily expanding this terminology on every state that makes a wrong move.

people whining about discomforture and psychological torture need to shut their holes

You, like George W. Bush, seem to have never heard of what is commonly known as the 'Human Rights'.
Let me just quote dubya here for a good laugh:

'I respect people. I respect their religion. I respect human rights. I respect human dignity. And that's the kind of society I know will grow up in Iraq.'

- Dubya (George W. Bush) coming across as Iraq's daddy, Washington, D.C., May 20, 2004

I fail to understand why this man still seems to hold the support of half of the U.S. citizens. What has he really done right, after all? This, together with some other issues, contributes to the widespread distrust that the U.S. politics are viewed with nowadays all over the world.

Greetings, Fragbait

[eppie]

So Abu Graib is now the President's fault...

Yes of course, it was (everything points at this at the moment anyway) more or less ordered by Rumsfeld, and he is still in the government I believe lead by Bush?.

What were you planning to do, sentencing a few of those soldiers to high prison sentences and then forgetting all about it so all the big guys remain unharmed??

Then further on your next post:

First (not saying anything about if the war on Iraq was right or wrong): try to imagine that not everybody in the world thinks and agrees with what the US government does. And realise that in a lot of free western countries the media are also heavliy biased. And also realise that you can be against things "your country" does and still be a good patriot.

Then my opinion: very sec...is it good that Saddam is gone ....yes of course.

The problem however is that we (other countries) cannot trust Bush. Bush says that if for some reason a US soldiers would be kept in Scheveningen to stand trial in the international court in Den Haag, they would liberate him with force.
Bush says you will only get rebuilding contracts in Iraq if you support them. Bush uses lies to justify a war. . Bush does not "help" other country that are in need. (US gives lowest percentual amount of 3rd world support in the western world (I think just ahead of Albania :D ) etc. etc
One thing I cannot blaim him for (but other governments) is the history of support to right wing torturing dictatorships and juntas in middle and south america), in that sense Bush is doing good.

So understand this please. Countrys al around the world are wondering who is next. Weak ones (like my country) try to suck up as much to Bush as possible to get a piece of the pie and to be "safe". (I also love my country very much, only I think are government are a bunch of ignorant fools) Because we know we can be next. That reminds me of canadian bacon (the only Moore movie I saw), with the help of the media you can let 75 % of the people think it is good to attack canada, and this is not far from what would realy happen.


So be careful with telling people that think otherwise than you that they are some strange left wing anti US freaks, but try to look in a critcial way to your own government, it is in the interest of the US itsself if Bush has to leave. (and we're back with Michael Moore again)

[Jester]

"*sigh* How I tire of hearing this. People who oppose dealing with a grotesquely brutal dictator hated by all and who consistently caused or encouraged unrest in the Middle East simply cannot be reasoned with."

Oh, you poor, long suffering individual, perpetually surrounded by irrational fools, including the one you're talking to. Yours must be a lonely world, left with the thankless task of reasoning with the incapable. And how many there are! Hundreds of millions, crossing mountains, plains and oceans! Why, there might even be a handful of them in outer space! Outer space, even! Crazy where those unreasoning folk get these days, what, with no reason at all to help them along their way.

Now, I know I'm kind of rambling here, what with outer space and the whatnot. But what can one expect, from a being not yet capable of even the most basic of reason? Nothing more than a directionless rant, I'm afraid. I'd say your absurd ad hominem and blatant, imperative shut-your-hole argument are totally worthless and logically fallacious, but I don't even know what half those words even mean!

Now, which one of those buttons is the post button... I can never remember if it's left or right, and, even if I could read, I wouldn't have the reasoning power to try!

Jester

[Chaerophon]

More innocent Americans will die simply so that maniacal extremists receive the same rights as a petty shoplifter.

I have to say, I find it a bit disconcerting that you refer to these Iraqi men as 'maniacal' in the same sentence in which you generally refer to all Americans as "the good guys".

Rights are contingent on societal recognition and consensus as to the reasoning capacity and inviolability of the individual. Justificatory generalizations about Americans as "good guys" is reductionist in the sense that 1.) it denies the fact that not all Americans are good (duh) and the fact that 'America', as a nation, has the capacity to act unjustly and 2.) it denies the significance of the torture act itself. In judging the Iraqis to be worthy of systematic torture, these men and women (and particularly those who command them) have judged them, in some sense, to be less than human, as their rights are deemed inherently violable. In sum, it begs the question, if they are less than human, why the rush to save them? It is one thing to force information from someone in the event of imminent impending loss of life or danger. It is entirely another to systematically engage in policies of mass torture, be they "psychological" or not. In my opinion, such a campaign has far more dire implications, particularly given the moral "high ground" that people such as yourself attribute to anything and everything American.

EDITED: to avoid my own generalizations.

[dwa]

Aside from the extremist overtones that haunt Michael's movies/shows, it is nothing but pure truth. Take any FACT (not an opinion) that the M man says, and try and disprove it.

That's a rather unique opinion on what constitutes "truth". Using what Michael Moore did to Charlton Heston's speech(es) in "Bowling for Columbine", let's do a little mental exercise. We'll start with 4 assumptions:
1) At some point in your life, you have used the personal pronoun "I", or a foreign language equivalent.
2) At some point in your life, you have used the verb "am", or a foreign language equivalent.
3) At some point in your life, you have used the indefinite article "a", or a foreign language equivalent.
4) At some point in your life, you have used the noun "child molestor", or a foreign language equivalent.

(note: if any of these assumptions are untrue, please let me know. It won't actually change the thrust of my argument, though I will have to change the subject from "you" to another.)

Using Michael Moore's "creative editing" as a guideline, it would thus be "the pure truth" for me to claim that you have admitted to being a child molestor.

And I don't think we need an explanation as to why that's ridiculous, and why what I would be doing if I said such things that they would be very much not "the pure truth".

Of course, its not just the far right that looks to discredit Moore; Liberals, his own natural allies, have some serious issues with Michael Moore's veracity.

What I don't get is where it became the American's responsibility to replace Sadaam with another dictator. You can bet that if the middle-east was oil-dry, the American government would be out of there faster than an Inner Cloister run (the dead rogue that spawns by the cloister, in case anybody was wondering).

Well, we did originally prop the bastard up. It may well have been politically necessary at the time, but it had been long since time for the bastard to have been removed. Shoulda happened the last time around, frankly, but hey, we gotta keep that multi-lateral coalition intact, you know.

And if oil is the reason, please explain to me why gas prices are so high. No, seriously, unless you're trying to suggest we're loosing the oil we're ostensibly stealing, or maybe hoarding it for a surprise release just prior to November (and if so, get your tin foil while its hot!), oil was not the reason.

[ShadowHM]

*sigh* How I tire of hearing this. 

You and me both! Your post is full of such tripe that it is hard to know where to start or complete a response. It was even harder to decide whether I felt like squandering energy and time responding at all, because it is unlikely that you are going to pay any attention and I there are limits to my time and energy for this sort of discourse. However, here goes:

People who oppose dealing with a grotesquely brutal dictator hated by all and who consistently caused or encouraged unrest in the Middle East simply cannot be reasoned with.

What reasoning are you thinking of? The end of that line of thinking has the U.S. of A. 'dealing with' an alarming number of brutal regimes all over the world. And if you are suggesting that only the Middle East deserves such care and attention, then you are falling right into the trap of saying that only brutal dictatorships that impact on oil are important.

Too often, they abandon reason for a blinding desire to accuse the Bush administration of scandal and incompetence.

That may well be true. It is human nature to demonize those with whom we disagree. On the other hand, there is a fair amount of scandal and incompetence demonstrated already. President Bush started this war on the pretext of still undiscovered Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein. So he either lied about his reasons or he acted too hastily on poor information. So take your pick - scandalous or incompetent; he certainly is one of the two.

If unconventional methods aren't going to be used to extract information, information will not be gained by the good guys.

If 'unconventional methods' is a code for ignoring basic human rights, then it really does not matter. The basic premise of democracy is that everyone has the same rights. The test of democracy is whether the scum get the same rights as the privileged.

More innocent Americans will die simply so that maniacal extremists receive the same rights as a petty shoplifter.

And what about innocent Iraqi lives? Do they matter as much as innocent American lives? You seem to be suggesting that they do not.

America's enemies in the modern era do not follow the same rules we do.

And this means that your ideals should be tossed aside so that you can descend to their level?

Certainly, the abuse at Abu Graib was disgusting, and those Reservists had no business getting their punk-asses involved in the U.S. military.

There are a whole series of responses to that comment. However, it would appear from what little has been made public so far that the problem was systemic, not just a few poorly prepared and overworked reservists. And that is a serious problem that does need to be addressed.

However, people whining about discomforture* and psychological torture need to shut their holes.

So in your democracy there is no room for dissent of any kind? And since those are vague terms, how much discomfiture and for how long do you really think is a suitable amount to allow, especially with no legal recourse for the accused?



* That typo/misspelling would be almost amusing if the topic were not so grave. Discomfiture is one thing. But your spelling makes it look like 'mild torture'. Exactly what does 'discomforture' imply?

[eppie]

And if oil is the reason, please explain to me why gas prices are so high. No, seriously, unless you're trying to suggest we're loosing the oil we're ostensibly stealing, or maybe hoarding it for a surprise release just prior to November (and if so, get your tin foil while its hot!), oil was not the reason.

That is a bit a too simplistic way of looking at it. That the Iraq war was for oil does not mean that your gas prices go down or something. It has to do with the fact that Saddam wanted to start selling his oil in euros instead of dollars, it has to do with securing oil for the future, it has to do with economic interest of oil companies. (did you think GWBush was going to do something for the american people??? wha...of course not, the only Bush does things for is the Bush clan...for nobody else.

I think oil was for sure one of the reason to go to Iraq, together with the interest of big companys that would benefit from rebuilding contracts etc. (no I did not get this from Michael Moore, I think I allready wrote this in some other topic here in the lounge times ago).

And of course (from Rumsfelds mouth I believe) "there were just not enough targets too bombin Afhanistan"

[Guest]

And if oil is the reason, please explain to me why gas prices are so high. No, seriously, unless you're trying to suggest we're loosing the oil we're ostensibly stealing, or maybe hoarding it for a surprise release just prior to November (and if so, get your tin foil while its hot!), oil was not the reason.

Come now... Do you really think that the American's have never touched the oil? And notice that I wasn't referring to Iraq, just the middle-east. I am of the opinion that America is trying to expand its' empire, and the middle east, so rich in natural resources, is an ideal target.

GW Bush's family is rich because of oil. He would not be president, if it weren't for oil. I find it hard to believe that him, and his conservative minions would not take the oil that will soon be ripe for the plucking.

[kandrathe]

Bush says you will only get rebuilding contracts in Iraq if you support them.

Motivated by repaying those who shouldered the burden. The other shoe is that it is quite "unfair" to let some nations like France, or Germany stand on the side lines when the heavy lifting is going on, but step right back in when profits are to be had. The whole business of "War Profiteering" seems entirely unseemly to me, and I didn't agree with the Bush Administration on this one. It would be better for Iraq if everyone was involved (and us too in the long run -- good will and all).

Bush uses lies to justify a war.

Well, that horse is so beaten that it is dog food, but having watched and debated with those here through that whole event, my recollection was that ALL intelligence agencies got it wrong, not just ours. I also made the case that all the evidence indicated a strong Chemical and Biological Weapons program, which we did find. What we did not find are the stockpiles to go with that program. What made Bush different is that he used that (in hindsight) poor information to justify a preemptive action to prevent Iraq from using or distributing WMD to the "bad guys". To me, twisting that history into saying "Bush Lied" or "Blair Lied" is just the oppositions propaganda. "Bush was wrong" or "Blair was wrong" are more accurate statements of reality in my opinion.

Bush does not "help" other country that are in need. (US gives lowest percentual amount of 3rd world support in the western world (I think just ahead of Albania  ) etc. etc

Can you cite a source for that? I can. The US and Foreign Aid Assistance You heard the propaganda which is "USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world", but not the other side which is "though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest. " The trend for US giving under Bush went from 9.5 billion to 15.8 billion (23% of all AID), an increase of 6.3 billion, which is higher than what all but 3 nations (Germany, France, Japan) give entirely. Only Japan's giving has been going down. There are so many other programs that we fund, including a significant portion for the many UN programs, and Peacecorps. Then you get to the NGO's. Who's soldiers shoulder the bulk of UN peace keeping duties? It's a much dicier issue than just raw money. IMHO, most of US AID is going to the wrong places, and that is the *real* problem with US AID.

From that same hyperlink;

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities. Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show U.S. aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the people of America is far more impressive than their government. As discussed further below, the government spending has tied agendas that has often been detrimental to the recipient. Private aid/donation in contrast has been through charity on individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas

We have signed no agreement with the world community giving the international court sovereignty. We have a very good system of justice, and for the most part people who commit crimes are arrested, tried, and convicted if they are guilty. If they are in the military, we have a very good military system of justice which has served the US with honor. If a crime is committed in another country our citizens are subject to the laws of the country they are in, and we have agreements with almost every nation on the planet on how that is handled. As a US citizen, my perspective is that our "Supreme Court" is the final court for citizens, and the International Court is fine for those who need a "Supreme Court", and it might be good for international disputes, but we don't need it here.

>>Queue Frenchman from The Holy Grail<< We already got one, you see?

Most of us are suspicious that if we did sign any agreement, it would just become a way to politically attack our officials. That is what the State Department and the diplomatic corps are for.

I've said this on other occasions; My problem with Bush is that his diplomatic style is too heavy handed, he does not play politics with the world like some of our prior Presidents did. I'm sorry for our big muddy boots lacking diplomacy trampling all over your sensibilities.

[SwissMercenary]

we have a very good military system of justice which has served the US with honor

That punishes people for things like massacaring Vietnamese villages with three years house arrest.

You try to judge people all the time, yet oddly enough don't like taking it for yourself.