Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11

[Elder]

Originally posted by Vagegast
Is it me or did he just blame the rise of Hitler... on Jews? What the f*ck?

Little anti-semitic piece of sh*t...

Yup, those Jews sure loved Mr. Hit.

I think he was debating me on Israel once... oh yes, he was. I could have told you that bit of info before this thread.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ShiftyPowers


In America we have a War on Islam, it looks like 60 years after Hitler died we still have a War on Juddaism in Europe.

That's just France. Everywhere else in Europe they are having a War on Islam as well.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Elder
What about the families as well? A lot of money is pumped into your country by way of the US military presence there. I need to find some numbers.

Here's a link to a press story... 20,000 plus jobs are provided by the Us military. That's no small number. And this is only from one small town that has 5,000 US troops...

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_777476,00.html

 

[Pontiakos]

Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
Shut the hell up Ponti****tard. You realize Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in proson right? So the Jews knew his plans and yet still helped him rise to power. That's why when he came to power the emmigration by German Jews out of Germany was huge right? Wait, that doesn't make sense at all. Hitler actively promoted anti-semitism, and if you honestly believe that German Jews spread anti-Jewish propaganda, you need to take a serious look at what you think you know. I have read extensively on the subject bud, I'm a history major, I love history, and I can assure you that you're an idiot. The idea that the Jews controlled resources in Germany is Nazi propaganda from the 1930s and if you think you're educated because you can spout exactly what Adolf Hitler and Joeseph Goebbles want you to spout, then fine. But you are completely wrong on the subject.

In America we have a War on Islam, it looks like 60 years after Hitler died we still have a War on Juddaism in Europe.

so you're a history major *knees shaking*......congratulations..I've read "extensively" on the subject also....

and so has my brother
and his brother and I'm sure your family............. ....point being that both you and I can read the same text and acquire diverse interpertations of past events, quite simply bc we weren't there. So the wisest method would be to listen to ALL sources and then form an opinion.

The difference between a historian, and a history afficionando is well............not much. YOU READ, I READ, you write essays, I write essays, you get a degree out of it and I, .....well I read just bc I am facinated by the cicle of human civilization.


The fact that you insult simply shows your inherent inability to support a civlized debate, at least in this forum were no immidiate consequeces exist, so I look past it.

first off ....yes......I do know when and where and by whom Mein Kampf was written and that is what makes what occured more autrocious, is the fact that they- the powerful Jews- knew of his plans and supported him anyway to save their assets from the "communists". We could debate on how widespread the availability of "Hitler's work" (his authorship of the work is also debatable--and if you race spurt ignorant insults you may it makes no difference) was to the German citizens of the time, and therefore the voters of that era may have just thought of him as great leader who would lead the country from economic and social decline.

but, (saw it coming)


.......Hitler allowed ~25,000 Jewish Germans to escape to the then up and coming Israeli state. He did so, with all comforts taken into consideration and even provided them with an undisclosed amount of money to "escape", and to the West it was at the time a goodwill gesture....

Now lets see how carefull you are in your studies.

Who were these Jews?
Why were they allowed to exit the country via German government subsidies?


Worse yet why were not all Jews treated in this manner?

-oh and you couldn't be more wrong, Judaism was not and is not the cause of this prejudice, its simpler than that, its money, and I'm not talking Jews alone, but they are the scapegoat.

If you want to believe that Church led slaughters of Jews throughout Europe of the past, have nourtured an aura of hatred in today's Europeans, you may, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I however you point you to the class struggle that has existed in the continent for 4,000 years, and continues to exist despite 2 major socio-economic movements and more than 100 separate wars.

 

[Pontiakos]

Originally posted by Elder
Yup, those Jews sure loved Mr. Hit.

I think he was debating me on Israel once... oh yes, he was. I could have told you that bit of info before this thread.

Elder.....read my sig.....you said it not I...

if you want to label me as antisemetic go ahead......that doesn't change history.


I haven't said anything that can't be found in books. In fact that is all I've said.


MY personal opinion is...........

The Jewish holocaust was a great tragedy, one of many of the past and current era.

Who's to blame is up for debate.........who carried it out is as clear as day and will never(*edit) be debatable.

 

[Sir Calumn]

I just saw this film on Saturday and I really enjoyed it - definately worth seeing in my opinion. I doubt it will convince anyone over to Michael Moores opinion, but it is very interesting even if you know most of the arguments could probably be explained away in a few minutes. I did feel he ran out of material about halfway through and put in a bit much about the family of killed soldiers in Iraq and such like - all very touching but not very Bush blasting. I loved the bits where we actually saw Moore on screen, when he hired to Ice Cream truck to read the terrorism act to congress was pure class - and seeing the reactions Moore got when trying for interviews was also great. "Go get a proper job", "no no no no no"! and such like. Definately worth seeing, as I said, though not too convincing.

 

[Brondbyfan]

The reason Michael Moore is so important to the Democratic party is that he exists as a kind of bridge between the hardcore internet Democrats and the mainstream of the party. A lot of the stuff he says has been known for a long time. Back in 2000 I knew about the fact that he went AWOL from the National Guard. I knew his family had suspicious connections with the Saudis and Bin Ladens. But the party leadership wasn't talking about it. I think Moore is the one who put those things out there to be used by the party, to the point that Kerry even referenced them in his convention speech.

 

[Sir Calumn]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Back in 2000 I knew about the fact that he went AWOL from the National Guard. I knew his family had suspicious connections with the Saudis and Bin Ladens.

I had a vague idea, but never had anyone put the facts before me as exactly as Moore did, though I'm sure there is plenty of evidence against all his points which he happened to leave out. That bit about the name blacked out on his military record, I forget the name, was very interesting. As I said, certainly woth seeing.

 

[rhizome17]

You do realise Moore is a supporter of Unions.

Obviously not.

 

[Sir Calumn]

Originally posted by rhizome17
You do realise Moore is a supporter of Unions.

Obviously not.

Did I say I agreed with Michael Moore or even liked him? I didnt even say I agreed with this film. I chose my words very carefully.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Pontiakos



I haven't said anything that can't be found in books. In fact that is all I've said.

Yeah, a book like Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a good "book." Too bad it was a farce.

Point is, you can find anything in "books." It doesn't make them true.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
The reason Michael Moore is so important to the Democratic party is that he exists as a kind of bridge between the hardcore internet Democrats and the mainstream of the party. A lot of the stuff he says has been known for a long time. Back in 2000 I knew about the fact that he went AWOL from the National Guard. I knew his family had suspicious connections with the Saudis and Bin Ladens. But the party leadership wasn't talking about it. I think Moore is the one who put those things out there to be used by the party, to the point that Kerry even referenced them in his convention speech.

Nobody could ever prove that Bush went AWOL... keep pounding it, but it's not going to work.

But I do agree with you on your Moore assesment. He's kind of like a spark plug saying the things for the democratic party that they won't say themselves. It's kind of interesting to watch.

 

[Elder]

Now the Saudis are bashing Moore.


http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/01/wsaud01.xml

 

[Glorious]

well it would be natural the Saudis are bashing Moore. They are major investors in the US economy.


The movie shows how bad Bush really is.

 

[Vagegast]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
The reason Michael Moore is so important to the Democratic party is that he exists as a kind of bridge between the hardcore internet Democrats and the mainstream of the party. A lot of the stuff he says has been known for a long time. Back in 2000 I knew about the fact that he went AWOL from the National Guard. I knew his family had suspicious connections with the Saudis and Bin Ladens. But the party leadership wasn't talking about it. I think Moore is the one who put those things out there to be used by the party, to the point that Kerry even referenced them in his convention speech.

I don't think so. It's more of a bridge between hard-core Nader leftists and moderate Democrats. Anything about the Saudis that was in the movie was already in his books and other publications. As for the Democrats taking over Moore's agenda, well, that'd be like surrenduring to the enemy. Tell me, what things that Moore is an advocate has been taken over or talked about by mainstream Democrats? I'd say about zero. The Iraq war? Kerry has the same position Bush has while Moore wants troops to pull out immediately. On the Saudis? Kerry talks about oil independence while Moore talks about Bush's personal relations interfering in the WoT. So again, give me examples of Moore taking over the DNC.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Originally posted by Elder
Nobody could ever prove that Bush went AWOL... keep pounding it, but it's not going to work.

That's a logical fallacy. Proving a negative is difficult or impossible. Let me ask you this, I don't have a dog, but how would I prove that I don't have a dog? I can say look around, do you see a dog? But you could say I'm hiding it. I could say there is no dog hair or dog crap, but you could say I cleaned up well. This was what was so hideous about the build-up to the Iraq war. Bush framed it as "prove you don't have weapons of mass destruction." This was carefully calculated because the neo-cons knew it was impossible to prove he didn't have WMDs, so no matter what happened, they could invade. In contrast, it's pretty easy to prove I have a cat: here she is, come look at her, my cat.

Likewise, theoretically it is much harder to prove Bush went AWOL than it is to prove he was actually there. Proving he reported for duty would be utterly simple: pay stubs, photographs, produce a bunch of people who remember him, other kinds of records, blah blah blah. And yet Bush has continually failed to do this. Now I ask you, what evidence would satisfy you that Bush went AWOL? His commander does not remember him reporting for duty, in fact no one does, the documents he HAS produced are utterly unsatisfactory, his discharge papers show he was "not available for signature," he missed a physical, his file was seen in a trash can, now they say crucial microfiche has conveniently been destroyed, etc. Seems like the balance of evidence is tipping in the favor of desertion.

Look, plenty of people did crazy things to get out of 'Nam. The real problem is that Bush continues to lie about it, and style himself as a commander in chief when he stalwartly refused to serve his country even thousands of miles away from men like John Kerry who were in the sh!t. His contempt for the military is demonstrated not only by his abandoment of service, but also by his slashing of veterans' benefits. How can you justify this? And again I ask you, what, apart from the logical fallacy "prove he wasn't there," would satisfy you that Bush wasn't there?

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
That's a logical fallacy. Proving a negative is difficult or impossible. Let me ask you this, I don't have a dog, but how would I prove that I don't have a dog? I can say look around, do you see a dog? But you could say I'm hiding it. I could say there is no dog hair or dog crap, but you could say I cleaned up well. This was what was so hideous about the build-up to the Iraq war. Bush framed it as "prove you don't have weapons of mass destruction." This was carefully calculated because the neo-cons knew it was impossible to prove he didn't have WMDs, so no matter what happened, they could invade. In contrast, it's pretty easy to prove I have a cat: here she is, come look at her, my cat.

Likewise, theoretically it is much harder to prove Bush went AWOL than it is to prove he was actually there. Proving he reported for duty would be utterly simple: pay stubs, photographs, produce a bunch of people who remember him, other kinds of records, blah blah blah. And yet Bush has continually failed to do this. Now I ask you, what evidence would satisfy you that Bush went AWOL? His commander does not remember him reporting for duty, in fact no one does, the documents he HAS produced are utterly unsatisfactory, his discharge papers show he was "not available for signature," he missed a physical, his file was seen in a trash can, now they say crucial microfiche has conveniently been destroyed, etc. Seems like the balance of evidence is tipping in the favor of desertion.

Look, plenty of people did crazy things to get out of 'Nam. The real problem is that Bush continues to lie about it, and style himself as a commander in chief when he stalwartly refused to serve his country even thousands of miles away from men like John Kerry who were in the sh!t. His contempt for the military is demonstrated not only by his abandoment of service, but also by his slashing of veterans' benefits. How can you justify this? And again I ask you, what, apart from the logical fallacy "prove he wasn't there," would satisfy you that Bush wasn't there?

Sigh... he already provided all that information as well as witnesses who say he was there.

Good God, get over your ******* hatred so that your mind won't be so clouded in the future. There is more evidence of Kerry faking injuries in Vietnam to get purple hearts than there is of Bush being AWOL, but I doubt you will talk about that.

I like the way you articulate yourself, but you're getting annoying really fast.

 

[Pontiakos]

Originally posted by Elder
Yeah, a book like Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a good "book." Too bad it was a farce.

Point is, you can find anything in "books." It doesn't make them true.

i wasn't reffering to different genres or the crux of non-fiction vs fiction.......

but if you want take that tangent go ahead, I'm not taking it with you.....bc then we get into the debate of what is historical text and what isn't,.......that is too long of a debate.


Historical texts, as they have been labeled, are my source, not fiction. Although sometimes fiction, through its personifications, analogies, and metaphors can sometimes incript and promote ideas that orthodox historical texts would never dare.

 

[Pontiakos]

Originally posted by Vagegast
I don't debate bigots.

in one sentence you have done nothing more than label yourself....


a bigot is one who doesn't accept other people's beliefs, cultures, or ideas.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Originally posted by Elder
Sigh... he already provided all that information as well as witnesses who say he was there.

As I recall, the witness they produced couldn't keep his story straight, and in fact claimed he saw Bush on a date Bush says he wasn't there. If there is all this evidence to show he was there, I'm sure you wouldn't mind summing it up.

Again, if he just comes out and says "You're right, I jumped over hundreds of people using my family's name to get into the National Guard, and then I did not report for duty" it's less of a problem. I don't know what the statue of limitations for AWOL/desertion is but it's probably expired. What is so troublesome is the constant lying and the destruction of evidence in furtherance of these lies, and the posturing as a military man, fighter pilot hotshot, and so on. If he didn't want to go to Vietnam he could have done it like Muhammad Ali and been a national hero, as of this moment he's just a lying draft dodger.