Is he wrong??

[mapuc]

Today(yesterday) I and my cousin was watching this 9/11 movie made by(you know who)

After that we had an discussion about almost everything regarding 9/11

This moore is hated by many and loved by few, why

And my cousin said this

That's because, in his world, there's only black or white, nothing between.
In his world Bush is the blackest black and Clinton is the whitest white

Then I asked him this

Is everything he has said in this documentary totally wrong or??

He said

I can't say that for sure

So now I ask you

Is Michael Moore wrong in every thing he says in his own movie(9/11)?

Markus

[Frau_Phillips]

I don't like the people who villify Bush or people like him. Moore and critics like him act like the President is a bad person.
I'm not a fan of President Bush. But I have no right to say he's a bad person, or a stupid or corrupt person. All I have the right to do is to criticize decisions that I don't agree with.
If Moore would be a little more tactful, more people would listen to him and respect what he has to say. The way to present something that you believe strongly and want other people to understand is not through insults, jokes, and sarcasm.

[The WosMan]

Moore is hated simply because he is a dishonest director. Now if he went out there and said, "hey this is all a joke" no problem but he doesn't. I have a very good book written by David Hardy (someone I know personally) who does an excellent job of tearing Moore and his "facts" apart piece by piece and proving that Moore is nothing but a giant fraud (like most mega-wealthy liberals are).

[Letum]

Too loud and brash for me. It doesn't make him look interllectually serious.
He is highly polarizing amongst the impressionable.

Is he right or wrong?
I can't answer that with any degree of certainty because it is controversial.
Anyway, it is ideas that are right or wrong, not people.

I could offer my own opinions, but they would be just that.
I could offer rational argument for or against him, but that would be unoriginal and
dull much as he is.
Anything else I could say would just be rhetoric.

In short:
To ask if he is right or wrong is a duff question.
I think he is loud, dull, and unoriginal poloriseing.

[Frau_Phillips]

Originally Posted by The WosMan

Moore is hated simply because he is a dishonest director. Now if he went out there and said, "hey this is all a joke" no problem but he doesn't. I have a very good book written by David Hardy (someone I know personally) who does an excellent job of tearing Moore and his "facts" apart piece by piece and proving that Moore is nothing but a giant fraud (like most mega-wealthy liberals are).

Putting aside whether I agree with what you say or not.

I don't think he'd be hated if his facts weren't true. Lots and lots of people agree with a lot of the stuff he says and STILL hate his guts. Conservatives are going to hate him regardless.
I stand by what I say, it's the way he does it and presents his facts.

[mapuc]

On a danish debate I wrote this

"Yes you can hate a person or his personality whatever he's right or not-you just can't stand his gust you, just hate him. so whatever this person say is a lie/wrong."

And what do I mean about this?

Well I don't like Moore more than most of you do. BUT I do have so much behave that I can say to my self

Is he wrong or is he right about those thing he said in the movie?

What's wrong and what's right

If everything is wrong, then he should be accused of insult(or what the english term is for that)

If he's right all the way or some of it(don't how much of it, is true) then Some of the government should face a court.

Markus

[antikristuseke]

Personaly i dont like Moore any more than I like Bush, at times it feels like they are the diferent sides of the same coin. Anyway I havent bothered to watch his 9/11 doc, but like his other works it probably has soe truth to it, if only by accident, and rest is just horse****.

[Wolfehunter]

You should watch this movie.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Beginning is rough it takes off after the second part and third is the best!

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, Bush is a corrupt person. He's put more things into law that violate our rights as citizens than the number of calories Michael Moore consumes every day. This anti-terrorist act that allows him to listen into our phone calls is a violation to freedom of speech and the right to privacy, and this Internet one that he's signed on is just the same. Anytime you type in something like "terrorist" or "bomb" on an Internet form, a tracker records the link and can take you right to the site. It can tell you who posted it, the time, their IP address, you name it. It gives you the works.

More and more, I feel like singing "Die Fahne Hoch!" rather than "My Country 'Tis of Thee". It's getting that bad. Our country is sinking extremely quickly. We can either abandon ship, get on the bandwagon, or go down with the ship. Personally, I'll probably abandon ship if it gets totally out of control (in which case, I will sing "Nearer My God To Thee" and skip the other two).

This pretty much sums up our situation (just change the name of the vessel to the USS America, lol):

[Sailor Steve]

I have a hard time with people who are totally one-sided; people who are so convinced they are right they feel they can say anything, true or false, so long as it leads to what they feel is right. Michael Moore is one of these. So is Sean Hannity.

Moore's movies tell the truth; but they don't tell the whole truth, and they don't tell "nothing but the truth".

[Yahoshua]

Moore is known as a chronic liar. That's already enough for me.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Moore's movies tell the truth; but they don't tell the whole truth, and they don't tell "nothing but the truth".

Clang! Spot on.

What I like least about Moore is the emotional blackmail that rounds off every film. In most of his stuff, the presentation is resistible, but the premise is hard to challenge. Unfortunately, the Lila Lipscomb/Charlton Heston stunts made me sick.

[mrbeast]

I don't mind Moore, I find him quite amusing at times but I can see why some people might find him abrasive. He can be a little mawkish at times.

His interview with Charlton Heston was uncomfortable to watch, as Heston was clearly an ailing and elderly man. So the final showdown with the public face of the NRA and pro-gun lobby in the US cast a bit of a shadow over what was possibly Moore's best film, although I haven't seen all of them.

Much of the criticism of Moore, that hes dishonest etc etc, is over stated. Most of the criticism seems to be of the nit-picking sort, I don't think Moore is any worse than most of his film making collegues. His website has a list of references for his latest film, 'Sicko' so if you wanted you can look up what evidence he bases his arguments on.

Moore's films are polemics and should be taken as such. Broadly they tell the 'truth', I think Sailor Steve puts it well.

[Yahoshua]

Some view "truth" as being dependent of ones' point of view. I view truth as incorruptible fact.

A good example would be 2 people arguing over the color of a piece of cloth, but one of them is color-blind.

Neither can deny that the cloth is made of canvas, or that the piece of canvas is square. The issue of contention is whether it is blue or green in color, but how do you convince a color-blind person that the canvas is blue and not green?

Moore is calling the piece of cloth a triangle shaped piece of cotton that is blue, which is not entirely true. Blue it may be, but it is not made of cotton and it isn't a triangle!!

Yes we were attacked by Al-qaeda on 9/11, yes the WTC center collapsed; but to say that the whole event was engineered by Bush is akin to saying FDR knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and allowed it to happen. Were bad decisions made? Of course there were bad decisions, it's an official american past-time to make terrible decisions and not learn from the mistakes of others (take the war in the atlantic for example).

What happened was a classic case of falling asleep at the wheel and receiving a rude awakening. We had already been attacked several times before 9/11 but our sh*t for brains government couldn't connect the dots if their life depended on it.


1982–1991 Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad (Islamic Jihad has close ties to Hamas, the current leadership in the Gaza Strip) claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut. (Islamic Jihad also claimed responsibility for this act, and did so with IRANIAN help).

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected. (File this comment under REALLY HORRIBLE DECISIONS: FBI is put onto this case as a criminal investigation and not as an act of terrorism).

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001. (Hezbollah is openly backed by Iran).

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

Even with all of these events and other I didn't bother to mention, our government was so busy with domestic politics and political scandals that they were incapable of action.

Lastly, one of the more irritating things I hear from people is that Bush is an idiot, and those same people claim that Bush engineered the 9/11 attacks to work in his favor. For god sakes people, either Bush is an incompetent man who should be removed from office or he's one of the most frightening masterminds we've ever come across in our nations' history. PICK ONE.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Some view "truth" as being dependent of ones' point of view. I view truth as incorruptible fact.

A good example would be 2 people arguing over the color of a piece of cloth, but one of them is color-blind.

But how do you tell which is colour blind?
Just the one who is in the minority?

Anyway, lets say that:
Person 'A' says he has a blue experience of the cloth.
Person 'B' says he has a red experience of the cloth.
Person 'C' says the cloth is emitting light at 500nm wavelength.

No one has said anything false here and only person 'C' has said something
potentially falsifiable because he is the only one speaking about a external, as
opposed to internal, world.

Persons D and E think that their experiences corrosion directly to an external,
ontological world, they might say:

D: the cloth is blue
E: the cloth is red

D and E's statements are falsifiable, but there is no way to check who is right.
Our senses are the only way to check and they disagree.
Even if 100,000,000 people agreed with person D, we would still not have anyway of
checking that they are all right.

lastly, person D and E are both assuming that qualities like 'blue' and 'red' exist
externally and independently of our selves.
If no one looks at a tree, are it's leaves green?



I am not saying that truth is dependent on your point of view.
And I am not saying that truth is not incorruptible fact.

I'm just saying that any ontological truths that are external from us, can never be
verified and never be known, if they exist at all.