just cause you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really after you :)
I'd actually welcome some refutation of this conclusions of this
movie. As corny as it sounds, I believe in this country and I believe
in the dream and to see it perverted is beyond upsetting.
So please feel free to tell me which part of the movie you think is false.
Bush has ties to the Saudis?
The Taliban had enough time to disperse after 9/11?
The soldier who died in Iraq today may well have died for nothing?
Don't get me wrong, even after sifting out the commentary there are
some parts I don't like. The last I heard, the Dutch army is
considered fairly competent, actually, and the mention of Costa Rica,
Iceland and Palau was almost offensively dismissive.
But I am talking about *this* movie. Haven't seen Bowling for
Columbine and am not discussing it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Angel Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:52:28 -0400
Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ya know there's one term for clumping a lot of indisputable facts
together and using free association to reach some astounding conclusion
:
Conspiracy Theory.
Because the single facts that Michael Moore puts forward may be
unassailable, that does not mean his conclusions whether implied or
explicit, are correct.
Moore himself has said on a few talkshows since the movie (saw him on
Conan) that he may be wrong, and what he says isn't necessarily true,
it's just his opinion.
Like I said before, the danger is in people believing his conclusions
absolutely instead of analysing the 'facts' presented in the movie and
what they really mean themselves.
Similar to the danger in taking the Bush Administration at face value
with their rhetoric for launching the war in Iraq.
-Gel
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 2:49 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
Moore never claimed anything but an op-ed but no one has been able to
refute his facts,
even though they are emphasized Some can claim that not all the
facts were presented only those favorable to the view of Michael
Moore, but isn't that how the prosecution presents its case to a
jury?________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
