Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

[Slayhamlet]

What deffinition of terrorist are you useing here?

They are officially designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. Gov.

 

[geni]

Better now?

Nope. Repeatky calls Hizballah a terrorist group but fails to provide the defintion being used.

 

[geni]

They are officially designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. Gov.

So if the US gov declaired the boy scouts to be a terrorist organization they would be a terrorist organization?

 

[Pardalis]

Here's a "defintion".

 

[geni]

Here's a "defintion".

A definition of the letter "l" is not relivant to the subject at hand.

 

[ConspiRaider]

<snipped>...

Michael Moore's films (which are promoted and packaged as factual documentaries) are propaganda. I agree with the intention of Bowling For Columbine (gun control in the US), but not when it's based on a false premise (that Americans are inherently more violent than other population groups).

(bolding mine)

Hey Gum -

Well, we Yanks are definitely more violent than at least some population groups. I don't know about "inherently", but facts speak for themselves. You only have to compare us to Japan to acknowledge that we do a lot more violence here in the USA. What's their secret? What do the Japanese know that is eluding us? The answers are complex.

I'll tell you exactly why Michael Moore is so viciously attacked in this country. It's very similar to why Hillary Clinton is so viciously attacked. The right wing controls mass media here, and the right wing has NO TOLERANCE for dissenting views. And they hate winners. When one slips by - the right-wing starts bellowing: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS! LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS! Friggin' crybabies.

So, consider that your opinion of Michael Moore may be based, in part, on the maniacal screaming and gnashing of teeth and stomping of feet from the right wing. If there is one concept that defines U.S. right wingers, it is this: Tremendous love for authoritarianism. That's why so many of them are fundamentalist Christians. That's why they want to ditch the Constitution, habeus corpus, allow unauthorized drug testing, disallow flag burning, remove people from government functions because they are wearing the "wrong" tee shirt and so on and so on...

Moore sticks a finger in the eye of authority and the right wingers cannot stand it.

Hillary Clinton takes every shot fired at her by the right wing, and it's like the wind off a duck's ass, to her. They cannot stand it. How could someone - and a woman no less - be THAT tough?

When the right wingers in this country are unhappy? That means something good is happening.

 

[Slayhamlet]

So if the US gov declaired the boy scouts to be a terrorist organization they would be a terrorist organization?

Legally, yes. What's your point? You think Hezbollah is unfairly termed "terrorist"? Fine. Many state entities, including the U.S., disagree.

 

[geni]

Legally, yes. What's your point?

So your defintion of terrorist is a group that is legaly a terrorist group within the US?

So regardless of what Comité Régional d'Action Viticole get up to you will not consider them a terrorist group untill the US gov says they are?

Well at least that is a consistant position even if it has the potential to produce some results that many would consider rather odd.

 

[Pardalis]

What constitutes a terrorist organization to you Geni?

 

[geni]

What constitutes a terrorist organization to you Geni?

No you brought the term up you define it (personaly I try to avoid it because I view it as unhelpful).

 

[Pardalis]

No you brought the term up you define it

I fixed the link.

(personaly I try to avoid it because I view it as unhelpful).

Rubbish.

 

[geni]

I fixed the link.

A defintion that would define both the CIA and Carl Gustaf von Rosen (his actions during the Nigerian Civil War were illegal under Nigerian law) as terrorists

Rubbish.

So why so much effort needed on your part to try and define it?

 

[Pardalis]

So why so much effort needed on your part to try and define it?

So why are you asking me for a definition if you yourself admit you won't accept any?

 

[Arus808]

To STICK on Topic l...

Yes Michael Moore is a truther, in the sense that he doesn't believe the report from the 911 Commission contained the full disclosure of what happened on 9/11/2001.

But it doesn't stop the Truthers from twisting his comments to mean something else.

 

[geni]

So why are you asking me for a definition if you yourself admit you won't accept any?

I'm asking you for a defintion to find out what you mean by that word.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm asking you for a defintion to find out what you mean by that word.

And you've just admitted you're not even interested in defining the word.

(personaly I try to avoid it because I view it as unhelpful).

Dishonest maybe?

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Moore's questions and concerns seemed quite reasonable to me. Can anybody here say that they honestly think we got the whole truth?

Oh, forgot; this is JREF.

 

[Slayhamlet]

So your defintion of terrorist is a group that is legaly a terrorist group within the US?

I was giving one definition by which they could be considered a terrorist organization. It is not "my definition". It is the definition most relevant to the discussion, however, as it has legal force for U.S. citizens. I am saying nothing more and nothing less than that.

So regardless of what Comité Régional d'Action Viticole get up to you will not consider them a terrorist group untill the US gov says they are?

Excuse me? This has nothing to do with what I consider a terrorist group. Terrorism is a very broad term that can have a number of different meanings depending in large part on subjective criteria. Hezbollah is also a charity organization and Lebanese political party, on top of being a militia. Their militia has engaged in certain activities that can reasonably be called terrorism, but those are only a small part of their entire operations. Does this make them terrorists? I don't know, it's not so clear-cut.

Well at least that is a consistant position even if it has the potential to produce some results that many would consider rather odd.

What position? I have not stated any position. But I will ask you again: What the hell is your point?

 

[Chedda]

Dylan's blatantly waving his true colours in a manner only true truthseekers could ignore.

My biggest concern with this is that F9/11 1/2 will be a 9/11 truth film, and the mainstream media will suddenly applaud him as if he's the first person to expose this information, which I feel is a gigantic insult and dis-service to those of us who have been busting our asses for years only to be ridiculed by the MSM.

Or am I out of line here?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11038&view=findpost&p=13892200

How dare someone consider stealing his troofer thunder.

 

[boloboffin]

First off, the actual Michael Moore quote:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

From this quote, it's clear that Moore is happy to have any kind of questions out there that undermine the Bush Administration. And he must know that camera is on him, doesn't he? Could the camera be hidden at that point?

No matter. It's him. Moore is being quite the player here. He mentions that a lot of firefighters talking about explosions, and they believe there is much more than we have been told. He supports a new investigation, and he does the Pentagon thing - there are cameras all around the building, why don't we have video from that building. He thinks that answers are in the tape. He's "not very good with the physics" - palming off any other questions and completely shutting down any endorsement of Ron Paul.

So of course, the truthers have to bash him.

It's this kind of playing the field that I think most people here have a problem with. It's hard to dispute most of the facts that he uses, but it's the way the facts are used in his films that most find questionable. He uses facts (and very occasionally dresses them up) to advance a position that his targets have to spend time debunking.

The problem isn't really propaganda, because everything is propaganda, really. It's really more about the over-the-line tactics available in propaganda, where the ignorant are kept ignorant about other facts that might undermine the basic message. Michael does this, but far less than he is accused of, and much, much less than a Bart Sibrel or a Dylan Avery.

Re: Bowling from Columbine - here is Michael's defense. He deals with the Lockheed question and the bank/gun question there. I don't remember the NRA/KKK statement. That wasn't in the cartoon, was it?

Because having grown up in the South, I can assure you that every member of the KKK would be card-carrying members of the NRA, just as the membership logs of the southern chapters of the Freemasons would have looked incredibly similar to the membership logs of the KKK at a certain point in time. My grandfather was a member of both for a short period of time in the Sixties. Being anti-Mason in the South was a very easy way to be against the Klan back then, and my grandfather was very anti-Mason after he left them. So if Moore says the KKK became the NRA (especially in the cartoon), he isn't too far off the mark, organizational papers be [rule8]ed.

I hear a lot of noise about Fahrenheit 9/11, but the most I've ever been able to nail down is Moore making up a newspaper page for an online story. And Sicko seems to be winning people over from both sides of the aisle.