Posted on 07/26/2004 6:54:44 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
"We need to provide them with a point-by-point rebuttal of Moore's propaganda. Unfortunately, images are much more powerful than words alone, and the damage has been done."
Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
At your service :)
Besides - theres a new Trey Stone/Matt Parker (soutpark guys) movie coming out Oct 15 which SKEWERS Moore and hollyweird leftists.
Bootleg copies of just about anything can be found right outside of most of the posts. That's how the locals make a living.
The first WTC bombing in 1993 happened on Clinton's watch. Does that mean Clinton was involved in the conspiracy too, and that Clinton was in it for the money? Does Clinton also have ties to the Bin Ladin family? I haven't seen the movie, nor will I, but did Moore try to claim that Bush was complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing?
The answers are no, no, and no. Blaming Bush for 9-11 is like blaming a woman for being raped. The terrorists are responsible for 9-11, not Bush.
So unless Moore's movie tries to say tha Bush was involved in the FIRST WTC bombing in 1993, please remind all of our Troops that the first WTC bombing was designed to topple one tower into the other and bring them both down, killing 50,000 people. Al Qaeda has their own agenda, and Bush is not the one directing it.
I have some very good ideas about what terrorist target they can take out next...a certain lard-ass, hypocritical, cap-wearing, leech who does not appreciate the blood and sacrifice of the men and women he expoilted in his propaganda piece.
You assume facts not in evidence. I could ask you a similar question, "why do you continue to sexually molest little children?" You must provide facts for your assertions to be considered legitimate.
*Why* were the Bin Ladens let out of the country after 9/11, instead of being put *where they belonged,* in detention?
Placed in detention? Please cite or reference the specific law or U.S. code that would allow such action?
*Why* does the US State Department (an *executive* branch) continue to ignore the abuses of *American citizens* abducted and trapped in Saudi Arabia by fathers and husbands?
What would you have the State department do? It's helpful the expound on what the State Department is not doing, so we can better understand what options might be available. I suppose you would like the State Department to "not ignore"?
Why do we not use US Marines to rescue these citizens?
For the same reasons that we do not use the US Marines to issue traffic tickets or chase down dead-beat dads. Simply stated, It's not their job?
*Why* are the religious rights of our servicemen/women in Saudi Arabia routinely violated, to pander to fanatic Muslim sensibilities?
In Saudi Arabia, exactly what are a U.S. Serviceman's religious rights? Are they the same religious rights that we here in America enjoy? Could it be possible that another country might have different laws, and that the U.S. constitutional protections end at our borders? Really poor reasoning on your part here.
*Why* do we ignore the massive human rights violations that go on routinely in Saudi Arabia?
I like the use of the term "we" in this one. So, tell me, why are you ignoring the "massive" human rights violations? After all this other dreck that you have spilled, I would think you would be that last person to ignore Saudi human rights violations. But clearly you must, otherwise, why did you chose to say we
*Why* do we ignore especially the vehement anti-semitism of that country?
Again with the "we". You have some real issues that you need to address yourself.
*Why* do we tolerate Saudi financing of jihadist "madrassahs" and recruitment operations all over the world?
Again, you state facts not in eveidence. A very lazy form of argument.
Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia after 9/11, and *cut off the money* that was allowing Afghanistan to serve as their satellite terror state?
Again, facts not in evidence. If you expect us to just roll over and assume that you are somehow omnicient, you assume to much. To convince your readers, you need to offer some evidence and support. A continuous stream of questions, much like a two year old, does nothing but irritate your audience.
Last, why has the Bush administration continually perpetuated the myth that "Islam is a religion of peace" and "the Saudis are our friends?"
To perpetuate a myth, there must be a myth. Since you assert that the Bush administration is perpetuating a myth, the burden of proof falls on you. Yet, once again, you just leave this little unsupported assertion hanging without support.
Overall, I give this a D-. Very poorly supported, style is annoying, and tends towards boring at the end.
I think the problem of wrecked morale is confined to the younger troops. If I saw this movie while on active duty, I'd make a note to invoke some street justice on Moore some day when our paths crossed.
What should be done by the senior NCOs, as soon as the troops leave the movie, is ask them, "you've been here 15 months. You know what you have experienced, and why. Why would you want to believe what 98 minutes of selective editing and deceitful rhetorical ploys over your own experience? Fatass Moore hasn't been within 4000 miles of this sandbox. The closest he's been are the topless beaches of the Riviera. You want to believe him over your own heart?"
God Bless our troops and may Michael Moore burn in hell.
valkyrieanne wrote:Can you give any examples of this "subservience"? While I wish we were tougher with the Saudis at times, I haven't noticed that the Saudis run this administration.
But the question remains unanswered - *why* is the Bush administration so subservient to the Saudis?
valkyrieanne wrote:I'm fairly certain that the FBI had a chance to interview all of those that left. I think they did interview some of them, and they had no desire to interview the ones that were not interviewed.
*Why* were the Bin Ladens let out of the country after 9/11, instead of being put *where they belonged,* in detention?
And Richard Clarke testified to the 9/11 commission that he acted on his own to approve the flights that left with Saudi citizens aboard. Much of what Moore says in his film about this is incorrect, and he omits some very important information about this point.
valkyrieanne wrote:Can you give any examples. Not you used the word "ignore" which means your position is that the state department is aware of your examples, but has done absolutely nothing at all. The word "ignore" doesn't mean that you think they haven't done enough, it means they have done nothing.
*Why* does the US State Department (an *executive* branch) continue to ignore the abuses of *American citizens* abducted and trapped in Saudi Arabia by fathers and husbands?
valkyrieanne wrote:We generally don't invade other countries to rescue individual citizens or even small groups.
Why do we not use US Marines to rescue these citizens?
What was once considered treason is now considered to be a "right".
You can even take up arms against your fellow countrymen and end up only getting 20 years. (Johnny Jihad)
Not only was Kennedy (JFK the first) already dead but a monster PR campaign was in place to make sure that he was 'remembered' as different than he really was. Instead of the old school Democrat Hawk who campaigned on missile gaps and domino theories, he was redefined as 'on the verge of pulling out' while his domestic and personal quirks were hushed for decades.
Johnson on the other hand became almost a not-democrat as the party walked away from him and simply changed sides. That was the germination period for WJC and most of his socialist co-conspirators...right up to JFK the second and Robin.
What the hell are you talking about?? We HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THIS A$$HOLE TOOTH AND NAIL!
Read some of the FReeper Canteen threads any day!
Tell him, Tonk!
Thanks for posting GEN Franks. I've had that on my About page for months but it red x'd on me. Now I have it back.
Hanging's too good. How bout drawing & quartering.
I don't believe a case can be made for treason, legally. Whatever law Moore has broken, their is no political will to prosecute him. Moore's trial would be a political disaster for the President.
Try him for sedition!
Could Moore have made even more effective propaganda for our enemies if he was a card carrying full fledged member of al Qaeda? I think not.
Trying him for anything would be a waste of time, and provide our enemies with a show trial orders of magnitude worse than O. J. Simpson's. Remember which political party gets the most money from trial lawyers. Moore would have the most nightmarish dream team ever assembled.
I haven't forgotten. Neither has John Kerry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.