Fox News recommends seeing 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

[Eric5273]

Re: Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore

I finally got around the reading the above Slate article, and I can respect opinions, but there are several lies here:

This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor.

This is not a "charge". It was a "charge" or "theory" 15 years ago. Since then declassified documents from the FDR presidency conclusively show that they knew about and encouraged the Pearl Harbor attack. There is no disagreement among historians on this matter anymore, no more than there is disagreement on if the Spanish sunk the Maine, or if the North Vietnameese fired first at the Bay of Tonkin.

Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Munich and Rome.

It was not his home for years. He was expelled from Iraq in 1983 and did not return there again until 2001. In 2002, Saddam suspected he was working for the Mossad (as he had in the past) and spying on Iraq, so he had him murdered.

Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones

This is true, however the no-fly zones were not legal. They were not included in any UN resolution as the security councel had rejected such a measure. The no-fly zones were set up by the US & Britain without UN consent. I suspect if we were to set up no-fly zones over any other country, they would fire upon our fighters also, as we would if someone did the same to us. This is a non-issue. We were invading Iraqi air space and they fired on us. No different than when Israel invades Leboneese airspace once a week, they get fired on also. Imagine that........firing on the fighter jets of another country when they attack you......the nerve!!!

In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam.

A guest of the state?? hehe

He was being held in prison there since 1994. Iraq offered to turn him over the the US many times, but the offer was always rejected. The last thing Bill Clinton wanted was to have another trial for the 1993 WTC bombing after it was exposed that the FBI had an informant who helped build the bomb, but they had him keep quiet since they did not want him to blow his cover. The last thing Clinton wanted was this story to be on the front page again. Here is a NY Times article from 1993:

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1 [front page]

"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart
Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"

By Ralph Blumenthal

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.

The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court [on charges of involvement] in that attack.

Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases:
the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy
the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other
New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the
second bombing case, but his work for the Government was
erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast,
he was feuding with th F.B.I.

After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said,

"came and messed it up."
"He requested to meet me in the hotel,"

Mr. Salem says of the supervisor.

"He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.

Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him,

"He said, I don't think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York Office to go to Washington, D.C."

Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the `New York people':

"Well, of course not, because they don't want to get their butts chewed."

 

[nkb]

Read the article.

I did. I don't know if the onset of Heston's senility was common knowledge at the time, but that is beside the point.

Charlton Heston was the president of the NRA at the time the interview was done. He was a key speaker at an NRA rally in Denver, shortly after Columbine.

So, what makes this interview so reprehensible?

By the way, apart from the author of this article being obviously biased against Moore, he is also a hypocrite. He states that Moore takes liberties with the truth, yet he throws out an inaccuracy (that I know of, who knows how many more are in this article) about Abu Nidal blowing up the Munich airport.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever blown up the Munich airport. He may be referring to the 1972 Olympics, where a rescue operation at the airport went wrong, and the helicopter with some of the Israeli hostages was grenaded by the terrorists.

My point is, if you are going to call someone out for distortion of facts, make damn sure you're not doing the same. That's an automatic loss of credibility in my book.

 

[Jimbo]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

 

[Ponyboy]

My point is, if you are going to call someone out for distortion of facts, make damn sure you're not doing the same. That's an automatic loss of credibility in my book.

Right. And we're talking about Moore, correct?

 

[Ponyboy]

Re: Re: Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore

This is not a "charge". It was a "charge" or "theory" 15 years ago. Since then declassified documents from the FDR presidency conclusively show that they knew about and encouraged the Pearl Harbor attack. There is no disagreement among historians on this matter anymore, no more than there is disagreement on if the Spanish sunk the Maine, or if the North Vietnameese fired first at the Bay of Tonkin.

Perhaps you're talking about revisionist historians? There are plenty of refutations to the conspiracy theories. You can put whatever slant you want on it but you should at least label it as such and not historical truth. The fact is that the US was ill-prepared for war on either front and the blunders that precipated the Pearl Harbor attack were not intentional.

Am I wrong to think you haven't seen a conspiracy you didn't like?

 

[Eric5273]

Re: Re: Re: Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore

Perhaps you're talking about revisionist historians? There are plenty of refutations to the conspiracy theories. You can put whatever slant you want on it but you should at least label it as such and not historical truth. The fact is that the US was ill-prepared for war on either front and the blunders that precipated the Pearl Harbor attack were not intentional.

No, I am talking about "The McCollum Memo"

But I will tell you what........I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Rather than post links to sites which give my interpretation of the memo (and every other I have ever read), I challenge you to post a link to single source that discusses the memo and concludes otherwise.

I just did a google search for "The McCollum Memo" and my search yielded 8,060 results. I bet you cannot find a single one that concludes anything but what I posted above.

Also, go ahead and search the news database at the website for what you would consider a "credible" news source. You won't find a different interpretation. Instead you will find no results, as none of the mainstream media ever reported the declassification of the memo during the 1990s. To them it doesn't exist.

 

[Ponyboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore

But I will tell you what........I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Rather than post links to sites which give my interpretation of the memo (and every other I have ever read), I challenge you to post a link to single source that discusses the memo and concludes otherwise.

You're so generous. What you have to prove is that FDR or his administration knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7.

I just did a google search for "The McCollum Memo" and my search yielded 8,060 results. I bet you cannot find a single one that concludes anything but what I posted above.

So you want me to search 8,060 websites so I can disprove what you're postulating? Nice try but my family's financial well-being depends on more than disproving a serial conspiracy theorist. And if I did go through all 8,000 websites (and I came up with 8,150 sites- AH HA! IT'S A GOOGLE CONSPIRACY!!!) and came up with several would it really change your mind?

Maybe I misunderstood your question. Are you asking me if to present a list of resources that FDR or anyone in the entire US military or entiere US public didn't know the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor?

 

[huckster]

geez, the FDR thing is really getting twisted here. FDR fully expected us to be drawn into the war, and was lobbying for our involvement for quite some time. Public sentiment and media was for isolationism and anti-war. FDR was concerned about Europe holding and thought we needed to intervene. FDR predicted we'd be involved sooner or later and was concerned that later might be too late.

 

[Eric5273]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore

So you want me to search 8,060 websites so I can disprove what you're postulating?

Are you asking me if to present a list of resources that FDR or anyone in the entire US military or entiere US public didn't know the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor?

If you are not familiar with the McCollum Memo, then you are not qualified to debate this particular topic. It would be like debating who was behind the 9/11 attacks without being familiar with who Al-Queda was.

Before the McCollum Memo was declassified, there was no proof and only rumors (i.e. "conspiracy theories) that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attacks. The McCollum Memo is absolute proof.

The McCollum Memo, written in 1940, suggests to FDR that if he does the following things, Japan will attack us thus allowing us to enter WWII (due to Japan's alliance with Germany):

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek.
D. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the US Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

In the end, McCollum's plan was a success. Roosevelt followed all 8 steps of the plan over the next year, in the exact order they are listed, and shortly after the last step was taken, the Japanese sent their fleet to attack Pearl Harbor.

So back to your original question, what I have challenged you to do is to find one journalist or article where they examine the McCollum Memo and from it, determine that FDR was unaware the attack was coming. Good luck!

 

[Eric5273]

FDR fully expected us to be drawn into the war, and was lobbying for our involvement for quite some time.

No, he expected that we would not be drawn into the war since neither Germany or Japan wanted to take us on. He tried to provoke Germany, and we even sunk a couple of German ships, but Hitler had his hands full at the time and would not be provoked. This worried FDR for the reasons you state below.

Public sentiment and media was for isolationism and anti-war. FDR was concerned about Europe holding and thought we needed to intervene.

 

[paladin]

......

Whoa, take it easy hippie. Dont you have protest rallies to go to?

 

[huckster]

cmon Eric, are you trolling here or are you really serious??

No one KNEW what Japan would do, but it was a reasonable assumption that if we opposed them in any way, giving aid to the allies or patrolling in international waters they were already laying claim to, that they would in fact eventually react.

Any sane person would have assumed japan/germany would eventually come after us no matter what we did. Even if not by direct attack, by economic domination as they exerted control over the rest of the world. For us to do nothing meant we would eventually be fighting them alone.

Pointing to the Memo as some sort of indictment is ludicrous. As a nation it is one of our bleaker moments that we didnt wholeheartedly rush to the aid of China and Europe in defending against the axis powers. It shouldnt have taken a Pearl harbor to garner our support/attention.

 

[KGP]

cmon Eric, are you trolling here or are you really serious??

I think he's serious, but I need him to explain it a few more times for me. I haven't quite grasped it all yet. Maybe after a few million more words typed.....

 

[Eric5273]

 

[KGP]

Where did you find my ad at? One thing wrong with it - I don't have mine made in China. They are made in Mexico.

 

[Sig]

Blinders are much better than the 'Blindfolds' the extreme left wears while pontificating on how miserable they believe our lives are....

 

[Sig]

... and for those of us that say we are in fact happy, the blindfold bearers then proceed to spend another hour convincing the listener that he/she should be loathsome of there own happiness.

The previous two comments are directed at the far left, not the run-of-the-mill liberal. Of those I know that relate to that extreme, most are trust fund babies or heirs to significant wealth. Ironic isn't it? Perhpas that is why they spend so much time telling me why my beliefs are 'wrong'.

 

[Sig]

Not sure which is worse, but I will err on the patriotic side. Anything that will upset the kooks at the ACLU

 

[ajnsx]

The stats seem a little strange. Brazil has a terrible gun violence problem but it is not even listed

as seen in the the movie 'city of god' guns and killing are everyday chores, like going out to get milk

 

[huckster]

geez dude (eric), you need help. it must suck to be in your head...

 

[paladin]

I know somebody here remembers "Bad Dudes"?

 

[Z18]

Some other interesting stuff:

Gun murders per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

Gun Murders - Total
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir


1. South Africa 31,918 (2000)
2. Colombia 21,898 (2000)
3. Thailand 20,032 (2000)
4. United States 8,259 (1999)
5. Mexico 3,589 (2000)
6. Zimbabwe 598 (2000)
7. Germany 384 (2000)
8. Belarus 331 (2000)
9. Czech Republic 213 (2000)
10. Ukraine 173 (2000)
11. Poland 166 (2000)
12. Canada 165 (1999)


this stat narrows gun 'murders' to over 8000. Still the countries it shares company with are startling It totally drops off after mexico

And where is Switzerland, where every adult male has a fully automatic assault rifle with several hundred rounds of ammo in his house? Very little crime there too.

Though this is an endless debate, I think it's fairly obvious that people kill each other (with or without guns) because something social and moral is screwed up in their country or in the area in their country in which they live. There does't seem to be a relationship between access to guns either way.

If you live in a violent area, chances are higher you will be a victim to some sort of violence. What tool the criminal uses to injure you or your loved ones seems much less important than making sure that weaker people and/or other victims have access to tools (e.g. guns) that equalize the conflict better than say a knife or a stick.

Better yet, leave or fix the problem, but far easier said than done.... so, I'd argue if we have screwed up places but in which everyone is not a criminal, that the non-criminals in such areas should have access the best self-defense around... that 9mm in your house is sort of nice when you're waiting minute after minute for the 911 call to produce results, especially if you or your loved ones are in danger.

The problem of course is to try to address the violence, but that's another topic. But it makes more sense imho to blame and hold responsible people on an individual up to a societal or cultural basis for wanting to hurt each other than inanimate objects -- although it's easier to blame an object than a person, group, culture, etc. and certainly more politically correct.

We've a pretty screwed up world, more screwed up in some places than others, and differently screwed up in one place vs. another. Lots of reasons why; lots to debate; action would be nicer than empty promises. But at least allowing your citizens some means of equal or superior self-defense seems reasonable.

 

[Z18]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore

If you are not familiar with the McCollum Memo, then you are not qualified to debate this particular topic. It would be like debating who was behind the 9/11 attacks without being familiar with who Al-Queda was.

Before the McCollum Memo was declassified, there was no proof and only rumors (i.e. "conspiracy theories) that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attacks. The McCollum Memo is absolute proof.

The McCollum Memo, written in 1940, suggests to FDR that if he does the following things, Japan will attack us thus allowing us to enter WWII (due to Japan's alliance with Germany):

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek.
D. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the US Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

In the end, McCollum's plan was a success. Roosevelt followed all 8 steps of the plan over the next year, in the exact order they are listed, and shortly after the last step was taken, the Japanese sent their fleet to attack Pearl Harbor.

So back to your original question, what I have challenged you to do is to find one journalist or article where they examine the McCollum Memo and from it, determine that FDR was unaware the attack was coming. Good luck!

First, where do any of your sumations of this memo, a-h, point to a desire or plan to get Japan to attack us?

Secondly, looking at points a-h they all seem pretty reasonable based on what was going on at the time (alliances with Germany, invasions of China, massive attrocities, a huge Japanese build-up in terms of military force in the pacific, etc.)

Seems logical to take some action against a nation allying itself with another country that is imperalist and raging war across Europe, Asia, and North Africa. Seems logical to expect further expansion and also to take some sort of stand when Japan is invading China and comitting all sorts of war crimes there. (also, should note that supporting Chiang Kai-shek, an anti-communist, trying to stop Mao, would probably have been deemed a positive by fascist, imperal Japan).

Seems logical to not trade with them, to embargo them, to build up your pacific fleet, etc. Does this also then provoke them? Perhaps, but you already had evidence they were a danger, so why not be ready?

Regardless, so what if FDR wanted to enter the war? Why wouldn't he? He's not an idiot and sees the rest of the world being engulfed. He has morals and sees the plight of many citizens in other countries, including traditional allies. He probably had Churchill calling him daily begging for help as the bombs were being dropped on London civilian areas.

So I don't doubt he was looking for a reason to get us into it, but was also concerned about public opinion, the economy (keep in mind this is depression era times; there is a lot of unrest; thousands of Americans are JOINING the communist party, etc.). So not so easy of a call.

My opinion based on nothing but logic and that conspiracies at a grand level usually break down: FDR and many people in the government wanted an excuse to enter the war -- something that would get people riled up enough and to get out of their selfish isolationist slump -- but not buying conspiracy theories that the government somehow orchistrated Pearl Harbor, etc.

Also not buying swapping us REACTING to what the bad guys are doing to us provoking them and therefore they attack us. Bad guys are going to do what they're going to do -- beefing up your defense is rarely a bad idea.

 

[Z18]

Re: Re: Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore

This is true, however the no-fly zones were not legal. They were not included in any UN resolution as the security councel had rejected such a measure. The no-fly zones were set up by the US & Britain without UN consent. I suspect if we were to set up no-fly zones over any other country, they would fire upon our fighters also, as we would if someone did the same to us. This is a non-issue. We were invading Iraqi air space and they fired on us. No different than when Israel invades Leboneese airspace once a week, they get fired on also. Imagine that........firing on the fighter jets of another country when they attack you......the nerve!!!

Yes, the nerve of us repelling a nation from invading their neighbor (Kuwait) and then pillaging, plundering, and raping them in the process. Methinks you give up some protection from international law when you do that.

Iraq was invaded and occupied to an extent and a no-fly zone was put up. Unfortunately, we screwed up and got suckered into letting them still fly helis, so they went ahead and used them to massacre entire villages after we ordered our guys to stop shooting.

Splitting hairs over whats legal or not legal from an international standpoint seems a little off when you consider the big picture of what was going on there. Especially when it's the bad guys who typically break said law -- that you would then indict the US for setting up a no-fly zone considering all that Iraq had done before that which was blatantly illegal, immoral, etc.... I dunno, are you really serious or are you trolling?

 

[Z18]

You give the public too much credit. The public are sheep and can be told to think (and believe) whatever the leaders wish. Nazi Germany was not ruled through force, but almost entirely through propoganda. The people thought Hitler was a great leader. Yes, people were punished and often executed, but this was not known to the masses, as the local news station did not cover such stories (I'm being sarcastic here). If you had spoken to the average German person around 1938 and suggested such things, you would have gotten the same reaction as someone who today accuses the US government of the same.

I actually agree with some of your points here The big difference is fairly rapidly the Nazi party was able to start exerting control over the press until they finally controlled it completely. This has not occured in the US by any stretch of the means; in fact, were it true even near to the extent to which it existed in pre-war and during-war Germany, Moore wouldn't have been able to release his movie -- heh, such irony that one would complain we are being misled, that the government actually controls information to a great extent, in RESPONSE to a movie put out in that same country, and therefore implicitly allowed by this alleged controlled press and authoritarian US government.
*sigh*

Think about it. If none of our media had covered the passing of the Patriot Act, would you even know such a law existed?

If none of our media had covered the stories of the detention of over a thousand "suspected terrorists" after 9/11, would you know such a thing even existed?

Maybe we're agreeing now? You seem to be flip-flopping some, no offense. But yeah, the fact that we have a free press is one of several essential components and rights that keep us from becoming Fascist, allow movies like Moores to come out, etc., making complicated conspiracy theories in our country virtually, if not entirely, impossible (not saying small ones don't happen, nor saying there aren't bad people on both sides of the polictical spectrum abusing the gonvernment from within -- just not at the scale you see in a totalitarian government... not even close).

During WWII, it was not known to the US public that over 100,000 Japenese were in detention camps. Anyone who suggested such a thing back then would have been called a nut.

Wrong. Do yourself a favor and talk to people who were there (they're stll around, some of them). My dad, for example, watched his Japanese neighbors being taken away in the middle of Los Angeles. It was no secret; far from it. And, btw, while in hindsight I do not approve of the relocation camps, it is important to at least understand the hysteria that was occuring at the time... Japanese (or just about any asian looking person) were being beat up by the public, there were many private citizens out on the beaches with guns waiting for an invasion at any moment; massive troups and AAA guns were brought into city neigborhoods (and even lit up LA once, showing the city with flack, due to a false alarm (or, if since you like conspiracies, shooting at an alien UFO)), etc. And, btw, this hysteria was what the Japanese wanted -- to test our mettle -- which is why they shelled Santa Barbara with a sub, launched terrorist baloons (e.g. rigged with bombs for kids to get blown up when they eventually landed in Idaho), and even flew some recon over Seattle. Little known facts, but all true.

Pretty crazy, scary times.

Such rumors which tell of things not covered by the media are almost always dismissed as conspiracy theories. That is because you have been told how independent and fair our media is. Well, Germans were told, and they believed, the same about their media. They had many newspapers, all of which were independently owned. So when the front pages showed the French dancing in the streets of Paris and cheering on the Nazi soldiers, they believed it. Much the way the crowds cheered on our soldiers as they knocked down Saddam's statue. Only later on did we find out the whole incident was staged.

Oh, bah. If you don't think we have decent freedom of the press then we're in two different dimensions or our totalitarian propeganda ministers you seem to think are just really, really bad at their jobs Again, you have massive criticism of the government, investigations, editorals, movies like Moores, etc. pouring about, yet you attempt to say our situation is analagous to how well the Nazis controlled the press (and just about every other freedom as well)? Hogwash.

Oh, let me know more details on just how the Saddam Statue was staged. That Iraqis in the area at the time or wanted to appear that way is a duh. That the army was trying to make a political statement to the Iraqi people and the remnants of Sadam's party is a duh. But implying that it was totally fake, or didn't happen, or that everyone was a Saddam fan is ludicrous, as is putting that even close to Nazi controlled newspapers showing 'happy' occupied Frenchmen.

The Germans were not happy when they were "liberated". During the late 1940s, there was a huge resistance movement much like what is going on in Iraq. The difference was that we had many more soldiers there to stomp them out.

True, nor were the Japanese, yet it's awful interesting how that point seems to be forgotten by the mainstream press. Conspiracy? No, just bias. It takes years, lives, and a lot of money to pacify a nation you just took over - MacArther ruled Japan for years, the Marshall plan cost BIG bucks, etc.

Funny how some people now expect Iraq to be pacified quickly and with few or no deaths, or even advocate leaving the nation. So quickly do they forget what price we paid to pacify and then elevate West Germany and Japan to great nations, and how grateful they should be for the time, money, and lives we spent in doing so (not that it wasn't to our advantage too).