It's too bad Vanity Fair doesn't have stuff online. Then you all could be educated about what's really going on. The stuff the government controlled media in France wont report on.
My only problem with Michael Moore doing a documentary like this is that he'll probably go over the top, throwing in enough stupid and baseless stuff that his critics will have ample ammunition to dismiss him. The good points he has to make will suffer along with the bad ones.
It's right there on the first page closer to the bottom. Just go and read.
Ok, I read all your posts. I don't see any of them that answer the question:
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Here are your posts:
Quote:
Iraq was a festering wound in the middle east. Only the US and UK were involved in maintaining the no fly zones and the rest. France and Germany, for example, had already cut lucrative oil deals with one the worlds worst living dictators. Rah rah old Europe.
In a post 9-11 world Iraq either had to comply with the UN or have their regime changed.
Maybe so, but that in no way implies a link to the attacks on 9/11. Next.
Quote:
Not so silly considering France had cut many a business deal with Iraq (ie Saddam) and has been implicated in passing top secret information directly to Iraq while the US and UK were making the case for war. What does France stand for when it jumps in bed with an anti-Semitic dictator like Saddam?
Some anti-france sentiment, but nothing to do with 9/11. Next.
Quote:
Who's "he"? What are you posting about?
Some playing dumb drivel. Again, no connection with the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Next.
Quote:
Um? No. France and Germany had deals with Saddam just before Gulf War 2.
Some more anti-France and general anti-Europe sentiment. Again, nothing to do with 9/11, but now you're making some sort of connection with this most recent attack by the US into a sovereign country. Next.
Quote:
So after the first gulf war, when Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire, violated the UN mandates, violated oil for food, committed untold numbers of crimes against his people after all that fact that france and germany are ready to jump into bed with him and fund his activities with sweetheart oil deals is irrelevant to the discussion of what countries were up to before GW2?
Demonizing Saddam (not that he needs it), painting him to be the bastard dictator we know he was. But nothing connecting Iraq to 9/11. Next.
Quote:
Yea and I all saw the picture of Chiraq with him. People change. France didn't though. Still the same self centered pricks.
More anti-France sentiment. Getting tired of this game.
Next.
Oh wait, there was no next, except when you said you did respond to the question at the bottom of the first page. I don't see it. Could you tell me where in those posts you actually responded to the question: What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Was it more uncalled for than the original comment? No. His comments were racist and sick.
Still, bunge, it doesn't mean it's ok to be racist. I live in Georgia where people still happily drive around with the rebel flag on their cars and many are openly racist. I don't think it's ok for them to be that way, nor do I think it's ok for me to respond in kind. Sorry, but responding in a racist way (and changing his quote) is not cool, regardless of whether you're right or not.
edit: also, changing his quote but not making that explicit is poor form.
Are you kidding? It was totally called for. He called Jews "self-centered pricks". And this from one of the the most self-centred pricks on these boards. He deserves to have the shit beat out of him for a racist comment like that. His example just adds to the world's hatred of Americans.
No, he didn't. bunge changed his quote to say that. Scott said that France hadn't changed. bunge changed it to say that Jews hadn't changed.
Still, bunge, it doesn't mean it's ok to be racist. I live in Georgia where people still happily drive around with the rebel flag on their cars and many are openly racist. I don't think it's ok for them to be that way, nor do I think it's ok for me to respond in kind. Sorry, but responding in a racist way (and changing his quote) is not cool, regardless of whether you're right or not.
I didn't say anything racist; quite the opposite actually.
No, he didn't. bunge changed his quote to say that. Scott said that France hadn't changed. bunge changed it to say that Jews hadn't changed.
Scott said that French were self-centered pricks. That's unacceptable, as would be any generalization of that magnitude. If it makes you feel any better, I wasn't actually censored. I deliberately typed in the four "*" characters.
The change you made to the post was racist, even if you were just illustrating a point.
I don't see attacking any one group as being more or less racist than another. If you'll accept someone attacking the French in this way, that's racism on your part. If you'll accept neither, then good for both of us.
Mea culpa! Shame on you, Bunge, though I see what your point was.
Sorry tonton, and sorry torifile. The original comment should have no place here, but I stand by my 'reworking' of the statement. Both are equally vile.
I knew that was the connection Scott was going to suggest. Prague.
That theory has already been debunked. The Intelligence agency of the Czech Republic has already said it's untrue. The real reason Atta went to Prague...wanna know... they think it was to get...
cheaper airfare to the U.S.
The source for the original intel was one guy... and now no one believes him. Except t for Cheney... he forgot they weren't using that story anymore... so Condi, Rummy and Bush all had to backtrack for him this week. "we just don't know" to... "We've had no evidence that there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11"
"Cheney also cited a supposed meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer -- but the FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed meeting. The CIA always doubted the story. And according to a New York Times article on Oct. 21, 2002, Czech President Vaclav Havel "quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports" of such a meeting.
Moreover, the United States now has in custody the agent accused of meeting with Atta. Even though he must know how much he would benefit by simply saying, "Yes, I met Atta in Prague," there has been no announcement by the administration trumpeting that vindication of its belief in an Iraq-Sept. 11 link."
I knew that was the connection Scott was going to suggest. Prague.
...
Ah no I didn't suggest it. Can't you read? I wondered why it was not part of the all the other kookie conspiracy theories. READ READ use your brain and READ then try to UNDERSTAND. READ & UNDERSTAND Try it some time.
The real reason Atta and Prague are not part of the regular conspiracy theories about 9-11 is because it's not anti-american anti-bush anti-jew enough for the angry left. It has no legs because it don't confirm people's preconceived notions.
No. The real reason is that it has been disproved. AFAIK Moore doesn't falsely present disproved theories as fact in order to deceive, unlike a certain president we all know.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
It's too bad Vanity Fair doesn't have stuff online.
Right wing propaganda
Originally posted by Scott
It's right there on the first page closer to the bottom. Just go and read.
Ok, I read all your posts. I don't see any of them that answer the question:
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Here are your posts:
Iraq was a festering wound in the middle east. Only the US and UK were involved in maintaining the no fly zones and the rest. France and Germany, for example, had already cut lucrative oil deals with one the worlds worst living dictators. Rah rah old Europe.
In a post 9-11 world Iraq either had to comply with the UN or have their regime changed.
Maybe so, but that in no way implies a link to the attacks on 9/11. Next.
Not so silly considering France had cut many a business deal with Iraq (ie Saddam) and has been implicated in passing top secret information directly to Iraq while the US and UK were making the case for war. What does France stand for when it jumps in bed with an anti-Semitic dictator like Saddam?
Some anti-france sentiment, but nothing to do with 9/11. Next.
Who's "he"? What are you posting about?
Some playing dumb drivel. Again, no connection with the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Next.
Um? No. France and Germany had deals with Saddam just before Gulf War 2.
Some more anti-France and general anti-Europe sentiment. Again, nothing to do with 9/11, but now you're making some sort of connection with this most recent attack by the US into a sovereign country. Next.
So after the first gulf war, when Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire, violated the UN mandates, violated oil for food, committed untold numbers of crimes against his people after all that fact that france and germany are ready to jump into bed with him and fund his activities with sweetheart oil deals is irrelevant to the discussion of what countries were up to before GW2?
Demonizing Saddam (not that he needs it), painting him to be the bastard dictator we know he was. But nothing connecting Iraq to 9/11. Next.
Yea and I all saw the picture of Chiraq with him. People change. France didn't though. Still the same self centered pricks.
More anti-France sentiment. Getting tired of this game.
Next.
Oh wait, there was no next, except when you said you did respond to the question at the bottom of the first page. I don't see it. Could you tell me where in those posts you actually responded to the question: What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Thanks.
Originally posted by Scott
People change. [Jews] didn't though. Still the same self centered pricks.
You racist ****.
Originally posted by bunge
You racist ****.
Uncalled for.
Originally posted by torifile
Uncalled for.
Was it more uncalled for than the original comment? No. His comments were racist and sick.
Originally posted by bunge
Was it more uncalled for than the original comment? No. His comments were racist and sick.
Still, bunge, it doesn't mean it's ok to be racist. I live in Georgia where people still happily drive around with the rebel flag on their cars and many are openly racist. I don't think it's ok for them to be that way, nor do I think it's ok for me to respond in kind. Sorry, but responding in a racist way (and changing his quote) is not cool, regardless of whether you're right or not.
edit: also, changing his quote but not making that explicit is poor form.
Originally posted by tonton
Are you kidding? It was totally called for. He called Jews "self-centered pricks". And this from one of the the most self-centred pricks on these boards. He deserves to have the shit beat out of him for a racist comment like that. His example just adds to the world's hatred of Americans.
No, he didn't. bunge changed his quote to say that. Scott said that France hadn't changed. bunge changed it to say that Jews hadn't changed.
Originally posted by torifile
Still, bunge, it doesn't mean it's ok to be racist. I live in Georgia where people still happily drive around with the rebel flag on their cars and many are openly racist. I don't think it's ok for them to be that way, nor do I think it's ok for me to respond in kind. Sorry, but responding in a racist way (and changing his quote) is not cool, regardless of whether you're right or not.
I didn't say anything racist; quite the opposite actually.
Originally posted by torifile
No, he didn't. bunge changed his quote to say that. Scott said that France hadn't changed. bunge changed it to say that Jews hadn't changed.
Scott said that French were self-centered pricks. That's unacceptable, as would be any generalization of that magnitude. If it makes you feel any better, I wasn't actually censored. I deliberately typed in the four "*" characters.
Originally posted by bunge
I didn't say anything racist; quite the opposite actually.
Please see my edit. The change you made to the post was racist, even if you were just illustrating a point.
Originally posted by torifile
edit: also, changing his quote but not making that explicit is poor form.
The brackets represent an editorial comment or correction. It's not poor form to change a quote if you use brackets.
Originally posted by torifile
The change you made to the post was racist, even if you were just illustrating a point.
I don't see attacking any one group as being more or less racist than another. If you'll accept someone attacking the French in this way, that's racism on your part. If you'll accept neither, then good for both of us.
Originally posted by tonton
Mea culpa! Shame on you, Bunge, though I see what your point was.
Sorry tonton, and sorry torifile. The original comment should have no place here, but I stand by my 'reworking' of the statement. Both are equally vile.
That theory has already been debunked. The Intelligence agency of the Czech Republic has already said it's untrue. The real reason Atta went to Prague...wanna know... they think it was to get...
cheaper airfare to the U.S.
The source for the original intel was one guy... and now no one believes him. Except t for Cheney... he forgot they weren't using that story anymore... so Condi, Rummy and Bush all had to backtrack for him this week. "we just don't know" to... "We've had no evidence that there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11"
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4101486.html
from the article above:
"Cheney also cited a supposed meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer -- but the FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed meeting. The CIA always doubted the story. And according to a New York Times article on Oct. 21, 2002, Czech President Vaclav Havel "quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports" of such a meeting.
Moreover, the United States now has in custody the agent accused of meeting with Atta. Even though he must know how much he would benefit by simply saying, "Yes, I met Atta in Prague," there has been no announcement by the administration trumpeting that vindication of its belief in an Iraq-Sept. 11 link."
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I knew that was the connection Scott was going to suggest. Prague.
...
Ah no I didn't suggest it. Can't you read? I wondered why it was not part of the all the other kookie conspiracy theories. READ READ use your brain and READ then try to UNDERSTAND. READ & UNDERSTAND Try it some time.
The real reason Atta and Prague are not part of the regular conspiracy theories about 9-11 is because it's not anti-american anti-bush anti-jew enough for the angry left. It has no legs because it don't confirm people's preconceived notions.
Originally posted by tonton
No. The real reason is that it has been disproved. AFAIK Moore doesn't falsely present disproved theories as fact in order to deceive, unlike a certain president we all know.
Clinton?
Originally posted by Scott
Clinton?
So, Scott, your response to the question was to present a discarded conspiracy theory?
And, again, you side-step a significant comment by tonton by avoiding dealing with it...
You know, if you go to the end of the Earth, you'll fall off. The Church said so.
Just keep repeating Moore's lies. Ignorance is bliss.