PDA

View Full Version : Fahreinheit 9/11 debunking links:



Section126
06-29-2004, 04:14 PM
http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

http://www.moorewatch.com/f911/

Here is a good article ripping apart the flick:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/27/191309.shtml

Section126
06-29-2004, 04:47 PM
Links Fixed now......

ohall
06-29-2004, 07:42 PM
You da man thx!

Oliver...

BigFinFan
06-29-2004, 08:49 PM
:clap:

Clumpy
06-30-2004, 12:25 AM
This thread is :spam:

WharfRat
06-30-2004, 12:59 AM
Clumpy... it's ironic how you place that Spam can directly over your "kerry in 04" signature... :tongue:

ohall
06-30-2004, 01:02 AM
Clumpy... it's ironic how you place that Spam can directly over your "kerry in 04" signature... :tongue:

I was thinking the same thing!

Oliver...

Clumpy
06-30-2004, 01:04 AM
My sig is centered, thus it's not over it.

ohall
06-30-2004, 01:07 AM
My sig is centered, thus it's not over it.

SWEEP!!!!!!!

I love it!

Oliver...

Clumpy
06-30-2004, 01:21 AM
:shakeno:

Super_Duper85
06-30-2004, 07:36 AM
Most of the points in those links are very weak and small examples of doctoring by Moore. Nobody seems to get the big picture. For example, the "happy Iraq" wasn't what Moore was going for (if you've SEEN the movie you would know that). He was basically showing how civilians are dying because, IN HIS OPINION, of a war that should not have taken place. It's funny how many different spins one can get from a scene (depending on your political affiliation). Nobody seems to mention the "sounds bytes" where Bush, Rice, and Ashcroft say that Sadam was not a threat (2001) because of economic sanctions, etc. They say on camera SADAM DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITIES for WMD/WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HIM. Then we drop what we're doing against Afgahnistan and go after Sadam who is now this major threat. I'm not saying we did it for oil as Moore might suggest, however, this war does have to raise some red flags. I just think it is funny how people harp on minute details and all of the big stuff like people dying or actual quotes from Bush, etc. get swept under the rug.

Section126
06-30-2004, 07:38 AM
Most of the points in those links are very weak and small examples of doctoring by Moore. Nobody seems to get the big picture. For example, the "happy Iraq" wasn't what Moore was going for (if you've SEEN the movie you would know that). He was basically showing how civilians are dying because, IN HIS OPINION, of a war that should not have taken place. It's funny how many different spins one can get from a scene (depending on your political affiliation). Nobody seems to mention the "sounds bytes" where Bush, Rice, and Ashcroft say that Sadam was not a threat (2001) because of economic sanctions, etc. They say on camera SADAM DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITIES for WMD/WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HIM. Then we drop what we're doing against Afgahnistan and go after Sadam who is now this major threat. I'm not saying we did it for oil as Moore might suggest, however, this war does have to raise some red flags. I just think it is funny how people harp on minute details and all of the big stuff like people dying or actual quotes from Bush, etc. get swept under the rug.

BOY!!! WHAT A SPIN YOU PUT ON THOSE LINKS!!!!!!!!!!!

themole
06-30-2004, 08:09 AM
BOY!!! WHAT A SPIN YOU PUT ON THOSE LINKS!!!!!!!!!!!


:roflmao: A freaking TEXAS TWISTER!

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 10:48 AM
WORRY ABOUT HIM. Then we drop what we're doing against Afgahnistan and go after Sadam who is now this major threat. I'm not saying we did it for oil as Moore might suggest, however, this war does have to raise some red flags. I just think it is funny how people harp on minute details and all of the big stuff like people dying or actual quotes from Bush, etc. get swept under the rug.


Could you kindly give one example of how we dropped the Afghan effort in order to go after Saddam? Were troops diverted from Afghanistan? Were they shorted? Do you understand that in a conflict as mountanous as Afghanistan, you CAN'T use more than a relatively small amount of men?

Clumpy
06-30-2004, 11:04 AM
Yes, SOF(Special Operation Forces) were diverted from hunting for bin Laden to Iraq

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 11:22 AM
Yes, SOF(Special Operation Forces) were diverted from hunting for bin Laden to Iraq


And they were replaced by other Spec Ops forces. Including those of other countries. We did not reduce our presence in Afghan to go into Iraq...on the contrary, we sent in MORE troops.

Section126
06-30-2004, 01:22 PM
And they were replaced by other Spec Ops forces. Including those of other countries. We did not reduce our presence in Afghan to go into Iraq...on the contrary, we sent in MORE troops.

Not to mention that we have more than half of our Army Rangers in Afghanistan and fewer than 100 in Iraq.

Thats 1350 in Afghanistan and 100 in Iraq.

Sounds like what Clump posted is a pile of crap.