Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

swolf wrote:

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

This Serbian site[/URL] denies things like concentrationcamps in Bosnia during the war and believes Milosevic should be freed immediately.

The question is, after you read the story of Trnopolje, which of those kinds of stories (about Bosnian Serb "death camps") are you supposed to then go on believing, and why?

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/film/judgment.htm

I guess the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague is a good indicator of what's true and what's not true. That also accounts for this one. Now this source you can have your doubts about - as I have doubts on your links. And this source is from Human Rights Watch.

Now to answer your question: I rather believe the WCT in The Hague.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Sofia, sweet thing. I see you are clutching at straws. There was however, a link established between OSB and Iran. If we should have invaded anyone based upon that evidence it should have been Iran.

Were not 19 of the terrorists Saudi Nationals? We should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

0 Replies

Quote:

I guess the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague is a good indicator of what's true and what's not true.

That's a real bad guess and I notice your first link starts out with the same stupid image which has been so thoroughly debunked, again from Trnopolje which turned out to be a refugee hostel of some sort and not a death camp, the emaciated guy in the picture suffering from some rare disease and not any sort of mistreatment.

The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic:

http://www.icdsm.org/

This is Slobodan Milosevic, an innocent man being tried by a so-called International Criminal
Tribunal in the Hague, Holland, presumably for attempting to deport (or ethnically cleanse)
albanian islammites from a Serbian province for barbaric conduct over a protracted period of time:

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Binder87NYT.htm

One assumes that the Dutch are practicing to try themselves for ethnic cleansing and genocide,
since they themselves are now beginning to expell muslims from their own country:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/2/17502340-DA4E-4379-9982-AED6C77B315D.html

also for barbaric conduct over a protracted period of time:

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=1111&terms=

An unbiased observer would be excused for assuming that barbaric conduct over protracted periods of time is a sort of an islammite specialty.

Now, one way to prevent yourself from being charged with hypocricy, is to start torturing people. For the same reason that nobody would ever charge Al Capone with shoplifting, nobody would ever charge somebody like Adolf Eichman or Joseph Mengele with hypocrisy.

Thus it comes out that a prosecutioni witness in this trial of Slobodan Milosevic stood up in the courtroom and stated that prosecutors had attempted to torture an accusation against Milosevic out of him:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/markovic.html

Now, in an American courtroom, that would be the instantaneous end of the trial and the prosecutor's career (doing anything other than washing dishes in the courtroom cafeteria) right there.

Thus there should be a question of how Americans would want to be associated with this process
even before you consider the fact that Americans soundly reject the entire premise of the ICC
and have gone as far as to pass a law requiring the president of the United States to use military force to rescue any
American being held by that "tribunal":

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/inlap020819.html

In other words, Holland would face the armed might of the United States military were it to try to do to any American what it is doing to Milosevic. The article notes:

Quote:

This bill is dubbed the "Hague Invasion Act", because it authorises the President to use military force against the Netherlands to "rescue" any personnel detained by the ICC. I can think of few historical parallels in which a legislature specifically authorises the armed invasion of an acknowledged ally.

Somehow or other, it doesn't sound like our own congress trusts the Dutch quite as much as you do.

0 Replies

Harper wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Sofia, sweet thing. I see you are clutching at straws. There was however, a link established between OSB and Iran. If we should have invaded anyone based upon that evidence it should have been Iran.

Were not 19 of the terrorists Saudi Nationals? We should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

Unless the Executive Branch doesn't think that there is a connection between a government and the independent actions of its citizens, in which case, the invasions that DID occur should be re-examined.

0 Replies

Anyway, I came to this thread late. To get back to the question, Moore is neither a hero or a rogue. What he is is a brilliant filmmaker. I finally saw F9/11. I laughed, cried, jeered (that woman who claimed that the Lipscomb White House scene was staged was appallling) The first scene of the Gore Rally was particularly riveting as I was there on Miami Beach that night before the election. We all went away just knowing that Gore would win Florida. of course, he did. But even as early as the afternoon of the vote, we started hearing rumors of "irregularities" at the poll booths.

What struck me about the audience reaction is that everyone stayed while the credits rolled and even after the screen went blank, people didn't immediately leave. I have never seen that at a movie theater before.

0 Replies

That's because they were embarrassed to be there and didn't want anyone to see them as they left...

0 Replies

Am I the only one who saw it without unique theater behavior?

All I got was a loud-mouthed guy who punctuated each Bush sighting with a very obnoxious fake contemptuous laugh in ejaculatory bursts.

e.g.

Bush appears...

"Ha!"

Bush says something...

"Ha!"

He'd switch to a boo every now and then and made a general pestilence out of himself. The rest of the crowd acted normally.

0 Replies

swolf wrote:

This is Slobodan Milosevic, an innocent man being tried by a so-called International Criminal
Tribunal in the Hague, Holland, presumably for attempting to deport (or ethnically cleanse)
albanian islammites from a Serbian province for barbaric conduct over a protracted period of time:

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Binder87NYT.htm

One assumes that the Dutch are practicing to try themselves for ethnic cleansing and genocide,
since they themselves are now beginning to expell muslims from their own country:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/2/17502340-DA4E-4379-9982-AED6C77B315D.html

also for barbaric conduct over a protracted period of time:

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=1111&terms=

An unbiased observer would be excused for assuming that barbaric conduct over protracted periods of time is a sort of an islammite specialty.

What has this to do with the ICC? The ICC is not a Dutch institution, but an UN institution. As a Dutchman I don't agree with the policy of my government, and I have the right to disagree - that is called democracy. But is this an attempt to throw some mud? There is no relevance in commenting on this Dutch policy when we are talking about Milosevic's trial.

swolf wrote:

Now, in an American courtroom, that would be the instantaneous end of the trial and the prosecutor's career (doing anything other than washing dishes in the courtroom cafeteria) right there.

Some thoughts: 300 witnesses; one mediasource reporting this (as all the other mediasources seem to be 'biased'). This is disturbing indeed. But I find it a rather strange case. The fact that the judge rules the testimony as 'irrelevant' can as well come out of the fact that this is a clear false accusation the witness has made over and over again. The article doesn't say anything about that. It does not give a reason why nobody reported the incident, or why the judge ruled the testimony as 'irrelevant'. What the autor of the article does however, is concluding that 'it is a show trial. And it does feature suborned witnesses (...) And torture'.

swolf wrote:

In other words, Holland would face the armed might of the United States military were it to try to do to any American what it is doing to Milosevic. The article notes:

Quote:
This bill is dubbed the "Hague Invasion Act", because it authorises the President to use military force against the Netherlands to "rescue" any personnel detained by the ICC. I can think of few historical parallels in which a legislature specifically authorises the armed invasion of an acknowledged ally.

Somehow or other, it doesn't sound like our own congress trusts the Dutch quite as much as you do.

120 countries DO support the ICC. Ever wondered why the US Congress has passed this Act? For one thing, that is not clear in the article. For what I know, the US fears the fact that people start accusing US soldiers in countries like Iraq or other countries where US soldiers are based randomly of war crimes. And that would have a negative influence on their operations. Now, is such an argument an argument against the ICC or against the people who want to bring US soldiers in front of the ICC?

0 Replies

Rick!!! Please!! Dont let swolf drag yet another thread down the Slobo path!

Address him in one of his own threads about Yugoslavia, if you do want to discuss the issue ...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Rick!!! Please!! Dont let swolf drag yet another thread down the Slobo path!

Address him in one of his own threads about Yugoslavia, if you do want to discuss the issue ...

What Nimh said.

0 Replies

OK nimh

You heard it swolf!

0 Replies

Harper wrote:

Anyway, I came to this thread late. To get back to the question, Moore is neither a hero or a rogue. What he is is a brilliant filmmaker. I finally saw F9/11. I laughed, cried, jeered (that woman who claimed that the Lipscomb White House scene was staged was appallling) The first scene of the Gore Rally was particularly riveting as I was there on Miami Beach that night before the election. We all went away just knowing that Gore would win Florida. of course, he did...

The big question regarding Florida is how a state whose legislature is so overwhelmingly republican could come anywhere close to electing Algor for president. The answer is a bit frightening. A big part of the answer seems to be by claiming 100+ percent voter turnout in areas in which, on a given day, half the adult population is either drunk on their butts, flaked out, cracked out, dead, dying, in prison, or otherwise incapacitated.

Logically, the democrats can manufacture as many votes as they care to in thier own districts and it won't effect the legislature since the republicans will still win THEIR own districts. In other words, the vote manufacturing only effects national or statewide elections, albeit Jeb Bush is apparently popular enough that the dems can't elect a dem governor for whatever reason.

Apparently, even with the stunt which the media pulled in announcing Fla. for Algor at 6 PM sending many republican voters home from the polls without voting, W was up 60K votes ast the tail end of the thing when Algor called up to concede the race the first time, and then 20 minutes later it was dead even, and a day or two later they stopped some sort of a dem official with a voting machine in the trunk of his car, which is the political equivalent, in our system at least, of driving around with a neutron bomb in the trunk of your car.

Basically, somebody just manufactured 60K votes and spread them around, and simply missed his tally by a couple thousand.

Democracy is a wonderful system for governing a fairly homogeneous group of people with shared ideals and values; it is not a reasonable system for sharing power between two or more groups which basically hate eachother, have nothing in common, and do not even trust eachother to play the game by fair rules.

As I see it, one of several things has to happen. Either the dem party and democrats have to reform, or the democrat party has to be totally marginalized and/or eliminated, or we have to split the country up.

0 Replies

For anybody who wants to educate themselves wrt the ICC and/or the breakup of Yugoslavia, the most major info site I'd recommend is Jared Israel's site at:

http://www.tenc.net

The specific area of the site is:

http://emperors-clothes.com/yugo.htm

I've got a little list of things I'd pay a hundred dollars to watch, and the thing which used to be at the top of the list, i.e. Arnold Schwarzeneggar telling the dufe out there in California he'd been terminated, is now off the list since it actually happened. At the top of the list at present would be watching the spetznaz rescuing Slobodan Milosevic, and you could make that two hundred if they could shoot the Hague to pieces in the process. The next item down on the list would be watching the frogs hang Jake Shellac up by his ankles like the Italians did Mussolini for taking money from Saddam Hussein. One can always hope...

0 Replies

swolf wrote:

...and you could make that two hundred if they could shoot the Hague to pieces in the process.

I don't think nimh would be in favor of that.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

You seem to infer that Bush is the lesser of two evils. I have seen that statement time and time again on A2k. I have yet to see a valid argument or for that matter anything that spells out the factual reason for that statement. What specifically do you dislike about Kerry.

I don't think that Kerry has the best intrests of the United States in mind. I think his actions after Vietnam were questionable at best (throwing someone else's medals over the fence, hanging out with Hanoi Jane, etc.) I have nothing wrong with him protesting but I question the truth behind it:

"A number of Vietnam veterans consider this testimony slanderous and say Kerry had to know it was false. They accuse Kerry of lying about fellow soldiers and officers to push a political agenda, and say his words dishonored comrades in arms at a time of war.

"He knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened," said Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood. "He was principally responsible for cementing the image of Vietnam veterans (search) as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard."

After Kerry's testimony, military and independent investigations found that many of the soldiers who told Kerry and others they committed such atrocities were either never in the service, never in Vietnam or couldn't provide more evidence of those horrific actions.

What worries me is these are the same war buddies he is using to help him get elected today. Friends one day, baby killers the next, and back to war heros the day after. I think he continues this trend today by voting to go to war with Iraq and then voting against supporting them. The reason I heard for this vote, out of the mouth of John Edwards was "They felt that if they gave into Bush's request for money today he would just come back for more later." I agree with them that Bush's spending is out of control. What I do not agree with is playing politics with the lives of our troops in the middle of war. Again he hangs the military out to dry and then calls himself a war hero. This makes me question if he ready has the peoples best intrests in mind.

He also has not proven to me that he has a clear message. He talks of bringing a "can do attitude back to America". I didn't know we lost it. He talks as if we are back in the Great Depression when unemployment rates are nearly as low as the Clinton administration numbers and the economy is growing stronger every day. So what does he want to do? Get rid of the tax cuts.

All in all, I can not trust him. He says one thing and does another. He votes one way and then the opposite. He talks of getting rid of special intrests, but caters to whatever crowd he is talking to (for example the LA rally of Hollywood stars). These are not the kind of qualities I look for in a leader.

0 Replies

You might want to read what a number of the guys who sailed the little river boats along with Kerry have to say about the guy:

http://www.swiftvets.com/Index2.htm

What it sounds like is that they viewed the guy as mentally unstable and deliberately gave him the three purple hearts to get rid of him.

0 Replies

JPM
Kerry served in Viet Nam and put his life on the line contrary to what the other guy did. He also saw and realized that the war was both an exercise in futility and also unjustified. And he protested as well he should have. As did millions of Americans. I should note that LBJ did not run for a second term because of those protests which were heard loud and clear.
Atrocities they did occur, just how many we will never know. Remember Mie LY.{spelling} Body count became most important to the command.
Regarding Kerry hanging out with Jane Fonda that is typical republican propaganda they found pictures which showed Kerry and Fonda at the same rally and came up with the usual fabrication. 1+1=3

Quote:

"A number of Vietnam veterans consider this testimony slanderous and say Kerry had to know it was false. They accuse Kerry of lying about fellow soldiers and officers to push a political agenda, and say his words dishonored comrades in arms at a time of war.

As is their right however, just the opposite is true. I wonder what the results would be if those that fought in Viet Nam were polled. Probably break along party lines.

Regarding the vote giving Bush war powers it was based upon lies and hysteria of the time. I should note that IMO by voting for it Congress abrogated their responsibility. As I understand it-it gave the president the power to declare war if need be without going to congress. The question of course was there that need? IMO there was not it was based upon fabricated evidence

I should note that both the Viet Nam war and preemptive attack upon Iraq were based upon false information and dare I say it, lies.

0 Replies

Oh, good -- more links to dubious sites that nobody who is not naive would put any credence in. If they believe it's 100% true and the organization is real and the people are real, they need cognitive therepy.

0 Replies

smog's quote, "Unless the Executive Branch doesn't think that there is a connection between a government and the independent actions of its citizens, in which case, the invasions that DID occur should be re-examined." This administration keeps insisting there was a relationship between Saddam and al Qaida even though our intelligence and the bi-partisan senate committee couldn't find one, but can't see the connection between the airplane hijackers and Saudi's. Is this crazy or what?

0 Replies

It's more coldly calculated and insulting than crazy, I think.

0 Replies

Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know