Still wanna defend him?

Foxfyre wrote:

Saudi royal family lambasts Michael Moore for twisting the truth in his 9/11 film
(Filed: 01/08/2004)

In an exclusive interview, Prince Turki al-Faisal tells Con Coughlin why the US film-maker is so wrong

The Saudi royal family has launched a bitter attack on the American film-maker Michael Moore over his claims that the Bush administration secretly smuggled a number of high-ranking Saudi nationals out of the US in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

Prince Turki al-Faisal: Saudi Arabian ambassador to the UK
In the first official comment by the Saudi royal family on Moore's controversial film Fahrenheit 9/11, a leading member of the family said his country has been fully exonerated of any complicity in the attacks by the report of the 9/11 commission.

More. . .

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/01/wsaud01.xml

The Saudi Royal Family may have launched a bitter attack against Moore, but it certainly isn't reflected in the telegraph's interview with Prince.

0 Replies

Quoting Prince Turks from the article posted:

Quote:

'It would have been far better if Michael Moore had been able to read the 9/11 report before he made his film. It shows that all the protocols were strictly observed.' Because Moore had not thoroughly researched the allegations levelled against Saudi Arabia, Prince Turki said that Fahrenheit 9/11 is 'grossly unfair' to the Saudis.

What source do you refer to, Finn?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

revel wrote:
Quote:
All I'm saying is that many of them would be safer in Iraq than in LA or Chicago.

I don't believe the military is a good way to lessen violence in poor neighborhoods and cities. For one thing I think you had that discussion before with someone else (maybe craven) and he/she pointed out that what your saying is not accurate (though I don't remember the specifics) and for another if a person really wants to address the violence in poorer neighborhoods and cities they would address poverty rather than sending the youth of the cities to the military. The military should be an organization where the people are there because they want to be there rather than it being the only option besides dying in a gang or some other violent end.

I just find the idea of the military's recruiting people out there targeting poor people who already have a hard way to go sleazy and it is exploiting their environmental situation.

The military has long been an area of opportunity for people of lesser means. It's an excellent way for a young person learn a trade and/or have their education paid for; while serving their country.

It is much more of an opportunity for the less affluent than the most affluent and therefore it makes sense to focus recruiting resources on the former. Nothing sleazy about this.

In times of War the opportunity the military provides carries a greater risk without, necessarily, a commensurate increase in reward, but that fact isn't hidden from anyone.

You saw the film; I did not: Did the recruiters Moore depicted express the belief that they're actions were sleazy or did they call the recruits "suckers" behind their backs? Chances are pretty good that the recruiters were from backgrounds similar to those of the recruits. Are you suggesting they are modern day Kapos?

In the film, the recruiters said something about bypassing the malls and going to walmart (something similar if not exactly; my memory is never exact) where the poorer people are. I don't know what a "kopos" is but I just found it sleazy targeting poorer people to go into the military to go to wars. Which is why in the next segment, michael Moore went on the congress steps and asked them if they were willing to send their sons and daughters to Iraq to die or that one guy was suggesting that there be a draft so that at least the men and women that die in the military will not so out of porportionatly poorer people. It is kind of a like a voluntary genocide. (a little extreme)

In any event, I don 't see how they are so much better off in the military than they were in their poor cities and neighborhoods, they are still on welfare and are still dying any way you look at it.

0 Replies

So you guys believe the saudi Arabia Royal family now? Why all the sudden, just because Bush is cozy with them?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quoting Prince Turks from the article posted:

Quote:
'It would have been far better if Michael Moore had been able to read the 9/11 report before he made his film. It shows that all the protocols were strictly observed.' Because Moore had not thoroughly researched the allegations levelled against Saudi Arabia, Prince Turki said that Fahrenheit 9/11 is 'grossly unfair' to the Saudis.

What source do you refer to, Finn?

Not much of an attack, and not all that bitter.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

So you guys believe the saudi Arabia Royal family now? Why all the sudden, just because Bush is cozy with them?

Who said anything about believing or disbelieving them?

In any case, I don't see that they are any more or less credible than Moore.

But then again, they are wogs, filthy rich wogs perhaps but wogs nevertheless. Better not trust them, eh revel?

0 Replies

Did you know that in the military a private first class makes a certain amount of money. The PFC next to him makes pretty close to the same amount. There are no rich or poor PFC's. They are very equal.

0 Replies

I personally know and/or am related to quite a few young people in the military (they're all young to me), and I am damn proud of every one of them. They've all come out of the service with maturity and skills and self confidence and a sense of purpose that they didn't necessarily have when they went in. Every single one of them is there or were there because they wanted to be.

The high echelon military are not wanting to reinstitute the draft as they like having an all volunteer army full of people who want to be there.

I get pretty darn tired of people like Michael Moore and his supporters who insinuate our military personnel are scapegoats or sheep or sacrificial lambs or stupid or duped into enlisting for the service they are proud to be providing.

I think instead of enlisting in this sleazy class warfare goaded on by the likes of Michael Moore, we would do well to find it our hearts to appreciate their service and even say thank you.

0 Replies

FF,
I have long long gotten past expecting or even wanting a thank you from most(but not all) of the people on the left.
Many of them like to believe that everybody in the service is either stupid,perennial losers,or just have been duped into enlisting.
I have had people on the left tell me that the only reason anyone joins the service is because they cant make it in the civilian world.
Of course,the do tend to shut up when I point out to them that EVERY president of the 20th century,except Bill Clinton,was a veteran of the US military.

don't expect anyone on the left to ever admit that anyone in the military is there because they WANT to be.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

EVERY president of the 20th century,except Bill Clinton,was a veteran of the US military.

Ah, but no President of the 21st century has been.

Yet. :wink:

0 Replies

foxfrye,

If the military is such a great and fulfilling place to be, then why do the recruiters target the poorer cities rather than the well to do ones?

A search can be done, but I know that I have heard of the military being on food stamps and are struggling. I know some military as well and they have come back no better off financially than when they went in.

Quote:

But then again, they are wogs, filthy rich wogs perhaps but wogs nevertheless. Better not trust them, eh revel

There is a difference between Saudi Royals and just ordinary Arabs/Muslims. The current Saudi Royalty is too closely tied with the Bush administration. I have never even heard the term "wogs."

I just found it ironic those that usually do not have much good to say about any Arabs or Muslims using a Saudi prince's words as some kind of proof of anything. If I was out of line, sorry.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
EVERY president of the 20th century,except Bill Clinton,was a veteran of the US military.

Ah, but no President of the 21st century has been.

Yet. :wink:

Ah, but that's a perfectly ridiculous comment.

I wonder what looney Liberal argument you might make for denying Bush's tenure in the US military. :wink:

0 Replies

Revel the idea that the military 'targets' poor people to recruit for the military is a lot of bullsh*t. You will find recruiting offices in or near places where the 'rich people' shop though they are usually not placed in shopping malls because the square footage cost is too high. They do usually place recruiting offices in or near places where young people congregate since the young are the ones who are most likely to be recruited.

In fact the military is far more likely to recruit their officers in the more affluent areas such as near college campuses as they are looking for college educated or better educated people to fill those positions.

Will some recruiting offices be placed in less affluent neighborhoods. Of course they will. And there is nothing wrong with that either as the military can be the route out of poverty or limited opportunity for many people. It is probably true that people with fewer options or specific non-military ambitions are the ones most likely to joint the military. And there's nothing wrong with that either.

None of my friends or family members are from poor families by the way, and they all seemed to be able to find a recruiting office. President Bush has already taken important steps to improve the financial compensation for the military and is committed to do more. I don't know anybody however who went into the military with the expectation of getting rich.

This part of Moore's version of the facts is just one of some 30 to 60 reported misrepresentations or outright lies included in his so called 'documentary'.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

In the film, the recruiters said something about bypassing the malls and going to walmart (something similar if not exactly; my memory is never exact) where the poorer people are. I don't know what a "kopos" is but I just found it sleazy targeting poorer people to go into the military to go to wars.

"Kapos" were the Jews in German concentration camps who collaborated with the Nazis and served as guards over their fellow Jews.

Now that you know what a "Kapo" is, does it fit your image of the Recruiters from less than affluent background seeking out recruits from less than affluent backgrounds?

It must, because these sleazy bastards bypassing malls to recruit at a Wal-mart are just shameless!

They were not targeting poor people to go to war as cannon fodder. They were recruiting from a socio-economic group for which the military represents a source of greater opportunity than it does for other such groups.

It was no different before the Iraq war, and many young men and women have benefited greatly from the opportunities provided by military service.

In any case, my experience belies the claims of Moore. I am, happily, a member of the Affluent Class. All three of my children, progeny of the Affluent Class, received repeat phone calls from military recruiters once they reached the midpoint of their senior years in High School. Who knows, they may even have run across one at a Wal-mart once or twice, They would have certainly seen some in the recruiting kiosks located in our neighborhood's upscale mall. I suppose though that those guys were only in the mall to recruit the sons and daughters of the mall janitors.

revel wrote:

Which is why in the next segment, michael Moore went on the congress steps and asked them if they were willing to send their sons and daughters to Iraq to die or that one guy was suggesting that there be a draft so that at least the men and women that die in the military will not so out of porportionatly poorer people. It is kind of a like a voluntary genocide. (a little extreme)

A whole lot extreme.

revel wrote:

In any event, I don 't see how they are so much better off in the military than they were in their poor cities and neighborhoods, they are still on welfare and are still dying any way you look at it.

Well, myopia has that effect on one's vision.

To categorize service in the military as welfare is simply absurd.

If you refuse to see the opportunities the military provides to poor kids, no one is going to clear your vision for you.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
EVERY president of the 20th century,except Bill Clinton,was a veteran of the US military.

Ah, but no President of the 21st century has been.

Yet. :wink:

Are you really that blinded by your hatred?
You might not like the fact about how Bush got out,or you might not like the "circumstances" about his service,but to deny he served is both stupid and blind to the truth.
AND,many on the left claim his cabinet was never in the military either.That is also a bald faced LIE,put out by the left to attack Bush.
Six of the male members of his cabinet served in the military.I didn't look up the military records of the female members of his cabinet.

Donald Rumsfeld...Secretary of Defense...US Navy pilot,1954-1957

Tommy Thompson...secretary of health and human services...Wisconsin National Guard and the Army Reserve.

Tom Ridge...Dept of homeland security...he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi ...Mr. Principi is a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., and first saw active duty aboard the destroyer USS Joseph P. Kennedy. He later commanded a River Patrol Unit in Vietnam's Mekong Delta.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
Secretary Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held myriad command and staff positions and rose to the rank of 4-star General. His last assignment, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, was as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including Operation Desert Storm in the victorious 1991 Persian Gulf wa

Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
Mineta and his family were among the 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry forced from their homes and into internment camps during World War II. After graduating from the University of California at Berkeley, Mineta joined the Army in 1953 and served as an intelligence officer in Japan and Korea.

0 Replies

The bronze star Ridge earned,BTW,is one step below Kerry's silver star.

0 Replies

It seems I am getting two different arguments, one from finn and one foxfrye. Foxfrye says that it don't happen that army recruiters target poor people and finn says they do but not because they want them to be fodder for cannon and further makes the argument that more than likely the recruiters are from poor cities as well. I guess by that argument he is saying that since they are from poor cities as well they don't have malicious intent in recruiting the poorer cities but just want to help them.

I don't pretend to know the minds of people I don't know, or the intentions of the military in targeting poor cities. I am also not anti military despite the way it seems with my recent posts. There just seems to be problems that need fixing, in my opinion for whatever it is worth. In the film the recruiters said something to the effect that they wouldn't go to the mall that they just passed because more likely those kids are going to college and wouldn't have as much of a reason to be interested in going to the military. It didn't sit right with me. That kind of lead to wondering if they were better off and from there I remembered news stories about how the military privates are on welfare.

Form any opinion of me what you will.

0 Replies

My opinion of you Revel is that you are a good person with a good heart.

My opinion of Michael Moore is he is a misguided soul with a warped agenda, but a skilled con artist with the ability to manipulate good people and make polka dots look like plaid.

0 Replies

Why?

That is not hard to ask on these forums - Why?

Why would agreeing with SOMETHINGS someone says (or films in a movie) be construed with 'defending' the person ?

I agree with some things, disagree with others. But I do not believe my agreement or disagreement is vehement enough to be DEFENDING or BASHING.

Discussion is another thing. Now, there has been a SIDE discussion in this topic----
and that is what some people think of what ebeth thinks....

I LOVE EBETH. I AGREE WITH EBETH. I have READ ebeth for over three years... and she is wise, attractive, a sharer of great recipes, and shows a love of animals in photos I have seen of her. And I betcha if I met her, I would love her MORE!!

(DID NOT SEE MOORE'S FILM, by the way)

0 Replies

revel wrote:

It seems I am getting two different arguments, one from finn and one foxfrye. Foxfrye says that it don't happen that army recruiters target poor people and finn says they do but not because they want them to be fodder for cannon and further makes the argument that more than likely the recruiters are from poor cities as well. I guess by that argument he is saying that since they are from poor cities as well they don't have malicious intent in recruiting the poorer cities but just want to help them.

Why shouldn't you get two different arguments from me and Foxfyre? The only things we represent are ourselves. We make no attempt to march in lockstep.

My argument is that since the recruiters, in Moore's film, were most likely from less than affluent origins, it seems unlikely that they would have malicious intent when recruiting in the same sort of neighborhoods in which they themselves grew up. Of course, they could have the same malicious intent you impute to the US Military. They could be Kapos. Is that what you are arguing?

I don't pretend to know the minds of people I don't know, or the intentions of the military in targeting poor cities.

If not, than perhaps you should think twice before posting comments like:

"I just find the idea of the military's recruiting people out there targeting poor people who already have a hard way to go sleazy and it is exploiting their environmental situation."

"I just found it sleazy targeting poorer people to go into the military to go to wars. "

"It is kind of a like a voluntary genocide."

"If the military is such a great and fulfilling place to be, then why do the recruiters target the poorer cities rather than the well to do ones?"

I am also not anti military despite the way it seems with my recent posts.

See above

There just seems to be problems that need fixing, in my opinion for whatever it is worth. In the film the recruiters said something to the effect that they wouldn't go to the mall that they just passed because more likely those kids are going to college and wouldn't have as much of a reason to be interested in going to the military.

Uh, Duh....

It didn't sit right with me. That kind of lead to wondering if they were better off and from there I remembered news stories about how the military privates are on welfare.

Form any opinion of me what you will.

And we will, just as you have formed any opinion of us that you will ("I just found it ironic those that usually do not have much good to say about any Arabs or Muslims..."). The difference is that our opinions will be based upon what you actually write and not what we believe you might have written based on a caricature of you we have formed in our minds.

0 Replies

Still wanna defend him?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know