cbacon

I wonder if these elections will be as illeigitimate as the Afghanistan elections. Already we're seeing boycotts of the impending election. Not a good sign. Nor will the aftermath of the elections, should they take place.

That Bonecracker song is horrible. From a Canadian band that tried to emulate Limp Bizkit. *shudder*

What terrorists did Saddam fund? And somehow I don't think the famalies of the 15,000 dead Iraqi's would claim a human rights movement were taking place. Nor the prisoners of Abu Gharib.

How much are they selling this show for?

Denounce the West, yes. But this wasn't some ideology thats started over night, it's a long drawn-out process of resentment towards US foreign policy, fueling the likes of Islamic fundamentalists. The real backdoor for causes, is individuals such as yourself believing that they want to convert others to Islam, and is an easy scapegoat for justification for actions against the middle east. But of course, this is more comforting and helps to create that false sense of urgency. It helps to justify the consequences of US foriegn policy because those mis-guided individuals in the middle east 'hate democracy'. World domination is a very large stretch. Ask yourself why Islamic fundamentalists have this mind set in the first place (in relation to the West). That's the root of the problem. Bush decaling "They hate freedom" dosen't cut it. Frustration breeds fanaticism. Fanaticism is the result of frustration combined with an extreme religious ideology. Like many religions, such fanatcism will breed martyrs and acts of terror to get their point across. The fact is Osama and al Qaeda came to prominenace as a result of the United States. They were funded by the United States and trained by the CIA, and used these teachings to conduct the attacks on 9/11. It's also notable that during Saddam's greatest atrocities, the US were still supporting him. Oh they would have flourished regardless, no doubt. But to invade a soveriegn nation in the middle east such as Iraq is taking things to the next level, and the world down a very dangerous path. How do you reduce terror threats? Well, my most blunt answer would be to stop partcipating in it. Like I mentioned earlier, you have to look at the root of the problem. Why is the threat of terror so high? What has the US done to warrant such action? You cannot wage a war on the concept of terrorism in itself. When the Reagen Administration left Nicaragua in shambles, the counter-attack was in the from of pleading to the World Court and the UN. In 2004, you have a different startegy when dealing with blowback. It's counter terrorism. So, after funding al Qaeda during their war with the Russians, they would later turn on the States. This is largely due to the fact that the United States (the "infidels") had army bases in Saudi Arabia, home of the holiest of cities of Islam. Of course, in the grander scheme of things anti-western notions derive from much more. The correct policy to counter terrorism, and I know i've harkened upon this before is to stop these imperialistic tendencies that are formidably etched in the pysche of every administration since World War II. It's taken greater shape in recent years, and the event's of 9/11 are serving as a pre-text for further action that are leading us down a very scary path.

Are you implying that the 9/11 attacks were not a result of US foreign policy? That the martyrs that hi-jacked the planes were part of a grand scheme for Muslim world domination? We're talking about blowback AGAINST the US. The situation between Israel and Palestine has yet to see any attacks against the US. Yet.

uh huh, so attacking a country actively trying to take over the world, and attacking a country that is basically rotting from the inside out, is the same thing...!?! The WWII example is stupid. Yup. Like it or not, we're at war with TERRORISM --- and to pretend Iraq was not involved is naive to a stunning level. Terrorists want to take over the world. There is no difference. Both were the right choice. -=Mike Incorrect. Terrorists don't want to 'take over the world'. Terrorism is synonymous with blowback. It is the result of frustrated middle eastern communities as a result of American foreign policy. In essence, the United States has inadvertently created these terrorists, namely Osama Bin Laden and if you want to classify Saddam as such, then him too. And if the goal is to erradicate such terrorists, you don't go to Iraq to achieve this. By doing so, your adding fuel to the the fire, and recruitment for al Qaede and other groups will begin to flourish more. It's only inticing more terrorism and resentment towards the United States. Less we forget the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudis. To compare this to the attack on Germany during World War II is asinine.

I for one, am shocked.

Haha, touchè

Why should Stewart be censored on a show that supposedly promotes free thinking and opposing views? Stewart pointing out the flaw is simply doing the show a favor. The ironic thing is that if Crossfire is the debate show it claims to be, why were the hosts so short on words during Stewarts tirade?

Getting back on topic: Another documentary aired tonight on CBC that I missed. For those interested, there's a repeat on CBC this Friday at 10. Apparently it aired in some theatres in the States too: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_171004.html http://thelink.concordia.ca/fringe/04/10/04/2145255.shtml Interesting stuff. EDIT: Actually, it's on CBC Newsworld now...

Gladly. Well, let's see here, the US has been everywhere, making the world a better place and all: - There was the military coup in Chile to remove their democratically elected president, Salvador Allende http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/america...3/cia.chile.02/ http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terroris...oup_USHand.html http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0527-01.htm - There was also the coup that removed Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti that was just 7 months ago. http://www.alternet.org/story/17995 - In 1953 they removed the democratically elected government in Iran since they wanted to protect their oil interests from the British. Thankfully for the Iranians, this ushered in decades of dictatorships, surpression and murder. http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/midea...-cia-index.html http://www.rense.com/general40/roots.htm - The 1954 coup in Guatemala http://www.newspoetry.org/1999/991226.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html - There was the mess in Nicaragua http://www.brianwillson.com/awolnicelection.html Democrtically elected or not, the US has also intervened in Italy, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Panama, Libya, Greece, Cuba, Indonesia, etc. But hey, American foreign policy has saved us from those evil commies, and millions are prospering from the democracy that the US has brought.

That groups like Carlyle and Halliburton are death profiteers? That the vasts amounts of money being made is from a war with seemingly unclear goals? You obviously didn't read that right. I was referring to the general concensus being in the dark. Only the few that give a damn would look further into it. Now, the average Joe consumed by Monday Night Football and Tostitos at least has a general idea of what's going on. If he chooses to ignore it, so be it, but he'll typically remain ignorant to the world around him. If he takes into account what's being said in films like F9/11, then there's a chance he'll be more aware of other aspects surrounding foreign politics and world issues. If he uses F9/11 as his only means of information, that isn't good either, and is almost as bad if he were to just ignore it. A typical response from the other side refusing to acknowledge something they'd rather not here. They know of them because anyone with a sense of rationality can see them. All it takes is a little research. And it dosen't take a genius to know that issues like the war on Iraq was a terrible decision and that the media has led the public into a false sense of paranoia. I believe some consideration should be taken, yes. The United States should take into account what many of it's allies say, just as they do. Only seems fair , considering the fact the US has a say in theirs. And by having a say, I mean removing their democratically elected leaders by force. When your meddling in their affairs, it becomes an issue. That said, this is swaying off topic. No, the accuracy does not lie within the teachings of Michael Moore alone. That requires finding more than just him as an outlet for the issues he presents. They may contradict him, or even totally discredit him at times, but the avenues that are opened are the key issue.

You didn't answer the question. You saying something is WRONG dosen't necessarily mean it's right. Why should your stance hold more merit? Or the sources you use, when they can be turned around and contradicted by another source? The company will be invovled with the rebuilding of Baghdad's infrastruture and they are expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract. Bush I is part of this group and had daily CIA briefings. This is a huge conflict of interest, one that cannot be denied. The Carlyle Group It's started an awareness to the issues regarding the Bush Administration and corruption. For many, it was an eye-opener. For some, it was all well known. Some don't need to be told by Michael Moore what the issues are. But his documentary provided a mainstream outlet for those that would otherwise be out in the dark. Maybe this is why it pisses you off so much. You can scream LIE all you want but it dosen't make you right. The obvious nature of the situation can be seen, even if F9/11 were never made. Until recently, it was and in some cases still is, especially among the general concensus. So many people are ignorant to what really goes on in the world, but at least the word seems to be getting out. There are thousands of activists taking a stand and brining awareness of the Bush Administraions practices. I don't need to tell you this. They may not back up everything Moore says, but they re-iterate much of, as well as going deeper into many of the issues that were not discussed in F9/11. Some of Moore's claims probably can't be backed up, but he is just one voice in a sea of many. I agree. Funny, yet ironic really. The ironic thing here is that your using the same tactics here that accuse Moore of. You can hammer down on the point I made about US elections all you want, it dosent matter. Your clearly taking what I said out of context, which was posting the article and saying I agreed with the PRINCIPLE behind it. I never said Europeans should get a full fledged vote, but rather emphasizing how other nations suffer from US foreign policy, a police force they have no say in. The article was an exaggeration of the point. And the ethnocentric remark was in regards to those with the "Fuck the world, who cares about them" mentality. Not the fact that they're ethnocentric for disagreeing with the notion of foreign voting (which I dont endorse). If you want clarification, go back and read the thread. Good luck with those hopes and dreams. Even if Moore is wrong 90% of the time, he's presented the issue and made people aware. Your cynical response that he should be 'shot down' is a testament to your anger over him that have seemingly struck a chord with you. I wonder why...

They don't have HMV in the States?

You summarized my point pefectly Mike. You can easily try to contradict these arguments by throwing up all the weblinks and thorougly dissect anything you want, while claiming the original source wrong. If thats the way you want to see it, so be it. Uh huh, and you case is so much more credible why? You shredded it how now? You argued against his research? Somehow that makes your opinion the prevailing factor here? Or the sources you did use more reliable than the sources Moore used? Hmmmm. I did, and you reciprocated. Again, your arguing against substantial evidence. There's no way you can deny Caryle is profiting from the Iraq war. And if you want to believe that the soucre Moore used to base his argument that FOX called FL for Bush, who am I to argue? Maybe so in some cases, i'm not denying that fact. I'm not implying that EVERYTHING he's saying though is 100% wrong as your claiming to be, as Moore isn't the only source for such issues. Well I disagree wholeheartedly. The stand to remove Bush right now is the one of the most crucial issues facing your country now. That's a whole different argument altogether though Again, you can pick and choose the theories it want to shoot down. I'm not denying that Moore may be innaccurate in some cases. Moore didn't write the book on "The Truth on American Foreign Policy" or "Why To Hate George Bush". His arguments are supplmentary and should be taken subjectively. F9/11 is not the be all and end all of political documentaries, but it's a start. I'm not saying either of those instances is true, but the notion of criticising the government and foreign policy is definetly taboo. It's only false/moronic because you choose to see it that way. Yeah, F9/11 is a 100% inaccurate farce. Despite much of what he says being echoed by thousands of other sources. You can conveniently pick and choose which issues to discuss you want to dissect but when it comes down to it, the overall message is one that needs to be heard. Getting into an argument of whether any Moore documentary is accurate won't get anywhere. But if your saying that what Moore is saying in F9/11 is wrong, your implying that "I (the extreme right winger) is right and everyone else (the crazy liberal hippies) are wrong". It's not really about that though, it's a documentary about a corrupt regieme that can be denyed and embraced by either side. To simply ignore it would be in denial. Like I said, this issue trancends anything Moore has said in this film, by many many others, which is a much broader argument in itself. You seem so hard to attack Moore at every oppurtunity and make vain attempts to shoot down his theories. If, as you claim that everything Moore says is innaccurate and he's a joke, why not simply ignore him as the crazed conspiracy theorist as you claim him to be? Why should he be worth any effort of your time? Is it because you feel the need to point out the fact the 'truth', or the fact that even if it's minimal, the fact that what some of what Moore is saying contradicts your personal ideology or threatens your beliefs? It's hard to take anything you say seriously since it's always so one sided, and the fact you believe Bush has, or cannot do any wrong you can admit to is laughable.

These are of course from Mike's website, but links are provided to the actual sources. I wasn't really trying to defend Moore here, but rather make a point of how you can easily use facts to contradict other facts. Some of it trivial, some of it not. If two reliable sources (Not referring to Mike as a source here, but rather whatever sources he used to provide these arguments, if any) contradict each other, who is to tell which is right or wrong? Moore may spin doctor, mis-lead and skew things to fit his agenda for the sake of his argument. But to insinuate that he lies is a stretch. If you want to argue that the sources he is using is wrong, then so be it. The fact of the matter is, attacks against Moore usually stem from arguments sources he's used as evidence, or the focus is on the more 'trivial' aspects, such as whether Bush continued speaking to the elementary students for 5 minutes instead of 7, or when the Bin Laden's were really allowed to leave US soil. If he's wrong in matters like these, it can hurt is credibility, sure. But in the grand scheme of things, his stance against the Bush Administration is general just, and it is echoed by voices that follow suit pre or post F9/11. The question is whether Moore is really being attacked for his inaccuracies or the fact he made a movie that deals with topics that people would rather not discuss. For many, it's a taboo notion that The United States is wrong with their current foreign policy, an issue that many have a hard time coming to gripes with and it dosen't necessarily divide the line between the left and the right. Now, we can argue whether Moore is a lying scumbug till the cows come home, but even if half of what Moore is saying is correct, it should prompt further investigation into the issues at hand, and thanks in part to his movie, many have done so. That dosen't mean taking what Moore says or implies as 100% truth, but rather a stepping stone to other outlets - from which the viewer can come to their own conclusion.

I got caught doing 140 in a 100 this summer. $300 fine and 2 demerit points. My perfect record, shattered.

Yikes. I thought that was just a rumour.

Whoever else is in the group is irrelevant. The point is, Bush I has intelligence briefings and used this knowledge to land the $1 billion contract from the Iraq war. So to say the group isn't profiting from an unjust war is very convenient. No conspiracy there.

He was being sacrcastic. And I too would like to know. If you search "WWE Promo" you can find various intros like that, but im not sure about those specific openings. I've been looking for the theme they use in the opening video package for Survivor Series 97 for years.

I think he's inferring that this may be the precursor for such technology. If this inevitable, then this certainly a step in that direction.

This is so Orwellian. Soon they'll be infiltrating people on internet chat rooms. Wait a minute....they are. Guess Big Brother really is watching.

Yup, them be conspiracies alright. That Carlyle group is just one of those crazy manifestions from the minds of those nutty liberal characters.

Indeed. The Saudi Binladen Corporation are managed by them. Conveniently, the Bin Laden family sold their stock in the group days after 9/11 to help ease future scrutiny concerning their relationship. http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html