Saw moors film

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by xrtoronto

Originally posted by Steve
Yes!!  See the link below



:lollook at the source:  Christopher Hitchens

He's a leftist intellectual.  He hated Reagan.  He's on your team.  So again, LOOK AT THE SOURCE!

 

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm guessing you didn't read that article too closely. No direct evidence of a lie in the movie at all. Keep trying though.

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

While not exactly a "lie", it is "suggested" in the movie therefore it means Moore doesn't have to state anything, only "suggest" it.  If he doesn't have the balls to state it he may as well take a nice big swig of STFU.  

But no, he doesn't lie.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
He's a leftist intellectual.  He hated Reagan.  He's on your team.  So again, LOOK AT THE SOURCE!

 

Steve is not a lefty.

[Nash]

While not exactly a "lie"...

Maybe I should have asked "Has anyone found anything that aren't exactly lies"?

[NUKE]

Moore is a fat assed malcontent hypocrite and a liar.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
While not exactly a "lie"...

Maybe I should have asked "Has anyone found anything that aren't exactly lies"?

you confuse me, I need beer.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by NUKE
Steve is not a lefty.

From William F. Buckley:

Left-leaning columnist Christopher Hitchens is given to wayward excesses, but he devotes sharp attention to the Moore crowd pleaser in Slate magazine, in an article titled "Unfairenheit 9/11." It makes pretty good reading, and it's unfair to go to the last chapter, but life is short, and therefore I disclose it. "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery."

''Ronald Reagan was as dumb as a stump,'' wrote leftist intellectual Christopher Hitchens, gleefully flinging abuse at the former president along with others who hated him.

I'd say he's very left Nuke, but that's just me.

[NUKE]

But Steve is not a lefty, no way in hell.

[Nash]

I saw Hitchens in a debate sponsored by some University about the merits of going into Iraq (long before it happened)... and he struck me as a remarkably bright guy.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
I saw Hitchens in a debate sponsored by some University about the merits of going into Iraq (long before it happened)... and he struck me as a remarkably bright guy.

you are a very bright guy Nash. Moore is a bright guy, but uses his talent to spin lies and distort truth.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Nash
I saw Hitchens in a debate sponsored by some University about the merits of going into Iraq (long before it happened)... and he struck me as a remarkably bright guy.

He wants to debate Moore again apparently.  I'd pay to see it on PPV.

[Nash]

I'd like to see it too. Moore would in all likelihood get owned by this guy.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Nash
I'd like to see it too. Moore would in all likelihood get owned by this guy.

Agreed.

[jEEZY]

To prove defamation a plaintiff must prove:

1) That a defamatory remark (defamatory meaning one that harms ones reputation as determined by a reasonable person)  was;

2) published (heard by another);

3) of and concerning the plaintiff; and

4) that the plaintiff was damaged, unless;

5) it was slander per se (defamatory remarks regarding: 1) crimes of moral turpitude; 2) the chastity of a woman; 3) a loathsome disease (leaporsy or VD); or 4) of the plaintiff's occupation or profession) or libel (reduced to permanent form (e.g. newspaper, film, sound recording).

Furthermore the Supreme court has ruled that the Constitution requires a showing of malice when the defamatory remark is aimed at a public official or one in the public eye.  To be malicious, under a Constitutional analysis, according to NY Times v. Sullivan, the defamatory remark must:

1) be false; and
2) the defandant knew that the remark was flase or was reckless as to the truth.

Although Moore is annoying, his films probably would not amount to defamation of the president under a Constitutional analysis.  Note that libel is not a sperate tort in the US.   Isnt the common law system fun?

[Silat]

Originally posted by Steve
Yes!!  See the link below



http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Chris Hitchens has also written a scathing article on Mother Theresa. I dont think his assertions are a good example.

But here is the link where Moore responds to the assertions that he lies in the film.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/isikoff.php