Debunking our enemy's propaganda

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Staga
Well I won't take anything as absolute trutht; not Moore's movie but I'm also not sure if I should take underage girl's writings too serious.
I'm trying to be critical reader and usually these email junks are nothing you could take too serious.
YMMV of course; I've heard the are fortunes available in Nigeria etc

Wow comparing a well written article that I never recieved in any email that's actually posted all over the web and backed up with over 20 sources to Nigerian money scams.

That's a new low.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Staga
btw isn't spreading false information illegal in states?

I find it a bit strange if Moore's film is full of lies that anyone hasn't sued him to the court yet?

What surprises me is no one has made the connection that Moore is doing al-Qaeda's job for them and idiots are praising this as genious.

[GRUNHERZ]

Yep gunslinger, prett weak on stagas part. He really needs to keep beleving mmore. Basically he sets an impossible standard for anyone to refute Moore's work.

First he asked if the person was political expert, whatever exactly that means.  I'm guessing if it was an "expert" he would then question if the expert was conservate and this biased.

Then he made fun of the author because the aithor was female and young.

Thats didnt woulk out too well considering the good writing and the huge list of supporting sources.

So now its basically down to insults and dismisssal by comparsiopn to nigerien internet scams..

Pretty weak staga!

[Crumpp]

Actually,

1. Slander is very hard to prove in court.  You have state quantifiable damages.  Just to prove something is untrue does not win you a slander suit.  Legally it's called a "mistake of fact" and not slander.

2.  Officially attacking it would lend credence to F911 it just doesn't have in the first place.  Better to let it die on the vine.  Most people see it for what it truly is after a few minutes of checking the facts.  Some people will believe it no matter what simply because it is in a movie.  You could present the facts all day long and it wouldn't make a difference.  They want to believe in some vast societal conspiracy that lies at the heart of why things are not right in their lives.

3.  Most of those slandered are still in office.  The US Gov't will not take any official action.  Some of these officials, when their term is finished and they are private citizens again, may seek out Michael in court.

It's nothing more than a "Triumph of the Will" for the liberal left.

Crumpp

[Martlet]

Originally posted by rpm371
Yeah Moore faked the whole thing. Bush was actually only sitting there reading a kiddie book for 7 seconds, not 7 minutes after hearing the country was under attack.

Kerry couldn't think for 40 minutes.   Bush could have reacted 6 times before Kerry was able to start thinking again.

[Staga]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yep gunslinger, prett weak on stagas part. He really needs to keep beleving mmore. Basically he sets an impossible standard for anyone to refute Moore's work.

First he asked if the person was political expert, whatever exactly that means.  I'm guessing if it was an "expert" he would then question if the expert was conservate and this biased.

Then he made fun of the author because the aithor was female and young.

Thats didnt woulk out too well considering the good writing and the huge list of supporting sources.

So now its basically down to insults and dismisssal by comparsiopn to nigerien internet scams..

Pretty weak staga!

Yeah what ever you say

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Staga
Yeah what ever you say

really so you are agreeing with everything in the article?

[Staga]

How can you argue with someone who believes that even obscure, second hand information is pure gold if it supports his view?

[Momus--]

Yes, Bush happened to be governor of Texas at the time, but that’s completely irrelevant to the meetings which occurred between Unocal and the Taliban at Bill Clinton’s concession!13 But Moore plays with words; purposely including irrelevant information regarding Bush, to connect him with the topic at hand.

Actually, the meetings were stepped up when the Bush admin took office. The Afghan pipeline deal was going to be a pretty big thing strategically for the US. The author is making out that since Bush was following Clinton's lead, that somehow makes it ok?

Moreover, when the pipeline deal was actually implemented in 2002, Unocal released a press release, stating that, “Unocal has no plans or interest in becoming involved in any projects in Afghanistan.”14

Holy lack of context Batman! What the "author" omits to mention here is that the information that led to Unocal losing interest in the region only came to light *after* 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan; namely that Caspian oil and gas reserves were not as extensive and wouldn't be as economically attractive to expolit as at first believed.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Staga
How can you argue with someone who believes that even obscure, second hand information is pure gold if it supports his view?

well documented acurate information is pure gold if it is true and you back up all your research.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Staga
How can you argue with someone who believes that even obscure, second hand information is pure gold if it supports his view?

You haven't countered a single thing in the article.  All you've done is cry and stomp your feet.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Momus--
Actually, the meetings were stepped up when the Bush admin took office. The Afghan pipeline deal was going to be a pretty big thing strategically for the US. The author is making out that since Bush was following Clinton's lead, that somehow makes it ok?

 

wow you actually have a source for this? or are you just making this up as you go along.

The article clearly says 2002 in the paragraph.  so yes it would be post invasion afghanistan.

The pipeline is not what's in question here......the movie sites BUSH with inviting the taliban....known consorters of terrorists here.  That is flatly untrue.

[J_A_B]

"Bush was actually only sitting there reading a kiddie book for 7 seconds, not 7 minutes after hearing the country was under attack."

What was he supposed to do, wave a magic wand and make it all not happen?

Sure he could have cancelled his trip and ruined the day of those particular schoolchildren even more than it was, but what would it have accomplished?  WTC would still be gone, Pentagon would still be damaged and there'd still be a crater in a field in Penn.

And...his political opponents would still be questioning his actions....if he had iediately cancelled the classroom visit then it'd be something like "Bush immediately panicked and ran like a chicken" or some such nonsense.



After Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt waited until the next DAY to formally address the nation.  If Bush was too slow because of 7 minutes, then by the same logic Roosevelt must have been the biggest failure in modern history.




J_A_B

[Crumpp]

Actually, the meetings were stepped up when the Bush admin took office. The Afghan pipeline deal was going to be a pretty big thing strategically for the US. The author is making out that since Bush was following Clinton's lead, that somehow makes it ok?  

Oh I love this!!

US did it for oil!  US did it for OIL!  The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!

Hey chickenlittle,

Lets keep our fact straight.  The US invaded Afghanistan because they refused to give up the folks that flew airplanes into our buildings killing thousands of our citizens.

Yes, I would like to any oil in that region developed.  They have very very little resources.  It's that whole we sell them goods, they sell us goods thing called economics.  That is how lasting peace is made.  Look at Germany and Japan.

By the time my daughter grows up maybe those folks in Afghanistan will have a few things of their own.

Crumpp

[Gunslinger]

no matter what the article says it still doesnt change the fact that Moore is doing Al queda's job for them.