Can I assume this was directed to me?
If so, it was not my idea. My wife was concerned so I did it for her. Under protest.
If not, never mind.
I wonder whether Moore would be pleased that one of his defenders has chosen to trivialize the Muslim gentleman’s sexual torture. Possibly.
I’m sorry, the ADD is kicking in. I still don’t know if this is directed to me. I hope not. I thought my views were well enough known to not leave any doubt about my thoughts concerning Moore.
No, Duff, it’s directed at people who say things like, “the blanket was just creased in such a way either by luck or design to look like a boner was under it”. As though that might be some sort of mitigation or solace for the Muslim gentleman.
Liberal, apos has seen the movie. You haven’t. if it really was sexual torture, would you not see more of a fuss being kicked up about it now that people are actually viewing the movie, as oppossed to the fuss kicked up before it was released when people hadn’t seen what footage Moore actually had?
You’re either being dense or you’re taking the piss.
DtC said it didn’t look like torture and the guy had a blanket put over him in such a way to “suggest” an erection. He did not say there was genital torture going on just soldiers being at most fucking arseholes not tortures.
As he has already said if Moore had of made a deal about that incident people like yourself would be criticising him for over reacting and making mountains out of molehills.
You are really stretching reality to it limit with this way of carrying on. How about seeing the fucking movie and then telling us what you think.
I can paypal you the admission fee if you’re stuck for a few quid 
In his interview with Matt Lauer, Moore did not deny that the sequence (which he did not shoot, but obtained second-hand) was what Lauer called sexual humiliation. His only interest was explaining how he “agonized” over whether to release it. Why would he agonize over something not worth fussing about?
Here is the text of that interview: MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
He does that just fine all by himself. Regarding, for example, the dispute over the Bin Ladens and whether they were interviewed, Lauer read to Moore from the 9/11 Commission’s transcript that 22 of the 26 people released were interviewed in person by State Department officials. Before the reading, Moore had denied that the Commission stated that. After the reading, he said that the report was not the final one. Lauer pointed out that the information was released in April but that Moore doesn’t mention it in the film. Moore then stated that Clarke’s own declarations about what he did were “just his position”. He is incorrigible.
I’d rather buy a hamburger for a homeless person, but thanks. I haven’t seen the movie and don’t intend to. But I am quoting people who have. And I am quoting interviews with and about Moore that I have seen.
For God’s sake, Lib, it wasn’t sexual torture. They were joking about the blanket. The Iraqi didn’t really have an erection. The soldier poked the blanket.
As to why Moore “agonized” about releasing it- well, like I said, it was assholish and unprofessional. Soldiers treating Iraqis like they have cooties or calling them racist epithets (“Ali Baba”) was (I’m sure) the kind of footage that an activist like Moore would be sorely tempted to release just because it shows a reality that the US media wasn’t showing. Especially since the inherent racism in these acts reflected very poorly on any pretense that we were there as “liberators.” From a political standpoint, it must have been hard for Moore to resist showing it right away. From a legal standpoint, the footage is not very significant. I’m pretty sure nothing I saw in that footage was a violation of the Geneva Convention (although I’m not exactly sure what the rules for hooding are), just 18 year-old kids being macho dicks.
Well, Dio, I think you’ve already stated that you didn’t know whether it was just a blanket tent or an actual erection. In either case, you said that the soldiers’ taunts were, “does Ali Bab still have a hard on?” Nevermind the racial slur. As some have pointed out in threads about the Abu Ghraib tortures — it might well have included you — mental torture is in the mind, and this man was a Muslim who, because of his religion, must have felt unspeakable humiliation. I would remind you again that this scene, filmed not by Moore but by an independent journalist according to Moore himself, took place on the grounds of Abu Ghraib prison, just not inside the facility. Do you have reason to believe that Abu Ghraib has magic walls that cause the same people to have harmless fraternity yucks on one side of it and actions on the other side that cause people to call for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense.
The first time I saw it, I was confused. Having seen it twice now, I’m positive it was the blanket.
I said in my post above that it was racist and assholish. But that doesn’t mean that it’s illegal or that it meets the definition of torture under the Geneva Convention.
Well, it was outside and there aren’t any captions or anything saying where it was so I didn’t know it was Abu Ghraib. In any case, going by the F911 footage alone one would not be aware of the torture inside the prison, and since Michael Moore was not inside AG himself, he had no way of knowing about it. The infamous photos from inside had not come to light yet. Michael Moore, knowing only what he knew from the F911 footage would not have been able to deduce what was going on inside Abu Ghraib. He knew he had some footage of soldiers acting like racist assholes, but that’s all he knew.
With all due respect, this is not a position I would expect you to argue from. I’ve read many of your posts and the one thing that has always impressed me is that you are such a fine student of logic. It strikes me as no more logical to argue so vehemently against the information put forth in a movie you have no intention of viewing than it does for an atheist to argue against Chrisitianity without having first studied the Bible.
Seriously, wouldn’t you have more respect for the argument of someone who has critically examined that which they are arguing against? If you want to make an argument that Michael Moore is prone to assholish, narcissistic behavior, you probably have a strong case. But you can’t really argue that he lied in this particular movie, or even misrepresented anything, if you have not examined the evidence of this yourself.
I chose not to see The Passion, thus I removed myself from any argument about whether or not Gibson accurately portrayed the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. I could find plenty of support for an argument that he did not, but since I hadn’t seen the film, it would have been intellectually dishonest of me to argue the point. An online acquaintance, who happens to be Jewish, heard the accusations of the film’s anti-semitism. Rather than quote those who made this claim, she had the novel idea to see the movie herself. Afterward, she reported that the movie did not strike her as anti-semetic.
She had a lot of reasons not to watch a 3-hour film about Christ which had reportedly portrayed her people in a negative light, but she chose to examine the evidence and make an informed decision. I respect that.
Lastly, if the neighbor on my right, who I have very little respect for, came to me and told me one of my children was doing drugs, I’d have two choices. I could ignore the report because I don’t like the messenger, or I could believe that she’s likely wrong, but still investigate the claim before deciding. Just because my neighbor gives me all kinds of reasons to dislike her does not mean she isn’t telling the truth. There is a profound difference between the message and the messenger.
I think you should either view the movie and give your opinion based on a critical analysis of what’s presented, or you should remove yourself from any argument about its merits. It seems like the logical course to take.
I’m afraid he knew more than that. Said he to Lauer, “It was shot on December 12, outside of Basra by a freelance journalist. This is out in the field, now. This is not in the prison.” He knew exactly where they were.
That’s why I’ve quoted people, biased toward the left incidentally, who have indeed seen the film. What I have criticized is what I have seen with my own eyes, namely Moore’s comments in interviews. My opinion of him as nothing more than a shock jock had already been formed based on having seen his two previous documentaries. I will not watch his film tomorrow for the same reason that I will not listen to Rush Limbaugh this afternoon.
Who said he didn’t? I said I didn’t know where it was. It’s beside the point anyway. Just because Moore knew where the footage was shot doesn’t mean he knew what was going on inside the prison.
Then don’t you agree you shouldn’t debate the merits of the film you have no intention of seeing? If you want to discuss Michael Moore, more power to you, but this thread is about whether or not he lied in this particular film.
Ah, I see what you’re asking of me. Although few threads are quite so narrowly focused as that — particularly ones that span eight pages — I don’t mind dropping out of this discussion. See you elsewhere, then.
How is it that this has become the prevalent belief? Nothing in the title of the thread and nothing in the OP seems to suggest, that discussion of Moore’s honesty or lack thereof should be limited to this one film.
Please insert a comma after the word “thread” in my post. :smack:
The OP quotes from a review of Fahrenheit 9/11. The review is questioning the honesty of Moore’s claims in this particular film. Perhaps my understanding is incorrect, but after following this thread from the beginning, that seems to be what was being debated.
In any case, while I believe strongly that one cannot present a valid argument against the claims of a film one has not personally viewed, I do apologize for suggesting where Liberal should post. It’s not my call.
I do want to say this, though. It rubs me the wrong way when people who haven’t seen the film make the assumption that it is they who must save those of us who have from our own stupidity. I am not addressing this at any particular poster, just the general sentiment I’ve picked up.
It comes across as though the detractors, most of whom admit to NOT having seen the film, think that those of us who believe the premise are naive and intellectually lazy. It’s not as though we haven’t spent the last 3 plus years defending every manner of charge against our patriotism, our naivete, and our intelligence.I would describe myself as a skeptic. I am aware of Michael Moore’s tendencies. I am not a blind follower of any party line.
I went into this movie and I watched and listened. While I agreed with the overall picture, I did not let this keep me from coming home, reflecting, and researching the claims made in the film. Even as I watched the film, I was aware that Britain was part of the Coalition of the Willing, even if Michael Moore focused on the little countries no one’s heard of. I was aware that life, while fairly normal in many respects, was not idealic under a dictator in Iraq, even though Moore showed the normal, every day, pleasantries of Iraqi life. I was aware that business connections do not necessarily equate to illegal influence. I was aware of all of these things!
But the case presented by Moore was compelling, and while I did spend some time wading through that which is hyperbole and that which is not, I’m intelligent enough to recognize the prosecution hit it’s mark. The words of those speaking in the film convict Bush, not Moore’s commentary. In fact, if you took Moore completely out of the film, the case against Bush is still amazingly strong.
Going back to my Atheist/Christian example, it would be unfair, and I daresay condescending, for an atheist to assume that a committed Christian has not spent hours upon hours studying Biblical texts, perhaps even in original language. It would be unfair and condescending to assume that one who decides the case for Christianity is compelling has not arrived at that decision through much thought and reflection, without checking one’s brain at the door. The atheist may arrive at a different conclusion than the Christian, but if both have put a measure of thought and study into the formulation of that decision, then the argument each can make is based on something solid.
It is just as condescending to transmit that those of us who saw Moore’s film and believed what we saw have somehow checked our brains at the door and stopped being critical thinkers. We haven’t. If you see the film, I’d love to discuss the information put forth. But failing that, it is intellectually lazy to make arguments without doing the research oneself.
If only there’d been this much examination into the claims of the Bush administration prior to the war!
Fair enough, Calliope. Thanks for the explanation.