Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

Michael Moore is a filmmaker. That's it, folks! He doesn't make policy or hold office. He's a great example of an American: Doing what he wants to do, and being damned successful at it. That's the dream that causes millions to attempt breaking into our country. Thanks, Mike. We love you for being a good American.

Moore won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine.

He won the Cannes Film Festival Award for Fahrenheit 911. Oh, and also the People's Choice Award, same film.

His latest, Sicko, hasn't even been released here in the USA and it's already a winner. Even the uber-right-wing Fox News praised it.

What an awful guy, huh? Geez, I think he should be obedient and just keep his mouth shut.
 
Michael Moore is a filmmaker. That's it, folks! He doesn't make policy or hold office.


I disagree. Governments just implement policy. The media dictates it.



He's a great example of an American: Doing what he wants to do, and being damned successful at it. That's the dream that causes millions to attempt breaking into our country. Thanks, Mike. We love you for being a good American.

Moore won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine.

He won the Cannes Film Festival Award for Fahrenheit 911. Oh, and also the People's Choice Award, same film.

His latest, Sicko, hasn't even been released here in the USA and it's already a winner. Even the uber-right-wing Fox News praised it.

What an awful guy, huh? Geez, I think he should be obedient and just keep his mouth shut.



You have no problem with a documentary filmmaker presenting false information in his work? I assume you have the same opinion of Dylan Avery then? Yes?

Some people here don't seem to like his work. Some people here seem to think factual documentaries should contain... well... facts. How awful of us huh? Geez, I think we should just be obedient and just keep our mouths shut.

-Gumboot
 
That's the problem. Hezbollah are terrorists, if you don't see anything wrong with that then I can't help you.

I'm not saying I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm saying that having some opinions in common with terrorists is not evidence of treason. For example, many people felt for many decades that the UK should not have been ruling Northern Ireland, an opinion shared with the provisional IRA among others. Having the opinion is not treason.

Dave
 
You've offered evidence that Hezbollah offered him assistance. To prove treason, at the very least you'd have to advance some evidence that he accepted it.

Dave



I think for treason you'd have to provide evidence that Moore offered assistance to Hezbollah. In fact even that wouldn't do it. He'd have to have offered to assist Hezbollah in attacking the USA. Then you might have grounds for treason.

-Gumboot
 
I think for treason you'd have to provide evidence that Moore offered assistance to Hezbollah. In fact even that wouldn't do it. He'd have to have offered to assist Hezbollah in attacking the USA. Then you might have grounds for treason.

Quite. Just to clarify, if I see evidence that Moore has knowingly accepted money from Hezbollah, my opinion of him will go down a very very long way, and if anyone says they feel his opinions are morally objectionable I won't have any issue with them. It's simply the use of the word "traitor" that I feel hasn't been justified, and this is after all a skeptics' forum.

Dave
 
Well, this discussion went political in no time flat, imagine that.

I'd like some links to all of Michael Moore's lies, and they had better be pervasive and they had better be egregious and they had better characterize his work throughout, because all I have ever heard are one thing here or another thing there while the bulk of what he says remains unchallenged.

Yes, that is a challenge.
 
I think for treason you'd have to provide evidence that Moore offered assistance to Hezbollah. In fact even that wouldn't do it. He'd have to have offered to assist Hezbollah in attacking the USA. Then you might have grounds for treason.

-Gumboot

To me, moral assistance is enough.
 
I disagree. Governments just implement policy. The media dictates it.
How pathetically simplistic. Yes, the media has an input. For example, the policy of our illegal war against the people of Iraq. That was promoted heavily by a turd-boy who originated in your neck of the woods: Rupert Murdoch. He even arrogantly admitted that Fox News tried to promote the pro-war stance of the Bush Administration.

But here's where you're completely wrong. Despite a media blitz from the right-wing over here all through 2006, enough Americans said "screw that", and voted the Republican bastards out of office in the House, Senate and State Governorships.

You have no problem with a documentary filmmaker presenting false information in his work? I assume you have the same opinion of Dylan Avery then? Yes?
You should know better than nearly anyone how silly your above statement really is - considering you are in the media business (film and television).

Moore's films don't fall into easily pigeonholed categories, such as documentaries. Probably more like semi-docu-commentary. Heavily influenced by his view of the world, and he's not shy about admitting the same.

Yet every single documentary ever made contains false information. All. There are no exceptions. One can try, but there will always be a level of bias in any film that attempts to describe historical events or explore recent actions or whatever, especially in the political, law and business realms.
 
I like Michael Moore and have admired a lot of his work for some time (even though politically we disagree on many things). His reputation in my eyes has dropped somewhat in the past couple of years, especially concerning some stuff I read indicating he's cut a corner or two in the journalistic integrity department. But much of his stuff strikes me as well done and persuasive. And his ability to get people to say the most incredibly damning things on camera is amazing.
 
That's the problem. Hezbollah are terrorists, if you don't see anything wrong with that then I can't help you.

What deffinition of terrorist are you useing here?
 
The video in question
Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It was stated in this interview done on 6/17/2007 by a couple of pre-screeners of the film Sicko. AT about 4:12 is when the guy with the camera asks if Michael believes 911 was an inside job. They couldn't get Michael to answer. so who do they turn to? Amy Goodman..who of course witnessed the wTC 7 collapse. She didn't answer them ^_^.


I love how the guys who made this video, is using to misinterpret Moore's statement on handling out leaflets (basically alluding to the subject matter of HIS FILM!) as a means to hand out leaflets about 911!! Nothing disgusts me more than a bunch of morons using the REAL events and MUCH MORE distressing subject about our HEALTH CARE, as a reason to HAND out their crap leaflets about 9/11 to theater goers.



At about 6:20 Michael Moore states; some firefighters have stated to him, that they heard explosions, and they (the firefighters) that there is much more to the story.

The video "info" on Google has his statement saying this:
[SIZE=-1] Michael Moore admitted that many of the firefighters that have spoken to him since 9/11 have told him that they thought there were explosives in the buildings.

Yes the author of the video took the "Some firefighters stated that they heard explosions" and turned it into "The Firefighters thought there were explosives in the buildings"

Another twisting of sTATEMENTS by the Truthers.
[/SIZE]
 
Well, this discussion went political in no time flat, imagine that.

I'd like some links to all of Michael Moore's lies, and they had better be pervasive and they had better be egregious and they had better characterize his work throughout, because all I have ever heard are one thing here or another thing there while the bulk of what he says remains unchallenged.

Yes, that is a challenge.



How about the fundamental premise of Bowling for Columbine; that the USA is a significantly more violent society than other western nations. As evidence he cites gun crime in the USA, ignoring other types of crime. He ignores the soaring rates of violent crime in other nations with very rigorous gun control laws, such as New Zealand.

His montage of examples of "American Aggression" in the same film contain numerous falsehoods, either in terms of grossly misrepresenting the facts, or simply outright lying (for example claiming that Osama Bin Laden was trained and funded by the CIA). This isn't even taking into account the fact that many are not examples of aggression.

This is immediately after his contention that the presence of a ballistic missile factory in Columbine contributed to the killings (or at least is another symptom of the USA's violent society) despite the fact that the factory in question had not produced ballistic missile engines for decades, and in fact was actively involved in dismantling ballistic missiles.

There's debate over the accuracy of his "go to bank, get gun" claim - staff from the bank claim that the guns are not delivered up front and that Moore opened the account in advance. Moore denies this allegation.

For the record, I am glad I live in a country with stringent gun laws, and would be strongly opposed to more relaxed gun laws such as seen in the USA. I consider the liberal access to guns a major flaw in US society. Just my opinion. :)

-Gumboot

ETA. Another factual incorrect claim made by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine is that the KKK became the NRA. This despite the fact that the KKK was first established only five years before the NRA, the KKK was established by veterans of the Confederate Army while the NRA was established by Union veterans, and former president Ulysses S. Grant, whom actively and aggressively combated the KKK, pushing through the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fifteenth Amendment, was the eighth president of the NRA, after the end of his Presidency.
 
Last edited:
How pathetically simplistic. Yes, the media has an input. For example, the policy of our illegal war against the people of Iraq. That was promoted heavily by a turd-boy who originated in your neck of the woods: Rupert Murdoch. He even arrogantly admitted that Fox News tried to promote the pro-war stance of the Bush Administration.


Rupert Murdoch is an Australian, thank you very much. :p

The media has enormous sway over the populace. You should be glad you live in a country such as the USA with a large body of media and a spectrum of agendas and political stances. This at least tempers things a little. Try New Zealand for a bit, with a very limited range of press. They can (and do, repeatedly) quite literally dictate the opinion of virtually the entire nation.



But here's where you're completely wrong. Despite a media blitz from the right-wing over here all through 2006, enough Americans said "screw that", and voted the Republican bastards out of office in the House, Senate and State Governorships.


Did you miss the four years of the US Media rejoicing in reporting the chaos and disasters in Iraq and New Orleans, amongst other places? Are you really surprised?




You should know better than nearly anyone how silly your above statement really is - considering you are in the media business (film and television).

Moore's films don't fall into easily pigeonholed categories, such as documentaries. Probably more like semi-docu-commentary. Heavily influenced by his view of the world, and he's not shy about admitting the same.

Yet every single documentary ever made contains false information. All. There are no exceptions. One can try, but there will always be a level of bias in any film that attempts to describe historical events or explore recent actions or whatever, especially in the political, law and business realms.



Michael Moore's films (which are promoted and packaged as factual documentaries) are propaganda. I agree with the intention of Bowling For Columbine (gun control in the US), but not when it's based on a false premise (that Americans are inherently more violent than other population groups).

-Gumboot
 
Fair use allows you to quote the section that definnes terrorism.
Between the spring of 1983 to the summer of 1985 the Hizballah launched an unprecedented wave of suicide bombings which included an attack on the US embassy and at a US Marine base in Beirut. Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the US Embassy Annex in Beirut in September 1984. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Western hostages in Lebanon. The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992.

snip


The organization was very active against Israel during its stay in Lebanese territory, and since the IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 it began focusing on increasing and expanding its activities within Israel with the aim of carrying out "quality" attacks in Israeli territory, thus disrupting any attempt at dialogue and any opportunity to return to the peace process. This became evident during earlier attempts to hold negotiations with regard to a 'hudna' (ceasefire), when Hizballah operators encouraged attacks aimed at causing these contacts to fail.

On Saturday morning, 7 October 2000, an armed and frenzied mob, numbering in the hundreds, attacked the border fence from Lebanese territory, immediately followed by heavy shelling of Israeli border positions by Hizballah terrorist elements from Lebanese territory, using explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, Sager missiles and border shells. During the course of this aggression, three Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by a Hizballah unit which had entered Israeli territory for this purpose.

The organization operates against Israel in four main ways:
  1. Bringing terrorists and collaborators through the border crossings using foreign documents
  2. Setting up a terrorist organization inside Israel and in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip
  3. Cross-border operations - smuggling weapons and terrorists
  4. Financial support for Palestinian organizations and groups.
Since 2003 it has been possible to see a trend of increasing cooperation between Hizballah in Lebanon and operational entities among the other Palestinian terrorist organizations, with the accent on Tanzim, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the Popular Front. This cooperation is particularly evident between Hizballah and the Tanzim and in practice, in recent months Hizballah has served as a kind of "external command" for most of the Tanzim organizations in the territories.

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizballah, admitted for the first time in public the existence of a Hizballah unit responsible for activities with the Palestinians.

snip


Hizballah's methods of controlling terrorist organizations in the territories are similar to those characteristic of the involvement of the command centers of Palestinian terrorist organizations abroad (Hamas and Islamic Jihad) in the actions of their organizations inside the country. Striking in this framework are the instructions to carry out mass murder attacks within Israeli territory, mediation between terrorists at the different centers of action, the large-scale transfer of money, and finally, coordination of the effort to upgrade the terrorist capabilities of the organizations.

snip

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 (02 September 2004) called for the "disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias".

snip


A heavy exchange of fire between Hizbollah and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) across the Blue Line took place on 21 November 2005, surpassing any activity level since Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000. The exchange began with heavy Hizbollah mortar and rocket fire from a number of locations against several IDF positions close to the Blue Line in the eastern sector of the UNIFIL area of operation. Simultaneously, a large group of Hizbollah fighters infiltrated Ghajar village and launched an assault on the Mayor’s office and the IDF position inside the village, south of the Blue Line, which was vacant at the time. The ensuing Israeli retaliation was heavy and included aerial bombing. The exchange of fire subsequently spread all along the Blue Line and lasted for over nine hours. Around 800 artillery, tank and mortar rounds and rockets were exchanged. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) dropped at least 30 aerial bombs.

snip


On July 12, 2006 members of Hizballah infiltrated the Lebanese-Israeli border near Shtula, an Israeli farming village, and claimed responsibility for an ambush conducted on two Israeli Army Hummvees. The attack resulted in the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the deaths of three others. Five more Israeli soldiers were killed in the ensuing pursuit of Hizballah members into Lebanese territory. The combined capture of two soldiers and the deaths of 8 others; was considered the worst loss for Israeli military forces in more than four years. Hizballah also claimed responsibility for two separate Katyusha rocket attacks on Israeli towns resulting in the death of 1 civilian and the injury of 25 others.

The kidnapping of Israeli troops by Hizballah came in the wake of a similar incident less than a month before, on June 25th, 2006, when Palestinian militants forcibly captured an Israeli soldier to use as leverage for bargaining with the Israeli government. The last time Hizballah carried out a similar operation against Israel was in October of 2000, when 3 Israeli soldiers were abducted by the Lebanese militants. All three victims died either by execution or wounds sustained during their capture. Their bodies were returned to Israel in exchange for the release of several Arab prisoners.
Better now?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom