Moore and Hezbollah sittin in a tree...

[Coyote]

The visceral anti-war reaction of the uber-Left is not really a statement for peace and justice for Iraq, but rather a willingness to burn up any lives, soldier or civilian, in order to turn Iraq into "Another Vietnam".

Supposedly, "another Vietnam" is a bad thing, a horrible lesson to be learned, and the uberLeftists say they want to avoid such a thing.

Turning Iraq into another Vietnam, however, serves their purposes very well, especially if they can unseat Bush while re-living those romantic days of the anti-war/anti-Establishment movements of the 60's.

So now, with the release of "Farenheight 9/11", the crazies have a new poster child, as surely as Jane Fonda posing with a North Vietnamese flak gun crew back in those halcyon days. Of course I wouldn't want to see Moore in a bikini, but who knows what he'll do in the shameless pursuit of publicity.

Lets se the hands of all the people who are surprised at this:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0 ... 19,00.html

Providing moral support for the enemy?

At least he's not alone in his willingness to trade lives for political opportunism. How about a cynical comment from British leftist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown?:

The past months have been challenging for us in the anti-war camp. I am ashamed to admit that there have been times when I wanted more chaos, more shocks, more disorder to teach our side a lesson. On Monday I found myself again hoping that this handover proves a failure because it has been orchestrated by the Americans. The decent people of Iraq need optimism now, not my distasteful ill-wishes for the only hope they have for a future.

(emphasis added)

Hatred for the American effort is so dripping with vitriol that more death and destruction is desired simply so the US can look bad. Feel the compassion..!

I don't even like George Bush and think this whole thing could have been handled so much better with some thought... but even cynical ol' me has to shake my head sadly at this stuff.

[Vympel]

This has already been posted. Furthermore, Hezbollah's offer of help was not solicited. This is like saying that the KKK endorsing George Bush means Bush endorses the KKK.

[Durandal]

The visceral anti-war reaction of the uber-Left is not really a statement for peace and justice for Iraq, but rather a willingness to burn up any lives, soldier or civilian, in order to turn Iraq into "Another Vietnam".

Supposedly, "another Vietnam" is a bad thing, a horrible lesson to be learned, and the uberLeftists say they want to avoid such a thing.

Turning Iraq into another Vietnam, however, serves their purposes very well, especially if they can unseat Bush while re-living those romantic days of the anti-war/anti-Establishment movements of the 60's.

So now, with the release of "Farenheight 9/11", the crazies have a new poster child, as surely as Jane Fonda posing with a North Vietnamese flak gun crew back in those halcyon days. Of course I wouldn't want to see Moore in a bikini, but who knows what he'll do in the shameless pursuit of publicity.

Oh Jesus, would you stop? I know you're in Iraq, not really an American-friendly environment, but Michael Moore and Jane Fonda are worlds apart, and frankly, it's people like you, who equate criticism of the Bush administration to treason, who are responsible for the anti-American sentiment spreading throughout the world. So please, no more bitching about poor America and how everyone hates us. If you want to blame someone, blame Bush.

Lets se the hands of all the people who are surprised at this:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0 ... 19,00.html

Providing moral support for the enemy?

Ah, so Hezbollah's endorsement of Moore means that Moore endorses them? Wow, that's some funky logic you've got there. Moore and al Qaeda have a common enemy, too: George W. Bush. Does that mean that Moore is secretly in league with al Qaeda to make the world hate America?

At least he's not alone in his willingness to trade lives for political opportunism. How about a cynical comment from British leftist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown?:

The past months have been challenging for us in the anti-war camp. I am ashamed to admit that there have been times when I wanted more chaos, more shocks, more disorder to teach our side a lesson. On Monday I found myself again hoping that this handover proves a failure because it has been orchestrated by the Americans. The decent people of Iraq need optimism now, not my distasteful ill-wishes for the only hope they have for a future.

(emphasis added)

So what does this have to do with Moore? Is this more of your guilt-by-association bullshit? You'll also notice that the guy said that he was ashamed of it.

Hatred for the American effort is so dripping with vitriol that more death and destruction is desired simply so the US can look bad. Feel the compassion..!

I don't even like George Bush and think this whole thing could have been handled so much better with some thought... but even cynical ol' me has to shake my head sadly at this stuff.

It's sad, yes, but consider that's what happens when you have a complete dumb-shit for a president. Other countries don't hate America itself; they hate George W. Bush personally. He epitomizes everything that is bad about America to them, egocentrism, self-righteousness, a cowboy attitude, stubbornness and tunnel-vision. I blame him for the vitriol being thrown America's way by the rest of the world, him and that collection of fuck-heads he calls an administration.

[Plekhanov]

The visceral anti-war reaction of the uber-Left is not really a statement for peace and justice for Iraq, but rather a willingness to burn up any lives, soldier or civilian, in order to turn Iraq into "Another Vietnam".

Supposedly, "another Vietnam" is a bad thing, a horrible lesson to be learned, and the uberLeftists say they want to avoid such a thing.

Are you suggesting that “another Vietnam” would be a good thing?

Turning Iraq into another Vietnam, however, serves their purposes very well, especially if they can unseat Bush while re-living those romantic days of the anti-war/anti-Establishment movements of the 60's.

So now, with the release of "Farenheight 9/11", the crazies have a new poster child, as surely as Jane Fonda posing with a North Vietnamese flak gun crew back in those halcyon days. Of course I wouldn't want to see Moore in a bikini, but who knows what he'll do in the shameless pursuit of publicity.

How is making a film critical of Bush in any way equivalent to Fonda’s posing with a Vietnamese gun crew?

Lets se the hands of all the people who are surprised at this:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0 ... 19,00.html

Providing moral support for the enemy?

“organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon” offered to help the local distributor so what? There is absolutely no suggestion there that Moore solicited their support or that accepted.

Hezbollah also seems to like “the Passion of the Christ” link Note Al-Manar is Hezbollah’s tv station

Al-Manar also has provided extensive coverage of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. It used a trailer for Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" to compare the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American guards with the suffering of Jesus.

are you now going to accuse Mel Gibson of “supporting the enemy”?

Are you actually arguing that even in an election year Moore shouldn’t criticise Bush for fear that they might provide “moral support for the enemy”? Because it sure sounds like that’s what you’re saying.

At least he's not alone in his willingness to trade lives for political opportunism. How about a cynical comment from British leftist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown?:

The past months have been challenging for us in the anti-war camp. I am ashamed to admit that there have been times when I wanted more chaos, more shocks, more disorder to teach our side a lesson. On Monday I found myself again hoping that this handover proves a failure because it has been orchestrated by the Americans. The decent people of Iraq need optimism now, not my distasteful ill-wishes for the only hope they have for a future.

(emphasis added)

Hatred for the American effort is so dripping with vitriol that more death and destruction is desired simply so the US can look bad. Feel the compassion..!

I don't even like George Bush and think this whole thing could have been handled so much better with some thought... but even cynical ol' me has to shake my head sadly at this stuff.

What actual evidence do you have that Moore or Yasmin Alibhai-Brown are willing “to trade lives for political opportunism”. Even in the selective quote of Yasmin that you provided she describes her emotional response to Bush and Blair’s war as “distasteful” and I suspect further repudiated and expanded upon how her feelings were wrong further in the rest of the article. Far from being “cynical” or “dripping with vitriol” that quote is a very honest description of some of conflicting emotions current world events put a first generation Muslim immigrant such as Yasmin through.

Don’t confuse contempt for Bush with hatred for America many Brits including Yasmin can’t stand Bush that doesn’t mean that they hate America which the vast majority of left wing Brits emphatically do not do.

[Andrew J.]

Stupid conservatives here in America think Moore hates the USA; why should stupid conservatives in the Middle East be any different?

[Coyote]

Hold on a minnit, at what point did I say that criticism of George Bush is unpatriotic? The movie attacks Bush but my point is about how the movie portrays the situation over here, especially the American soldiers and our efforts-- and how the locals feel about us.

I have to go on descriptions of what a friend told me about the movie-- obviously it is not released here. For example, what my friend told me was that two different sets of pictures depict Iraqi children: a scene of happy children frolicking in the Saddam era, and then pictures of dead children after the invasion.

Now what the fuck do you THINK is implied by that? In Moore's world, it seems, Saddam was a kind, benevolent, grandfatherly guy who ran a country where children played, and that since the evil Americans came, the only children are the dead ones.

Play this in the Middle East and what kind of perception is going to be had? Do you honestly think that there will be critical thinking about the issue? This lop-sided and unfair portrayal will inflame hatreds and encourage more attacks. Radicals will feel that they have more support than they really do. In other words, I feel that Moore is gambling with the lives of the soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians (recently the preferred targets of the terrorists) for his personal political gain.

Hezbollah's endorsement of Moore's movie seems, to me, to reflect this. Hezbollah feels encouraged by Moore's propaganda. During the Vietnam war, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap realized, with Ho Chi Minh, that the war in Vietnam would be won in the streets of America, as the peace movement ramped up (see the general's book, "Giap"). The North Vietnamese were contemplating surrender but once they factored in the 'anti-war at any cost' crowd back in the US they felt encouraged.

So no, maybe not the Jane Fonda photo shoot in and of itself was the type of thing that gave a shot in the arm to our enemy, but it represents the overall impression, given to our enemies, that if they just keep up the pressure (ie, the death) that the US will cave in on its own accord. Never mind the number of people, soldier and civilian alike, that will represent the human cost behind this.

Vietnam was indeed a bad thing, but I am of the opinion that the 'anti-Bush at any cost' people here, the hysterical leftists (notice the word 'hysterical' before that-- as opposed to left-wingers that have reasonable arguments against Bush. Did you all assume yourselves to be hysterical leftists automatically?) will welcome any death and any carnage just to get Bush gone. In other words, in order to get rid of Bush, the left WANTS this to devolve into another Vietnam-- since it will serve their political purposes.

Deep down inside, I think folks like Michael Moore WANT, NEED some sort of Mai-Lai Massacre... they WANT carnage, death, the streets thick with blood because then they can use that blood to grease the wheels of their political goals. Hence my tie with the British Leftist-- she admitted wanting "more chaos" (ie, terrorism) just to make the Americans look bad. Does she care about the dead Iraqis or soldiers that need to be sacrificed to make her dream come true? No, not really. She admits being ashamed of this dream but doesn't seem to be repentant about having the dream-- this is the guilt of someone who feels bad about being caught, not the deed itself.

I think the anti-Bush crowd the world over is willing to sell out the lives of as many Iraqis and troops as they need just to make their politics go a little more smoothly. Yet they slap on a kabuki mask of care and compassion for the poor Iraqis and troops, when it is all false sentimentality.

As to pretending to know my political orientation-- blow yourself. While I think the war and what we're doing here is the right thing, I also realize that Bush slapped this together in a ham-handed manner and he, too, made my life and mission here more dangerous by alienating us from our allies. Do I really, seriously need to enumerate to you all the problems of GW Bush? Or do you just need to see me write them out before you can look critically at my complaints against the left?

I don't say 'my country right or wrong', nor do I say "George Bush uber alles". We could have handled this whole thing in a much better way-- to begin with, by actually understanding the real frictions between the West and the Arab world. Addressing the distortions-- and had I been in charge, the first thing I would have done was meet with my allies (since at the time, it still went without saying that Europe was still our allies) to determine an overall plan to address the situation-- including military force where needed, ie, Afghanistan.

But if the radical left cares so fucking much about the plight of the "victimized Iraqis" or the "poor soldiers drawn from the underclass", well than I say stop wishing for more carnage and death; stop making it so easy to recruit terrorists-- in other words, stop being a part of the Goddamn problem by thowing more fuel on the fire! We have enough over here already, thank you.

[KrauserKrauser]

Stupid conservatives here in America think Moore hates the USA; why should stupid conservatives in the Middle East be any different?

So you are saying that Moore loves America? Then why is it whenever he is out of the country all he says is how evil our governmental, economic and social structures are. Moore is not left wing, he is a full on flaming socialist. He hates America, simple as that. F9/11 just shows that he thinks he can sell his hate for Bush first.

[Andrew J.]

So you are saying that Moore loves America? Then why is it whenever he is out of the country all he says is how evil our governmental, economic and social structures are. Moore is not left wing, he is a full on flaming socialist. He hates America, simple as that. F9/11 just shows that he thinks he can sell his hate for Bush first.

That's exactly what I'm saying, you fucking reactionary. Just because he doesn't like the way the country is run doesn't mean he hates it. Go crawl back under your rock, dumbass.

[Andrew J.]

Vietnam was indeed a bad thing, but I am of the opinion that the 'anti-Bush at any cost' people here, the hysterical leftists (notice the word 'hysterical' before that-- as opposed to left-wingers that have reasonable arguments against Bush. Did you all assume yourselves to be hysterical leftists automatically?) will welcome any death and any carnage just to get Bush gone. In other words, in order to get rid of Bush, the left WANTS this to devolve into another Vietnam-- since it will serve their political purposes.

Deep down inside, I think folks like Michael Moore WANT, NEED some sort of Mai-Lai Massacre... they WANT carnage, death, the streets thick with blood because then they can use that blood to grease the wheels of their political goals. Hence my tie with the British Leftist-- she admitted wanting "more chaos" (ie, terrorism) just to make the Americans look bad. Does she care about the dead Iraqis or soldiers that need to be sacrificed to make her dream come true? No, not really. She admits being ashamed of this dream but doesn't seem to be repentant about having the dream-- this is the guilt of someone who feels bad about being caught, not the deed itself.

Deep down, everyone that wants Bush out of office has had thoughts like that at one time or another. We think to ourselves, "If only Bush would order soldiers to kill civilians, there's no way he would win in November!" or similar, and then we remind ourselves that the cost in human life isn't worth it for political victory. At least the British guy you mentioned has the courage to admit it.

[Plekhanov]

So you are saying that Moore loves America?

Of course Moore loves America you fucking idiot why else do you think he’s so angry about what’s happening to his country?

Then why is it whenever he is out of the country all he says is how evil our governmental, economic and social structures are.

I think you’ll find he’s more or less uniformly critical of that no matter where he is and why is he so critical?

You obviously haven’t a clue so I’ll tell you, it’s because he’s concerned about all Americans including the lower and working class you fucking moron.

Moore is not left wing, he is a full on flaming socialist.

Even if he is a socialist (evidence please) SO FUCKING WHAT? What has that got to do with anything?

He hates America, simple as that.

“Simple as” what? Do you actually think that you’ve somehow demonstrated Moore’s “hatred for America” in your last piss poor excuse for a post?

F9/11 just shows that he thinks he can sell his hate for Bush first.

No it doesn’t you prize winning idiot, no one least of all Moore would deny that he hates Bush, but that emphatically doesn’t mean that he also hates America. Has it not crossed your tiny mind that he hates Bush because he thinks Bush’s appalling leadership is damaging the country Moore loves? Has it not occurred to you that the reason Moore gets so agitated about the socio-economic situation in America is because he cares so deeply about the country?

If you really think that to be left wing is to hate America IT IS YOU who hates the democratic values your country is based upon and of which most of your fellow citizens are so justly proud.

[frigidmagi]

Excuse me folks but one of you flat out lied. Or it seems so to me.

Hezbollah also seems to like “the Passion of the Christ” link Note Al-Manar is Hezbollah’s tv station

However on reading the site from the link the only thing I found of that nature was.

It used a trailer for Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" to compare the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American guards with the suffering of Jesus.

Nothing about liking the passion, just using a trailer to make a distorted point. Now if you wish to explain how this makes them Passion fans please do so. However from what I can see...

[Axis Kast]

The problem with Moore is that, regardless of whether he loves or hates America, his criticisms are usually found side-by-side with irrational fear-mongering or outrageously off-the-wall statements that do nothing but polarize his target audience. Furthermore, like many of those who claim to be disparaging the United States to save it (the “tough love” crowd), Moore is also guilty of never stopping to analyze just how the game is played. It’s difficult to defend his “holding us to a higher standard” when he apologizes about America’s hyperpower before the European Union, for example. The United States is certainly imperfect, but to imply that Americans should be ashamed of their hegemonistic role and that we should benevolently cede it to somebody else (whom Moore’s argument seems to presume would have only the best of intentions, without a second thought) is simply nonsense.

Coyote is correct: when Michael Moore apologizes to German magazines for being a citizen of the United States of America and takes it upon himself to a “frank, honest” spokesman about American failures, it does nothing but fuel anger and resentment. Instead of acknowledging the good along with the bad, all Moore does is appeal to the worst. His attempts to reveal George Bush’s flaws, for example, quickly degenerated into a hunt for boogey-men in every closet – including Afghanistan, where Moore turned the pre-invasion planning period into a “criminal lapse” and spun the United States’ efforts to bring down a sponsor of terrorism into an unfounded effort to build an oil pipeline. Not to mention his ridiculous whining about Osama’s right to innocence despite the man’s involvement in the African embassy and U.S.S. Cole bombings.

The real tragedy of Vietnam isn’t that we made so many mistakes. It’s that we could never correct them. There was certainly ham-handedness (some of the worst in our history) in the way we approached nation-building in South Vietnam. There was certainly bad judgement exercised when it came to how to fight a counter-insurgency war. There was certainly an attempt to impose global politics on what should have been recognized from the outset (at least so far as the Vietnamese people were concerned) as a primarily regional conflict. But none of this ever made our original hope for a democratic Vietnam wrong. The forces against the war in this country often had strong arguments. On the other hand, their problems could have been settled even without our leaving Southeast Asia in what more or less amounted to defeat and self-denial. Michael Moore is guilty of failing to see that the same is true when it comes to Iraq.

[Plekhanov]

Excuse me folks but one of you flat out lied. Or it seems so to me.

You have accused me or Coyote of lying and that is a serious charge and one that I DEMAND you substantiate, I stand by the veracity everything I’ve said and I want to make it clear that I have never accused Coyote of lying, I think that he’s mistaken (perhaps understandably so considering the pressure he’s under in the situation he’s courageously chosen to put himself in) in his analysis of what he calls the “uber-left” but I have never called him a liar. We could both be wrong that doesn’t mean that either of us is lying.

Hezbollah also seems to like “the Passion of the Christ” link Note Al-Manar is Hezbollah’s tv station

However on reading the site from the link the only thing I found of that nature was.

It used a trailer for Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" to compare the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American guards with the suffering of Jesus.

Nothing about liking the passion, just using a trailer to make a distorted point. Now if you wish to explain how this makes them Passion fans please do so. However from what I can see...

“Nothing about liking the passion”? They used the fucking trailer you moron which would suggest that they quite like it and is a much more concrete link between Hezbollah and Gibson than the Coyote used to justify his “Moore and Hezbollah sittin in a tree...” thread title. Also note that I said, “Hezbollah also seems to like” note the SEEMS TO that is a qualified and not a definitive statement and a statement I belive to be justified. Please explain how my suggestion that “Hezbollah seems to like, the passion” is a lie, it may be a faulty analysis of the evidence I had before me but IT IS NOT A LIE.

You are accusing Coyote or myself of lying (though I assume it’s me you are really accusing judging by your previous posts) I DEMAND THAT YOU SUSTANTIATE OR WITHDRAW THAT ACCUSATION.

[frigidmagi]

No jackass, using the trailer does not require enjoying or even seeing the movie. It just takes seeing the trailer and going... Hey I can use this, even if the movie is a piece of Shit!

It's done quite often.

Now prove to me that they like the movie. Hell prove that a bunch of Shite muslims would watch a movie glorifing a forgein regilion!

[SyntaxVorlon]

Stupid conservatives here in America think Moore hates the USA; why should stupid conservatives in the Middle East be any different?

So you are saying that Moore loves America? Then why is it whenever he is out of the country all he says is how evil our governmental, economic and social structures are. Moore is not left wing, he is a full on flaming socialist. He hates America, simple as that. F9/11 just shows that he thinks he can sell his hate for Bush first.

Socialism != anti-US You stupid fuck.
I'm a socialist, I like this country, I just don't fucking like they way it is. It's my right as a citizen of this country to change the way it is, how much more fucking patriotic can I be if I want to make it better?

[Plekhanov]

No jackass, using the trailer does not require enjoying or even seeing the movie. It just takes seeing the trailer and going... Hey I can use this, even if the movie is a piece of Shit!

It's done quite often.

Now prove to me that they like the movie. Hell prove that a bunch of Shite muslims would watch a movie glorifing a forgein regilion!

I didn’t notice anywhere in your post a substantiation of your allegation that I lied or a retraction no doubt this will be remedied in your next post.

As for Muslims liking the Passion it’s been well publicised that some of them do and there have been threads in N&P discussing this. As you seem to be too dumb to figure it out for yourself I’ll explain it too you shall I. “The Passions” depicts jews doing unpleasant things to Jesus (who Muslims regard as a prophet and great teacher) Hezbollah really doesn’t like Jews so they like “the Passion”. Here’s just one of the many stories on how “The Passion” went down in the middle east. Associated Press

Gibson's 'The Passion' a hit among Arabs

NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD

Associated Press


CAIRO, Egypt - Hanan Nsour, a veiled, 21-year-old Muslim in Jordan, came out of "The Passion of the Christ" in tears and pronounced her verdict: Mel Gibson's crucifixion epic "unmasked the Jews' lies and I hope that everybody, everywhere, turns against the Jews."

The Quran, though, says Jesus's crucifixion never happened.

Such are the contradictions that are welling up as the Arab world deals with "The Passion," even as the film draws large audiences in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries that have approved it for screening.

In the Arab world, openly voiced anti-Semitism - and by extension the warm reception for "The Passion" - is bound up in the Arab conflict with Israel. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, after watching the film at his compound in the West Bank, was quoted by an aide as likening Jesus' suffering to the Palestinians'.

When the 1998 animated movie "Prince of Egypt" reached Cairo, censors banned it. One reason given: Islam reveres Moses as a prophet, and many Muslims recoil at seeing their prophets portrayed as flesh-and-blood characters.

Jesus is also a prophet to the Muslims, yet "The Passion" was OK'd by Egypt's censors with no changes. They have not explained why "The Passion" was allowed.

Governments and Islamic clerics are also sending mixed signals.

Kuwait bans any movies depicting any of the prophets recognized by Islam, but one of its top Shiite clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Mehri, has urged an exception for "The Passion" because it "reveals crimes committed by Jews against Christ." The government has not yet made a decision on his call.

The dean of Kuwait University's Islamic Law College, Mohammed al-Tabtabai, has ordered Muslims to shun "The Passion" on the grounds that Jesus is a prophet.

In Jordan, a leader of the hard-line Islamic Action Front says Muslims should read the Quran or pray instead of watching movies, but he doesn't mind "The Passion" being screened in his country.

"The Jews are the most upset with the movie because it reveals their crimes against the prophets, the reformers and whoever contradicts their opinions," Hamza Mansoor said.

And in Egypt, the head of a department at Al-Azhar University that often advises the censors on these matters also is taking a hands-off approach.

"My understanding is that it is about the last 12 hours in the life of the Christ, which involve Christians and Jews. Muslims have nothing to do with that," said Sheik Abdel Zaher Mohammed Abdel-Razeq.

The Quran, Islam's holy book, is unequivocal in sura (chapter) 4, verse 157: "They said 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah' - but they killed him not, nor crucified him. But so it was made to appear to them. And those who differ therein are full of doubts with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."

Muslims believe another man was crucified in Jesus's place.

Many in the West accuse director Gibson of reviving the Jews-killed-Christ claim that has stoked anti-Semitism through the ages.

"The Passion" is also being welcomed by the Middle East's Christian communities. Some Egyptian churches and Christian bookshops were selling pirated versions of "The Passion" for less than a dollar even before the film opened here.

In the United Arab Emirates, a Gulf News editorial extolled the film for being "so close to the human condition in its depiction of betrayal, greed, falsehood, forgiveness and love. As Pope John Paul II has put it, `It is as it was!'"

The Vatican denies the pope ever endorsed the movie with those words, and kept out of the controversy. But Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, head of the Maronite church in Lebanon, waded right in.

"It is not exaggerated and portrays reality as it is. It is a very sad film and we did not feel there was any anti-Semitism there," Sfeir told reporters after watching the film at a private screening.

Part of the film is spoken in Aramaic, an ancient language still spoken by a small minority in Syria.

Salim Abraham, 37, a Christian journalist who speaks fluent Aramaic, said: "I was so very happy to see my language, for the first time ever, being spoken on the big screen and in such a powerful movie."

"I think there is nothing anti-Semitic in it," Abraham added. "It gives the facts as they are, though they may be slightly exaggerated in some instances."

Does that make it clear enough for you, or are there too many words and not enough pictures?

I await your next backpeddle with interest don’t forget to either show how I lied or apologise.

[Plekhanov]

This blog also notes that Hezbollah’s tv channel is using both “the passion” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” but whilst the blogger is clearly no fan of Moore he doesn’t suggest that Moore and Hezbollah are somehow in cahoots.

some blog

Convergence

Has anyone else noticed that Hezbollah is using BOTH The Passion

The Hezbollah-backed TV channel, Al Manar, in Lebanon, has adapted the trailer for the film The Passion of the Christ into a station ident reflecting the channel's anger over events in Iraq.
Al Manar calls itself the "station of resistance" and has a growing following in the Arab world for its uncompromising stance. Its critics accuse it of inciting violence and anti-Semitism.

AND Fahrenheit 911?

The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."
The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."

And while Hezbollah's use of the Passion is unauthorized by Gibson, the movie was VERY popular in the Arab world:

Hanan Nsour, a veiled, 21-year-old Muslim in Jordan, came out of "The Passion of the Christ" in tears and pronounced her verdict: Mel Gibson's crucifixion epic "unmasked the Jews' lies and I hope that everybody, everywhere, turns against the Jews." The Quran, though, says Jesus's crucifixion never happened.
Such are the contradictions that are welling up as the Arab world deals with "The Passion," even as the film draws large audiences in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries that have approved it for screening...

Governments and Islamic clerics are also sending mixed signals.

Kuwait bans any movies depicting any of the prophets recognized by Islam, but one of its top Shiite clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Mehri, has urged an exception for "The Passion" because it "reveals crimes committed by Jews against Christ." The government has not yet made a decision on his call

Think about how weird this is. First, consider Gibson's film (which I supported and also blogged on here). Many of the Arab Muslims who are seeing the Passion have no fondness for Christians or Americans (who are "crusaders" in bin Laden's typology). The Koran even states that the crucifixion DID NOT OCCUR, but they are willing to put all that aside because a) many of them hate Jews with a passion and b) many Jews hate The Passion.

Now consider Moore's film. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a pastiche of a number of things and is frequently incoherent or false. [1] For example, the film blames Bush for authorizing the post-9/11 international flight of the bin Laden family while lauding Richard Clarke. Yet Clarke is the guy who admitted he had sole responsibility for giving the green light to the bin Ladens.

But let's focus on the content for a bit. Moore has variously claimed that our war in Afghanistan was "motivated by a pipeline", while also castigating us for not sending enough troops to capture bin Laden. Leave aside the inconsistency here (were we there because of bin Laden or the pipeline?) and look at it from a jihadist point of view. They don't care about these piddling inconsistencies of fact, or that Moore is (at least sometimes) coming at Bush from the right for failing to kill or capture terrorists.

No, all they care about is that the movie bashes Americans and Bush. Similarly, they don't care about the Islamic inconsistency w.r.t. to the crucifixion in "The Passion"...because all they care about is that it makes many Jews upset. Kinda interesting, huh? One could probably come up with a typology of political attitudes based only on the response to these two movies:

Pro-Passion, Pro-F 9/11 = Islamic fundamentalists, far-right white nationalists, ANSWER and the anti-semitic left (i.e. the Red-Brown-Green alliance)
Pro-Passion, anti F 9/11 = most Republicans, religious right wing Jews (e.g. Daniel Lapin), me
Anti-Passion, Pro-F 9/11 = most Democrats, left wing Jews
Anti-Passion, anti-F 9/11 = secular right wing Jews, neocons, LGF readers
Interesting, huh?

[1] Moore's previous films have included all sorts of misrepresentations of fact. A by-no-means complete list: the cutting + pasting to reverse the time frame of events in "Roger and Me", the Dowdification of Charlton Heston's post-Columbine speech in "Bowling for Columbine", the lie about the "missile factory" that turned out to be a commercial satellite plant, and - of course - the implication that Charlton Heston was a racist for implying that America and Canada had different crime rates because of ethnic differences.

[frigidmagi]

Actually I don't intend to backpeddal, thank you for the invation.

You have presented me with the evidenced I requested and therefore I must concede.

You were right and I was wrong, I withdraw my comment.

[Coyote]

Well, as much as I believe that there are Leftists who do indeed hate the US, I recognize that this is not all leftists, and there are just as many uber-rightists that effectively hate the US as well-- the various Nazi Party groups that would like to sieze control of the government and undo many of our civil liberties, for instance.

But these two groups on the far, fringe left and right are the loonies, and to be honest I think that it is elements of the far-left that Moore is trying to stir up by reporting as a "documentary" a very distorted view of the situation. Again, I could care less if he badmouths Bush-- Bush is a public figure and has to expect some critisism and in a war, hard criticism is necessary.

So my frustration with Moore should be obvious by now-- as bad as Moore is, I doubt he would seek out Hezbollah to pander to them, but his portrayal of events here, while aimed at GW Bush, have the unintentional effect of encouraging a violent terrorist group. It is like handing ammunition to the enemy, in this case, propaganda support.

I must have a very different way of looking at getting objectives and goals complete-- even during the Clinton era, while I personally loathed the man and was upset about a great many of his policies, I accepted that he was the President and wished for a successful and low-casualty Yugoslavian mission. I wanted him defeated in the ballots but not as a result of others suffering on his watch, especially if it was because he tried to do something right that went badly.

I'd like to see Bush gone but because he is a poor and unisnspiring leader in my eyes, and has alienated us from much of the world, including people who are usually reflexive allies. I don't think Kerry is any beter, but that's another thread...

Moore's quest for publicity and desire to unseat GW Bush has caused him to use poor judgement in his very public statement, which is what this movie is. I feel that others besides Bush will suffer, and the reputation of the US troops will suffer as well.

Many of us here felt sucker-punched by the Abu Ghraib thing, and the way the media leapt upon it. Much of the good will we've developed here has been a result of local soldiers and unit commanders taking the initiative to reach out to the Iraqis. While the reaction here has not been as bad as the media portrays it, things like this with Moore's imagery piled on top of it creates a false image of our relationship with the locals. This confuses the unknowing back home, and the public perception of others around the wiorld.

This, then, is the heart of my pissed-offed-ness, and why I think Moore is an irresponsible hypocrite.

[The Kernel]

Hold on a minnit, at what point did I say that criticism of George Bush is unpatriotic? The movie attacks Bush but my point is about how the movie portrays the situation over here, especially the American soldiers and our efforts-- and how the locals feel about us.

I have to go on descriptions of what a friend told me about the movie-- obviously it is not released here. For example, what my friend told me was that two different sets of pictures depict Iraqi children: a scene of happy children frolicking in the Saddam era, and then pictures of dead children after the invasion.

That is a severe simplification of what is depicted, so much so that it is useless outside of the context in the film. Furthermore, the troops in F-9/11 come off extremely well and Moore shows a great deal of respect for them. Watch the damn movie before you make judgement calls about it.

Now what the fuck do you THINK is implied by that? In Moore's world, it seems, Saddam was a kind, benevolent, grandfatherly guy who ran a country where children played, and that since the evil Americans came, the only children are the dead ones.

What was implied by that is that Iraq was not some country full of terrorists that were manufacturing WMD's en masse to attack the US with the way GWB described it to us. Moore never expressed approval of Saddam's internal policies, although he did point out that several previous GOP administrations did, enough so to arm them with WMD's...

Play this in the Middle East and what kind of perception is going to be had? Do you honestly think that there will be critical thinking about the issue? This lop-sided and unfair portrayal will inflame hatreds and encourage more attacks. Radicals will feel that they have more support than they really do. In other words, I feel that Moore is gambling with the lives of the soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians (recently the preferred targets of the terrorists) for his personal political gain.

Wow, what an amazing statement coming from someone who has never seen the movie. Jesus Fucking Christ, how can you condemn Moore with only second or third hand accounts of his thesis? The fact that you have gotten so much wrong already is not encouraging...

Hezbollah's endorsement of Moore's movie seems, to me, to reflect this. Hezbollah feels encouraged by Moore's propaganda. During the Vietnam war, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap realized, with Ho Chi Minh, that the war in Vietnam would be won in the streets of America, as the peace movement ramped up (see the general's book, "Giap"). The North Vietnamese were contemplating surrender but once they factored in the 'anti-war at any cost' crowd back in the US they felt encouraged.

Good for him. How does that make it Moore's responsiblilty? Last I checked, the first amendment was still alive and well.

So no, maybe not the Jane Fonda photo shoot in and of itself was the type of thing that gave a shot in the arm to our enemy, but it represents the overall impression, given to our enemies, that if they just keep up the pressure (ie, the death) that the US will cave in on its own accord. Never mind the number of people, soldier and civilian alike, that will represent the human cost behind this.

Don't be an idiot. Jane Fonda openly supported the opposing side AND was directly responsible for the deaths of several American troops. Moore makes films designed to underscore the extreme blunders of our government. How are they even remotely compareable?

Vietnam was indeed a bad thing, but I am of the opinion that the 'anti-Bush at any cost' people here, the hysterical leftists (notice the word 'hysterical' before that-- as opposed to left-wingers that have reasonable arguments against Bush. Did you all assume yourselves to be hysterical leftists automatically?) will welcome any death and any carnage just to get Bush gone. In other words, in order to get rid of Bush, the left WANTS this to devolve into another Vietnam-- since it will serve their political purposes.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but Moore specifically has shown no indication of sharing it. Much of his film was concentrated on the hardship that the war has created rather than body counts.

Deep down inside, I think folks like Michael Moore WANT, NEED some sort of Mai-Lai Massacre... they WANT carnage, death, the streets thick with blood because then they can use that blood to grease the wheels of their political goals. Hence my tie with the British Leftist-- she admitted wanting "more chaos" (ie, terrorism) just to make the Americans look bad. Does she care about the dead Iraqis or soldiers that need to be sacrificed to make her dream come true? No, not really. She admits being ashamed of this dream but doesn't seem to be repentant about having the dream-- this is the guilt of someone who feels bad about being caught, not the deed itself.

No supporting evidence to be found besides your gut instinct.

I think the anti-Bush crowd the world over is willing to sell out the lives of as many Iraqis and troops as they need just to make their politics go a little more smoothly. Yet they slap on a kabuki mask of care and compassion for the poor Iraqis and troops, when it is all false sentimentality.

Jesus, where the fuck do you come up with this shit?

As to pretending to know my political orientation-- blow yourself. While I think the war and what we're doing here is the right thing, I also realize that Bush slapped this together in a ham-handed manner and he, too, made my life and mission here more dangerous by alienating us from our allies. Do I really, seriously need to enumerate to you all the problems of GW Bush? Or do you just need to see me write them out before you can look critically at my complaints against the left?

Your support of the war and its principles shows that you differ quite significantly from most of the people on this BBS, even the right-wingers. That's because WE DON'T WANT TO SEE YOU GUYS HURT FOR NO GOOD FUCKING REASON. We don't want to see you guys die like you suggest, we don't want you to be over there in the first place. The lives of American troops like yourself should not be wasted on situations like the Iraq war (which by the way was exactly the point Moore was making).

I don't say 'my country right or wrong', nor do I say "George Bush uber alles". We could have handled this whole thing in a much better way-- to begin with, by actually understanding the real frictions between the West and the Arab world. Addressing the distortions-- and had I been in charge, the first thing I would have done was meet with my allies (since at the time, it still went without saying that Europe was still our allies) to determine an overall plan to address the situation-- including military force where needed, ie, Afghanistan.

Does the fact that GWB and his administration were unusually focused on Iraq both pre and post 9/11 bother you in the slightest? Numerous sources from inside the Bush administration have pointed to GWB's almost feverish obsession with Iraq from the day he took office. Does the fact that he might be spending American lives for reasons other than the bullshit he fed the whole world piss you off at all?

But if the radical left cares so fucking much about the plight of the "victimized Iraqis" or the "poor soldiers drawn from the underclass", well than I say stop wishing for more carnage and death; stop making it so easy to recruit terrorists-- in other words, stop being a part of the Goddamn problem by thowing more fuel on the fire! We have enough over here already, thank you.

The situation in Iraq is far worse today than it was before the occupation and the prospects of it getting better are anything but certain. THAT is what bothers us, that this war was a completely pointless action designed only to try to hedge American oil interests.

[Plekhanov]

Deep down inside, I think folks like Michael Moore WANT, NEED some sort of Mai-Lai Massacre... they WANT carnage, death, the streets thick with blood because then they can use that blood to grease the wheels of their political goals. Hence my tie with the British Leftist-- she admitted wanting "more chaos" (ie, terrorism) just to make the Americans look bad. Does she care about the dead Iraqis or soldiers that need to be sacrificed to make her dream come true? No, not really. She admits being ashamed of this dream but doesn't seem to be repentant about having the dream-- this is the guilt of someone who feels bad about being caught, not the deed itself.

What are you talking about when you say that Yasmin is exhibiting “the guilt of someone who feels bad about being caught, not the deed itself” how do you figure that she was caught? Who on earth was she caught by?

She is a columnist for “the Independent” a mainstream British daily newspaper the quote you are referring to most likely came from her column. She wasn’t “caught” by anybody but chose to publish some of her more distasteful thoughts which she then went on to repudiate and even in the selective quote seems pretty repentant to me.

Is there any chance that you could post the rest of Yasmin’s article so we can fairly judge from the whole article not just a selective quote, isn’t editing to misrepresent the kind of scurrilous trick Moore uses?

I think the anti-Bush crowd the world over is willing to sell out the lives of as many Iraqis and troops as they need just to make their politics go a little more smoothly. Yet they slap on a kabuki mask of care and compassion for the poor Iraqis and troops, when it is all false sentimentality.

Well guess I’m part of the anti-Bush crowd and I’d just like to reassure you that I am personally not willing to “sell out” any lives be they British, American, Iraqi or any other nationality “just to make my politics go a little more smoothly” I can’t speak for the rest of the “anti-Bush crowd” but of the small section I know of it in the North of England I can confidentially say that none of them would sacrifice any lives either.

In fact for many of those in the “anti-Bush” movement it is our abhorrence of those such as Bush who are willing to sacrificing the lives of others (be they our soldiers or foreign nationals) just to further their personal political agendas that drive us to oppose him. Don’t you get it WE DON”T WANT YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE TO DIE without reason that is exactly why we oppose Bush.

[Darth Wong]

The right is very, very good at convincing people to make judgements about leftists without actually checking out what they have to say first-hand.

[Coyote]

Kernel, Plekhanov, yes, I am pissed off at the way the war was set up because of the reasons I have stated-- we ended up being alienated by those who could most help us. I've said before and I say again, I am not supporting Bush in any of this-- he has made things far more difficult for the US than was neccesary.

That said, I believe that a final confrontation with Iraq was inevitable. The nature of that final confrontation was still up for grabs. But the US government has proven to be remarkably inept at grasping Arab issues and social values-- this has been going on for decades, long before GW Bush and even before Israel came into the scene.

Bush had to play the hand that was dealt-- a prostrated Iraq that had turned its physical weakness into a moral strength by carping about how the people were suffering under the sanctions. He also refused to allow the WMD inspectors to do their jobs, something spelled out in the treaty halting the Gulf War. Bush could continue the sanctions, the oil-for-food program which was abused by Saddam, and enforcing the no-fly zones. Or he could capitulate to Saddam and lift all restrictions, allowing things in Iraq to basically return to normal so that one day Uday and/or Qusay could take control there.

Or what else? Saddam had proven remarkably resistent to any negotiation. He had no WMDs but why was he so vehement about refusing the inspectors then, and restricting their movements? The UN, EU, and others were convinced he was hiding something. He was not going to step down, apologize, or relinquish power in any way shape or form. He was abusing the smart-sanctions and the oil-for-food program, keeping his people in poverty for the propaganda benefit it brought.

But folks like Moore or others never mention this. No, all the misery here is 100% George W. Bush's fault. Not a mention of Saddam's abuses, the mass graves, chemical warfare, etc.


But why isn't Saddam's responsibility for this taken into account? He could have used the oil for food program to see to the needs of his people but did not-- how is that Bush's fault? How come the reopening of schools and the resumption of commerce here not acknowledged?

The thing is, Yasmin-Alibhi Brown (yes, at least she honestly and openly yearns for others to suffer for her political desires, and is willing to admit it, I'll give her that) and Michael Moore carp on the evils of GW Bush without recognizing that militant religious fanatics and tyrant dictators have done far more, and far worse, for the region.

So that's where I am seing things: you claim you don't want our lives thrown away for nothing, yet when a movie like "Farenheit 9-11" comes out that will stir up anger and possibly lead to more deaths.

So the US troops come across in a good light? Here, in a review of the movie by Roger Ebert, who is probably no fan of GW Bush himself:

:
Moore also shows American military personnel who are apparently enjoying the war; he has footage of soldiers who use torture techniques not in a prison but in the field, where they hood an Iraqi prisoner, call him "Ali Baba" and pose for videos while touching his genitals.

Read the whole review here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/c ... re24f.html

Is this going to play well in the Arab world? There has to be a reason why someone like Hezbollah liked this flick-- a movie portraying US troops as heroic certainly won't be endorsed by them. Note in the review that he also focuses on troops that are angry with the war--

:
...he talks with American soldiers, including amputees, who complain bitterly about Bush's proposed cuts of military salaries at the same time he was sending them into a war that they (at least, the ones Moore spoke to) hated.

So he talks only with soldiers that hate the war, and amputees, always a powerful anti-war statement, and while not mentioned in the Ebert review I have heard of the display of the crying mother in Michigan. I'm sure there is absolutely nothing in any of this that a terrorist could possibly find consoling.

I'm not saying everything here is roses, its not. There are a lot of complaints and there are some soldiers here who feel the war is unjustified. But Moore seems to be taking ONLY the dissenting and angry voices and pasing this off as a "documentary" that encourages not just resistance to Bush (politically justified) but since the average frustrated Arab probably can't get at GW Bush, he has to sek other, nearby targets instead. Guys like us, or the Iraqi truck drivers who work with us. Many times, they are the ones that suffer since they are softer targets.

It is true, I have to rely on reviews and tales from others that have seen the film, but just as I don't think you need to be here just to have an opinion about the war, I can read the reviews both for and against and form opinions as well. Another excerpt from Chris Hitchens at MSN:

: In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment...

... I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

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

Hm, nothing in that a terrorist might take heart in.

It is one thing to be anti-Bush. God knows he's opened himself up for a lot of criticism. I don't like him, I don't trust him, and I don't plan to vote for him. I recognize the mistakes he's made in leading up to and conducting this war. But I still think that while we are here we are doing the right thing and that Moore's point of view will serve to give the enemy a sense of encouragement, posibly leading to nore of the deaths which he and others say thay want to prevent.

Could the war have been avoided? Maybe, maybe not, we had little wiggle room. I think we would have been here anyway at some point but it would be better to be here with our allies and with a more solid plan. That does not change my opinion that we are still bringing positive change to the area, change that is long overdue.

Many American (and European) governemnts have propped up dictators here before, and it is wrong. Now we are trying to clean one of them out. Encouraging the terrorists does not help.

[The Kernel]

Kernel, Plekhanov, yes, I am pissed off at the way the war was set up because of the reasons I have stated-- we ended up being alienated by those who could most help us. I've said before and I say again, I am not supporting Bush in any of this-- he has made things far more difficult for the US than was neccesary.

Understatment of the century. At the end of the Clinton Presidency, pretty much the entire civilized world was okay with the United States. Now they are all pissed at us.b

That said, I believe that a final confrontation with Iraq was inevitable. The nature of that final confrontation was still up for grabs. But the US government has proven to be remarkably inept at grasping Arab issues and social values-- this has been going on for decades, long before GW Bush and even before Israel came into the scene.

Why was a final confrontation with Iraq inevitable? Iraq is no threat to the United States, nor was it ever post-Desert Storm. And don't even bother trying to moralize the situation, you know as well as I do that there are plenty of countries out there with ruthless dictators that we ignore that don't happen to be sitting on a huge supply of precious resources.

Bush had to play the hand that was dealt-- a prostrated Iraq that had turned its physical weakness into a moral strength by carping about how the people were suffering under the sanctions. He also refused to allow the WMD inspectors to do their jobs, something spelled out in the treaty halting the Gulf War. Bush could continue the sanctions, the oil-for-food program which was abused by Saddam, and enforcing the no-fly zones. Or he could capitulate to Saddam and lift all restrictions, allowing things in Iraq to basically return to normal so that one day Uday and/or Qusay could take control there.

Sure, why not? It is not our job to get involved in the internal politics of other nations unless it is absolutely necessary. There are plenty of worse dictators than Saddam to chase down after all.

Or what else? Saddam had proven remarkably resistent to any negotiation. He had no WMDs but why was he so vehement about refusing the inspectors then, and restricting their movements? The UN, EU, and others were convinced he was hiding something. He was not going to step down, apologize, or relinquish power in any way shape or form. He was abusing the smart-sanctions and the oil-for-food program, keeping his people in poverty for the propaganda benefit it brought.

So that justifies a full fledged invasion and occupation? Give me a fucking break, if we attacked everyone that violated UN security resolutions, Israel would be a radioactive crater right now.

But folks like Moore or others never mention this. No, all the misery here is 100% George W. Bush's fault. Not a mention of Saddam's abuses, the mass graves, chemical warfare, etc.

Once again, you speak from total ignorace of Moore's thesis. At no time during F-9/11 did he make the point that Saddam was a good guy.

But why isn't Saddam's responsibility for this taken into account? He could have used the oil for food program to see to the needs of his people but did not-- how is that Bush's fault? How come the reopening of schools and the resumption of commerce here not acknowledged?

All of which is irrelevent to the issue here which is that Bush did not invade Iraq to free its people, nor are they better off under the new regime, despite your protests to the contrary. Saddam's propeganda machine is gone, yet widespread hatred of the American occupation is widespread. Do you think this feeling was formed in a vaccuum?

The thing is, Yasmin-Alibhi Brown (yes, at least she honestly and openly yearns for others to suffer for her political desires, and is willing to admit it, I'll give her that) and Michael Moore carp on the evils of GW Bush without recognizing that militant religious fanatics and tyrant dictators have done far more, and far worse, for the region.

Total and complete Red Herring to Moore's argument which I must again point out that you obviously have no grasp of whatsoever.

So that's where I am seing things: you claim you don't want our lives thrown away for nothing, yet when a movie like "Farenheit 9-11" comes out that will stir up anger and possibly lead to more deaths.

Or it could lead to a change in the policy of the administration and save even MORE lives. Are you done with your pointless hypotheticals yet or would you like to put Moore on trial for causing the potential deaths of American soldiers?

So the US troops come across in a good light? Here, in a review of the movie by Roger Ebert, who is probably no fan of GW Bush himself:

Is this going to play well in the Arab world? There has to be a reason why someone like Hezbollah liked this flick-- a movie portraying US troops as heroic certainly won't be endorsed by them. Note in the review that he also focuses on troops that are angry with the war--

Ahh, I see, so it is better to supress valid video documentation because you feel it threatens the war movement. Obviously you have no concept of what freedom of speech is about do you?

There's an excellent on-point quote about this from the movie The Contender: "Our morals only mean something if we stick to them when it's inconvenient".

So he talks only with soldiers that hate the war, and amputees, always a powerful anti-war statement, and while not mentioned in the Ebert review I have heard of the display of the crying mother in Michigan. I'm sure there is absolutely nothing in any of this that a terrorist could possibly find consoling.

I'm sick and tired of your total misrepresenatation of the film based on your reading of movie reviews. I remember the scenes in question EXTREMELY WELL (I've seen the movie three times) and your interpretation of them is completely wide of the mark.

Get this through your fucking thick skull:

Either actually watch the movie or shut the fuck up about it

I'm not saying everything here is roses, its not. There are a lot of complaints and there are some soldiers here who feel the war is unjustified. But Moore seems to be taking ONLY the dissenting and angry voices and pasing this off as a "documentary" that encourages not just resistance to Bush (politically justified) but since the average frustrated Arab probably can't get at GW Bush, he has to sek other, nearby targets instead. Guys like us, or the Iraqi truck drivers who work with us. Many times, they are the ones that suffer since they are softer targets.

Blah, blah, blah, more speculation on your part based on third hand information. Got any real examples to provide?

It is true, I have to rely on reviews and tales from others that have seen the film, but just as I don't think you need to be here just to have an opinion about the war, I can read the reviews both for and against and form opinions as well. Another excerpt from Chris Hitchens at MSN:

Or you could hold back on forming an opinion about it until actually watching it like a rational person might do...

: In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment...

If Chris Hitchens wants to defend that interpretation at SDN I'd be glad to blast him to bits over it. In the meantime, how about you stop using other people's arguments?

... I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

Oh it's mentioned alright, but so is the fact that Bush's GOP predecessors were in full support of it, the same men that are now serving on his cabinet.

Hm, nothing in that a terrorist might take heart in.

Right, so now we should censor films based on what might incite terrorism (read: disension against the state). Welcome to a totalitarian dictatorship.

It is one thing to be anti-Bush. God knows he's opened himself up for a lot of criticism. I don't like him, I don't trust him, and I don't plan to vote for him. I recognize the mistakes he's made in leading up to and conducting this war. But I still think that while we are here we are doing the right thing and that Moore's point of view will serve to give the enemy a sense of encouragement, posibly leading to nore of the deaths which he and others say thay want to prevent.

There's no easy way to say this so I'm just going to say it: too fucking bad. Moore is excercising his right to express his opinions and if you have a problem with that take it up with the signitories of the Constitution.

Could the war have been avoided? Maybe, maybe not, we had little wiggle room. I think we would have been here anyway at some point but it would be better to be here with our allies and with a more solid plan. That does not change my opinion that we are still bringing positive change to the area, change that is long overdue.

Many American (and European) governemnts have propped up dictators here before, and it is wrong. Now we are trying to clean one of them out. Encouraging the terrorists does not help.

You have got to be fucking joking. Just because there is a moral rationalization that is possible for the Iraq war doesn't make it right, nor does it make it the agenda of those fighting the war. If the agenda was really to take out a dictator that was terrorizing its citizens, we have TONS of better targets to choose from in dozens of African nations alone. But of course, none of them are sitting on a huge oil reserve...

[The Kernel]

The right is very, very good at convincing people to make judgements about leftists without actually checking out what they have to say first-hand.

To be totally fair, the left can be equally guilty of this.