Waste of jet fuel, just light them on fire in the streets of DC, the ones that don't burn we can hang as witches.

wiskey144  you are presenting an ad homonim argument which is, by definition, a logical falacy.   Truth is truth, no matter WHO states it.  False is false, no matter who states it.   The fact that a person does not totally, 100% ACT according the the truth they espouse does NOT invalidate what they state.  Neither does someones heroic, super moral, or popular lifestyle / committment to "truth, justice,and the American Way..." necessirally make all they espouse true. 

Truth is either true or false based on the logical use of evidence, and valid reasoning, not on attacking (or praising) the speaker's lifestyle.  Were the previous sentence not true, none of us would be able to safely say anything to people who disagreed with us.

 

In all actuality, I wasn't presenting an Ad Hominem fallacy.

My opposition, however was, which you seem to be conveniently ignoring.

How can you KNOW truth if you do not have all the knowledge to understand said truth?  It is foolish to assume that one can know every detail in order to make a complete statement of truth.  Man is not capable of truth.

 

And thanks Pbhead for wasting your time on that video so I didn't have to... I see it was what I thought it would be.

 

 

 

Here is a list to get you started on what I find problematic on this "documentary."  I had already done my research a long time ago on this topic.... I wonder why it is surfacing now?  More political propaganda perhaps?

http://www.davekopel.com/terror/fiftysix-deceits-in-fahrenheit-911.htm

 

Sinperium - Great post!  As a simple answer to most of the concerns you mentioned ... the USG Department of No-Education comes to mind. It would seem that there are more important things than giving our children a practical education, go figure. I would be happy if they would teach R-R-R's and common sense ... and left the social programming of the children to the parents. I do not think many adults today are going to become un-brainwashed from anything the USG would do … after all they supply the impetus for this quandary … because it is in their best interests.
 
Just think of what we could really do if the neo-politicians stopped pretending to oppose each other on non-political issues like...

• GW, 
  Abortions,
• Religion,
• The constitution, 
  War,
• Peace (???),
• Human rights,
• Civil rights,
• God given rights,
• Sexual divergences, 
  Green whatever,
• Racism,
• Immigration reform,
• Border control,
• Energy restrictions,
• Developing our own resources, etc.

My goodness, no more fighting … peace … we could mostly work together… But then the USG wouldn’t be able to play good cop-bad cop over and over again … to sway the neo-sheeple to their will. People are going to remain malleable to the dictates of their government as long as they allow their leaders to politicize every aspect of their life. Politics bespeaks of strife and struggle, criminality, lies and deceit, fabrications and a complete lack of transparency … Nope, don’t need this nonsense in control of any aspect of my life … to each his own I guess.

Since this is the second time you referenced this article I downloaded a copy but have only been able to quickly scan it … but I saw several things that I can refute using Moore’s funny little film and do not need any of the other collaborating articles and documentaries.  And you have a list written representing what … the USG’s best interests. My, where else would one go to disprove the USG’s claims … go figure. I agree this was not the ideal poster child for the cause I guess, but I had just watched it and there was a lot of things in there that reinforced much of what I had already discovered … thus my claim in the article that  I found little “information therein that was not factual or accurate”. This is all in the OP you know??? If you really believe that “Man is not capable of truth” … I don’t think this is exactly what you wanted to say … but I’d say you are in a bad way.

The entire "documentary" has no merit, and all of the facts it did use were taken so far out of context, combined with Michael Moore's presentation style, make the "documentary" little more than a fallacy. The "documentary" cannot refute anything, because it doesn't possess any factual information whatsoever.

I was wondering what this thread was all about.... none of the posts seemed to make much sense so i Googled Fahrenheit 9/11 and still the posts don't make much sense hehehe!

Anyway, i remember seeing that documentary advertised on TV and thought "what a load of xxxx". Simply because of the name! because i did not know the significance of the name (which i just found out). Therefore the name 'Fahrenheit 9/11 in my mind conjured up impressions of heightened sensationalism on overdrive gone berserk and causing peoples heads to overheat and explode! (some may still feel that way about it)

 

Here is my simplistic take on the Iraq wars.... war number 1 being less justifiable than number two for America at least since Kuwait in their infinite wisdom before war 1 chose to boot out America from their country to suck up to their neighbors, gee that worked well, In which case America's response to Saddam's invasion should have been as follows... "hahahaha sucked in" end of story.

War number 2, i could understand the reasons and for a brief time i even supported it then i realized something important (this is before no weapons of mass destruction were found). In the world there are many different countries and many different dangers, western countries have to learn to accept this fact, so why is Iraq so much more dangerous than any other dangerous country that the US has to invade? It makes no sense. Now there is also another important point why war number 2 was not wise.... The international community chose to leave Saddam in power after war number 1 therefore if Saddam was to eventually use weapons of mass destruction the US could sit back and laugh and say, "well that just proves we were right and you lot are all stupid". The international community needs to bear the consequences of it's decisions, without America scuffling around under their feet doing all the hard work, all the dying and saving the international community from it's own stupidity!!

 

I mean exactly what I said.  And no, I am not in any "bad" way.  I simply know the limits of human comprehension.

Remember 500 years ago how the world was flat, and everyone "knew" it was? But I digress....

 

 

Ok, lets look at this list then, and see what I see here.

1 - stands for what?

2 - morality, what does one stand for?  If you can't defend the innocent and unborn you have no business procreating.

3 - not going there....

4 - If you can not live under a countries founding documents, then you should leave that country for one that you agree with.

5,6 - war and peace are simple conflict resolutions

7 - what rights do you want to have?  what rights will you give up?  and who decides?  Do you really want to go there?

8 - same as above

9 - still same as above

10 - the problem is in the definition.... going against the natural order of things is obviously a problem.

11 - slime?  I suppose it is good to be responsible with what we have, isn't it?

12 - I have none, just experience.

13 - A country without any law will degrade into lawlessness

14 - same as above

15 - politics should not influence the free market, period.

16 - same as above

 

I don't see how protecting a nations people is non-political.  I don't see how having law to protect the people i non-political. I don't see how providing a free market for productivity to thrive is non-political.

 

And I don't see how you can be taken seriously when you make these obviously flawed statements.

 

 

 

"Prejudices are what fools use for reason."  - Voltaire

'Non-political'...  Hmm.

SivCorp – What I tried to point out was that these items are politically unsolvable as our current madness so amply demonstrates. These are issues that affect all our people not any half or part of them. If you want to fight GW, then you fight GW not each other. You believes in abortion (selfish, uneducated, lacking moral fortitude) or you don’t but it will not be solved in the political arena. None of this was intended to be argumentative …? I do not understand why you are reading so much into this? You either believe in the Constitution or you don’t … how can this possibly be politicized and argued about? Leave the country … how about enforcing the USG bible … what arguments?

It seems like you don’t see much at all. What do any of the listed have to do with “protecting the people” or better still, why is there a political divide? Are you telling me that these things, like religion (where you won’t go,TG), all belong in the political hogwash that is the USG?
I see you didn’t take me seriously enough to answer the question of why this stuff is D or R or I driven.  These political divides are the mainstay of the USG otherwise the sheeple would have little reason to hate each other. Maybe it is because of your flawed interpretation of the whole post, go figure. They are arguing now on the constitutionality of Obama Care ... Why? I have no problem discussing the right due the American people so yes, I will go there if you actually think you can make a valid arguments ... but for you it will be theology you must use and ... well I do not do theology, sorry.

It appears as though we are communicating ... but I do not think that is the case because we aren't even talking about the same things, go figure.

I got way behind the times of the 9/11 topic until now. Maybe a few of the posters here can critique ZERO.Investigation.Into.911 without even watching it as well.

I have never read the bible but I can tell you it's full of lies. 

Mystikmind - Most understood little initially after 9/11 … only what the USG said. Don’t you remember all the neocons repeatedly stating that there can be no doubt that Saddam has WMD’s and that they had unimpeachable PROOF? Doesn’t sound like a guess or supposition to me? Take WMD’s out of the equation for the rush to war … and there wouldn’t have been a war. It all stems from the events of 9/11 and there is only one question. Do you believe in the veracity of the USG and therefor believe what you are told … or do you have questions and seek better answers? Well, I am in the latter class and just because I want a semi-believable explanation (I bring my proof and all) and the USG starts telling it ... Sort of like a birth certificate. If you do not want controversy simply show the proof … end of story. It has been 10 years now and still no truth is forthcoming. In all honesty … you actually believe the USG is doing all the hard work and all the dying and that we are saving the world from itself???  That is a valid definition of stupidity in my book, sorry.

Saddam Hussein did have WMDs before the invasion, he used them on both the people of Iraq and Iran back in the 1980s when the US government made so many foreign policy blunders. Tell me their isn't something wrong with the current bin Laden death business when they can't even get their facts straight.

myfist0 - It is typical that those demanding facts and figures and proof are really only interested in their own. But I have not seen their facts and figures because they are sparse at best. If these people are so mentally isolated they cannot even sit back and re-evaluate things they believe to be true considering the evidence available … well they are not here for clarification, go figure.

I don't think the bible is at fault. It is the people and organizations that demand that we believe them and all they say because of their self-proclaimed divine right to do so. Sounds like communism in full expansion mode

The call to war in Iraq was made on the back of 9/11 and was promoted on the nuclear lie and the al-Qaeda/bin Laden lie. Not chemical weapons used 20 years prior. The USG knew the injunctions were working better than expected and that Saddam was UNABLE to continue his weapons programs. We have the best intelligence network (Israel maybe), the most money and the most modern weapons in existence. We have covert teams all over the world and we have the best satellite tracking capability available.  We knew where all the bunkers were, all the palaces, all the military installations and all their major infrastructure and oil production facilities, hell, it seems that we knew everything we needed to know to go to war with a vengeance … except for the location of those WMD’s.
 
I can just see the idiot sitting in the White House smugly telling his ‘people’ that the SOB has got to have them … somewhere … right? Wrong! … The bin Laden business??? If the lips of the USG reps were moving at all, then I believe it is another fabrication because it is built around the larger lie of 9/11 and Iraq … and besides their story is pure poppycock … which seems to be the necessary ingredient for a practicing neocon (not accusing you here) to believe something as gospel, go figure

The technical term for this statement is "blasphemy". The technical term for someone who makes this statement is "blasphemer".

That is all.

myfist0 – Great movie! There were several things I had not considered (there is so much) but are crystal clear to me. It is typical that those demanding facts and figures and proof are really only interested in their own. But I have not seen their facts and figures because they are sparse at best. If these people are so mentally isolated they cannot even sit back and re-evaluate things they thought to be true considering the evidence available … well they are not here for clarification at all, go figure. All they have are talking points and snide remarks.

I don't think the bible is at fault. It is the people and organizations that demand that we believe them and all they say because of their self-proclaimed divine right to do so. Sounds like communism in full expansion mode.

It points out a lot of stuff that should be checked for yourself. This things are made to make money and will always sensationalize there point of view like Moore. I never swallow anything hook, line and sinker like most do from any side. Both sides can present me the facts and I will make my own choice that I try not to push on others.

Never meant to put down any religion with that past comment, just wanted to make a point that may have been a little rash.

Definition of BLASPHEMY

 

 

ROFL

Except for the problem that the Bible isn't "non-truths" or lies.

It is THE truth.

 

Ah sorry.  That's my bad.  Try wording things a little better next time.....

 

 

And don't try Whiskey.  It isn't worth it.  If people won't apply the same standards to the Bible as other ancient texts, that is their problem.  You will not win that argument, because people are close minded to anything that resembles religion, God, or anything that doesn't center around them.

 

 

 

Through this whole "discussion" I have yet seen anyone submit a solution to all these problems.... interesting.

Whiskey144 – The Bible - the sacred book of the Christian (whatever) religion. I and several billion people around the world think differently about you’re ‘the truth’ is all?

do you know how many times the Bible has actually been changed and rewritten?

 

Well i was actually trying to make the point that proof of WMD's in Iraq was irrelevant. And your last remark (That is a valid definition of stupidity in my book, sorry) indicates you did not understand what i was trying to say.

With regard to the USG doing all the hard work and all the dying, this is in the perspective of the decisions of the global community as a whole in dealing with problems around the world. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the global community chose to go to war to fix the problem and it was the global community that chose to leave him in power. Now here is the heart of my argument - We don't know what consequences that choice may have eventually produced, good or bad. America, by acting unilaterally allows the global community to escape the consequences of it's decisions..... see what I'm getting at now? So the global community gets to sit back and enjoy not facing any consequences of it's descisions meanwhile criticizing America while... "America scuffling around under their feet doing all the hard work, all the dying". all this is towards the point of why America should not have invaded Iraq the second time "The international community chose to leave Saddam in power after war number 1 therefore if Saddam was to eventually use weapons of mass destruction the US could sit back and laugh and say, "well that just proves we were right and you lot are all stupid"".