la maestra,

Apparently you missed the information early in this thread that provided links to the facts surrounding the so called "incidents" alluded to by Moore. You might want to read them. It sheds a lot of light on his film.

Here's some additional info that might help you sort out the statements Moore made about the Saudis and bin Laden family members immediately after 9/11 - http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

Wolf

I, finally!, watched the movie yesterday....

Sooo many things could be said about it, but, you know what?, having Mr. Arbusto repeat a number of times how he is a "war president" , with an absurd smile on his face says enough about the man, and his whole fiasco of a presidency, and to me THAT is being evil.

The other most disturbing piece for me has to be the cuts of the almost teenage US soldiers talking about how they blow Baghdag apart while they listen to some nasty-sounding heavy metal tune to get even more geared up...
Anyway, this is what I was trying to convey in a post on this forum from almost two years ago now that got totally misinterpreted and misunderstood....

I distinctly remember also posting about how, by mistake, we, outside the US, had been able to watch live on TV Mr. Arbusto while he was preparing to give the speech with which he announced the invasion of Irak taking place, and how he smiled and seemed all cheerful while being made up, coiffed...and about to announce the beginning of a war, for goodness sake!!! Those scenes are in the movie as well.

Finally, if any Spanish politician ever commented or discussed any terrorism-related issue and a moment later kept on showing off playing golf....that person would probably not last another day in his/her position.
Terrorism is a SERIOUS matter! (as the families of the victims of September 11th., March 11th., ETA, IRA, etc....can confirm). It is not a business, not a game, and not even a way to make your own people FEARFUL just so you have more control over them.
Yes, that's how little sense of humour we have about terrorism over here....

Wolf,

Your link provides this info:

So, they were allowed fly within the USA, and the writer is not sure if they were allowed to fly abroad.

IMO that doesn't say Mr. moore is wrong in this.

What about the pipeline that the talibans rejected to build to bring the russian gas, through Afghanistan, and that was one of the first things the new puppet president accepted and signed? If I don't remember wrong, Moore said it was a firm related to Bush, wasn't it?

So, what was the Afghanistan was for? If it was to destroy Al-Quaeda, why only 15.000 soldiers were sent and it took them two months to take control allowing talibans to escape? Because the objective weren't al-quaeda but the pipeline?

What about the images of Bush father with the Bin Ladin family, making business with them, what about the Bin Ladin family being for more than a decade partners of G.W.B.?

And so many images and data supplied?

Pim:

I am not very sure of this. The oil tanker that sunk in Galicia was an extremely serious matter, and the minister (Álvarez-Cascos) went to hunt, and nothing happened.

And Aznar and Acebes lied blamind ETA of the 11-M attacks (which is much more serious than reading a book) and their party lost the elections, but their party didn't dismiss them by then, nor afterwards were repudiated.

And Trillo was responsible for the bad conditions of the flights of the spanish soldiers to Afghanistan , and so of the death of those in the Yak-42, and he was responsible of the bad identification of the corpses and burying toghether pieces of diferent bodies because they rejected making the right tests, and nothing happened.

And so many important matters happen and nothing happens here...

Ignacio writes Yet the voters tossed them out on their collective ***es after 11th of March -

Let's just hope that those of us voting in the US elections do the same and oust the current administration .....

la maestra,

Here's a few more links that may interest you. They cover a broad band of information about the way the film was made and the information sources. It's nice seeing someone have an open mind, and being willing to research the significant facts to put them in perspective instead of running off half-cocked with the intent of accepting things because they fit their personal agenda.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

http://www.workingpsychology.com/fahrenheit.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html

Of note: The Working Psychology article. You can pick out excerpts that tell pretty much how he put the movie together and fed off insecurities.

pim,

So what did you do the evening following 3/11? Did you go home quietly and eat an austere meal, or did you stop and get a bite to eat, or talk with friends? Was the entire conversation about what happened, or was there other talk as well?

The point is, we can be strongly effected by an incident, but still life goes on, and we can't quit being who we are because it happened. If that was the case there would be no joy whatsoever in living. We just have to put things in perspective, and deal with them, each in our own way.

As far as Bush seeming to be "upbeat" when he announced we were going to war against Iraq, I tend to agree. I thought his delivery was poor, and his demeanor was worse. But, since then, I've grown to understand the man doesn't seem to be able to turn on the right face at the right time, to serve purpose. I guess we might say he's either devoid of sympathy for others, or is clueless when it comes to his demeanor in front of an audience.

By the way... there were those back in December of 1941 that said that FDR "looked too much, and said too much, that made him look like he was quite happy to declare war on Japan and Germany."

There are always detractors, whose political philosophies vary, and people like you and I who see Bush' demeanor as being that of a fool. I take the three debates as an example. I thought he lost all three because of the way he smirked and carried on. On the other hand, I didn't like Cheney either, because he was smug and brusk. But... is that because I was right, or that I don't want to see Bush back in office? I'm not certain. Others see it the way they want, so my view may not be correct, and I am willing to listen to & "research" other points of view.

Ignacio,

In your first paragraph you did exactly what Moore did. You made a statement of fact without offering up the entire truth surrounding the fact. You allowed inuendo and half-truths to permeat a person's mind without giving them the whole truth. To me, that's as good as a lie. It should be that way with everyone I might add, even a person who is "anti-Bush," or "anti-US." You need to put the whole truth on the table to prove your argument, not conveniently leave out facts that won't make your argument signficant or strong.

Pipeline to Russia - Think about this. Do you really believe in your wildest imagination this had anything to do with the reality of our attack against Afghanistan? Do you really believe that Bush wanted that pipeline in, especially since Russia was against us on Afghanistan & Iraq? Clearly you aren't thinking when you throw that out as a fact, are you? You're trying to find biased information and use it as a flame of truth where it doesn't exist.

Your whole offering can be explained one way or another. Even the statements about Bush doing business with the Saudis. Hell! Almost everyone in the US who was involved directly or indirectly with the area called the Middle East had some involvement with the Saudis. They are a part of the business world, so why would that even be an issue?

Since I have a friend who went over to Saudi Arabia back in the 70s for Bell Helicopter, and spent a year there working, should I say he's part of the "Bush conspiracy," and was an "advance agent" for the war? Please! Get the whole story out, not just the excerpts that make your point of view sound without telling the truth.

On Aznar, I don't believe for a moment he thought the attacks were anything other than ETA. The knee-jerk reaction on everyone's part is to blame things like this on the most culpable people we have a belief are guilty. It's wrong, yes, but it happens all the time, and you state it was a lie intended to deceive people. Personally I think it was a mistake, and if Aznar had known the truth, would have told it like it really was. He would never have perpetuated a lie.

In fact, had he known it was al Qaeda/terrorist based, he could have used that as a tool to keep his party in power by saying that the attack was planned long before the invasion of Iraq. But you can't say that... it wouldn't fit your personal agenda, would it? Once again... think about your responses... the truth... not what you want things to be.

People make mistakes. I don't care if it's Americans or Spaniards. Anyone in the public eye comes into scrutiny. We have to see all sides of an issue.

Understand... I am sympathetic to the Basque cause as well, since I have dear friends who live in Basque Country, and believe in independence. But, if I, or others like me, continue to support their beliefs, it will be because of truths, not statements that are intended to inflame differences between people. Adding to the woes, when someone is as "anti-Bush," or whatever... and is willing to deal with half truths as being the whole truth, it's very difficult to accept and support their point of view when it comes to Basque independence.

In other words, you are doing more to support the Spanish Government's claim that the Basque issue is strictly a matter of terrorism than political, than you are for your own beliefs.

Sorry! But you have to be consistent with truth. Sometimes that slips away when you only accept half-truths.

Wolf

Wolf w/ the sonorous voice of professorial reason. Wether or not one agrees with your stand - you inivitably make the reader think.

I, for one, am sooooo glad to have you abck as an active participant ....

Wolf,

I'll say it again, you have the patience of Job.

I have to say too, to be fair, Bush was creamed by Kerry in the debates. I couldn't believe FOX news saying at the finish of the last debate that President Bush was clearly the winner. I think the only thing you can say for him is that he didn't commit any big mistakes, and that doesn't make you the winner. If nothing else, Bush is a fool for agreeing to debate such a slickster.

Puna, Gazpacho,

Thanks! I try to see both sides of an issue if possible. Sometimes it's difficult not jumping onto one side or the other. Especially when the attacks from one side don't tell the entire story, and you believe a side should be defended.

What makes this board a gem is that MadridMan gives us an opportunity to tell our points in regards to an issue, without them being pulled down like we see happen in some areas.

I know there are times he'd like to strangle me because he disagrees with me, but there are times I feel the same way about him, because I vehemently disagree. But, there just ain't no better place than this for honest opinions and points of view to be shared.

What really adds value for us is that none of us are afraid to state our positions and allow it to be heard. We may get into a "war of words" at times, but in the end, we walk away friends, and glad we're together where we can discuss these issues frankly.

If there's a better place for Europeans and Americans to discuss issues openly, you'd have to point it out to me, because I haven't been able to find it on the net in 10 years.

Wolf

Sorry, I didn`t take part on this debate for a long, and just stumbled here today. Then I read one post from Megia and decided I would like to post a couple of things:
-Megia, I don`t know if Gore had the least idea on counter-terrorist tactics, but, Do you think Bush has attained ANYTHING by invading Afghanistan and Irak? Have you bothered to read the report from the comission? Did you know the CIA has already stated publicly that Irak had no relation whatsoever with 9-11 or Al-Qaeda?
Does reality have anything to do with "Bush is our leader" slogans, or are they a matter of faith?
- What does 11-S and 11-M imply, after all? What has changed after these horrible attacks? I used to think that investigating, judgind and locking criminals was the best way to fight crime. What has changed, now? If I were asked, I would suggest both American and Spanish authorities to track, investigate and smash down the networks of terror...just as it always was done.
- If US administration and security agencies had done their homework, they would have stopped the attacks in time. Why don`t they simply try to do their work, instead of flying the banners of universal war? Shouldn`t they be blushed and ashamed for their deadly neglect? Instead, they boast and trample around, as if they had all the answers. Why should we trust them anyway?
-Spanish papers said yesterday that Morocco provided useful information on 11-M to Spanish police. My question is, er...why didn`t they use it? Why didn`t they investigate and arrest in due time the alleged terrorists? Should now Spain invade Morocco?
- Should Spain invade Spain, since these terrorists plotted the attack while staying on Spanish soil? Should the UK be invaded by someone, since the worst kind of fundamentalist Islam thrives in London? That is the meaning of war on terror, isn`t it? Invading the countries where terrorists (or their supporters) dwell.
- Any terrorist staying in Spain or the US, or anywhere, will not care at all about troops deployed in Irak, Iran or wherever. This terrorist will mind his own business, that is, gathering bombs, nerve gas, modified viruses or whatever, then spread it in a crowded place.
-Invasions don`t meet any practical purpose, as far as terrorism is concerned. News for you, Megia: the Madrid attack took place one year after Irak was occupied and Saddam kicked away...and three years after Afghanistan was invaded and the Taliban regime defeated. My conclusion? Invading and occupying third World countries doesn`t help to fight terrorism. War on Terror is very much like War on drugs: it is expensive, it diverts attention from important issues and it is totally useless.

I didn`t watch Moore`s movie. I think the man was quite funny at first, but now I have grown sick of him.

Cristobo,

Although we disagree on a lot of subjects, we aren't that far off on this one - except in the attack against Afghanistan, which I believe was almost mandated because of their support and proliferation of terrorists.

You mentioned terrorists in Spain or the US not caring about what happened in Afghanistan... etal..

I do think terrorist groups plan their attacks without regard for these events, but I also believe they use these events to try to persuade people they are doing it for that specific cause, to sanitize their positions in the Muslim world particularly. So, in a way, the situations are linked.

But, to be honest, the attack in Madrid was orchestrated long before the Spanish government became involved in Iraq, so the link to that event isn't really valid - I believe.

I also heard reports that the Spanish government had been warned by the Moroccan government about possible terrorists. The information, from what I gathered, was very sketchy.

Another thing I heard is that between the US, UK, and Spain, roughly 1,500 reports of "possible terrorists" who are only partially identified are being presented by friendly Muslim nations each month, and that's a lot of possibilities that have to be investigated. The three nations just don't have enough manpower to wade through all of them, since a large number end up as dead ends, without ever getting close to who the subject really is, or where they may be. These reports, often listing just a name - usually changed by the person prior to gaining access to a nation - no fingerprints, and at times, not even pictures to associate a name with an identity.

The battle against terrorism isn't easy. Can we win it through political agreements amongst nations? I don't know. Can we win it by attacking nations that would protect them? I don't know. Can we continue to allow terrorists to operate freely, without fear of reprisal? No. Can we allow governments to secretly protect them? No.

So... where do we go from here? I think we're looking at a century of battling them on just about every plain there is, until one side or the other decides they've had enough.

Wolf