"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with
people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're
not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," Moore told
the Scottish Sunday Herald . "I do well enough already and I made this film
because I want the world to change. The more people who see it the better,
so I'm happy this is happening." (whole article link)

After reading several such statements by Moore, Mark Perkel invested $2000 in bandwidth to distribute Fahrenheit 911 from his website.

get it here

Nevermind.

I just watched this. Maybe it´s because I hate our douchebag president so much, but it seems like Moore was more honest in this one than he was with Bowling for Columbine. I still think Moore is dishonest and does a disservice to his side, but damn if this doesn´t show Bush for the wicked bastard he is. The weakest part of the movie for me is near the end when he focuses on that fat breeder entirely too much. It´s hard for me to have much sympathy for her and her brood.

Wow, I totally disagree. It was entertaining, and the stuff about that lady whose son died was good, but most of his allegations of Bush's wrongdoing were entirely unsupported by anything but the most specious circumstantial evidence.

His most heinously faulty syllogism:

p: Bush and his father maintained good relations with Saudi Arabia
p: A lot of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi
c: Bush is responsible for 9/11

Pathetic, even for Moore. Bush did plenty of ACTUAL wrong that he could of used, but he chose to sensationalize (big surprise) and in the process, pretty much demonized all Saudis, which isn't far off, in my opinion, from the Bush administration's institutionalized bigotry against arabs post-9/11.

He's the Bill O'Reilly of the left - both claim their work is editorial, and both have armies of unthinking followers who believe it as gospel.

???

i didn't leave the cinema with the feeling that he was trying to go for that at all. i think he was just establishing ties between the two and questioning why we haven't gone aftet terrorism where it actually is.

we should hold saudi arabia more responsible for 9/11 than we do iraq (who we should not at all as has been proven by the 9/11 commission)

if we were actually combating terror, and those who harbor terrorism, we would have gone nuts on saudi arabia. IT WAS THEIR CITIZENS WHO KILLED AMERICAN ON 9/11. at least more than were from any other single country.

we didn't b/c bush and his family has too much invested in saudi wealth and too many common interests.

that's what he was trying to prove, and that's the truth.

if i'm mistaken in any of my facts, please let me know where.

which file format / application is most mac friendly on this guy's website? i don't d/l internet video much, and am not too familiar with the different file formats (don't want to d/l a 750 MB file and have it not work).

thanks.

If 18 American citizens went to Canada of their own volition and were trained by people living and operating in Canada with the cooperation or under the blind eye of the Canadian government, and then attacked, say, England, would England then be justified in "go[ing] nuts on" the US as having harbored terrorists? Just because Michael Moore can identify that people involved in the attack once lived in SA doesn't mean that he's indicted the US of going after the wrong guy. One major distinction is that, whatever you think of the Saudis, the US had generally good relations with them, certainly in comparison to Iraq and what the Taliban government had become. It's certainly conceivable that that diplomatic solutions were a lot easier with the Saudis after 9/11. Did the 9/11 commission report that Moore's holding up on the poster show any evidence that the Saudis were harboring terrorists involved with planning 9/11 when the attack happened?

Moore's Saudi fetish is a red herring, and a poorly-supported one. Perhaps he wasn't saying that Bush was responsible for 9/11, but whatever he's saying is weak, at least in relation to the Saudis.

A little more about Moore's brand of "truth," from the left: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

he says that avi is the best quality, though it's a pretty big file and takes a while to download. You can play avi files with VLC player

otherwise, he has a pretty decent wmv file on the site. it's a little over 100 mbs and you can play it with windows media player

shit, i didn't mean to start a fahrenheit 9/11 debate.

yeah, fuck you butters

(actually thanks for the link pal; i havent seen the movie and am watching it now; pretty entertaining)

i'm not saying i support or believe in it, but by george bush's doctrines, yes they could. it's fucking stupid but we've gone and set the precedent. it would be right for england to be upset at the united states and canada in the new world order. Should Britain then go and attack Mexico just because they happen to be nearby and are an easier target?



well i guess i miswatched the movie then b/c that's what i got out of it. and i'm not going to rewatch it, it's drivel.



True, but it still doesn't explain why we went into Iraq, which obviously is linked to 9/11 in a lot of people's minds even though no link exists. Even if Michael Moore isn't saying it, Kerry has, and the idea is that we are attacking "Terror" in the wrong places.



i don't know, i haven't read the entire 9/11 report. it just seems like whether or not they lived in saudi arabiaduring their actual planning or training is irrelevant under the terrible precedent that we've established. if you "harbor" terrorists, we come get you. we accused saddam or doing that so we went after him. the point is then, why don't we go after saudi arabia where you can clearly make these ties? it would seem that we've done things more diplomatically with them and it worked.

we could have been diplomatic with saddam. if anything, what we are learning now is that sanctions work and did work with him. he had no weapons of mass destruction. yeah, there was mass corruption with oil for food and he was an asshole but does that mean we should invade him? we only did b/c we knew we could defeat him easily, whereas north korea would drop a nuke on our asses.

if saddam did have wmd, wouldn't he have used them after gwb made his initial threat on national television?



well that goes for whatever moore says.