[hyteckit]

For those who want real facts about 9/11, go check out:

9/11: Press for Truth - Google Video

Much better than the propaganda piece ABC is pushing out.

9/11: Press for Truth is a great documentary piecing all the news stories and bits of history together.

[voodoo]

Very nice.

Looks good.

V

[yakkiebah]

After 5 minutes watching it became clear that this was yet another piece of propaganda.

Thanks but no thanks.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

After 5 minutes watching it became clear that this was yet another piece of propaganda.

Thanks but no thanks.

First 5 minutes was just news clips.

It's clear you haven't even watch 1 min.

[ink]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

After 5 minutes watching it became clear that this was yet another piece of propaganda.

Thanks but no thanks.

You've been conditioned well.

This film is the succinct abstract of tens of thousands of man-hours of work done by countless people. You don't have an hour and a half to spare?

If you do like this film, another series by the BBC is an informative companion: The Power of Nightmares (thanks again BlackGriffen).

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

After 5 minutes watching it became clear that this was yet another piece of propaganda.

Thanks but no thanks.

No actually after watching the first 10 minutes (I have other things to do) it doesn't appear to be propaganda, rather a documentary of some quality.

V

[yakkiebah]

When i said 5 minutes i didn't mean literally 5 minutes. After 10 minutes it gets even worse. I have also seen 'The power of Nightmares', and although i enjoyed the watch it is also far from objective. Yeah i know how this works, you agree with the message and thats where critical thinking usually stops.

Alright alright, i'll watch it completely when i have the time.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by ink

You've been conditioned well.

Thanks, i use Head & Shoulders.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ink

You've been conditioned well.

This film is the succinct abstract of tens of thousands of man-hours of work done by countless people. You don't have an hour and a half to spare?

If you do like this film, another series by the BBC is an informative companion: The Power of Nightmares (thanks again BlackGriffen).

Thanks for the recommendation. Will try to watch it.

[ink]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Thanks, i use Head & Shoulders.

.

[Kevin]

Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology - Policy Review, No. 114

[goMac]

Oh god not the conspiracy nuts again.

: cringes :

[ink]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology - Policy Review, No. 114

Wow, and you agree with all that Kevin?

* Furthermore, to hope that democratic reform would discourage radical Islam ignores the fact that previous fantasy ideologies have historically arisen in a democratic context
* In the case of the war begun at Pearl Harbor, all the parties knew exactly what was at issue, and there was no need for media experts to argue over the “real” objective behind the attack .... This was not remotely the case in the aftermath of 9-11. The issue facing the U.S. was not whether to accept or to reject al Qaeda’s political demands, which were nebulous in the extreme. Indeed, al Qaeda did not even claim to have made the attack in the first place! (because Al Qaeda didn't even really exist before 9/11, but I digress...)
* The fact that we are involved with an enemy who is not engaged in Clausewitzian warfare has serious repercussions on our policy. For we are fighting an enemy who has no strategic purpose in anything he does — whose actions have significance only in terms of his own fantasy ideology. (ie, conventional wars such as Iraq will not help)
* This must be emphasized, for if the fantasy ideology of Italian fascism was a form of political make-believe, the fantasy ideology of radical Islam goes even one step further: It is, in a sense, more akin to a form of magical thinking. (Just like fundamental Christianity's apocolyptic mindset)
* Instead of looking for an utterly mythical root cause for 9-11, or seeing it as a purposeful political act on the Clausewitzian model, he (Bush) grasped its essential nature in one powerful metaphor, offering, in a sense, a kind of counter-fantasy to the American people, one that allowed them to grasp the horror of 9-11 without being misled by false analogies and misplaced metaphors. (I would disagree with the closing phrase of that sentence, but it's great to hear the first part said out loud by a conservative)
* The same thing is happening today — and that is our true enemy. The poison of the radical Islamic fantasy ideology is being spread all over the Muslim world through schools and through the media, through mosques and through the demagoguery of the Arab street. In fact, there is no better way to grasp the full horror of the poison than to listen as a Palestinian mother offers her four-year-old son up to be yet another victim of this ghastly fantasy. (And how, exactly, does attacking Iraq address this issue, other than aggrivate it?)

I quite like his analysis, but he doesn't really offer any solutions other than to step-up racial profiling (wtf?). Regardless, he seems to agree with the notion that Iraq is a waste of money and resources, although he never comes out and says it in so many words. He understands that both sides are prepetuating an illusion for political gain.

[ironknee]

interesting

[davesimondotcom]

Movie that includes some facts but dramatizes others + person watching agreeing with the political bent of the film = "documentary"

Movie that includes some facts but dramatizes others + person watching disagreeing with the political bent of the film = "propoganda"

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Movie that includes some facts but dramatizes others + person watching agreeing with the political bent of the film = "documentary"

Movie that includes some facts but dramatizes others + person watching disagreeing with the political bent of the film = "propoganda"

You mean Fox News == "propoganda". You got that right.

[spacefreak]

What a pathetic response to a brilliant post.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

What a pathetic response to a brilliant post.

I agree. What a pathetic response to my brilliant post.

Who would consider ABC 9/11 story of made-up events acted out by actors a documentary is beyond insane and have no knowledge of what a documentary is.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I agree. What a pathetic response to my brilliant post.

Who would consider ABC 9/11 story of made-up events acted out by actors a documentary is beyond insane and have no knowledge of what a documentary is.

No one has ever said it was a documentary. It was not even billed as one. You've followed your flock in arguing something that was never there, and now you and your fellow sheep have been exposed as whiny fools.

[marden]

Which principle should we pay attention to, the NYT criticism of this film or the NYT defending the docudrama technique when it dealt with the Reagans?

What Hatchet Job? Reagan Movie Is Run of the Mill

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
Published: November 30, 2003

There is no reason Showtime's version of ''The Reagans'' could not have been broadcast on CBS earlier this month.

Tonight's made-for-television movie incited conservatives to threaten a boycott, which led the network to cancel it. Consigned to Showtime, a premium cable channel owned by CBS's parent company, Viacom, ''The Reagans'' turns out to be neither a liberal screed on Reaganomics nor a character attack on former President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy.

It is a movie. More precisely, it is a made-for-television movie that squeezes real life characters and historical moments into a convenient dramatic arc: a love story lived out against a backdrop of the cold war, California politics and Washington intrigue. ''The Reagans'' is reasonably accurate, at times engrossing, at other times silly and sometimes even dull. It is not a thoughtful look at a critical moment in American history. It is a domestic drama about a loving couple beset by Hollywood agents, Republican backers, scheming advisers and, most of all, their angry, needy children.

The Fictional Path to 9/11
Editorial
Published: September 12, 2006

Perhaps the entertainment industry will come up with a few lasting lessons from the outcry over ABC’s “dramatization” of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. One suggestion: when attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did.

The film, a fictionalized portrayal of the nation’s failure to head off the attack on the World Trade Center, was shown Sunday and Monday. The second episode was wrapped around a live speech by President Bush, so it was especially unfortunate that the most questionable scenes all seemed to make the Clinton administration look worse, and Mr. Bush look better, than the record indicates.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

No one has ever said it was a documentary. It was not even billed as one. You've followed your flock in arguing something that was never there, and now you and your fellow sheep have been exposed as whiny fools.

Hah... I didn't realize documentary and propaganda was mutually exclusive.

You must consider "The Exorcism of Emily Rose", the greatest documentary you've seen.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

'Movie that includes some facts but dramatizes others + person watching agreeing with the political bent of the film = "documentary"'

Yeah, that's brilliant.

[spacefreak]

The main argument from many conservatives about the Reagan miniseries was that Reagan was on his death bed at the time, unable to defend how he was portrayed.

[marden]

Can anyone point to something in "Path to 9/11" that was a lie or not based on fact?

[spacefreak]

I'm sure that a good amount of the dialogue of administration officials and government employees was created. But the events... they all happened. Lack of action taken-- that happened as well.

[marden]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I'm sure that a good amount of the dialogue of administration officials and government employees was created. But the events... they all happened. Lack of action taken-- that happened as well.

Come on. There had to be some bald faced, outright, big freakin lies the way the Democrats are acting.

Somebody please tell me its more than what the spacefreak says.

[natnabour]

you're all silly.

why not watch something and take it for what it is. you don't have to AGREE with everything that is said nor believe the theories that are represented.

i personally thought the clip was interesting. whoever put it together obviously did a lot of work. now whether or not the evidence they presented was all true (or fabricated) - we don't know.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Come on. There had to be some bald faced, outright, big freakin lies the way the Democrats are acting.

Somebody please tell me its more than what the spacefreak says.

Could have something to do with the nearly 5 times in the movie that apparently the US could have killed Osama, but some Clinton official messed it up. And then the movie proceeds to point fingers at actual people who supposedly messed up.

Unfortunately, none of those events ever happened.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

No one has ever said it was a documentary. It was not even billed as one. You've followed your flock in arguing something that was never there, and now you and your fellow sheep have been exposed as whiny fools.

Leaving the awfully strange argument aside that ABC never claimed it was a documentary, you should not be using real living people as characters in a fiction movie without their permission.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Could have something to do with the nearly 5 times in the movie that apparently the US could have killed Osama, but some Clinton official messed it up. And then the movie proceeds to point fingers at actual people who supposedly messed up.

Unfortunately, none of those events ever happened.

Five times was a lie?

Clinton officials messed up getting Bin Laden was a lie?

The people in the movie didn't mess up? Or they didn't mess up like the movie said they did?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Five times was a lie?

Clinton officials messed up getting Bin Laden was a lie?

The people in the movie didn't mess up? Or they didn't mess up like the movie said they did?

According to the movie the administration messed up in a bunch of separate events, when these events never happened. While that might make good entertainment, they're using real people's names and portraying real people without their permission. That's when they should be held accountable for accuracy.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

According to the movie the administration messed up in a bunch of separate events, when these events never happened. While that might make good entertainment, they're using real people's names and portraying real people without their permission. That's when they should be held accountable for accuracy.

Thank you.

I'm going to do a search later. But does anyone have specifics?

[ink]

Originally Posted by natnabour

why not watch something and take it for what it is. you don't have to AGREE with everything that is said nor believe the theories that are represented.

It's a lot more fun to argue pedantic thread topic definitions; that way, you don't really have to substantiate your opinion of the work...

Oh look! Something bright and shiney.....

[voodoo]

Very good documentary. Many facts looked at that have not gotten much or any attention. Especially the ISI connection.

Again, thanks for the link.

V