BeavisNuke
Contributor
michael moore is fat 
Christopher Hitchens is going to tear Michael Moore a new asshole
- Thread starter scy7he
- Start date
michael moore is fat Icey said:
Speaking of the 70's, Kissinger rejected numerous Arab proposals for peace so that he could basically hold out for more land. That's been the reality since then and if you look at the west bank now, it's basically worked. In fact Israel supported the PLO long before it became the full fledged terror/security aparatus it is now. Tell me why did Israel support the PLO when it could have supported more moderate palestinian nationalists.
As far as lack of good arab intel, it isnt a simple question of funding. IMO, CIA really doesnt give a shit about 'terror'. Why did the CIA ship Afghan Al Quaeda to fight in Bosnia? Why didnt they kill Zaquarwi when they had the chance 2 years ago while he was in Kurd controled terrorities in Northern Iraq?
yes, you're a child. maybe a smart one, but a child.scy7he said:
and one who's been told he's clever far too many times. you've got a big head. that's not going to help you later in life.
and of course you failed to miss the point entirely, choosing to ignore the most relevant sentence in favor of purposely distorting meaning.
the point is not that it's the fault of the present administration but that it's the result of the short-sighted and retarded thinking of his father and his father's father. george's stupidity now is breeding a whole new mess of shit that's going to smack yours and my generation around ten years from now when people have forgotten how fucked up george is and remember him like people are remembering reagan.
you lose, junior.
Okay...which is why a lot of the terror groups of today were started by people from the cold war who were trained or supplied by one side or the other prior to the soviet collapse.Icey said:
none of them signed an order that said, "let there be terrorists," but they did have policies and practices that lead to the training and formation of those people and parties that became the terrorists...we either funded and trained them back in the day or funded and trained those they were fighting against.
assigning blame is a little pointless because that gets you nothing. what you really want to do is understand where they came from and where they're going with it all. that way you save yourself the trouble of repeating history.
some are fighting that fight. not all of them are, but some are. some would stop fighting if israel didn't exist, but not all of them.
in the 60s, 70s, and 80s we ran around the middle east and the rest of the world fighting a proxy war against the soviet union. In the 90s Bush Sr. tried half-heartedly to clean up the more embarassing of his creations, but he was unable to really take care of them before the public voted him out of office in disgust.
those secular arab governments were either installed by us, our friends, or by groups funded by us or our friends...and then we overthrew the ones that didn't want to deal with us on our terms.
Oh WOW you read that speech posted in the other thread. good for you. he had a lot of nice things to say in that bit, but I don't necessarily agree with all of it; characterizing inter-arab wars/conflicts the same as terrorism, for example.
oh...blame the congressional hearings and not the people who abused the power and position they were given
sure, hoss, I'll do just that.I'll also blame the tight skirt the rape victim was wearing.
cogzinofa said:
cogzinofa said:
I contested this point and this point only. Now you say that the current administration is not at fault. And that's fine. It's alright to change your views, I don't hold it against people. But for your sake, the next time you choose to insult someone and close a response with "You loose juinor," make sure that you're not the one making contradictory statements that end up making you look like an idiot.
cartman said:
If dictionary.com is to be believed
po·lem·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-lmk)
n.
1. A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.
prop·a·gan·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
CaptainZero
Veteran X
BeavisNuke said:
yes, yes he is.
scy7he said:
exactly, look at the root of the word. It derives from what the Catholic church did. I'll ask again? Is there anything in Moore's film doctrinal or systematic? Of course if you subscribe to the theory he hates america, then I guess you would consider that propaganda.
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
no one would mistake the polemics(opinions) of a citizen like moore with say the stated doctrines of a church or a governmental official. In other words, it's not what they say that's at issue, it's that one is a private citizen, all be it a prominent one and the other has the weight of the state or other massive institution behind it. Clear enough?
Last edited:
how about that he hates the bush administration? Seems like a very tight case could be made for this being anti-bush propaganda.cartman said:exactly, look at the root of the word. It derives from what the Catholic church did. I'll ask again? Is there anything in Moore's film doctrinal or systematic? Of course if you subscribe to the theory he hates america, then I guess you would consider that propaganda.
CaptainZero
Veteran X
^^ was just about to say that
cartman said:exactly, look at the root of the word. It derives from what the Catholic church did. I'll ask again? Is there anything in Moore's film doctrinal or systematic? Of course if you subscribe to the theory he hates america, then I guess you would consider that propaganda.
This is kinda odd. I'm not trying to make an argument here, but when you profess that the information I provided supported your origional point, you contradict that when you accept the possibility that you're wrong.
So I'm crystal clear: Propaganda isn't just state sanctioned information if there's another possibility.
Excel said:
no one would mistake the polemics(opinions) of a citizen like moore with say the stated doctrines of a church or a governmental official. In other words, it's not what they say that's at issue, it's that one is a private citizen, all be it a prominent one and the other has the weight of the state or other massive institution behind it. Clear enough?
scy7he said:
my only point is this.....
no one would mistake the polemics(opinions) of a citizen like moore with say the stated doctrines of a church or a governmental official. In other words, it's not what they say that's at issue, it's that one is a private citizen, all be it a prominent one and the other has the weight of the state or other massive institution behind it. Clear enough?
cartman said:
So basicly you're saying that; when we consider the baggage the words carry, one is more appropriate then the other. Right?
I don't disagree with that. But I believe that it's important to point out that the use of the word propaganda isn't restricted specificly to matters dealing with government.