S-11 Redux: (Channel) Surfing the Apocalypse

Halo1 writes "The Guerrilla News Network has made a great 11 minute movie, culled from over 20 hours of footage from different channels. It's a lightning fast razorsharp analysis of the post 9/11 coverage by the general media and gives you quite a different view of the politicians and their calls for war. It's insightful, frightning and funny at the same time (we need a new mod option! :). The links on the movie page go to the Windows Media version at the Sundance Online Film Festival (they're competing with that movie), but they also have Quicktime versions available locally: low and high bandwidth (links posted with permission from all involved parties)."

Comments

This is quite old. (In Internet time.)

[AtariDatacenter]

However, it was interesting to watch, if not a bit preachy. The thing that I walked away with it the previous time was this being painted as Christians vs. Muslums. It seems to be timely once again, tho'.

Re:This is quite old. (In Internet time.)

[JohnFluxx]

After reading what you said, I was getting ready to be angry at the movie. I watched it, and must say I thought it was very well done, and didn't quite see it in the same way you did - they said several times (well showed clips..) that the problem was that it was going to appear to be christians vs muslims, and that people would equate the war on terror as war on muslims.

I hate to over anaylse it, but perhaps it was trying to show that this is how people see it, and they weren't trying to put a particular view across.

Re:This is quite old. (In Internet time.)

[$$$$$exyGal]

This is very timely. We just sent (or are about to send, depending when you read this) tens of thousands more troops to the Persian Gulf. I really hope there is not any type of battle, but it looks inevitable.

I wonder if this type of "underground" media can actually change the tides of war. It certainly seems to make more sense then a bunch of hippies protesting (they seem to be completely ignored).

--gal

Re:This is quite old. (In Internet time.)

[(startx)]

But bush IS a backwater rube that only knows how to order violence. I don't understand how someone with a C- average who drove his businesses into the ground can become president. His single concern is getting revenge on Saddam for the attack on his father's life 10+ years ago. I pray we make it to the next election before that baffon starts anything too serious.

Next story:

[Omkar]

In related news, the GNN news network was disrupted by a terrorist attack. A group known as 'Slashdot' has claimed responsibility.

Seriously, thoug, can anyone post a transcript for thoses of us with really slow internet connections?

Re:Next story:

[kubla2000]

The powerful message coming out of the film was that we (and by "we" it's clear GNN means "the west", not america alone) are in a position to do something about the dangerous cycle of violence that is threatening what we have come to know as free civilisation.

By equating Al Qaeda with Islam, and the actions of terrorists with those of muslims, many in positions of responsibility in government (specifically, the clip shows Bush and his aides, Jean Chretien, Tony Blair, et al) and especially the media are pushing the views of the public toward a mindset last seen, with catastrophic outcomes, in the crusades.

According to Bush, because "they" hate "us", we must beat them until they change their minds. Christianity == good, Islam == bad. "Either you're with us, or with the terrorists", declared Bush.

Well, this film shows that we needn't subscribe to that point of view.

Re:Next story:

[MKalus]

So, when we're attacked, it's up to us to "do something" to "end the cycle of violence and revenge?" What "something" are we supposed to do, just let it slide, wave it off as "just one of those things we deserve?"

It is not like the West hasn't done anything before the attacks. Anybody with two braincells was aware of the fact that sooner or later something like that would be happening.

If ANYBODY today still claims they didn't see something like that coming than they are beyond help.

There is ALWAYS a cause and effect, hardly anytime something happens out of the blue, the problem is though: We tend not to look critical at ourselves.

Or to quote the Bible of which Bush seems to be so fond of: "How can you see the splinter in the eye of your brother if you cannot see the tree in your own?" (Sorry, probably not the correct phrasing).

M.

Re:Next story:

[glesga_kiss]

But where is the obvious benefit in dragging down Saddam?

Iraq has a lot of oil. And I mean a lot

The whole arab world will hate us even more than they already do

Not true. The arab world hates Saddam as much as Bush. Iraq fought a very long war with Iran, who are a very islamic country. It's during this period, where the US didn't like Iran very much, that the US sold Iraq (on credit!) masses of arms and the capabilities to build weapons of mass destruction.

Anyone that suggests Iraq has Islamic terrorist links is lying to you. The whole of the CIA and NSA has spent the last 4 months trying to come up with proof of this "link" and have they found anything whatsoever? Not even a casual shared aquaintance between them!

And will Iraque be 'free' afterwards?

Ha Ha! Who cares? We've toppled (or helped topple) other governments we didn't like before, and look who we left in their place. Saudi Arabri. Afganistan. Who cares about the population when their is bounty to be grabbed!

PS, that's pretty much why the terrorists hate us. We fucked them and their families over. Literally.

Well, compare it to Afghanistan. Theoretically a free country, but the warlords still rule the countryside.

LOL, Afganistan is now ruled by former business partners of Bush/Cheney, from Haliburton. It's an economic take over. They want access to the oil in the former USSR states to the north, and the only way to pipe it to the Gulf is through Afganistan. That's the reason for the war there, to secure access to the land. The oil companies and US government (same thing at the moment) had been negotiating this for several years with the Taliban. It's only when the contract was awarded to an Argentine group that the Taliban suddenly became "evil". There are press reports prior to 9/11 suggesting a US/Afgan war is iminent.

My advice? Do not watch TV news! It's only designed to keep you watching until the commercials. So they show things that people like watching. Death. Violence. Dispair. Tragedy. Sport.

It's not a true reflection of the world, and if you watch it every day, you're probably one of those people who worry about being attacked/killed on your way to work, and you live behind closed/locked doors.

Re:Next story:

[Obasan]

Hrm... not to rain on your paranoia parade, but there's more oil in Canada than there is in the middle east. Much of that is at present unexploited, but the US does import more oil from Canada at present than it does from Saudi Arabia.

The US gets less than 20% of its oil from the middle east. If its "all about oil" as you seem to claim, the US should be using political leverage to increase pump & oilsands production in Canada, not getting their people killed overseas. Not to mention dealing with the situation in Venezuela.

I think there is a bit more to it than you have identified...

Re:Next story:

[shokk]

Unfortunately the point of view of other countries is lets lay down and accept things the way they are until something really bad happens to make us pull our skirt back up and say "no". Australia learned that when the nightclub in Bali was bombed. France still han't learned to stay saying "I give up" when faced with threats. Most of Europe is now overrun with radicals that want to bomb one thing or another and are slowly being dug up only because the US has been pushing. The only question left is what do these people have to blow up that you care about in order to wake you up? I don't care if they are the McVeighs or the bin Ladens of the world, I will not allow my children to die at their whim. If you are willing to give up a measure of your free civilization so that these baddies will love you more, then you deserve none of it. They give up their right to live when they threaten mine and swing their arms in my nose.

Re:Next story:

[kubla2000]

So, when we're attacked, it's up to us to "do something" to "end the cycle of violence and revenge?" What "something" are we supposed to do, just let it slide, wave it off as "just one of those things we deserve?"

.No, I don't think that's the right attitude either.

I think there are other more productive solutions that should be explored before turning the middle east into glass. Don't forget, for all the irrational hatred that is being projected at the States, there's a lot of irrational hatred being projected back.

The cost of carpet bombing Iraq will be massive. The outcome? Well, briefly, the threat (if there is any) of Iraq will disappear but when it's resurrected by the children of the survivors, it will be that much more profound. If the States really do want to oust Hussein, why not, for example, carpet bomb Iraq with food and medicine with "from your Uncle Sam" propaganda attached? It would cost far, far less than dropping bombs.

Who are the Iraqi people going to support? A despot who gasses them or a friend who helps? A revolution that grows from the ground up and is nurtured into an open democracy is more likely to be long-lasting than exorcising the current regime through military might and then imposing and defending a puppet government by force.

Bombing the hell out of them will not bring a satisfactory long term solution. They will hate (if they already don't) the USA as much as they hate Hussein. The cycle of violence will continue.

Re:Next story:

[kubla2000]

Unfortunately the point of view of other countries is lets lay down and accept things the way they are until something really bad happens to make us pull our skirt back up and say "no". Australia learned that when the nightclub in Bali was bombed.

What the arse was Australia supposed to do *before* the attack? Perform a strategic surgical carpet bombing of the countries its tourists planned to visit?

Re:Next story:

[chriso11]

Wow - so good at jumping to baby bush's answer.

Ok, let's review the results of when we 'did' something: The goal - Afganistan is a bastillion of democracy, religious freedom, and opportunity. Osama Bin Laden dead, and terrorism wiped out.

Actually, bush has not said Osama's name in public since July/02. The warlords control Afganistan, and you can go weeks between any mention of Afganistan on the news. We have had several other terrorist attacks across the world since then (Bali).

Why are focusing on Irag? Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. And North Korea is much more dangerous then Irag.

Look at the results of our actions. We've toppled the Taliban, and instead replaced them with the warlords. Osama Bin Laden used to RECEIVE U.S. aid against the USSR. Saddam received a huge amount of aid during the Iran/Iraq war. Our history is littered with helping out petty tyrants who turn on the United States.

Finally, to actually answer your question on what to do: First, stop jumping in with short term, high force solutions to issues. Instead of supporting a tyrant who will control the country in a way that pleases us, SUPPORT DEMOCRACY and freedom. If we consistantly act in the best interest of people of other countries, eventually they will, if not like us, at least not hate us. And the proposal that removing Saddam is in the best interest of the Iraq people neatly ignores the embargo that the US is holding over Iraq.

Or, if that is too difficult, leave the rest of the world alone. Become self sufficient.

Re:Next story:

[fatboy]

Didn't see the film, it's in some strange video format I can't play, but let me make a few notes.

By equating Al Qaeda with Islam, and the actions of terrorists with those of muslims, many in positions of responsibility in government (specifically, the clip shows Bush and his aides, Jean Chretien, Tony Blair, et al) and especially the media are pushing the views of the public toward a mindset last seen, with catastrophic outcomes, in the crusades.

I agreed with this administration, Al Qaeda Hi-Jacked Islam to suite it's own purposes. To destroy America. It was stated on more than one occasion in plain english that we are not attacking Muslems because they are Muslems, we are attacking Al Qaeda and their allies because they funded and trained the 9/11 mass murders. They all just happen to be Muslem

According to Bush, because "they" hate "us", we must beat them until they change their minds. Christianity == good, Islam == bad. "Either you're with us, or with the terrorists", declared Bush.

That last quote is about what nations were going to help us hunt down and kill the people that killed thousands of our citizens. I see nothing wrong with throwing our weight around in that situation. It has nothing to do with Islam vs Christianity and everything to do with removing the threat of future terror attacks.

Re:Next story:

[glesga_kiss]

but there's more oil in Canada than there is in the middle east.

Much of it is in environmentally protected areas. Not that it's going to mean much when the rest of the worlds supply runs out.

US does import more oil from Canada at present than it does from Saudi Arabia.

Saudi is only one of the oil exporting states in the middle east, but I see where you are going.

There are many types of oil in the ground. Some are good for petroleum, some are better for diesel. I believe that the Gulf oil is unique in some ways, but I'm not an expert on the subject.

If its "all about oil" as you seem to claim, the US should be using political leverage to increase pump & oilsands production in Canada, not getting their people killed overseas.

Good question. I wasn't really aware of how vast the reserves in North America were. Perhaps you should ask your leaders that.

The profits to be made here outweigh the number of lifes lost. That's not my thinking, but that of corporations. Like the ones who compare the cost of recall verses the cost of payoffs to people who lost family members in accidents due to faulty products. They don't think along the lines of "we have enough in Canada", they just want "more more more". Even if there was oil all over the place, they'd still want to control or at least profit in some way from every location.

However, there is no question that the USAs interest in the Gulf is primarly for the oil. Even if the forthcoming Iraq invasion isn't to claim Iraq's oil, the action would be intended to "stabilise" the region (no sure if it would actually do that...) to make things easier on other oil exporting countries.

Re:Next story:

[Black Copter Control]

Do you not remember the terrorist act that was committed by Osama, who at that time was given refuge by the Taliban? Do you not remember us giving them several chances to turn him over, and them giving us the the middle finger?

You sound like Hitler explaining why he attacked poland, or Saddam explaining why Kuwait had to be subdued.

There's war, there'a the reason for war, and then there's the public excuse. Sometimes the last two are in agreement, sometimes not. If there were, as claimed, rumblings of war with Afghanistan before 9/11, then Ossama may have just been a very convenient excuse to do something the US government was hunting for an explanation for.
Afghanistan was the target, Osamma was an excuse so obvious that it took no explanation post 9/11. (This can be pushed as far as Conspiracy theories when you add in the fact that Osama was originally trained by the CIA. provided a well-timed excuse for invasion and hasn't been proven killed. In a conspiracy theory world, Bin Laden would be far more valuable to the US alive than dead).

The thought may not be true, but it's far from absurd.

Re:Next story:

[The Mayor]

Terrorism isn't stopped through the waging of war. Can you name one case where terrorism was ended by war? War "against terrorism" only brings on more terrorism.

We really ought to consider our policies in the Middle East if we wish to eradicate terrorism. Would Iraq have built up their military had we not armed Iran to the hilt in the 50s, 60s, and 70s? Why are we arming the Israelis, Egyptians, and Saudis to the hilt (oil)? Would our interests be served better through other forms of aid? Yes, I know that Egypt is the largest recipient of non-military US aid, but Israel and Egypt are the #1 & #2 recipients of military aid.

Why did the Bush regime stop the US policy of engagement in North Korea and with respect to the Palestinian Authority? Perhaps the US would be better served through the use of other means.

We (the world) don't have many success stories in our fights against terrorism. The terrorism threat in Northern Ireland seems to be improving, albeit very slowly. Egypt and Israel have developed a somewhat lasting peace (hopefully it will be able to survive Israel's current regime). What has happened in these cases? First and foremost is engagement. Engagement does not require capitulation. But we must continue dialogue. Bush's approach in Israel and North Korea are completely inane. Isolationism does not work, and has never worked.

I have always cherished America's ability to behave in a pragmatic manner. Rightly or wrongly, America usually acts in a manner that achieves their goals while minimizing the negative consequences. However, the actions the US government has taken in the past year and a half have made me question this pragmatism. Has Bush and his administration carefully considered the consequences of their militant approach to these issues? Will this approach achieve the intended results while minimizing negative consequences? I don't think so. Will they create more problems? Probably--it seems North Korea was a manufactured problem that resulted from Bush's isolationism coupled with North Korea's opportunism.

As for giving "up a measure of your free civilization so that these baddies will love you more", I'm more worried about giving up my free civilization (yes, I'm American) in the process of attempting to *prevent* these baddies. I personally consider the rights outlined by the Articles to the Constitution (and its amendments) as inalienable rights. I find our treatment of interned foreigners completely unacceptable. I believe that America is a great nation that should rise above this current conflict and do the right thing. We can win in this current conflict. However, if we sink to the levels of war mongering and disregarding of our own Constitution, we will merely get mired into a conflict that cannot be won.

Re:Next story:

[shokk]

We have not had a good deal of success in eradicating crime from the streets of the world either, but I don't think anyone wants to start negotiations with the rapists and murderers. Terrorists are not much more than better organized criminals and there is no reason they should not be hunted down. Certainly we could be garnering the support of these countries by setting them up with hard services (help their police forces and infrastructure stabilize) and products (light water reactors) rather than hard money, and even then provide American companies to do the work in setting that up in order to give the economy a little more of a boost. But right now that is appeasement and a reward for having plotted against us, and it certainly didn't take American $$$ to have everyone in that part of the world hating each other for the past thousands of years. Right now the service and hardware they want involves killing instead of building because that is where their hearts are.

I don't agree either that we should be detaining innocents against the letter of the constitution, but you also cannot let the constitution keep you from pointing at who is likely to be at fault for plots and schemes that have been dug up. I mean, it's certainly not the Norwegians that we're dealing with, folks. Don't detain people if there is no evidence, but wring them for all they're criminally worth once evidence shows itself - no matter where they come from. I doubt history will show we were wrong for confronting terrorists and countries that we know have supported them, but we will again be viewed with distaste for the treatment of people who came to our lands for a bit of peace.

Re:Next story:

[Black Copter Control]

I wasn't using Hitler as an example because he was incredibly nasty. I was using him because World War II is a reasonably well known example. To learn from history, and to avoid repeating (aspects of) it, we must be willing to examine it, and use it as a template against which to compare current events. To refuse to examine current events in the context of historical events because of the atrocities that followed the relevant historical events is to lose the entire benefit of that part of our history.

That the events here are similar to some of the similar events in Germany's early wars of conquest is not a smoking gun indicating that Bush is (or is going going to be) as evil as Hitler. It is simply an 'interesting event'. Analogous to something that, in a forensic investigation, would flagged by a little paper evidence-tent. It is something that is possibly worth further investigation.

When Hitler was first elected, he seemed a fine enough fellow. At the time Hitler invaded his first couple of countries, the people of Germany did not know what he was about to do. He had convinced them that those first invasions were completely necessary and appropriate. By the time the invasions had gotten more questionable, dissent had been pretty much expunged under cover of war fervor. The first to go were the Jews, followed by the Gypsies, Communists, Homosexuals, anybody complaining about the extinction of the former groups and then pretty much anybody who didn't just shut up and do what the government told them to do. Examining the situation in hindsight, it's pretty obvious that Hitler was an evil crazed despot. In 1938, however, the only real hints available to most people would have been strange anomalies of word and action.. Being dismissive of transgressions by one group, but going ballistic at similar (or milder) transgressions by another (read: target) group.

Ignore, for a moment, the infamous nastiness of Hitler's actions subsequent to the invasions of Poland, etc. Consider, instead the process by which he took over Germany by feeding on their fears.

If the invasion of Afghanistan had stood on it's own -- If The US had worked to install a full democracy in the country and had quietly walked out afterwards, I would have thought little more about it. Instead, the precognitive rumblings about invading Afghanistan, the pending invasion of Iraq and the contextually anomalous treatment of N. Korea gnaw at me and worry me.

I doubt that the world could ever grow another short, dark-haired, mustached, swastika-saluting, Jew-hating warmonger, but we could easily grow a well-disguised analogy. Hitler was an echo of Napoleon. Napoleon was the echo of Robspierre and the terror of the French revolution. The echoes go back a long way, each one variably more or less evil than the previous. Each one variously both different and similar to the others. No incarnation of evil will be precisely like the other, but if you listen carefully, you may hear the echoes of it's predecessors.

Re:Next story:

[Black Copter Control]

Also, I don't believe that that the type of evil you describe will come from America.

Therein lies the basic weakness of human beings. It's hard for any group to "belive that we could be the bad ones". Whenever any group gets into the mob mentality, they are acting in the belief that they are the righteous and agrieved party, and there it is always possible to find proof that that is the case (especially if you are willing to bypass evidence that points in the other direction).

When the KKK Lynched their victims they always had 'a good cause'. When they rioted and destroyed entire communties, 'they had good reason'. We can look back now and realize that they, too, had ulterior motives -- that their actions were wrong. That does little good, however, for their innocent victims. Nor does it do any good for the civilian victims of the bombings of Dresden and Berlin that we (and the German people) can look back and realize that Hitler had evil intent from day one.

And don't kid yourself into believing that the US saw the evils of hitler from say one either. I remember reading s letter to the editor in the New York Times. It was glowing letter of support for the Nazis written by the US anbasador to Germany. At the beginning of the war, US industry was happy to help arm Germany -- Just like we armed Saddam's Iraq, and trained Bin Laden's terrorists.

The evil of Hitler is not that he invaded poland without reason -- he had a reason. The problem that we can see now, in hindsight, is that his overt reason was backed by hidden ulterior motive. It was those hidden motives that made the invasion a tempting idea.

The reason why I find the US objections to Saddam's use of chemical and biological "weapons of mass destruction" a straw man argument is not that I don't find the actions despicible. My objection is that -- when those actions were occurring, the US (which had supplied Saddam with critical technologies and supplies) gave silent assent to the actions.

What I find straw-man about these complaints ia that now, 20 years after the fact, the US is suddenly demonizing Saddam for accepting US sid snd encouragement to create and use weapons of mass destruction. We're running around screaming (in not so many words):

"Saddam is an evil and nasty man because he did what we taught him to do."

It would be funny if there weren't so many lives in the balance.

Re:Wow...

[euxneks]

aw shit. I spoke too soon.. (only got half the movie!)

Mosaic media is fun

[Platinum Dragon]

I haven't seen 9-11: (c)StA, despite being a GNN forum semi-regular, but I've had the opportunity to view other collage film efforts on the topic.

In particular, Plasticman and the Justice League by Toronto artist and slacker Jonathan Culp was quite hilarious and biting.

If you're up for a slightly twisted view of things, along with some artsy-fartsy film tricks, dig around the alternative billboards in your area. There's some interesting stuff floating around out there. It may not change any minds (or it might!), but as cultural artifacts and Negativland-style low-budget social commentary efforts, many such flicks are worth seeking out.

Re:Mosaic media is fun

[glesga_kiss]

A similar thing to this montage of 9/11 images was done to the Gulf War: Part One. It shows just how bad and sensationist the coverage was, focusing on the computer graphics that were created for the networks.

It was done by Phil Patiris and you can find a clip of it at the Illegal Art webage. Highly recommended. Read the sites legal agreement if you have the time; all is not as it seems. It's a good site, containing lot's of things that people have tried to ban or surpress over the years.

Direct Link

[ShoeHead]

before this get's slashdotted, you can download the movie at

http://http.dvlabs.com/gnn/qt/gnn/redux/redux_bb .m ov

Happy viewing!

While GNN is reeling from the Slashdotting..

[CBNobi]

Do them a favor and download from the Sundance site instead of the GNN. They have a distributed, Akamai-like system for viewing the flick.

You get the film, the GNN doesn't spend money on bandwidth, and noone feels too guilty about slashdotting a film-specializing site like Sundance. Everyone wins.

Re:Note to slashdot

[Platinum Dragon]

Alternativately, find an interesting political story that doesn't come out of the same old, tired, pseudo-radicalist mindset and attempt to provide the same standards of objectivity and balance that would be expected of a news organization.

You expect objectivity and balance from a news organization?

I know journalism classes talk a big game about "objectivity" these days, and most news organizations will pay lip service to the concept, but a cursory glance over the political content of most news media will immediately expose the editorial bias of the organization in question. I'm actually happier when a website or newspaper comes right out and admits its editorial slant, rather than letting it quietly run past the editorial page.

In particular, Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" slogan is practically begging to be refuted. Not that CNN or many other news networks are much better, Fox just happened to be the org that painted a huge bullseye on itself regarding objectivity.

A few thoughts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that the clip of Ted Koppel in which he talks about wishing "all our Muslim viewers a happy Ramadan" doesn't include the full quote, which ended with something along the lines of "We do want to be politically correct, don't we?" The full clip is available in this amazing "illegal" video Spin
at illegal-art.org, where incidentally you can download other illegal audio & video.

Secondly, Steve Allen was a genius.

Preaching to the choir...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only ones that will pay attention are those that held these views already. Especially since the method of information distribution is an indie film. It's not as if this stuff hasn't been exposed since 9-11, it's just that the sheeple are apathetic towards manipulation and corruption. If James Bamford can't get people to care one whit with editorial columns in USA Today, and the best Michael Moore can do is provoke a few days' worth of discussion with a nationally-distributed film, what hope does this project have?

Re:Preaching to the choir...

[ralphclark]

I agree with everything the above ac said. I wanted to be impressed but the film came across as more style than substance. It just doesn't deliver any clear message, not even emotively, beyond lampooning GWB and demonstrating that the US establishment is pretty much gearing up for war - which we all knew already.

As to the style - it's typical of todays film college grads. None of them seem capable of holding a camera still for more than a couple of seconds. Take the recent James Bond movie for example - those stuttering shots of the Aston Martin speeding over the snow & ice. WTF was that supposed to be?

Grump.

Permission?

[legLess]

links posted with permission from all involved parties

"Fools. Only now do they begin to see the power of this fully-operational death star^W^WSlashdotting..."

huzzah to michael

[Hadlock]

kudos for doublechecking permission before slashdotting a site that is definately gonna get slammed, come morning. i know you got flamed last time for that barcode site, and it's good to see you're alerting people in advance this time.

in other news, interesting short film, i really liked the various music they played on it. did anyone by any chance catch the piano bit and know who wrote/composed/arranged it by any chance? it almost sounded like somthing out of the thomas crown affair.

Re:huzzah to michael

[Stormie]

kudos for doublechecking permission before slashdotting a site that is definately gonna get slammed, come morning.

Michael didn't doublecheck shit, the submitter did. You know that if it was left up to Slashdot, the willing and the unwilling alike would see their webservers reduced to smoking rubble, just like every other day.

Re:huzzah to michael

[Halo1]

The jazzy piece is called take five.

stick a rusty fork in my eye

[violently_ill]

my favorite part was about halfway through when they show henry kissinger (nobel peace prize winner and butcher of chile, e. timor, and vietnam) talking about the importance of strong leadership. queue "dueling banjos" and cut to president bush making an ass of himself ("...the american people...uh..."). i can't be the only person in america who cringes every time the president tries to say something off the top of his head. how in holy hell did a man that profoundly stupid become president of the united states?

Re:stick a rusty fork in my eye

[Geekwad]

To gauge a man's intelligence by how well he speaks in public is completely moronic.

How smart do you think YOU are.. or how about your friends.. I bet you all think you're pretty intelligent. Now tell me.. how well do YOU speak publicly?

Re:stick a rusty fork in my eye

[Gyan]

Except that the President is a politician foremost.

You would think that after all his political experience, he would have a stronger foundation as an orator, especially since he's the Commander-in-Chief.

Re:stick a rusty fork in my eye

[Alien Being]

You are very wise. No wait, that's completely moronic.

Re:stick a rusty fork in my eye

[maxpublic]

And yet it's obvious to even the most thick-headed of us that the man is a complete fucking moron. As are, it appears, most of the twits who voted for him.

Which makes sense, given that half the population is below average in intelligence. Finally they have equal representation in the White House!

Max

Re:stick a rusty fork in my eye

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually only 1/2 of the people voted, and out of all those people only less that 1/2 actually voted for him. Therefore only 1/2 of the total morons in America were represented. Then again this idiot was installed in office with the direct support of less than 1/4 of the population.

Well that is a republic for you. And please stop making excuses like "how would you feel if you had to speak in public." Well I don't know, because I am not the #$@#ing president, darn it... if you are going to be the most powerful man on earth you better be able to at least articulate your thoughts in public. How come this guy has never appeared on a non-orchestrated live event, where it HAS TO SPEAK FOR ITSELF? Everytime its handlers have left it, it made an ass of itself.

Let's see so far we have had what:

Election fraud, diplomatic crisis with China, terrorist attacks, 7 of the largest bankrupcies in history, economic recession, record unemployment rise, record low stock performance, record DOW year close, record national spending/debt increase (after inherinting a surplus), war, etc. etc.... And they tried to tell me that I should not judge this idiot because it speaks like a jackass in public. I don't have to, all I need to do is to look at its record... I am pretty sure my dog could do a better job.

Re:stick a rusty fork in my eye

[Mac Degger]

But as a politician, it's his job to hold dialogue, change peoples minds, make compromises, understand wtf the issue is and be able to communicate that with other people, inform, motivate, and do all that stuff which one does with the use of that skill we call public speaking. It's his job to be a qualified demogogue...and he isn't a skilled orator at all.

But even then, I know lots of people who aren't skilled orators, but are smart. When they have to speak, there might be lots of ums and ahs, but what comes out is generally intelligent (and intelligable) thought. That's just not the case with GWB.

Also, how else are you going to judge GWB's capabilities? The only side you see is what's on tv. And if you'd've bothered to dig deeper, you'd already know the guy is a complete moron, based on his accomplishments.

Re:stick a rusty fork in my eye

[chriso11]

Well, let's review your response:

>Election Fraud: Multiple independant inquires and nothing has been found.
Actually, it is well known there were serious issues with Florida's voter rolls. One particularly outrageous example was where one person had his voting rights removed for a felony committed in 2005.

>Terroist Attacks: You've GOT to be kidding..
Well, baby bush is sure not making the world any safer in the aftermath, that's for sure.

>Bankruptcies and economy, dept, etc..:
Well, given his selection of cronies to run (e.g. Pitt at SEC), his upcoming record deficit, huge tax cuts for the rich. While Herbert Hoover didn't cause the Great Depression, he sure didn't fix it.

I would rather have his dog running the country than the current monkey, that's for sure.

Re:stick a rusty fork in my eye

[Simon Garlick]

i can't be the only person in america who cringes every time the president tries to say something off the top of his head. how in holy hell did a man that profoundly stupid become president of the united states?

I suggest you read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore.

that vid was scary...

[LadyGuardian]

... only in the way that now people are going to go around spouting this stuff as gospel because they are too lazy to go do their own research. Yes, it is well done. I even chuckled at the banjo music. However, quotes taken out of context do not count as fact. No matter who said it or how many there are in a row, it's still not the whole truth. I laugh at CNN for their egotistical 'learn about whole world's events in 30 seconds' approach to news, but this is something else entirely.

This, to me, is how MTV would cover the news in a desperate stab at keeping people's attention.

Re:that vid was scary...

[Synn]

His point, that you missed, was that taking quotes out of context can be used to make anyone look like you want them to, or say anything you want them to, and is the worst form of journalism.

see also

[Phil Wilkins]

this

Re:see also

[kubla2000]

Personally, I thought "I like to watch" was incredibly daring when it appeared (what, a month or two after 11/9?).

The difference here is that GNN's film attempts to be constructive and that, in my view, is an important difference. We can snigger at Bush's pea-sized brain but the fact is, he (and Blair et al) has got the sales pitch going and those against his war-mongering, do not. We can't just say, "don't destroy out civil rights, don't go to war" without offering an alternative, without offering some kind of argument.

"I like to watch" is a wonderful pisstake of the media. "Redux" is a powerful and persuasive argument against going to war.

Re:see also

[the gnat]

We can snigger at Bush's pea-sized brain but the fact is, he (and Blair et al) has got the sales pitch going and those against his war-mongering, do not. We can't just say, "don't destroy out civil rights, don't go to war" without offering an alternative, without offering some kind of argument

To give Bush some credit, he's not really that stupid. He's certainly not a deep thinker or a great speaker, and too many people mistake those qualities for good leadership. His gaffes tend to get inflated by the liberal news media, just as Clinton's so-called corruption was inflated by the conservative (and mainstream!) news media. A lot of the rhetoric being tossed about regarding Bush sounds suspiciously like the drivel we heard about Clinton for eight years- driven by partisanship rather than facts, and ignoring the more substantive criticisms.

Anyway, you've pretty much highlighted the current dilemma of the Democratic party, which came across as the Prescription Drug Party this past election. All the campaign updates I receive (I do still vote Dem, reluctantly) sounded exactly the same:

GEORGE W. BUSH WANTS TO PAVE THE RAINFORESTS, AUCTION OFF YOUR UTERUS TO ENRON, AND BOMB STARVING THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES WITH BIBLES.

Obviously the majority of the people who bothered to show up at the polls weren't very impressed. I'm moderately anti-abortion and moderately pro-war, and though I have little love for the GOP I'm finding it very hard to support the Democrats given that their existence seems to rest on being the anti-Bush party right now. They'd do well to stop pandering to NOW, the NAACP, and the AARP, and actually come up with some substantive policy.

Re:see also

[maxpublic]

So long as there's a bunch of anti-abortion pro-war shitheads who have nothing better to do than to fuck about in their neighbors business and vote for people who pass laws pissing all over the Constitution, Bush is pretty much set no matter what the Democrats do.

The primary problem here is that there are a whole bunch of Americans who just love being bent over and fucked up the ass by their politicians - so long as the guy next door with different political views gets the shaft as well. Minding your own fucking business is something the Enquirer-reading generation just can't seem to get a handle on.

Probably because their own lives are so pathetic.

Max

Re:see also

[JohnFluxx]

> So long as there's a bunch of anti-abortion
>pro-war shitheads who have nothing better to do
>than to fuck about in their neighbors business and
>vote for people who pass laws pissing all over the
> Constitution

I think you just proved his point.

Sheep

[Carrierwave]

In a recent news report covering an anti-US rally in Iraq, one man was shown holding a banner reading "A nation of sheep, owned by pigs, and led by wolves." (or something to that effect). Most Americans would probably find this very offensive unless they consider the facts of the matter, and the truth is that we have let Donald "Let's Rumble" Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush-lynching mob get completely out of control. This movie only helps to drive that point home.

Re:Sheep

[DarkZero]

In a recent news report covering an anti-US rally in Iraq, one man was shown holding a banner reading "A nation of sheep, owned by pigs, and led by wolves." (or something to that effect). Most Americans would probably find this very offensive unless they consider the facts of the matter, and the truth is that we have let Donald "Let's Rumble" Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush-lynching mob get completely out of control.

Yes, because all Americans happily serve our corporate employers in our wonderfully spacious cubicles without a hint of grumbling or complaining, and cheer on a daily basis as yet another politician gives Big Business a nice, hard bitch slap for the little guy because he's an upstanding, principled American citizen.

This message brought to you by 1940s American sitcoms, whose sponsors remind you to, "Grow up, you ignorant, self-important fuckwit that assumes that everyone else is stupid."

While you're assuming what "most Americans" would do, you may want to look at one of the latest polls, the second most popular source of generalizations about American beliefs (with first place going to the speaker's ass, of course). It paints a pretty unsurprising picture for anyone that doesn't blindly assume that those around them are inferior to themselves. It states that the American people disagree with the Bush Administration in its priorities, believe that its policies favor the rich, believe both that Bush is handling Iraq the wrong way and that that sentiment will be ignored, that the US is not winning the "War On Terror", and that Bush is too quick to involve the military. As always, though, the President's approval rating remains unchanged even as American attitudes slowly change, because the approval rating for an American president usually only changes when they either do something or are close to an election, and Bush has been dragging his feet for months on the Iraq issue.

Re:Sheep

[startled]

"As always, though, the President's approval rating remains unchanged even as American attitudes slowly change...."

And there we go right back to me feeling superior to them. :) The NYT had a pretty good article about rising unemployment and the shitty economy. In one interview with an unemployed man who wasn't going to receive any more benefits (not even with the recent extention; he was laid off too early), the man claimed he felt betrayed, surprised, and so on.

Yes, that's right. An unemployed man feeling "betrayed" by a Republican president who isn't giving him money for not working. Wasn't that blatantly fucking obvious from the get-go? Wait-- you mean that if I vote for the Republican candidate, I'll get less welfare and social services? Run that by me again. Hold on a minute-- this from the man who vowed to cut taxes on inheritances over $1 million? Who's crusading for elimination of the tax on dividends, which will primarily effect people earning several hundred thousand dollars a year?

If people can't figure out that the Republicans are NOT the party to vote for if you want a larger unemployment check, they're too fucking stupid to vote.

I do think (well, hope anyway) that person was anomalous. So, while I think exactly the same thing when I read the post you were responding to-- that is, I think "Grow up, you ignorant, self-important fuckwit that assumes that everyone else is stupid"-- I also see the reason he's started to think that. Anyone with half a brain and 10 minutes a day on the newspaper knew who they were voting for.

Re:Sheep

[maxpublic]

Which is rather a good argument against representative democracy, which recently seems like an abject failure. Let's try something new, shall we? Perhaps an intelligence test to get the vote? And while we're at it, only those that can vote can breed.

Max

Re:Sheep

[DarkZero]

"As always, though, the President's approval rating remains unchanged even as American attitudes slowly change...."

And there we go right back to me feeling superior to them. :)

Democracy is a not a quick thing, like a dictatorship. It is a huge, lumbering beast that makes a lot of noise, but moves very slowly. If the President's approval rating dropped because he didn't instantaneously respond to an issue, it would start hovering around 0% most of the time because the maximum speed of the executive and legislative branches moving together is roughly equal to that of two drunks in a three-legged race. Conversely, if his approval rating went up every time he laid out a solid economic plan, his approval rating would be hovering around 100% most of the time because democracies are filled with far more words than actions. This is why you end up with the way approval ratings currently work. They stay the same until action is taken or something external makes things a lot better or worse than they have been. This system has its flaws, but it's the best we have right now, sort of like representative democracy itself.

As for the rest of your post, I think you adequately summed up why Some Anonymous Jackass That Was Interviewed By The NYT is a total fucking moron. I'm sure he feels very bad about that right now, or at least he will when he gets a job and starts visiting /. during work hours shortly before he is fired. However, I don't see why a sample of one proves that "most Americans" are stupid, nor why you would assume that they are based on some guy that made a nice, stupid quote for a journalist.

Re:Sheep

[/dev/trash]

You should be outraged that anybody would feel betrayed because he expects the State to keep him in money all the time.

I don't know how much you make a year but after paying for a modest house and barely enough food to live on do you just give the rest of your money away? If not you're a hypocrite.

I'm not rich, but I'll appreciate the no tax on dividends. See 75% of Americans own stocks these days. So unless you consider 75% of the US rich, this helps everyone.

Welfare is ok for a short-term fix but it makes you lazy if you continue to recieve it. What motivation was there for me to look for a job when I was getting unemployment? None. It helped, that's for sure, but I'm not upset that I don't get another 13 weeks, I mean what happens after that? This economy sucks, I'd probably not have a job still, so should I get 13 more weeks? See where I'm going, it becomes a crutch.

But hey, if you want the taxes to go up on the 'rich' don't be surprised when you get laid off because with the increased taxes, you are the easy way to reduce expenses for a company. Tax cuts spur the economy, a spurred economy gets people off welfare, we all win.

Re:Sheep

[startled]

"I don't know how much you make a year but after paying for a modest house and barely enough food to live on do you just give the rest of your money away? If not you're a hypocrite."

What are you talking about? I never stated my opinion on welfare, unemployment benefits, or the current president in my post. I simply said that if you vote Republican and are shocked when they cut benefits, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. Your argument seems crafted against some point I never made.

"I'm not rich, but I'll appreciate the no tax on dividends. See 75% of Americans own stocks these days."

Most of those 75% own most or all of their stock through their already tax-sheltered accounts (401(k)), and would receive no benefit from the current proposition.

facts

[mcbevin]

refreshing to see slashdot address some real issues rather than 'dmca is evil take 1024'. i must've downloaded the video a couple of months back though so i don't know how its news - quite funny but of course lacking in any hard facts so not going to really convert anyone but the converted. the GNN also has a series of videos on 'unanswered questions about sept 11' which are interesting and more informative but rather conspiracy theorist.

in my search for a bit of truth about the whole matter, i've put together a small set of actual facts about sept 11 + american foreign policy in general and thrown them on my website www.bevin.de/usa/ . every fact/claim is linked to relatively credible documents / news stories. i'd like to hear some slashdotters' opinions - the site is pretty anti us-foreign-policy in its leaning but like i said, nothings there thats not well backed up, which is in contrast to everything else i've been able to find on the web.

Re:facts

[the gnat]

i'd like to hear some slashdotters' opinions

Um, okay. See, I actually know someone who was in the WTC when it collapsed. Just an acquaintance, really- he was a year ahead of me in college (he had just graduated when he was killed), lived across the courtyard my junior year, and helped me get a good room my senior year even after I fucked up with the forms. Not really a close connection, but it's something. One girl was in tears that afternoon because her dad worked in the WTC and she didn't know if he was okay- fortunately, he'd left the building at about 8:30. A number of our alums were killed, and the school newspaper published biographies of them- one woman had just gotten engaged.

I mention this not because I feel blind revenge is appropriate or that I have more of a right to be enraged than you do, but to point out an essential problem with all you snotty Europeans who spew conspiracy theories about Sept. 11th: you don't give a shit about the people who died, and are incapable of recognizing them as people. This dehumanization is every bit as bad as the nonchalance most Americans have towards foreign civilian casualties and the victims of US-backed dictatorships. Many of us are horrified by some of the things the US has done in the past, and are very worried about what will happen to the poor Afghans. Nonetheless, we're still able to recognize that some things are truly evil and need to be dealt with appropriately, and do not try to make excuses for mass murderers.

Obviously you can argue that the US deliberately provoked bin Laden until you're blue in the face, and there's not really anything I can do to convince you otherwise. Still, there's a case to be made that bin Laden deserves to die just for the embassy bombings alone, in which 200 innocent African civilians were killed (compared to about 20 Americans). Since you seem to have given this issue quite a bit of thought, perhaps you could also suggest the proper course of action for America to take when innocents are butchered? Right now, all I see on your site is typical smug European elitism, and a bunch of "facts" lined up in a way such as to suggest that we simply had it coming, and should bend over and take it like a bitch. Your jealousy over not being a real superpower any more, and the luxury of having nearly zero foreign policy outside of Europe, has led you into the belief that America and Bush are far more evil and murderous than Islamofascism and bin Laden.

I'd suggest that anyone who finds this sort of thinking attractive read Christopher Hitchens, who is both a fierce critic of US foreign policy and an opponent of everything bin Laden stands for.

Re:facts

[schlach]

Dude, don't get trolled on slashdot. =) You don't have to reply to anonymous, cowardly trolls. No one will think any less of your opinions or findings if you don't.

Anyway, I found your collection very informative and thought-provoking, and after reading it, have spent the last four hours blazing a path through the web on news items that I haven't heard trumpeted on the New York Times and CNN. Still synthesizing, but I'll send some feedback your way to your email address on the page.

Forgive the other poster. It's hard to hear this stuff in the US unless you go out of your way to find foreign reports on it, and it's hard to believe that, if it's credible, it wouldn't be reported in our "free press". The end result is to discard it without critical evaluation. This is all-too typical and often more socially respectable than asking unpopular questions. It will take a while for most to realize that we've been let down by the mass media.

Art or propaganda?

[syphoon]

The thing I really didn't like about this video (aside from its political angle, but it _did_ come from GNN after all..) was its methodology of trying to create a constant stream of ideas (like a audio-visual 'stream of consciousness') out of a series of quotes taken out of context, or even cut to mean the complete opposite of what was then said. Add to that the various funny bits, such as slow framing Bush, and him umming and ahhing with the combined effect of making him appear vacant, and altogether we actually have a standard piece of propaganda: Shaping how we think through use of the media, and giving 'sound bites' to give the appearance of rational arguments, while the actual content is a lot more vacuous than it appears.

Re:Art or propaganda?

[E-Rock]

Yea, but they're pretending to be on the other side of the coin. So to really be controversial, and to have even a snowballs chance in hell of appealing to anyone except their buddies, they should fire back with facts and information showing the validity of their alternate viewpoint. Which, after watching this video I have no clue what that would be.

Re:Note to slashdot

[startled]

"You expect objectivity and balance from a news organization?"

It seems to me that worse sins are committed in the name of objectivity than would occur if the news orgs simply owned up, and reported what they wanted to. Many (poor) news outlets attempt to cast both sides of an issue as equivalent, which is all well and good, until you note that they extend it to an issue which has 99% of everyone on one side, and the loonies on the other. I've even seen fainthearted attempts to claim that Darwin's theory of evolution and creationism have the same amount of scientific basis, and that's with fairly liberal west coast papers. Ugh.

WTF is this?

[E-Rock]

I watched it, and it's not about anything! It's a bunch of VERY short clips pasted together in a unintelligible narrative. So the American white man's war is bad? Retaliation against an armed aggressor is bad? Is that what they're trying to say?

It's just more of the same old same old objectionist nonsense ["You're bad, what you do is bad, shame on you, shame on you."] without any attempt to provide an alternative. Why? Because that's hard to do.

So they come off looking like a bunch of bitch ass, daddy's buying, whiners.

Someone please explain what the hell this actually was if I'm wrong.

Re:WTF is this?

[maxpublic]

Retaliation against an armed aggressor? What armed aggressor? America hasn't been up against an armed aggressor since 1945.

In fact, all we've been doing since then is getting involved in petty wars to prove that this president or that president has a bigger dick than some other national leader.

Hey, fuck the rest of the world. Let them kill each other. Do I care? So long as they sell us oil who gives a shit if the Iraqis and Israelis wipe each other out? Who cares if the maniacs in the Balkans want to set up a Fourth Reich? Who really gives a damn if Libya decides to go on a North African rampage?

Honestly, if we just minded our own goddamned business in the Middle East do you really think the winner would refuse to sell oil to the biggest consumer on the planet? Yeah, tell me another.

I vote for non-interference and non-involvement. Let the fanatics have at each other. When the dust settles, do business with the winner.

Max

Re:WTF is this?

[JohnFluxx]

Perhaps they were just having some fun.

Re:WTF is this?

[Mac Degger]

Learn some history, will you; the US isn't just up against an "armed agressor"...they're up against the very people they funded and/or put into power in the first place!

I guess what goes around comes around, really. The objection is against the US fscking about with other countries souvereignity without any better cause than "we want power". The alternative is just as simple as "don't do it anymore".

And to go further: any terrorist organisation is just that; an organisation. Not a country. So wtf is up with that "war on terror"? Just like the "war on drugs" (both of which are propaganda driven, the actual facts of the matter being swept under the carpet), even the actual term used is rediculous. Both terrorism and drugs are an ongoing problem for any nation and must be dealt with accordingly. One cannot use a shortterm solution (going to war) for a long term problem. Or at least you can't without misrepresenting the problem, and screwing up your countries finances.

Re:The Movie, Fox News, Other Pointless Discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News is really pretty far-right; it's just that their constant denial of bias can throw you off and give you a warm, fuzzy feeling, especially if you do have a conservative streak. (This coming from a fellow Libertarian, albeit one who thinks Libertarianism reserves the people's right to form communes. ;)) If there's one thing GNN does point out, it's that all the 'liberal' outlets are 1. asleep at the wheel anyway (e.g., more interested in pimping AOLTW or Disney properties than conducting journalism), and 2. more than happy to be under the influence of the propaganda machine (they get their Press Passes, they don't need to write the stories or get the film themselves, the DoD provides the Shit Blowing Up footage the folks at home love)... FWIW, the New York Times seems to get a lot of shit for it- I guess because all the hippies just *expect* CNN/ABC/etc to be biased- but I think their wibbling is more based on Jewish neuroses. (This coming from a Jew. Everyone under the 'Jew' label not actively screaming for war (Sharon) feels like a total cornered asshole right now - as a friend who just got drafted into the .il military said... well, not quite literally, but, "Jesus Christ, I don't want to fight, but these people are killing my friends|neighbors|relatives!")

Er, anyhow... GNN seems run by some grown-up hippies, but it *is* rather inobvious where the cash and such comes from... It's mostly a shoestring type of thing, but given the whole sponsorship of the Eminem video (which would've almost had some sort of message if he didn't apologize at the end of the track), you'd think they'd follow the open-society schtick and make it more obvious who everyone is, what their party registrations are and so forth.

In case you're wondering... I gave up on listening to Limbaugh when I turned 13, I drive a 13MPG LeBaron (though I'm not particularly happy about it), I'm poor after making Daddy pay for college, I can't code to save your life, I'm in favor of legalization and I'm probably going to join the Navy since killing people beats being homeless.

EBN

[limekiller4]

EBN was doing this stuff, much better, I might add, in the early 90's.

I qualify that slightly because afaik, it might even be some or all of the founding members of EBN that are behind GNN. Their original stuff, however, was far more deft and sarcastic. This 11-minute clip was fairly boring bore none of the medium-bending antics of the previous group.

Re:EBN

[glesga_kiss]

Why is good political satire so hard to find outside of the Simpsons? The only other person doing something worthwhile is the writer of Get Your War On.

South Park is not bad, but they don't focus all that much on politics. They do cover a lot of things in a way that should make you think more about them.

GNN - New axis of evil?

[solostring]

That was an incredibly biting and funny piece of political satire! I've been a fan of GNN for a while, ever since they re-released their 'Real War' video.

I wonder how long it will take for GNN to be classed amongst the 'Axis of Evil' :)

Mirror opf Quicktime version

[Halo1]

I forewarned the gnn guys and got their permission to include direct links to the Quicktme versions on their site, but I just got a mail of them stating that if the slashdotting of their site continues like this, they'll be broke by morning :)

I've setup a mirror of the Quicktime version here. It's limited to 30 connections currently, but this may change at any time.

Re:Direct Link -- PLEASE don't use it!

[Halo1]

Please don't use this link anymore, the gnn people mailed me to say that if the slashdotting of their servers continued like this, they'll be broke by morning. Either watch it at Sundance or use my mirror (for now at least, can't promise how long it will stay up).

9-11 Road to Tyranny

[zogger]

9-11, Road to Tyranny, a full length video on the same subject, vhs or dvd, free to copy and redistribute for non profit educational purposes.

It's pretty good and gets into some detail. He has some other videos as well, and a good mon-fri daily radio show. Also check on the site the link to the 9-11, government prior knowledge collection of articles.

Re:Waste of Bits

[curious.corn]

Something similar to what FOXnews-alikes make of the Enemy ®, Dissidents that don't Beleive in Truth © and don't have Faith in Justice ®. If the clip irritated you well, you just had a taste of your own dog-food applied to your very own idols.

How 'bout recalling why this mess came to be?
1. Osama was trained and funded by CIA.
2. Saddam was left in place in spite of his record to please the Saudi, so these could market their oil without Iraq's competition (after all, the latter does possess the largest reserves in the planet)
3. The saudi are now compromised with Osama, quite corrupt and aren't as trustable as 10 years ago so now the US wants another controllable source to keep feeding it's SUV economy. No matter how an administration could try to spin-doctor it, Saddam is perceived as a crook so he has to be replaced with some other straw man to get that Iraqi oil to NYSE.

BTW, have you noticed how Competition and Market economy are invoked when the time comes to Downsize (fire ranks upon ranks of workers) and Reform the System (cut social spending), but not when the matter involves something like MicroSoft (just an example, the first Corporation that came off my mind ,-) or the oil market?

In all this I pity the miserable iraqis still scavenging to make the day out; the probably undereducated, drilled marine that will give up it's life for this. And of course the 11.9 victims that got smoked by Osama to further his miserable political plan to become Commander in Chief (sounds familiar eh?) of some islamist delirium.

I would do it as the Romans did once in it's fight for suplemacy against Alba Longa. They got 3 champions from one side to fight 3 from the other. Wouldn't you love to pit W. and Ash in a celebrity deathmatch against OBL and Saddam? We might even see some new "IBM Linux" and "Apple" commercial!

Ciao

Re:look at their editorial content

[Wakko Warner]

Yeah, it was perjury. For lying on the stand about a blowjob.

Tell me you wouldn't do the same, were you in his situation. Though I don't know many people who would blow a fat Republican...

- A.P.

Re:Note to slashdot

[Mac Degger]

That's why I call CNN and BBC World "Propaganda 1" and "2" respectively.

Re:No Credibility

[Halo1]

...patheticly manipulated sound and video bites from for subversion of the TRUTH...

...a collage of the simple truth in terrorism...

The problem is that there is no such thing as the TRUTH - and most certainly not a simple truth - in this matter. That's exactly the point of the video: one version of the truth is what you see in the general media, but by manipulating those things you suddenly get a whole different version of the truth.

I don't think GNN is claiming that everything else is bullshit, or that what happened wasn't terrible, but they're showing that if they can manipulate those images to show you their view of the situation, then you should keep in mind that what you originally get to see is also manipulated to show you the politicians/media companies' version. At the same time, the maker obviously also voices his opinion ("war isn't going to solve this"), but so did the people that made the original footage (and the makers of the movie you link to).

Re:Quirktime and Windoze Media

[damiam]

Unless you're using Hurd or Windows 3.1, there's almost definately both Quickime and Windows Media for your platform. Stop whining.

O brother...

[ellem]

<i>then our concept of a democracy (which is founded on the ability for all citizens to choose their nation's destiny based on a full spectrum of information) is in desperate peril. </i>

These people can't stop rewriting history. Our _Republic_ was based on the idea that wealthy men should be in office because the wealty men would be incorruptable (whoops!)

As for: <i>Film Synopsis: A clever and cutting critique of media coverage on terrorism after September 11th. </i>

When you consider that all the major news outfits on TV, Cbale and Print are wildly liberal just what the fuck are these people complaining about? (Yes I know all abot AM radio and FOX (which ain't so far to the right.))

Americans are violent. Just watch our TV shows. Attacking us will sure be your demise. And (apparently) if we can't find you we will kill someone else. Best to leave US alone.

Re:Note to slashdot

[program21]

You expect objectivity and balance from a news organization?

You'll love this

Poll seems slanted

[MichaelPenne]

Splitting the vote between Iraq, War on Terror, and Economy.

A better indication would have been War vs. Economy, then see if folks want to finish the job on 'Terror' or start a new war to git Saddam, IMO.

Intelligen-CIA??

[MichaelPenne]

Was that a Froidjin slup?

Meanwhile, where did the "War on Terror" go, anyway? It seems to have been morphed into Desert Storm II by George Bush II...

Who has yet to show that Iraq had thing one to do with the collapsing Towers or crushed Pentagon...

So WTF, git the folks all riled for WAR, but can't find the enemy, so jist aim them guns at an easier target???

Whats the logic there, "one War is as good as another"??

Sounds more like Deliverence than a Noble Cause to me...

HELP!

[Ian-GNN]

OK So I just awoke to this onslaught. My partner stayed up late and gave out the direct links to Michael. We are being crushed. I beg that you try and Watch&Vote the movie on Sundance. They have a Kontiki downloadable version. Also any more people with a little extra bandwidth please contact me and help mirror our videos. Even before this slashing we were notified by our video hosting vendor that we were blowing through bandwidth due to growing interest in our other investigative 9/11 piece "Aftermath: Unanswered Questions of 9/11". We need help hosting vids and getting our info out to the public. Finally, If you like our stuff and want to help support a blood, sweat and tears project, buy our dvd and/or sign up for our mailing list. Thanks for the attention. Love and (r)evolution GNN

Re:11 minutes later

[puppetman]

"reminded me that there are people in this country who don't deserve to live here."

Ah. No differing opinions. Gotcha. Screw freedom of thought.

"The scumbags who made that waste of film will have hopefully forgotten to have gotten the rights to one of those clips and will be sued blind."

Ah. Pro DMCA. Use of copyrighted material in a criticism or paraody does not require permission. You don't seem big on freedom of expression either.

"America is not NAZI Germany... Humans like wars... Humans will always like wars -- deal with it."/i>

Ah. Hitler also believed that war was the natural state of man, and brought out the best in a nation. That killed 6 million Jews, and an equal number of homosexuals, gypsies, and other "undesirables". Lets not count the millions killed during the bombing of London and the fighting ecompassing D-Day to VE Day.

Re:look at their editorial content

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

That perhaps the question should have never come up? What does it matter legally that Willy is getting some blowjobs?

If you'd like to talk about violating the law, how about Bush 43's admitted crackhead days?

Tim

Wrong about Canada - by a longshot

[bmarklein]

See this page for a chart of oil reserves by country. Canada is 12th on the list with 38 Gb (billions of barrels) of reserves & estimated undiscovered resources. Saudi Arabia alone has about many times this amount (over 300 Gb). Russia is second with 168, Iraq third with 145, then Iran with 115. The US has about 100.

If you're really interested in a good analysis of the Bush administration's motives in Iraq, check out this article. The conclusion is that it is primarily about oil, specifically control over the price of oil.

Re:11 minutes later

[ChaosDiscord]

The last Little Red Corvette section reminded me that there are people in this country who don't deserve to live here. eople who just want the free ride. People who have never considered giving of themselves.

Heavens, yes! These people spend thier time running independent media, trying to scrap together enough to afford their web site bills or to publish their next issue, effectively working for free to produce articles and films in an effort to make the world better. These people dont' deserve to be Americans. The next thing you'll know they'll be bitching about social justice, spending their money and time to travel to various meetings to protest, organizing unions in places where it may cost them their jobs, or working in the Peace Corps to provide clean water to impovershed villages. God, these people are so selfish! They think life is just easy street.

The scumbags who made that waste of film will have hopefully forgotten to have gotten the rights to one of those clips and will be sued blind.

God, I hate those scumbags who take short clips of other works for purposes of commentary and political speech! If you can't afford clearances, clearly you have no right to show examples of how the media and politicians are acting! Leave the free speech for true patriots like Fox News.

Humans will always like wars -- deal with it.

Yeah, you filthy hippy liberals. Don't bother trying to change the world for the "better". Humans fundamentally like wars. Heck, we should try and start some more! Canada looks prime for the taking to me!

Re:What the Intelligencia forget...

[Graspee_Leemoor]

"Where will the blame America first crowd be when the first tactical nuke detonates in the US?"

Let's not forget that America pioneered the use of Nukes on civilians. That's official government-ordered use of weapons of mass destruction on a civilian population.

And don't give me any rubbish about "fewer casualties in the long term" and all that.

America dropped nukes - WMD on Japanese civilians. On purpose. Targetting Civilians. With weapons of mass destruction.

I for one, will never forgive them and I'm not even Japanese.

graspee

Re:What the Intelligencia forget...

[woogieoogieboogie]

The fact is that 9/11 happened because of the US's unconditional support for Israel. And it isn't because the people of the US decided that we like israel, most Americans could give a rat's ass about Israel. 5 billion dollars buys a lot of weapons for Israel to go about killing Palestinian children. Did you know the IDF is a bunch of baby-killers? Did you know the IDF BULLDOZES the homes of SUSPECTED militant? Yes, Israel is killing civilians, not just civilinas, but fscking refugees. Well as long as you approve of your government providing unconditional support and approval of the Israeli genocide against the palestinians, then you will have to live in fear of someone again attackign the source of Israel's power. I don't approve of my government condoning and supporting baby-killers or the mass slaughter of refugees.

You are being lied to by your own government and you do not have the balls to stand up and stop it. But do not worry, one day your government will decide there is a need for a regime change at your house and they will come and take all your personal rights away. Who is going to protect you fromt he government which you so empowered but were either too lazy or too afraid to control.

spends time on putting down the US and its policies and seems to follow a theme of blame America for anything bad in the world

For the most part, America IS to blame. And since it is all done in the name of Democracy and the American people, YOU are to blame.

Context

[Chris Johnson]

It's pretty alarming that we have psychos for citizens, but it looks like we do. The kind of people who will in all seriousness think the question is whether to exterminate all the Arabs now or later, the kind of person who will SERIOUSLY claim that the trouble is people who hate us because we have freedom- not because PR handlers have fed them that soundbite to learn, but because they seriously believe it! And yet we do have people like that. On another thread about the Nike case it turned out we have people who consider the main problem with Indonesian sweatshops is public image, and people shouldn't be allowed to use the word. I wonder if you're allowed to use the word 'whip' or 'club', or whether you are supposed to call it 'factory security enforcement mechanism'.

It would be really, really nice if we didn't have psychotics for citizens. Things would be so simple, we could point at other countries' psychotics and say 'You keep those people in line!'.

And we still should, because we are NOT the only country with psychotics and maniacs running around loose.

But we gotta remember to smack our OWN psychotics down if we expect anyone else to do the same in our support.

If anyone reading this (who's not a psychotic) is nodding thoughtfully, I hope to hell you vote. It looks like a citizen's obligation to society is not as passive as it appeared to be. It looks like we have to continually make some efforts to clean our government just like you have to clean a stove that gets used to cook on. Here's hoping our government doesn't get so filthy it's not worth cleaning...

So very wrong

[GooseKirk]

Proven oil reserves in "thousand million barrels":

Canada:
1981: 8.5
1991: 8.0
2000: 6.4

Total Middle East:
1981: 362.6
1991: 661.6
2000: 683.5

Source: BP statistical review of world energy - Oil and Gas Journal posts very similar numbers, and World Oil posted numbers varying by somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.05%, by my quick off-the-cuff glance. It's true that Canada may potentially have much more oil, but statistics about unproven reserves are even less reliable for comparison's sake.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Canada has 4.7 billion barrels of reserves, and is the No. 3 supplier of crude oil to the US, behind Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

The US gets somewhere between 25% and 45% of its oil from the Middle East, depending on where you look. Not that the statistics are the end-all and be-all, anyway... the real question is, is there a compelling strategic need to maintain a reasonable amount of control over current oil production (even "less than 20%" as you claim is a very substantial amount of oil), is there a staggeringly humongous amount of money to be made by the oil industry in the Middle East and Central Asia, and do George Bush, Dick Cheney, the S.S. Condoleeza Rice, Hamid Karzai, and others have substantial investments, holdings, and interests in the oil industry? Will these people likely continue with or go back to the oil industy after their term is up? Are most of their backers, family, family friends, and business associates from the oil/energy industries?

The US already uses its political leverage to increase oil production in Canada. You may notice they don't need to send the 101st Airborne to do so, as they may in more unruly parts of the world. If you do even the slightest bit of research, you might find that some Canadians feel that NAFTA and other agreements has already basically ceded their oil to US interests. And the US managed to do that without having support a coup, as they did, whaddaya know, just recently in Venezuela.

Your facts are wrong and your reasoning is faulty. If you truly want to be better informed, take a look at The Economist or the BBC, for starters.

Re:look at their editorial content

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

It's not a crime to get a blowjob. It is a crime to smoke some crack. Fix the drug laws or put Bush 43 in jail, I say.

Tim

Re:For it's art value only.

[netsharc]

You may think people hate the US because of US's success, but maybe it's this "I'm American, we control the world, piss off you foreigner" arrogance of yours that makes people hates the US.

Bin Laden himself says he only wants the US out of Saudi Arabia, he wants his holy land to be left alone. Yes, laugh at that concept, "Ha holy land", how did you like it when some foreigners attacked the country. Of course we're not going to see that happen any time soon.

The truth is, the world is controlled by one regime, the fucking US-regime. And anyone who disagrees with him does get his head chopped off, only you don't hear about it, why not, because who owns the source you get your news from? Fucking US corporations. Look at Venezuela. Venezuela elected a president that wants less "Globalisation" and more for his people. That makes it harder for US corporation to extract maximum profit out of the country, and what do you get? A coup attempt, with which the US allegedly helped, but Bush evidently immediately congratulated, to see Chavez returning to power only 2 days later. Too bad he's now losing again, the US propaganda being too influential.

Too bad you're a fucking chicken-shit AC, hiding behind your oh so great country.

Why does Bush all of the sudden announced he wants Saddam's head? Because he wants to control the region and the oil underneath it. Lucky for him, September 11 happened, giving him shit-high approval ratings to do whatever he wanted. After September 11, there was an all out flight ban, but why did a plane fly out from New York to Saudi Arabia, with 11 members of the bin Laden family, flown out by the government? Who, in the 80's, owned stocks of Bush & Co's oil companies? The Bin Laden family.

Yes, this will definitely get my name in the NSA/CIA database. Funny. :)

Re:11 minutes later

[Angry Toad]

Understand this. Humans like wars.

What a totally fucking pig-ignorant comment. I assume you're most likely about 14 years old to even consider that such a stupid position bears any relationship to reality.

Talk to some veterans sonny, talk to people who have some actual experience of what war really means, and of what the world is like beyond the borders of your own neighbourhood.

Then do some growing up.

Re:For it's art value only.

[bani]

"Bin Laden himself says he only wants the US out of Saudi Arabia, he wants his holy land to be left alone."

He also said he wants every christian, jew, hindu, and atheist in the entire world dead.

Re:11 minutes later

[puppetman]

"But you've gone and upped it to 12,000,000 which is interesting."

Six million Jews, give or take a million (the number is not firm). Another 6 million non-Jews were also killed.

From http://www.holocaust-history.org/

"Most statistical breakdowns I have seen list the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The estimates vary from around 4.1 to 6.0 million, with more recent research supporting an even higher figure... It is estimated that another 5-6 million non-Jews (Gypsies, homosexuals, prisoners of war - especially Russians - were killed during the Holocaust period."

I have no idea where you were on 9/11, nor do I care. I do know that US-foreign policy towards Iraq (the prevents even humanitarian aid) has contributed to the deaths of over 500,000 children. It's not spectacular, you won't see it on TV (unlike the World Trade Center), but it's still happening, in a slow and calculated way (which strikes me as evil). If 9/11 pisses you off, how do you feel about that?

Re:11 minutes later

[ellem]

I do know that US-foreign policy towards Iraq (the prevents even humanitarian aid) has contributed to the deaths of over 500,000 children. It's not spectacular, you won't see it on TV (unlike the World Trade Center), but it's still happening, in a slow and calculated way (which strikes me as evil). If 9/11 pisses you off, how do you feel about that?

If America suddenly had a food shortage or whatever what kind of aid do you think Iraq qould give us.

Being the world's big brother is a two way street. If the US is going to give aid to countries then it is involved in those countries. If those countries are going to act aggressively towards us then they will be sanctioned. You can't go around begging and then attack the people who gave you alms. For all the 500,000 dead baby shit we hear about no one seems to care that Iraqis do a fine job of offing one another over there. But I suppose the US is to blame for that too.

The US just isn't the big bad you want it to be. Do you know how I can tell? People who immigrate here tend to stay here. In fact there doesn't seem to be any mass exodus to Canada or Mexico from the US. If we're so effing horrible why do people keep coming here?

Re:11 minutes later

[puppetman]

It's the world that wants to give aid to Iraq, including some in the US.

And it's not a lack of aid that prevents it from getting there, it's a calculated embargo created and enforced by America.

"For all the 500,000 dead baby shit we hear about no one seems to care that Iraqis do a fine job of offing one another over there."

"dead baby shit", eh? I wonder: your attitude makes me think that if you'd been born in the Muslim world, you'd be cheering as each plane hit the World Trade Center. Please, don't have kids. The world needs no more people like you.