• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is not true in F 9/11

skills101

Vicar of Christ
I've heard so many "well, a lot of things in Fahrenheit 9.11 are not true," and "I don't believe everything in F 9.11."

Well, for all those who don't think everything in the movie is true, can you please explain to me specifically what statements Moore made and what negates that statement?
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
I know of no untruths myself, but (although this is possibly my own fault) I also have no immediate means of verifying many of the claims and statements made in the documentary. That annoys me.

I think many people who know more than I have percieved much of the content to be half-true and biased to the point of becoming propaganda. Mary Poppins herself probably understood the logic behind many of the pionts raised however.
 

kreeden

Virus of the Mind
Of course it is biased . :) It is political ...

But there must be enough truth behind it or Moore would be getting his butt sued by now . :)
 
kreeden said:
But there must be enough truth behind it or Moore would be getting his butt sued by now . :)
Right-- all movie-goers are aware of the well-defined barrier that seperates "enough truth" from "not enough truth". If Moore's film crossed that barrier, surely there would be a class-action suit against him for his disregard of the "enough truth" rule.
 
I am as skeptical of any political movie designed to "counter" Moore's film as I am of F. 9/11 itself. "We can tie the Bin Laden family...to Moore himself"? Smells like more propoganda.
 

kreeden

Virus of the Mind
Mr_Spinkles said:
Right-- all movie-goers are aware of the well-defined barrier that seperates "enough truth" from "not enough truth". If Moore's film crossed that barrier, surely there would be a class-action suit against him for his disregard of the "enough truth" rule.
Well , we are talking about Americans . You guys sue everyone , for everything , don't you ? ;)
 

Dadball

Member
Saudi Investments in the United States

Deceit 23-24



Moore asks Craig Unger: "How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?"



Unger replies, "Uh, I've heard figures as high as $860 billion dollars."



What is the basis of Unger's claim? The $860 billion figure appears on page 28 of Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud. He cites two sources: The Saudi Ambassador's 1996 speech to the U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council. In that speech, Prince Bandar discussed the Saudi economy, but said nothing about the size of Saudi investment in the U.S.



Unger's other cited source is a February 11, 2002, Washington Post story, titled "Enormous Wealth Spilled Into American Coffers." The $860 billion figure does not appear there, either. The article states:

After nearly three decades of accumulating this wealth, the group referred to by bankers as "high net worth Saudi individuals" holds between $500 billion and $1 trillion abroad, most of it in European and American investments. Brad Bourland, chief economist of the Saudi American Bank (one-quarter owned by Citibank), said in a speech in London last June that his bank's best estimate of the total is about $700 billion, with the possibility that it is as much as $1 trillion.



Raymond Seitz, vice chairman of Lehman Brothers in London and a former U.S. ambassador to Britain, gave a similar estimate. Seitz said Saudis typically put about three-quarters of their money into the United States, the rest in Europe and Asia. That would mean that Saudi nationals have invested perhaps $500 billion to $700 billion in the American economy.

In short, Unger's cited sources do not support his $860 billion figure. He may have "heard" the figure of $860 billion dollars, but only from people who were repeating the factoid which he invented.



According to the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy (a pro-Saudi think tank which tries to emphasize the importance of Saudi money to the United States), in February 2003 total worldwide Saudi investment was at least $700 billion, conservatively estimated. Sixty percent of the Saudi investments were in the United States, so the Saudis had at least 420 billion dollars invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu , "The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment," Sept. 23, 2003.)



Unger is asked "what percentage of our economy is that?" (Meaning the supposed $860 billion.)

He replies, "Well, in terms of investments on Wall Street, American equities, it's roughly six or seven percent of America. They own a fairly good slice of America." A little bit later, Moore states that "Saudi Prince Bandar is perhaps the best protected ambassador in the US...Considering how he and his family, and the Saudi elite own seven percent of America, it's probably not a bad idea."

According the Census Bureau, the top countries which own U.S. stocks and bonds are the United Kingdom and Japan. Foreign investors owned $1,690 billion in corporate bonds in 2002. The Census Bureau lists the major national holders, and then groups all the minor holders--including Saudi Arabia--into "Other Countries." All of these other countries combined (including Saudi Arabia) account for only 6 percent of total foreign ownership of U.S. corporate bonds. Likewise, all "Other Countries" combined account for only 7 percent of total foreign ownership of corporate stocks. (And of course the large majority of U.S. corporate stocks and bonds are owned by Americans.) Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, table 1203.



According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, total foreign investment in the United States in 2003 was $10,515 billion dollars. This means that even if the figure that Unger "heard" about Saudis having $860 billion is correct, then the Saudis would only have about 8 percent of total foreign investment in the United States. Unless you believe that almost all American assets are owned by foreigners, then it cannot possibly be true that Saudis "own seven percent of America."



[Moore response: Cites Unger's book, and a lawyer who filed an anti-Saudi lawsuit and repeated the Unger figure. Does not address the fact that Unger's sources do not support his claim. Points out that the capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange composite is $12 trillion and that $860 billion amounts to approximately 7 percent of that. But even if the Saudis owned 7% of the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange, the NYSE does not include all of America's wealth--which includes real estate, businesses which are not traded on the NYSE because they are privately owned, and so on. The data show that the Saudis own between 4% (420 billion) and 7% (700 billion) of total foreign investment in the U.S. Moore's assertion that Saudis "own seven percent of America" is completely false.]
 
kreeden said:
Well , we are talking about Americans . You guys sue everyone , for everything , don't you ?
Indeed! We Americans live in an adversarial society...when Americans feel wronged by an individual, a company, or the government, they exercise their right as citizens to take these complaints before a judge. Who says Americans are apathetic? ;)
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
I hope Americans are not since they're having freedoms eroded at a remarkable rate. As for Mr. Moore, glad to see people doing their homework in regard to his claims. Turn that scrutiny the other way and who knows what you might see...
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
is it true that (insert documentary, news broadcast, election coverage, ect.) was not created in context by a fair mind(s) concerning the subject matter?
 

desi

Member
HelpMe said:
is it true that (insert documentary, news broadcast, election coverage, ect.) was not created in context by a fair mind(s) concerning the subject matter?
It depends on the person. For someone to make a movie critical of something they don't like, and actively campaign against, is suspicious. But when someone interviews several people and pieces together scenes out of context it becomes like the fake death scene in 'The Running Man' movie. A clever lie with bits of truth mixed in out of context.
 
Top