MOOREWATCH
Columbine Secrets
Author: Lee
I bet Michael Moore has mixed feelings about this.
Relatives of the students killed at Columbine High School asked that the school district unseal its report on the 1999 massacre.

"We are never going to change the past, but we can change the future," said Randy Brown, who had alerted sheriff's officers to the violent rants of gunman Eric Harris in 1998 after his son was threatened.

Harris and Dylan Klebold killed a dozen students and a teacher before committing suicide.

Brown and others took their request to the school board late Thursday. Board president Jon DeStefano said he will get back to them.

"Locking up information that you have is not benefiting anyone at this point," said Dee Fleming, whose daughter, Kelly, was killed in the Columbine library.

The report was compiled for school district attorneys as they prepared for lawsuits. The parents say the details could help prevent another tragedy by shedding light on any warning signs that were missed or ignored.

School district attorneys have refused to release the 200-page report, saying it is covered by the attorney-client privilege exception in state open-records laws.

He's probably just as interested in seeing this report as anyone else would, but it could backfire. It might dispute his claim that the killers went bowling the morning of the attack. It might point the blame at (gasp!) incompetent teachers and school administrators, or even (gasp!) the parents of the two boys, rather than at the NRA, gun manufacturers, Lockheed/Martin, the "culture of violence," the Kosovo bombings, or whatever other nebulous boogeyman at which Moore feels like pointing fingers. And he definitely doesn't want to see fewer school shootings, because then he wouldn't have fresh victims to prostitute for his own monetary gain.




Posted by: Lee on Nov 21, 03 | 1:20 pm (profile) | PermalinkOriginally posted at Right-Thinking from the Left Coast
COMMENTS
Posted by: Cigarskunk on Nov 21, 03 | 1:55 pm
And he definitely doesn't want to see fewer school shootings, because then he wouldn't have fresh victims to prostitute for his own monetary gain.


Mike doesn't care about school shootings anymore - he's currently exploiting 9/11 victim's families and survivors for his 90 minute attack ad to be released just in time for the 2004 presidential elections.

After he cashed in on the blood of the 9/11 survivors, smart money says that if Bush gets reelected, Mike will try to exploit the families of Gulf War 1 and 2 vets - maybe call it "A Fist Full of Oil" or something.

Besides, the fact that the Columbine killers were sent to anger management classes instead of juvvy hall is all the debunkment you need - like so many other senseless crimes, this can be traced back to the fact that some liberal let the badguy(s) out to roam the streets instead of keeping them locked up - the blood of the Columbine victims lays on the hands of the killers who pulled the triggers and the liberals who kept them out of jail.

Posted by: hithere on Nov 21, 03 | 3:05 pm
thankyou for showing anyone who might read this site what a sad, disturbed, useless little troll you are. nothing i could ever write would about you would be more telling than the vile excrament you just spewed.

Thanks!

Posted by: Rann Aridorn on Nov 21, 03 | 3:12 pm
HitHere: And what he posted was worse than the vile "excrament" that that sad, disturbed, useless fat troll Moore posts... how?

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 21, 03 | 4:39 pm
I think the "vile excrement" was that he accused Moore of pimping the Columbine corpses. Moore used Columbine to inject sensationalism into his movie.

Posted by: Michael the Great on Nov 21, 03 | 6:01 pm
What I don't understand about hithere is that he says no one will ever come to this site and read it, but as far as I can tell you went out of your way to make a user name here and come here as far as I can tell, on a daily basis. go get a life, or at least a hobby.

Posted by: Darkwing Dork on Nov 21, 03 | 7:45 pm
This is hithere's hobby. He either thinks what he's doing is funny, or he's brainwashed himself into believing that he is making a valid point by shouting insults at everyone he disagrees with.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 21, 03 | 10:31 pm
Hithere is actually very intelligent. He can speak in an esoteric dialogue which includes words such as "excrament" and he turns "thank you" into one word, saving precious screen space on my high-res monitor.

You are clearly deluded, Hithere... If nobody reads this site and nobody agrees with these supoosedly "vile" point of view, then why do you come back multiple times everyday? Get a life, set of testicles, a clue or a brain. Preferably combinations of the aforementioned.

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 21, 03 | 11:29 pm
Hehe, someone just got pwned! :P

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 22, 03 | 5:46 am
Now we await his response to all claims... Here's a sneak preview:

"micheal teh gr33k u r s00000 dum liek omg wtf lol"

Need I say more? Oh yeah. He believes Michael Moore is a shining beacon of truth and a pinnacle in ethical factual reporting. Hithere needs to be committed to a federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass prison, where even Michael Jackson would rape him... you are 12, right Hithere?

Posted by: hithere on Nov 22, 03 | 6:40 am
hahahaahaha
you people are so easy to f with!
thanks for the fun!

look how much effort you just wasted on this crap
hahahaha

Posted by: Freeway on Nov 22, 03 | 7:58 am
I live in a country where you are not allowed to own a handgun ( or a hunting machine gun ) Guess how many kids died of gunshot wounds last year. 0

Posted by: Night on Nov 22, 03 | 8:32 am
Really? I live in a small town in England and even there I've SEEN gun crime. The problem with making guns illegal (to quote Terry Pratchett... kinda) is that criminals aren't entirely too keen on obeying the law. It just pushed the whole thing even more underground than it is now.

Besides, the fact that the Columbine killers were sent to anger management classes instead of juvvy hall is all the debunkment you need - like so many other senseless crimes, this can be traced back to the fact that some liberal let the badguy(s) out to roam the streets instead of keeping them locked up - the blood of the Columbine victims lays on the hands of the killers who pulled the triggers and the liberals who kept them out of jail.

I find this a bit harsh though. Mistakes were made, and terrible ones at that, but personally I would strongly support attempts at rehabilitation far above other methods.

Posted by: Freeway on Nov 22, 03 | 8:56 am
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994:

United States 14.24;
Brazil 12.95;
Mexico 12.69;
Estonia 12.26;
Argentina 8.93;
Northern Ireland 6.63;
Finland 6.46;
Switzerland 5.31;
France 5.15;
Canada 4.31;
Norway 3.82;
Austria 3.70;
Portugal 3.20;
Israel 2.91;
Belgium 2.90;
Australia 2.65;
Slovenia 2.60;
Italy 2.44;
New Zealand 2.38;
Denmark 2.09;
Sweden 1.92;
Kuwait 1.84;
Greece 1.29;
Germany 1.24;
Hungary 1.11;
Republic of Ireland 0.97;
Spain 0.78;
Netherlands 0.70;
Scotland 0.54;
England and Wales 0.41;
Taiwan 0.37;
Singapore 0.21;
Mauritius 0.19;
Hong Kong 0.14;
South Korea 0.12;
Japan 0.05.

If America insists on encouraging people to own guns and to solve problems by killing there is really nothing more to say then you will all get what you deserve.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 22, 03 | 9:29 am
Going through this site all i can find is angry young men making shallow arguments just for the sake of making them (it would seem).. apart from all the girly bitching previously on this page (how can anyone of intelligence say somone needs to be "committed to a federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass prison, where even Michael Jackson would rape him" and follow it up by accusing THEM of acting like a twelve year old)..

Apart from this, the first article of the day is a speculation that MM MIGHT get uneasy over what some report MIGHT throw up at some point is this supposed to be journalism.. jeez a bet MM is shitting it.

Its OBVIOUS that there's moor to blame in Columbine than the NRA, gun manufacturers, Lockheed/Martin, the "culture of violence etc. But it's also OBVIOUS that these things had a lot to play in it too as without them it would be considerably harder for two kids to get guns.

Further down the page i find some guy getting all hot and bothered for MM making analagies between Bush and Hitler (after which he starts prattling on a bout Playboy!), then someone leaps to his defence by making analagies between gun owning Americans and the Jews during the uprising of the Nazis! And everyone goes.. yeah right on!! What? Whos talking crap now!

Aside from this the biggest other attack on Michael Moore is that he is succesful and he is using the wheels of Capitalism to further his success. I thought that's what America was all about? I think MM really believes in his cause (right or wrong) and if I could make loads of money and fight for somthing I believed in I'd do it too. If he really is going to topple Bush (doubtful) he needs all the corporate help he can get and he knows this. And if this goes against some of his principles well that's life, we all have to sacrifice our ideals at somepoint, and if we think it's gonna help in the long run it's worth it.. right? (gun owners take note). Speculating that he's in it for the money is pointless and you'll never prove it and it seems doubtful anyway.

I think reducing everything to Black and White, Goodies and Baddies, is Americas biggest problem (MM's) too. It doesn't give tragedys like 9/11 the respect they deserve by simplifying it down to a bunch of nutters that hate America. There's years of history in the middle east that needs to be understood and years of american intervention that is at the root of the cause as much as Islam. If you really want to defeat an enemy you have to understand them. This is Americas biggest problem (very little interest in the world outside the states) and this could eventually be its undoing. Shape up look sharp.

PS.

If you really believe in what your saying then your not gonna get taken seriously by branding around the term Lefties like your old man used to use the word Hippies!

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 22, 03 | 10:27 am
Its OBVIOUS that there's moor to blame in Columbine than the NRA, gun manufacturers, Lockheed/Martin, the "culture of violence etc. But it's also OBVIOUS that these things had a lot to play in it too as without them it would be considerably harder for two kids to get guns.


Considering the large amount of explosives they built and the illegally acquired the guns, I am unconvinced that making it harder to get guns would have prevented the murder. They were quite determined.

In fact, I am unconvinced that any of what you mentioned above "had a lot to play in it."

Further down the page i find some guy getting all hot and bothered for MM making analagies between Bush and Hitler (after which he starts prattling on a bout Playboy!), then someone leaps to his defence by making analagies between gun owning Americans and the Jews during the uprising of the Nazis! And everyone goes.. yeah right on!! What? Whos talking crap now!


Comparing Bush to Hitler is a ridiculous argument. I fail to understand your shock about Playboy.

As for Jews and Nazi's, I fail to see how he was talking crap. Even if he didn't know it, he was echoing a theme in Machiavelli’s The Prince. What M. said was that if you do not trust your people, disarm them, however if do trust your people, allow them to arm, for in the event of invasion, you will have instant partisans. I believe that this is what the Swiss are hoping to accomplish by mandating that all citizens own guns.

If the people are disarmed, they are at the mercy of the police and the army. It is good to know that you have that much faith in our government and your fellow man.

Aside from this the biggest other attack on Michael Moore is that he is succesful and he is using the wheels of Capitalism to further his success. I thought that's what America was all about?


Moore is not a free-market capitalist, so people rightly find it ironic and hypocritical that Moore’s prosperity flows from a system that he does not like.

think MM really believes in his cause (right or wrong) and if I could make loads of money and fight for somthing I believed in I'd do it too. If he really is going to topple Bush (doubtful) he needs all the corporate help he can get and he knows this. And if this goes against some of his principles well that's life, we all have to sacrifice our ideals at somepoint, and if we think it's gonna help in the long run it's worth it.. right?


Moore has a history of railing against corporations. He wants to establish himself as a populist champion, but instead of a grass roots movement, he whores himself out to the corporations he was previously maligning. It is the hypocrisy of his actions, not the actions themselves that is so irritating.

Speculating that he's in it for the money is pointless and you'll never prove it and it seems doubtful anyway.


As has been mentioned earlier, when Moore is overseas, he plays to the stereotypes of his audience. When America is a thousand miles away, we are all stupid and violent. His tone changes when he returns.

There's years of history in the middle east that needs to be understood and years of american intervention that is at the root of the cause as much as Islam.


Even if there was no American intervention, supremacist Islam would still be a very large problem. Most of the terrorists reasons are just poor excuses to rationalize their violence to mainstream Islam.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 22, 03 | 11:33 am
1.So you think that institutions supporting Gun laws has nothing to do with kids getting their hands on legaly owned guns? I can't get hold of a gun coz it's illegal to have one in this country, but if my dad had one down stairs.. no problem..it's common sense. You refusing to acknowledge that is as stupid as me refusing to acknowledge that fact that they were evil bastards to start with which they clearly are.

2.Well if comparing the American people to Jews in the holocaust isn't crap.. then comparing Bush to Hitler is obviously not crap I suppose.. come on. They are both crap. And if you think arming every single person in the USA is the way forward (as you imply with your reference to the Swiss) you are clearly off your trolley.. how is that ever gonna work.. THINK ABOUT IT!!! Besides owning a gun doesn't protect you from shit let alone the police or army. Go and point your gun at some cops and you'll be dead by breakfast.

3.As for Moore being a hyporcrit.. I agree . But if he really does want to get his message across what other choice is there. You can't really expect him to not take all the opportunities he is offered.. I would and so would you. If the makers of this site had the chance to get massive publicity from an organization with left wing associations I'm sure they would take it too.

4.Of course Extremist Islamics would still exist, but they wouldn't be so much of a threat to the USA without the decades of back scratching and side taking the US has done to get cheaper oil prices..Including with Saddam and Taliban.. Terrorists get mad at hypocrisy too you know!

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 22, 03 | 1:35 pm
Freeway,

If America insists on encouraging people to own guns and to solve problems by killing there is really nothing more to say then you will all get what you deserve.

If you take out the drug-related gun deaths, I'd be willing to bet that number would come down a lot.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 22, 03 | 1:39 pm
4.Of course Extremist Islamics would still exist, but they wouldn't be so much of a threat to the USA without the decades of back scratching and side taking the US has done to get cheaper oil prices..Including with Saddam and Taliban.. Terrorists get mad at hypocrisy too you know!

The Islamic extremists only goal is to subjugate or kill all non-fundamentalist Muslims. They will never stop unless they are eliminated of imprisoned. Or they succeed

Posted by: moogi on Nov 22, 03 | 2:02 pm
jilliamsii..
yeah but it wasn't allways like this you have to address the reasons that cause people to think like that in the first place. Whatever the propoganda tells you they are just PEOPLE who have been driven to think that way by a long series of events.. America's dubious foreign policy being one of them .. history is real and has consequences.. now we have to deal with them intelligently.. not just by saying lets blow them all up.. and if abandoning some foreign policies that intrude on their region is one way then it should be done (Bush will never have this kind of forsight though).

Jesus.. All you gun owners out there defending your right to bear arms and defend your country you must be able to relate. You guys would be shooting people left right and centre if the tables were turned.. what's the difference? Not a great deal.

I'm right and you know it.

Posted by: JimK on Nov 22, 03 | 3:43 pm
3.As for Moore being a hyporcrit.. I agree . But if he really does want to get his message across what other choice is there.

That's exactly the problem with the Moore-ons. It;s OK if he lies. It;s OK if he stretches the truth. It;s all in service of "the message."

Bullshit. The ends do not, in fact, justify the means. In fact, the means, or rather, how you conduct yourself, your life and your country, is everything. It's not the destination, it's the journey...something the Left fails to understand.

If one were to extrapolate the logic of moogi's excusing Moore because his message is important...then by the same token, Bush deserves that exact same leeway for whatever he has or hasn;t done to get us into Iraq. It;s the message that matters, right? So...umm...Moore is wrong to assault Bush on all of these minor details that he quibbles over, becuse *if* Bush lied, it was only in the service of his message.

If you give Moore that kind of leeway, you have to give it to everyone.

Talk your way out of THAT piece of logic, moogi.

Whatever the propoganda tells you they are just PEOPLE who have been driven to think that way by a long series of events.. America's dubious foreign policy being one of them

You're wrong. We are a nation that has been around a couple of centuries. Radical Muslims have been killing each other and their neighbors over God/Allah/territory for thousands of years. We didn't start the fire, as Billy Joel once said.

Posted by: mehitchcock on Nov 22, 03 | 4:01 pm
Lee,
I know this will come as a shock to you, but you have yet again missed the point of the movie.
He never has just blamed one thing for the violence.
He has blamed many things.
If the report reveals something not already covered in the movie, it will still be covered by the movie's thesis.
Do you repeatedly fail to see this on purpose? Or are there maybe other forces at work?
I still mantain that have been conditioned by our schools and media to cynically polemicise against any person or groups who criticize our nation in any truly meaningful way.
My theory is that you would love to see a more liberal America, but have learned in school why popular movements don't work. I don't blame you for turning cynical. Cynicism is one of the ways a macho culture can hide fear.
You have been lied to, but not by Moore, and the sooner you can come to grips with it, the sooner you can start making meaningful changes.
Might I suggest a book by hardened war-veteran Howard Zinn? Not exactly the kind of left-wing nut you so wantonly dismiss.

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 22, 03 | 6:57 pm
So you think that institutions supporting Gun laws has nothing to do with kids getting their hands on legaly owned guns?


They obtained the guns illegally. They went around the law.

I can't get hold of a gun coz it's illegal to have one in this country,


I am surprised no one else jumped all over you for this one, because lord knows that since cocaine is illegal in America, no one uses it; heavens no. Illegality only creates a greater profit incentive to supply the banned good. The ultimate point, again, being that the murderers went around the law to arm themselves.

Klebold and Harris were criminally determined to murder a lot of people. Removing the gun from the hand is not enough as the hand still remains. As the bumper sticker goes: “Guns don’t kill people, postal workers do.” Klebold and Harris also had a large cache of pipe bombs at their disposal. If guns did not exist, they would have rented a Ryder truck.

Again to quote Machiavelli, you cannot stop the determined individual. They were determined.

You are trying to argue that the NRA had a lot to do with Columbine because they advocate responsible gun use and are against liberal fear-mongering as a basis for public policy.

Well if comparing the American people to Jews in the holocaust isn't crap.. then comparing Bush to Hitler is obviously not crap I suppose..


You suppose wrong. One valid analogy does not make all analogies valid.

And if you think arming every single person in the USA is the way forward (as you imply with your reference to the Swiss)


No I was using a real world example to illustrate Machiavelli’s principle of creating armed partisans if you, as the ruler, trust your citizens.

As long as we are on the subject, it is worthwhile to point out that while the Swiss have lots of guns, there are few problems; ergo the argument that the NRA and guns were responsible is bogus.

Besides owning a gun doesn't protect you from shit let alone the police or army. Go and point your gun at some cops and you'll be dead by breakfast.


You are reading well enough to “quote” me but not well enough to understand me. I am not talking about a single man going “fuck the police, I’ze got ma-self a nine!” I am talking about storm troopers kicking doors in and “crushing dissent.”

If the makers of this site had the chance to get massive publicity from an organization with left wing associations I'm sure they would take it too.


A similar example is when George Carlin did commercials for Sprint. Carlin made his money by mocking consumerism, corporations, and business men. By doing those commercials, Carlin was using his likeness to enrich the already corpulent corporate fat-cats. He had sold out. There is even a Simpson’s episode where Krusty the Klown undergoes a similar process of angry rebel to “angry rebel” with a dump truck full of money.

As for the above quote, you are trying to befoul the debate. The debate is on the dichotomy between Moore’s statements and his actions; it is irrelevant what you or I would do.

Of course Extremist Islamics would still exist, but they wouldn't be so much of a threat to the USA without the decades of back scratching and side taking the US has done to get cheaper oil prices..Including with Saddam and Taliban.. Terrorists get mad at hypocrisy too you know!


Ohh, I get to use the “stolen quote” now: I don't know if you're a troll or an idiot, but the above statement could have only been made by one of those two. All joking aside, on with the fisiking.

Islam has always had a very serious problem where if the current leader was not up to snuff according to the extremists, he would be assassinated. One good example is when Ali tried to broker a peace with Muawia, he was assassinated for trying to broker peace. The point being that Islam has never had a reformation because any violent extremists would kill the moderates and progressives for not following the will of Allah as stated in the Qu’ran.

Islam is a great religion when it is on top but a beast when it is on the bottom. This is because Allah is an active god. Allah actively rewards his good followers. This means that when the empire is huge and the spoils are plenty, Islam can be benevolent. When things are not good, the extremists treat it as a punishment from god, usually for tolerating the existence of unbelievers. To get on Allah’s good side, kill or convert the heathens.

Osama is a wahhabi; an Islamic skinhead. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, was born in 1703. The Wahhabi’s belive that anyone with a Qu’ran is entitled to interpret the Qu’ran. They also believed that anyone who didn’t believe as they did could be killed have their property stolen. Al-Wahhab formed an alliance with the “House of Saud” and from there proceeded on a violent rampage through-out the Middle East. The Wahhabi’s really hated religious tombs and “saint sites” so they stole the goods, burned the buildings, and killed the pilgrims. They even broke into the Prophet Muhammads tomb and stole all the loot inside. They were eventually bitch slapped by the Ottomans.

The wahhabis are to Islam as “the south” is to a New York liberal: racist, xenophobic, and violent. The Wahhabis will only be happy when you are either dead or a Muslim. Why do they hate us? Simple, we are not them. At this point, I don’t give a shit about nuance or “understanding my enemy” and would rather see a bunch of Saudis blown into hamburger sized chunks. Wahhabism is not unique to Saudi Arabia, but since that is the official religion of the state, it would be a decent place to start.

No matter what “reason” the terrorists give, they will always be insane shit heads that we should first kill then laugh at.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 22, 03 | 7:29 pm
Moogi,

You obviously haven't been reading the other posts. We can claim anything is 'satire' when we make personal attacks with no basis.

Also, If you take out the drug-related gun deaths, I'd be willing to bet that number would come down a lot is true. Remember the post on here or right-thinking.com recently about gun control which said that 50,000 possible murders were avoided due to the use of guns in America (according to the CIA)? My memory is half-decent, and I'm 100% sure it said there were around 10,000 murders. Thus the USA has a negative murder rate.

Last time I read about Brazil (going back a couple of years to Geography class), they had the harshest gun laws in the world. And their murder rate isn't far behind. Guns bring both positive and negative effects, and even if you outlaw guns you won't keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Posted by: Dan on Nov 22, 03 | 8:05 pm
Remember the post on here or right-thinking.com recently about gun control which said that 50,000 possible murders were avoided due to the use of guns in America (according to the CIA)? My memory is half-decent, and I'm 100% sure it said there were around 10,000 murders. Thus the USA has a negative murder rate.

How do they know this? Or is it as justified as me saying the UK avoids 1000 murders a day because many pencil sharpeners arew blue and not red?

Posted by: ZZip on Nov 22, 03 | 8:25 pm
And if you think arming every single person in the USA is the way forward (as you imply with your reference to the Swiss) you are clearly off your trolley.. how is that ever gonna work..

I don't think that's what he was suggesting. In Switzerland, just about every grown male is required to own a firearm, yet look at the gun related statistics posted earlier in this thread (gun deaths per 100,000)

United States 14.24;
Switzerland 5.31;

The US has almost 3X as many gun deaths per 100,000 people as Switzerland, yet guns are far more accessible in Switzerland (Despite what image you may have of America, I think most people here DO NOT own a gun, I personnally do not.) Anyway, this suggests that gun violence is caused by cultural factors as opposed to easy access to guns. True, MM points out cultural factors in BFC, but he seems to have hand-picked them according to his biases. He pretty much dismissed violent movies and videogames, for instance, but gave the bombing in Kosovo as a factor despite the fact that Kosovo got little media coverage, esp compared to Iraq.

As for Moore being a hyporcrit.. I agree . But if he really does want to get his message across what other choice is there.

He should be able to advance his message without lying and distorting facts. I can forgive him for using the capitalist system to sell books and movies, but when you live in a $1.2mil apartment and fly private jets while you pretend to be a little guy railing against corporate greed, I have a problem with that. He should live a lifestyle consistant with his Liberal values, and give the extra money to causes he believes in. OR don't trash the system that's benefitted you.

4.Of course Extremist Islamics would still exist, but they wouldn't be so much of a threat to the USA without the decades of back scratching and side taking the US has done to get cheaper oil prices..Including with Saddam and Taliban.. Terrorists get mad at hypocrisy too you know!

You are implying that the Islamic extremists have a rationalized hatred of the US. In fact, the ones who are educated have often attended radical madrass (sic?) schools where they receive little education in anything but Islam and the Koran. Hatred of the West is ingrained in them from a young age. They are also prone to believing in wild conspiracy theories. Many still believe that the Jews engineered 9/11.

Yes, US foreign policy in the Middle East has often been left a lot to be desired, but just how would you change it? I think the US's fear has been that if they didn't support the corrupt monarchies/dictatorships then they would fall to Islamic Radicalism. We never supported the Taliban, and the Taliban has nothing to do with oil (Afghanistan has none). The reason we supported Saddam was because after 1979, Iran was the biggest pain in the US's ass, and Iraq was at war with Iran. The old "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome. We wanted to help Saddam fight the Iranians, but we didn't want Saddam to become too powerful, so we also secretly armed the Iranians (Iran-Contra scandal).

I doubt that any of the critics of US foreign policy in the Middle East will give Bush any credit for it, but he has acknowledged that past US policy contributed to terrorism. As he said in a recent speech: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe." This is why we're now trying to set up a democracy in Iraq, because this form of govt is less likely to breed terror than others.

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 22, 03 | 8:58 pm
Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 21, 03 | 11:29 pm
Hehe, someone just got pwned! :P

Right, just shout him down by number and you're automatically right by quanity.

Person A: I think blahblahblah
Person B: YOU SUCK
Person C: I AGREE HE's A RETARD
Person D: YOU MORON
nukechild: LOL HE GOT PWNT!!!!!@@@@@

As hitthere derived humor from you guys, so will I. Please insult this post, you guys make me laugh.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 22, 03 | 8:58 pm
Dan, you'd have to ask the CIA to be 100% sure. I'd presume they'd collect the information from the appropriate police departments, as I'd presume every time a gun goes off, the police would have to file a report of some sort.

But yeah, I'm only guessing here. You'd have to ask the person who made the post where they got their statistics from.

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 22, 03 | 9:00 pm
please don't forget to inform me of my state of being "pwned" after twenty people come to insult me. If you could throw in anything about me being a fag or a noob that would be great too.

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 22, 03 | 10:08 pm
please don't forget to inform me of my state of being "pwned" after twenty people come to insult me. If you could throw in anything about me being a fag or a noob that would be great too.


Why are you defending the troll? He didn't say anything worthy of debate and his whole point here is to be an inflamatory idiot.

Posted by: Michael the Great on Nov 22, 03 | 10:12 pm
"There's years of history in the middle east that needs to be understood and years of american intervention that is at the root of the cause as much as Islam."
Sorry I'm late in responding to this one. Anyhow, it appears that moogi assumes that he is the only one that understands the reasons why those poor, oppressed extremist muslims do terrorism. IT IS ALL AMERICA'S FAULT is his "logical" (I use the term loosely) conclusion. If he can tell me how the extremists in Chechnia (or however it is spelled) commiting terrorist acts on Russia and Islamic extremists in the Phillipines abducting non-muslim extremists and beheading them is America's fault then I will genuinly be surprised. I'd also be surprised if you could tell me how the problems in the Middle East is our fault, mainly because it isn't. they attacked us.
"I'm right and you know it."
That is quite debatable.
"The wahhabis are to Islam as “the south” is to a New York liberal: racist, xenophobic, and violent."
Those condescending baboons. I'm in the south and I am none of those.
By the way, I suspect that Brockstar and Hithere are the same people. Either way, I wonder if they have jobs? Hey Brockstar(Hithere?), you asked for it.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 2:28 am
HA HA HA Finally Some people who actually sound half intelligent.. petty about their manners. I have insulted noone here but have been called a Moore-on a Troll and a fucking Idiot in response to my OPINION! (See my original point about angry young men)

Okay Kids with Guns.. Here is the point I'm trying to make in cold black and white common sense:

1. ONE DAY TWO KIDS (who yes are Evil..duh!) DECIDE TO KILL.
2. THEY DECIDE TO GET GUNS
3. THEY JUST SWIPE THEM FROM A PARENT, A NEIGHBOUR, THEIR GRANDAD.. ANYONE WHO LEGALLY OWNS ONE....

OR..

THEY LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE THERE ISN'T A GUNSHOP IN EVERY TOWN. THEY HAVEN'T THE CONNECTIONS OR MONEY TO OBTAIN ONE THROUGH THE CRIMINAL UNDERGROUND..HMM PROBLEM.

4. INEVITABLY THEY MOVE ON AND EITHER KILL ANYWAY, OR COMMIT OTHER VISCIOUS ACTS..

Tha point being although the gun laws haven't solved the problem they've hindered these two, and minimized risk to some extent. If they were forced to use knives or home made Bombs, They may have thought twice about taking on a whole school of people.. They may not but chances are the casualties would be lower.

THE MORE GUNS ARE AVAILABLE.. THE GREATER THE POTENTIAL FOR MISSUSE.

You guys are just arguing that your freedom to bear arms is worth the risk of missuse (however small the risk).. By refusing to acknowledge the risk doesn't make it go away it just makes you sound like fucking idiots.


Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 2:58 am
EXTREMIST ISLAM THEN.. I did not once say they had "rationalized hatred of the US" or "IT WAS ALL AMERICAS FAULT" and i wasn't commenting on the years of Islamic extremism in the middle east, or terrorist acts in any other part of the world..

I was assesing the THREAT TO AMERICA!! GET IT.

And i deduced that if America had adopted more sensitive foreign policies in the past it would be LESS.

ie. Backing Saddam in the Iran war (and arming the Iranians at the same time, Supplying Israel with as many weapons as it likes and condeming Palestine, Arming Afghanistan in the war against Russia these weapons ultimately ended up in Taliban posession..

Note. America has dealt with the Taliban and very recently. Bush (Junior) was in discussion with them before 9/11 about placing a new oil pipe through Afghanistan to get to oil reserves in Turkmenistan. This deal would have obviously meant lots of money changing hands and going into Taliban pockets. Somthing the US didn't give shit about as recently as that.

MY point being if the US had given more of a shit over the years the threat would be LESS now.. they haven't just decided to target the US randomly coz they're jealous of your sneakers.

I heard George Bush on TV the other day.. he said "The day I stood at Ground Zero I decided America was at war and the war would be won". I think everyone would agree he has stuck by that..

Well is this really the thought process of the leader of the free world? Sentiments like these are not giving tragedies like 9/11 any respect at all.. boiling it down to goodies and baddies.

A true world leader would have had the courage for some serious introspective queries at this point. WHY HAVE THEY DONE THIS? not just WHO? and LET"S GET THEM.

Objections to the war in Iraq were as much about Bush's arrogance and refusal to negotiate as much as any one else.. If Bush had waited just a few months and gone through the proper channels he probably could have garnered support for the war, maybe even from the UN. Instead he has isolated America and made even more enemies..

His sentiments may sound all GUN HO and for the good of the country. But he is not acting intelligently enough.. and he is not giving one of the greatest problems of the civilized world any respect.



Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 3:15 am
As for the Michael Moore issue (jesus i don't even think he's that great.. go and read some Chomsky America)..

Jim K (and the rest).. I didn't say it was okay for him to "lie" or "bend the truth" I said it was okay for him to use the regular methods of gaining mass recognition in America.. why not? The Bush administration does the same. As for him living in a fancy appartemnt well so what.. do politicians ever live under the real consequences of there poicies.. But my real point is SO WHAT IF HE IS RICH. SO WHAT IF HE IS A HYPOCRIT. GET OVER IT. RICH HYPOCRITS HAVE BEEN IN POWER FOR YEARS.

It is basically a personal attack on him which is a waste of your time.. go and pull his ideas apart, go and Prove he is lying.. then people might be as interested in you as they are in him.

Jim K .. as for extending hime that "kind of leeway" (refer to your post).. we'll i didn't mean any of that to start with so as for talking my way out of your logic i don't have to.

But since you ask so nicely... yes you have a good point actually if one side is granted that kind of leway the other should too. Well governemnts have been taking that kind of thing for granted for years.. Does anyone really believe Bush didn't talk up the threat of Iraq to facilitate his war plans? (Your point Jim K) Anyone who thinks any political party is free from this kind of hypocrisy is a fool.. so why shouldn't an author use the same kind of hypocrisy to his advantage... Yes very good point Jim K. It does work both ways doesn't it.


Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 3:29 am
And on to your manners and jeuvenille aggression then..

What kind of world uses the word "Liberal" as a cuss?

Some of us might be sandle wearing bearded pussies nibbling celery and blubbing over frozen chicken.. But at the end of the day we just want every thing to be nice.. what's wrong with that. Liberals will protest against anything they feel is unjust regardless of associated politics.

If someone actually dropped a bomb shell and proved that MM was lying through his teeth and sending all his money to the KKK.. liberals would be the first ones to protest.

Whats so wrong with wanting everything to be nice, and just, and equal. What's so bad about wanting less guns in family homes (what is the point of them being there? (Que: millions of ridiculous justifactions with no context in every day life))

If your look up Liberal in the dictionary it is a possitive word.. I'm proud to be called Liberal.

It's a sick world that can turn this word into a cuss.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 23, 03 | 3:48 am
I hate to be pedantic Moogi, but from years of regular forum and chat room use, people who type whole sentences in CAPS on a regular basis eventually get banned for being pathetically sleazy/pathetically stupid/hated by all.

Let's disect your post:

3. THEY JUST SWIPE THEM FROM A PARENT, A NEIGHBOUR, THEIR GRANDAD.. ANYONE WHO LEGALLY OWNS ONE.... OR.. THEY LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE THERE ISN'T A GUNSHOP IN EVERY TOWN. THEY HAVEN'T THE CONNECTIONS OR MONEY TO OBTAIN ONE THROUGH THE CRIMINAL UNDERGROUND..HMM PROBLEM.

You're right that it definitely hasn't solved anything. Where do you think the Columbine killers got their guns from? The main weapon used by Klebold was a Tec-9 that he bought from a man (illegally) for $500 [Source]. This weapon was fired 55 times, representing 82% of all shots Klebold fired on that day. [there's a source for that one too.]

As ZZip said, "The US has almost 3X as many gun deaths per 100,000 people as Switzerland, yet guns are far more accessible in Switzerland" - this is a fact. Let's look at another, according to The Swiss Federal Department Of Foreign Affairs: The use of firearms in crimes in Switzerland is relatively rare. In 1998, official police statistics reported 66 cases in which guns were used in attempted or successful homicides, 64 cases in which they were used to inflict bodily harm and another 475 cases in which firearms were used in armed robberies.

That's 605 cases all up. The Office Of Juvenile Justice and Delinquincy Prevention claims that there are 44 million gun owners in the USA. There were just less than 14,000 firearm homicides in 1996, and approximately 42,000 non-fatal shootings. That's a lot more than Switzerland with their easy access to guns, even when you take into account the change in population.

Fedstats reports that the USA's population in 2001 was 284,796,887. PopulationWorld says that Switzerland is home to 7,376,000. Thus, 1 in 67055 Swiss get killed or injured by shootings each year, but 1 in 5086 Americans get killed or injured in shootings each year.

So maybe there is a culture of violence in America, I can't prove or disprove that. But legally available guns does not lead to increased gun crime, as you have tried to say.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 23, 03 | 4:03 am
If someone actually dropped a bomb shell and proved that MM was lying through his teeth and sending all his money to the KKK.. liberals would be the first ones to protest.

You're 100% right... they would protest about the biased coverage and lies of any press that would dare to make such an outrageous claim.

Did Liberals protest against the Western World sticking up for Kosovo? Yes, they did... crying out against the bombing of Serbian military and political targets. America and it's allies saved a ton of lives when they did that, 'cause Slobodan Milosevic was so busy putting people in mass graves because they were Albanian, or Muslim, depending on who you want to believe. It's still genocide.

According to The USIS Washington File, an estimated 11,000 people were buried in 529 mass graves. Why? Because they were in Kosovo.

If Bush killed one Mexican because he was Mexican, would there be an outrage? Hell yes there would be. But because it's a dictator, Liberals don't care?

And thus, there's a reason why the word "Liberal" is a cuss. Because so many Liberals have made it a matter of hypocritical shame to be one in the eyes of the Right.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 4:08 am
So you think there is a culture of violence in America? Sounds like another good reason to make guns illegal..

Statistics mean nothing and can be used to prove anything.. I want to hear common sense.

Hah Hah so 82% of the shots fired came from an illegally bought weapon then.. what's your point? That means 18% came from Legally owned weapons.

If you want to talk stats and percents.. i believe it's worth making guns illegal to get rid of that 18%.. it's not a sollution to "violence culture" but it's a help..

What do you actually NEED a gun for?

p.s . I"LL TYPE ANYWAY I LIKE.. I"M NOT INSULTING PEOPLE LIKE MANY OF THE GUYS ABOVE.. INCLUDING JIMK who is a founder of this site and should know better

Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 4:15 am
Your point about Liberal being a cuss...

Arguing that Liberals don't care what dictators do etc... you really have made no effort to understand any of the points have you.

Saying Liberals support Saddam Hussein is as stupid as saying the USA supports global imperiallism.. it's not an argument its just stupid.

Do you really think all those carrot munchers support evil reigimes just for the sake of being a Troll.. I've just found out what everyone means by this (convenient and quick put down when you can't think of a point to argue in your defence i would say)

Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 4:21 am
Come on Wheels.. you said "let's dissect your post"

And you raised only two points. One was lots of meaningless stats that everyone allways brings up.. the other was a stupid cliche of Liberals.

Come on shape up... show some originality.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 23, 03 | 4:38 am
Last time I checked, "So maybe there is a culture of violence in America, I can't prove or disprove that" does not equal "I think there is a culture of violence in America".

Making guns illegal won't stop the deaths. Let's look at South Africa. IANSA says that they have 49.8 firearm deaths per 100,000 people compared with 11.1 in the USA, and 6.28 in Switzerland. As has already been addressed her, Switzerland is more pro-gun than the USA, so I'll focus on South Africa.

Their laws encourage gun ownership, and they are based on two completely weird principles.
1. Whites needed guns during apartheid to protect themselves from the Black race.
2. Blacks now need guns to protect themselves from Whites with guns.

So what does the government now try to do? Go from a gun free-for-all (which obviously doesn't work) to trying to almost ban all guns (which isn't going to work). The reasons guns are used to so often, according to a Police Inspector in Soweto (which could be described as South Africa's attempt to outdo LA gang stereotypes) is that "The judgment will be light. The person knows he will get out in a few months."

The people doubt that the laws will be able to be enforced, and while they want weapons out of the hands of criminals, they want to be safe. Now when the police and the justice department aren't up to the job, what are you going to do?

I got this message from a South African on a message board. He says:
In the year 2000, the local communist party (well, they arent quite communists), ANC, put in new gun laws in an attempt to cut down on violent crime. Shortly after this, my friend left. After these laws (I haven't looked too much into detail) it appeared thatthe only people with guns were the criminals who aquired them illegally and there was a rapid increase in violent crime.

It directed me to an article written by a bloke called L. Neil Smith. It had some very interesting points, like:

In every jurisdiction that has made it even microscopically easier for individuals to carry weapons, violent crime rates have plummeted by double-digit percentages. Vermont, where no permission of any kind is required to carry a gun, is named in many respectable surveys as the safest state to live in.

It also then goes off into an anti-government tirade, which I don't have the time, patience or energy to get into right now. Plus it's a mile off topic.

Now I don't agree with all the article, but he does make some valid points. If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. And that's all the encouragement a criminal would ever need.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 23, 03 | 4:44 am
Saying Liberals support Saddam Hussein is as stupid as saying the USA supports global imperiallism.. it's not an argument its just stupid.

I never said they supported Saddam, or Milosevic. I said they were against the removal of them through force, which worked a treat for stopping mass graves.

As for my apparent limited disection... You didn't raise many other proper points, and none that I felt were worth answering. You then went off topic in later posts which I do not have the time to respond to, unfortunately. Also, some sections of your comments made next to no sense to me, and I'm not going to risk humiliation by taking what you said entirely out of context through a serious lack of understanding. Pity you didn't do the same about my above comment...

Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 4:53 am
Well you've allready asessed that you think culture "may" have a part to play in gun deaths (and I agree it's common sense) so comparing America to South Africa is ridiculous because their histories and cultures are so completely different..

South Africans for decades had none of the infrastructure to protect them that Americans have.. if you think the American police are corrupt try your luck in developing countries..

In long periods of civil unrest it probably is neccessary for people to own guns to protect themselves.. i would want one too.

America is in no such state though.. you don't have to protect yourself from the police, the army, Gurilla fighters etc.

And owning a gun won't protect you from terrorism either..

so really your point is pretty pointless.. unless we lived in South Africa.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 4:58 am
Well as a Liberal i don't agree we were against removing them by the use of force.. we were against the wider issues that stem from this, and the haste at which force was used against Iraq. And the lies which were used to back this up.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 5:05 am
NEXT!! Ha Ha... thanks for your comments by the way this is one of the best chatrooms i've been on..

I hope you realise this all stems from my criticism of my original post so if i seem to have gone off point, Wheels, then please retrace your steps. If you don't understand what i mean just ask.

Anyway i'm bored.. back later.

Posted by: Wheels on Nov 23, 03 | 5:37 am
I remember anti-US marches in Sydney, Australia because of the actions against Saddam. They weren't large, but they were the same type of people who protested against war, Bush's visit to Australia etc...

With reference to South Africa, I'll agree to an extent. Yes, very different circumstances. In fact, I agree up until owning a gun won't protect you from terrorism. That depends on what type of terrorism. If you see terrorists running into a school with guns just after dropping your kids off (I know, I'm going to great lengths to concoct these scenarios), wouldn't you agree that if law abiding citizens had guns, they would have a much greater chance of averting casualties?

Posted by: mehitchcock on Nov 23, 03 | 5:39 am
Moogi.
You made the same mistake here as I did.
I came here to examine the many sides of the issues Moore brings up.
Wether the people who frequent this site are victims of some kind of bipolarization syndrome or wilfully simplify every issue into two sides, I do not know.
You are comitting the mistake of imagining these people will think about anything you write which does not fit into their preconceptions.
You and I don't agree on many things, but somehow by the denizens of this site we are equal: brainwashed trolls and the such.
Anyhow, good luck.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 23, 03 | 6:26 am
Moogi

yeah but it wasn't allways like this you have to address the reasons that cause people to think like that in the first place.

A strict reading of the Koran states that all non-Muslims are to be subjugated or killed. That has nothing to do with US foreign policy. Read THIS.

Posted by: mehitchcock on Nov 23, 03 | 6:44 am
Way to go jwilliamsii!
Ask some Western pundit to strictly read the Quran for you instead of going and reading a translation for yourself. You should find it in the 397 or 297 section of a dewey decimal library.
Muhammad commands that in jihad not even the smallest leaf on the smallest tree be harmed and that the innocent should be spared, especially women and children.
Before some simpleton says I'm defending terrorists, I should tell you that strictly speaking "Muslim" terrorists are as devout and pious as "Christian" aortion clinic bombers. That is to say, not at all.
In fact, most Imans and clerics agree that the word "jihad" carries the meaning of a personal struggle against sin.
As for being "subjugated or killed," how the f&*k is that any different from any other civilization on Earth? Think about it. No matter how nice we think we're being, technically, we've subjugated the peoples of Afghanistan, Iraq, America (before you howl at me, ask a Cherokee), Hawaii (look it up if you take exception), and many other places.
Read some world history and wonder at the fact that during the time when Christians were killing all the Jews, Muslims, witches, and heretics (many of whom were peace loving Christians), not to mention killing eachother, the Muslim empire flourished with Christians, Jews, paganistic pantheists, and others living within their borders.
I can't believe people are actually swayed when some American tells you about another place or people, without once bothering to do some independant research.
And the they have the nerve to call Moore supporters brainwashed zombies.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 6:47 am
I'm not saying it is all down to US Foreign Policy... For the last time... stop saying the same things over and over are you all stupid???

I was assessing the THREAT to America... fool.

As for paths of The Koran stating "all non-Muslims are to be subjugated or killed" so what.. have you read the bible recently you could find a thousand excuses in there for killing practically anyone.

Out of interest what does the Koran actually say jwilliamsii? Have you read it...that link didn't say it was just some opinion that backed yours up.

mehitchcock is right you guys don't want a discussion and you do just disguard everything that doesn't fit your preconceptions..

However i will still keep posting here as a) someone somewhere might start talking sense b) more to the point it's fun watching you guys squirm and dig yoursleves deeper holes....

We will bury you like the relics you are.

Posted by: moogi on Nov 23, 03 | 6:54 am
Wheels you say..

"wouldn't you agree that if law abiding citizens had guns, they would have a much greater chance of averting casualties? "

how does this work exactly? Apart from in the fantastical scene you admit is highly unlikely... how does it actually work in the real world. When was the last time you had defend yourself by using a gun?? Ever?

| 1 2 3 4 | NEXT page


Add your comments

Click to format text (requires Javascript): Bold | Italic | Link


Characters remaining: Notify you when someone replies to this post?