Did Moore point the blame of WTC on the Saudi's?

[TrustingDog]

Some people on other boards seem to think so.

I didn't get that impression at all... am I dense? The connection was clearly one of long time dubious financal ties to the Bush regime, to me. The fact that many of the 'hijackers' were Saudi citisens has been newsed since day one...

[stubertmcfly]

1. i think...

...he was showing that there was no iraq connection rather than necessarily saying that the saudi government was responsible. essentially saying, the vast majority of the hijackers were saudi, why the hell did we blow up iraq?

and then, yes, painted a strong picture that there is a saudi/bush connection.

[catzies]

2. I agree with both of you and I saw it twice. He didn't say it outright .

And welcome to DU, stubertmcfly! :hi:

[Cocoa]

3. he's raising that question

no doubt about it.

[jobycom]

9. But not asking it, nor answering it. That's important.

He didn't accuse SA of anything other than human rights abuses and being too close to the Bush family.

I suspect Moore-- like most people, including reportedly some in the Bush administration-- suspect that the Saudi government or some Saudi families may not be clean in all this. But Moore never said that, to the best of my recollection.

Whoopie!! An excuse to go see it again! Thanks.

[LiberalVoice]

4. I don't see how anyone could get that from F 9/11.

I didn't see that at all. He didn't even bring up the fact that there were 15 saudi's on the planes involved in 9/11 more then once or twice.

[Beware the Beast Man]

5. No, he didn't directly blame Saudi Arabia

But as was already said, there was a huge leap in logic as to who we went to war with. Considering that 15 of the hijackers were Saudis funded with Saudi money, it only made perfect sense to invade Iraq and Afghanistan :eyes:

So his thesis was that the reason why we didn't invade Saudi or at least do some policing of that nation is because of S.A's economic & business ties with the US.

[aden_nak]

6. He doesn't distribute blame.

What he does do is ask why no one else ASKED ANY QUESTIONS. He doesn't ever say, "The government of Saudi Arabia is responsible for 9/11," or anything of the sort. What he does point out, however, is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, the Saudi royal family has some very complicated and bothersome economic investments, and NO ONE in the media even MENTIONS these things.

He doesn't say they are guilty. He asks why they have not even been investigated. And it's a damn good question.

[TrustingDog]

8. thanks, well said and clear.

[jobycom]

7. No. He showed that Bush was too close, and that influenced him

He showed that Bush was close to the Bin Laden family and to Saudi Arabia, and that made him give preferential treatment to the Bin Laden family and not investigate any Saudi connections, which may have hampered our efforts to find Usama.

He also showed how much control the Saudis had over the American economy and how much influence they exerted on the American president, and how secret that influence and economic control is. He implied that Bush compromises our security and our economy because he cares more about the Saudi royal family than about the American people. And he pointed out that the Saudi government has a terrible human rights record, which implies two things: one, they don't support American values, and two, Bush has no interest in human rights, contrary to his claim that Iraq was about human rights abuses.

I saw no claim that linked the Saudi family to 9-11, although Moore did imply that their were some in the Bin Laden family who were still close to Usama, and might support him. Our lack of any investigation into any such connection has helped Usama go free.

I have to admit that I felt uncomfortable with Moore's stream of pictures of the Bush folk shaking hands with Arab Muslims in traditional dress. I felt like Arabs in general were being painted as the enemy, and Moore was almost using the gut fear many Americans have of Muslims to make Bush look bad. I didn't like that, it was awfully close to racist. I understand what Moore was saying, but I'm not sure everyone will make the distinction.

[gasperc]

10. No, but points out how we coddle them because of their investments

with 7% of our economy tied directly to Saudi money and investment, as he states what would happen if the Saudi's decided pull out a some or all of those investments by either selling securites, etc. The implication I get is that the Saudi's offer a hefty supply of oil to keep prices acceptable and in exchange we look the other way in terms of human rights abuses, the royalty and terror support. and to insure themselves they have heavy investments in the states that they can threaten to pull out if they are "displeased" with US policy toward SA. However, how this all plays with our support of Israel well I just can't figure out all the angles.

[mzmolly]

12. Right, this is also why Bush pulled the bait and switch on the American

public. He's not about to piss of his friends and stop the money train.

[mzmolly]

11. No, he stated the ridiculous nature of going after Iraq for 911, when not

one Iraqi was on the plane. Unfortunately, the plane was loaded with mainly Saudi men. That doesn't mean we should bomb Saudi Arabia, it's simply a statement of the facts as they have been presented.

[The Stranger]

13. All on the Saudis -- Not one mention of the Neoconservatives that were the

architects, over a ten year period, in bringing about the current and future war regime. Not one fucking mention of PNAC, Perle, Kristol, Feith or others.

[TrustingDog]

14. There's only so much to pack into 2 hours....

I think the film as it is, is already info overload for those who have not been listening with their eyes open for real news since 2000 as some of us do. Mike introduced enough material for the newly curious for a good start to find out more on their own.

If everything was to be included, it would have to be a weekly series.

[gottaB]

15. wow, is that right?

Would you recommend the movie anyway, or not?

[TrustingDog]

16. of course. :(

are you getting prickly for some reason?

[gottaB]

17. I was asking TheStranger

Because I believe I understand and agree with the criticism he is making.

I've seen your opinions. They don't persuade me. Thank you for sharing your recommendation, anyway.