Well if you consider that F911 is pretty much fiction and consider the President to be playing a role in the film, I suppose that makes sense.

Vic

Very Creepy. Very Scary. I'm in London now and they don't like that Bush guy.

Huh, Vic? "Fiction", documentary, fantasy..what's the diff? Bush was featured in a film. And right now for a lot of people he's scarier than any fictionalized film villain in recent memory.

He sure looks scary every time I see him on tv. But personally I think Britney Spears was even more scary in F911 !

Yeah, Bush is really scary. But the one who scared me the most in F911 was Britney Spears !! She terrifying !!

i could go on forever, but i think it's awesome that the dissent is so widespread.

anyone but bush, 2004

Vic, we all know about the legitimacy of F-911 as a documentary in the strictest sense of the term, but the footage and actions of Bush didn't and won't ever need to be doctored. The guy's a walking joke and is scarier than any other person/character/villain on the planet at the moment because while Doc Ock is confined in a celluloid prison, Bush isn't.

This f*ckers real... Scary, scary, scary.

It's weird because a man of Bush's intelligence, logically, should never have made it up to the top of that list. Villain's are reknowned for being evil geniuses... Putting Bush at the top of the list is like putting Elmer Fudd up there.

I hope you guys vote him out so he doesn't have the opportunity to head that poll again next year.

Well I would just hope that all you guys would take the time to rent FahrenHYPE 911 for the other side.

Vic

"Jesus wouldn't drop bombs on people" - Tony Campollo

It's a shame "W" never learned that particular lesson in Sunday school :P

It's a shame radical Muslims never learned not to slit the throats of innocent civilians. :-\

Vic

Uh...wasn't it the Pope that hired and sent our armies to torture and kill millions of people to convert them to Christianity? I'm descended from Vikings on the one side and Cherokee Indians on the other and we both got a wee bit more than trampled underfoot by the order of "peace-loving" Popes and the like.

Sorry, I know this is not the forum for that subject but I had to say it.

The "west" has just gone brain dead. We have psychos chopping peoples heads off, a North Korean dictator that starves his people, Mullahs and Imams talking about killing infidels in the 21st century, Sudanese Muslims going on rape sprees to breed out indigenous genes, U.N. nation members who take millions in oil bribes to protect a thug dictator, Europeans who sit and impotently whine .... and Bush is the biggest villian in the world. Unreal.

Crystal,

The Crusades were actually a response to the violent spread of Islam, and an effort to push it back before it took over Europe.

Back then Islam was spread via invasion and warfare. Your choice was pretty much "convert or die".

Vic

What a joke, people are so brainwashed with this manufactured hatred for Bush that they can't even discuss REAL movies without bashing the man. "Bush lied!! There were no WMD's!!! Bush is an idiot, he couldn't keep the WMD's from getting looted!!" Well? Which is it? You people want to have it both ways, but it doesn't work. Now they blame him for the hurricanes. Pearl Harbor was probably his fault too come to think of it...

Adam, Bush did lie about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It has been proven beyond all doubt and to refute it is to prove your naivety. It's been released in major government reports by the majority of coalition nations.

The recent reports about WMD's being looted have been inflated in a very grandiose manner. The 400 odd tonnes of explosives stolen were not weapons of mass destruction but rather conventional munitions including HMX and RDX which is used in plastic explosives. That is, the sort of explosives that have been used in car bombs etc. against U.S. forces.

It's not that we want "to have it both ways". The world wants to have faith in the U.S. President because he is essentially the leader of the western world, but unfortunately the current head of state is such an incompetent fool that he gives people no choice.

And Vic, the crusades were not just simply a response to the "violent spread of Islam. It was a conflict over land. The Christians believed they had sole right to the land and were angry because the Turkish forces had taken it. "Back then Islam was spread via invasion and warfare. Your choice was pretty much "convert or die"." You mean like the thousands of people of the Jewish faith and other religions who were killed by the Crusaders on their way to the Holy land because they would not convert to Christianity? Oh right, thanks for clearing that up. If you want to talk about blood thirsty expansion on religious grounds, why not take a look at the establishment of the Christian Roman Empire and the establishment of the Eastern Roman Capital in Constantinople. The area where the Turks (who would later take Jerusalem and cause the crusades) partially hailed from. Take a look at the use of the phrase convert or die there.

I'm not justifying the Islamic expansion into Jerusalem or any such thing, but there are always two sides to the story and both sides are guilty in history's eyes of horrific crimes. Kind of like the current conflict, only this time they're being held accountable during the conflict - not 900 years later.

I'm sorry about this John, I don't like to rant but when people are trying to perpetuate idiotic, ignorant and dangerous myths and ideals I feel it's important to bring to light the other side of the argument.

Fyi. There was just a report, not too long ago about, Russia taking Iraq's WMD's...So there for..Bush never lied, Russia just got there quicker.

Jeremy,

I suggest you read "Onward Muslim Soldiers" which is quite an eye opener about the the rise and history of Islam.

As to President Bush having "lied" about the WMDs, that's just plain wrong. There is a difference between being misinformed (by the CIA, the British, and the Russians) and lying. There were a number of disparate sources confirming the existance of weapons which made a strong case for their existence.

Vic

Vic, I'm not saying that the spread of Islam was in no way violent, I'm completely aware of that. What I am saying is that the spread of Christianity was just as violent and destructive and so there is reason to be emphasising the violence in the spread of Islam regarding the crusades, because the Christian forces were just as much at fault in their conduct.

And I'm sorry but I always thought a person was accountable for their own actions. I can just imagine Bush reminiscing over being a 5 year old and eating a whole tray of cookies when he wasn't supposed to, when asked about it he said his brother told him to - his parents accepted that response and didn't hold him accountable for the fact he did something wrong. What a perfect way to avoid blame on the Iraq situation! I'm sure the rest of the world is going to be that stupid that I can just blame one of my own government agencies, the evil reds, and those pompous twats over the Atlantic. Sorry, that isn't good enough for me and shouldn't be good enough for everyone else. He's the commander in chief, his decisions and actions impact the world - he needs to make sure the information he's acting on is valid and act accordingly. To say he was wrong in hind-sight is laughable, hell... Maybe if Hitler didn't commit suicide and had of said he regretted what he did in WW2 and that Goebels had just been feeding him bad information about the Jewish people and the rest of the world, we could have just let him get off scott free... What fantastic logic!

And Dmitri link me up with this report on the Russians, I haven't seen it around anywhere yet... Would like to read it, hasn't hit the mainstream press here in Oz yet :| The bain of being so far removed from the rest of the world!

Sorry, that was meant to read - "and so there is no reason to be emphasising".

Should probably read over these comments before posting them.

Vic,

The arrival of Christianity, the method of its' arrival and the reason for its' arrival in Iceland andScandanavia had nothing to do with the threat of the spread the of Islam. The goal was to replace the earth traditions indigenous to the people ("heathens") with a belief in the White Christ. In 1200 "A.D." Islam was not an issue in Scandanavia. Or in America.

Yes, the Crusades were about beating back Islam especially in Spain where they had a presence and an influence still recognizable in the architecture today. The Spanish Inquisition initiated to route out Jews from Spain and transformed into its' own monstrosity all in the name of Chrisitianity.

The fact is that the three "main" religions have always been at it with one another, competing and willing to kill viciously for followers, resources and land using an assumed superiority of what God is about as their justification.

Beheadings are beyond atrocious. No one denies that. But there's no sense in blaming the basic tenets of Islamic beliefs for them. The simple fact is that there are a large group of ("radical"?) powerful Christians (popes, kings, queens) that have always sanctioned, practiced and refined lengthy torture methods to get their way in the name of Christ. But none of that takes away from the basic tenets of Christianity.

I just don't think that America invading Iraq had anything to do with "pushing back Islam". It's an irrational response to 9/11. The CIA let that atrocity happen. But we certainly don't seem to be focusing on routing out Al Quaeda (aren't we supposed to be doing THAT?)

If we're so concerned with the "spread of Islam" why didn't we reprimand the Saudis (whom we seem to be in bed with) for their behavior with ethnic cleansing of the Sudanese (which has been going on for YEARS) in the name of Islam (and land)? We still haven't committed to helping fully with that situation. Where are the Christian voices in that?

If we're so concerned with the "spread of Islam" why didn't we reprimand the Saudis (whom we seem to be in bed with) for their behavior with ethnic cleansing of the Sudanese (which has been going on for YEARS) in the name of Islam (and land)? We still haven't committed to helping fully with that situation. Where are the Christian voices in that?

I certainly won't argue with you on those points.

Vic

The Problem here Vic (and by the way, you're one of my favorite posters here) is that the supposed "evidence" that Bush had was kept to himself.

I remember when he sent Powel (a man who i really respect) in front of the UN. I watched that with a lot of interest. Powel insisted that they had "Irrefutable and overwhelming" evidence, and that is was not a matter of "believing" there were huge amounts of weapons of mass destruction, but that they "knew beyond all doubt".

And yet, they would not show this "eveidence" to the rest of the world. It was a "Shut up and take our word for it" attitude that I was never comfortable with. And it's not like it was about 1 single weapons stash... they claimed to have undeniable evidence of dosens of weapons stashes. Were wrong and missinformed 43 times? That is either unforgivable incompotence on the part of Bush's administration or pure deception. And I don't believe even Bush is that incompotent.

Bush swore to the world that THE reason they were going to attack Iraq was because of WMDs. As it turns out, there were no WMDs, there was no immediate threat to the west from Iraq, and yet Bush has issued no appologies to any of the families of the 15,000+ iraqi soldiers and civilians who Bush murdered, or the families of the 1000+ brave American soilders who died for Bush's lie or incopotence.

Before you drop bombs and murder people, you make DAMN 100% POSITVE SURE that they are about to attack you. Bush knew this wasn't the case.

As far as Islam goes, remember this... Radical Islamics HATED and DETESTED Sadam Hussein because he was far too secular for their tastes. It was well documented how much anamosity Bin Laden had for the man. Iraq was not lead by a radical Islamic fundamentalist. It was ruled by a huge jerk... but not a radical Islamic jerk who was about to attack America.

Also, being an armchair theologian myself, it always struck me how Bush dared invoke the name of "God" in his actions when everything he did flew right in the face of all the teachings of Jesus. Tony Campolo was right when he claimed that "Jesus wouldn't drop bombs on people". For Bush to suggest otherwise and claim that it was his "Christian" duty to do so is stupidity at best, and herasy at worst.

As a Canadian, I love the United States. They are great brothers and sisters. I remember when 9/11 happend, thousands of Canadians flooded over the boarder to volunteer and assist in the rescue and care missions. Then, Canada orgianized a multi-million dollar campaign exclusivly aimed at getting Canadians to travel to New York and spend our vacation dollars there to help our brothers and sisters get back on their economic feet. We, as Canadians, do stand with our American counterparts. Heck, we even sent troops to Afganistan to assist in the capture of Bin Ladin (and a trigger happy F-15 American pilot bombed us accidently). But we stood with you. However, we can't stand with you, no matter how close we are as brothers and sisters, when an American President, who the MAJORITY of the people in your country did NOT elect, does something so underhanded and plays on our fears to try to bully us, or guilt us into supporting.

I do not believe George W Bush is an evil man. But I do believe he lied (then again, what politician doesn't?), but his lie cost tens of thousands of people (including Americans) their lives.

For the health of America, and for the sake of the rest of us in the world, please do not elect this guy (notice I didn't say "again").

Whhheeew... well... there's my little rant. Carry on! :)

Gio,

You should maybe change "we (Canadians) can't stand with you" to "I can't stand with you". In typical Eastern Canadian fashion you assume that the opinions of most Ontario folk speak for the rest of us. That could not be further from the truth, believe it or not. But then again, if anyone is an authority on electing a leader against the wishes of the majority of the electorate it would be our fine country.

And as far as your comments that "Bush knew this wasn't the case" that's a little bit of a stretch on your part. Bush's information on the presence of WMD may have been incorrect but to actually write that he essentially fabricated a lie to allow a war to start is an ignorant statement. Mind you, as a staunch supporter of a government that has lied continuously for 12 years who would be better able to pick out a lying politician...

Please note... I said I BELIEVE he lied, but that there are 2 options. 1) He Lied, 2) He and his administration were so absolutly incompotent that they didn't just get it wrong with 1 weapons site, not 2 weapons sites, not 3 weapons site, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7... but DOZENS of weapons sites that he claimed he had "Irrefutable and overwhelming" evidence. Ummmm... was he so totally wrong on every count? Believe what you want. Personally I don't think that the man is THAT stupid.

And I must have missed something... did another political party get more votes than the Liberals did in the last election?

And by the way, I'm not a "staunch" supporter of the Liberal Party... i just happen to think they'll do less damage than the other options out there right now. The majority of Canadians agree with me... then again... the majority can be pretty dumb at times. :)

So... anyone seen any good movies lately?

So... anyone seen any good movies lately?

Heh. As a matter of fact, I saw "Ray" a couple of nights ago. Been to busy to put a review up on my site yet, but it's worth it just for the incredible performances.

Seriously, Oscars all around for this one.

Vic

Yeah, it's gonna be biopic-tastic at the Oscars this year.

Actually, following on from the focus of this thread, I recently saw 'Mr Smith Goes To Washington' for the first time (it was a newly restored print at the London Film Festival). What a cracking film, and sadly as pertinent now as it was back then.