Jump to content
aberdeen-music

US Soldier sues Michael Moore for 40 million dollars


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If the soldier wasnt in Iraq in the first place he wouldnt of needed to be in any documentary.

Yeah, its selective editing but that is tough shit. If these guys think they are really making a difference out in Iraq then they are kidding themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 million quid' date=' he's havin a laugh! he's a tit for going out there in the first place.... in my opinion[/quote']

I don't think you can call the soldier a "tit" for obeying orders. He joined the army to defend his country. It just so happens that his country believes that invading Iraq is defending it. To have such little respect for soldiers annoys me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluesxman

"The soldier is seeking $75m (40m) in damages. His wife is seeking an additional $10m (5.3m) because of the mental distress caused to her husband"

That bit makes my cynical chip skip into overdrive. o_O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:swearing:

Well I like Michael Moore but saying that he's a threat to the upper or middle class is just ridiculous. He's a multi-millionaire for fuck's sake.

exactly, and one who lives in one of the richest neighbourhoods in new york with a daughter in private school.

and for everyone saying the soldier has no right to sue for damages, try turning the situation round and imagining that a filmmaker used footage of you saying something without your consent AND used it entirely out of context to make it sound like you were saying something completely against what you believed in, and then made millions off of it. you'd be quick to do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NULL
:swearing:

exactly' date=' and one who lives in one of the richest neighbourhoods in new york with a daughter in private school.

and for everyone saying the soldier has no right to sue for damages, try turning the situation round and imagining that a filmmaker used footage of you saying something without your consent AND used it entirely out of context to make it sound like you were saying something completely against what you believed in, and then made millions off of it. you'd be quick to do something about it.[/quote']

Someone shagged Michael Moore? :puke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know' date=' he's fat eh? The bastard. He's also a threat to the (upper or) middle class....no surprise there will be 100's of you saying how much you agree.

<SPIT>[/quote']

Did I comment on his weight?

Did I suggest that he's a threat to the (upper or) middle classes?

I find his style of filmamking, journalism or whatever you like to call it quite frankly abhorent, just like your need to spit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Hoore

Bet you the fat sack of shite has set the whole thing up so that he can do one of his one-sided expose' jobs on the American legal system.

The guy's a self-serving tosspot.

Farenheit 911 was a dreadful movie - on many levels.

I hated that scene where Bush was at a kid's school and alledgedly got the announcement about Twin Towers.

Moore takes the complete piss out of Bush's reaction to the news - what exactly was the man expected to do? Just get up and leave a bunch of confused children? Tell the kids "Hey kids ,Twin Towers has just been fucked, lots of people are dead, some may be your relatives"?

I have no time for old G-Dubya, but you could see the life draining out of him before your very eyes - yet Moore used it as an opportunity to take an uncalled for, undignified cheap shot.

For shame.

DZL

Ps - he's a Fat Cunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bet you the fat sack of shite has set the whole thing up so that he can do one of his one-sided expose' jobs on the American legal system.

The guy's a self-serving tosspot.

Farenheit 911 was a dreadful movie - on many levels.

I hated that scene where Bush was at a kid's school and alledgedly got the announcement about Twin Towers.

Moore takes the complete piss out of Bush's reaction to the news - what exactly was the man expected to do? Just get up and leave a bunch of confused children? Tell the kids "Hey kids ' date='Twin Towers has just been fucked, lots of people are dead, some may be your relatives"?

I have no time for old G-Dubya, but you could see the life draining out of him before your very eyes - yet Moore used it as an opportunity to take an uncalled for, undignified cheap shot.

For shame.

DZL

Ps - he's a Fat Cunt.[/quote']

hmmm, surely george bush is open to that after he used a terrorist attack on his own country as an opportunity to stage an uncalled for, undignified invasion of an oil rich country which had nothing to do with those attacks. i'd say that was the cheaper of the two shots. but you know, george bush isn't fat so i guess he's okay.

so fucking what if michael moore is rich, fat and self serving. he's never claimed anything else. and if he uses editing to get a point across then so long as it's a good point then fine! there's no sense taking the moral high ground when you're protesting against a war and the rigging of elections! bush and his cronies would and have used much worse methods of disinformation than clever editing of some news footage.

anyway, the soldier probably doesn't have a case as i'm sure he'll have given permission to nbc to interview him and they own the footage and can give permission to moore to do with it as he see's fit without the consent of those interviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm' date=' surely george bush is open to that after he used a terrorist attack on his own country as an opportunity to stage an uncalled for, undignified invasion of an oil rich country which had nothing to do with those attacks. i'd say that was the cheaper of the two shots. but you know, george bush isn't fat so i guess he's okay.

so fucking what if michael moore is rich, fat and self serving. he's never claimed anything else. and if he uses editing to get a point across then so long as it's a good point then fine! there's no sense taking the moral high ground when you're protesting against a war and the rigging of elections! bush and his cronies would and have used much worse methods of disinformation than clever editing of some news footage.

anyway, the soldier probably doesn't have a case as i'm sure he'll have given permission to nbc to interview him and they own the footage and can give permission to moore to do with it as he see's fit without the consent of those interviewed.[/quote']

I don't Moore would be allowed to use it if he's edited it to make it seem the soldier was opposed to the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't Moore would be allowed to use it if he's edited it to make it seem the soldier was opposed to the war.

but the soldier has no say! nbc own the footage, moore will have asked permission to use the footage or part of the footage in a documentary and they'll say yes(no doubt for a fee). nbc won't care how it's used and they wouldn't need to ask the soldier for extra permission as he'll no doubt already have given permission to be interviewed.

the only issue here is moore's moral obligation, in which case he could argue that he misinterpreted the soldiers comments in the interview and that he believed he was using the footage in the correct context. the whole thing seems too subjective and open to interpretation anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the soldier would have a say. Not if the interview was kept in the context it was originally broadcast of course, but because Moore has edited it to seem like the soldier has said something he did not, I think he would be legally entitled to challenge Moore. Especially when Moore used it for money making purposes and broadcast it to quite a few million folk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the sound of it, he's not actually edited what the soldier said - he's just played it after a congressman saying they're leaving veterans behind. That's not really that much manipulation. Plenty worse goes on during elections.

And more to the point, where the hell did 45 mil come from. That's an absurd amount, that (to me) makes it obvious that he is doing it for publicity. Isn't that manipulation of the media?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The soldiers wife is wanting $10 million. That is taking the piss.

2) I thought that losing your arm would be far more of a problem than a section of footage which "might" look like he is misquoted. Put it this way, If you were giving consent to the Sun newspaper to print what you said to them do you really think that they would do it word for word?

3) The Iraq "war" is a fucking joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's something to do with the lengthy adjustment and recuperation period required when someone has both arms blown off...maybe he's had more immediate problems to deal with since the film came out.

You make a fair point - I did consider that the crazy US legal system may have just taken a long time to grind into gear. However, I still think that its a bullshit case. Perhaps he would be better spending his time taking the US government to court for sending him to Iraq in the first place to take part in a conflict which has a pretty shakey legal justification in the first place or he should sue the company that made the tyre on the Blackhawk helicopter which exploded and maimed him in the first place (the bbc story doesn't give too much detail but surely helicopter tyres don't just explode without reason) without wishing to sound facietious, both of these have more to do with any pain and distress he has suffered than Michael Moore. Moore didn't put words into his mouth, in fact Moore didn't even speak to him. As a filmmaker he has a right to cut footage together any way he sees fit.

The backlash against Moore seems to be a bit extreme ...and also a tad immature given that most anti-Moore comments are of the "he's a fat c*nt" variety. So the man's a pieabetic, who cares? Yes, you can pick holes in his movies and his selective use of facts, you can have issues with his manipulative techniques (show me a filmmaker who doesn't try to manipulate their audience though) but you can't take away from him that he is one of the few prominent voices of dissent in a country that has become increasingly polarised to a dangerous extent since 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm' date=' surely george bush is open to that after he used a terrorist attack on his own country as an opportunity to stage an uncalled for, undignified invasion of an oil rich country which had nothing to do with those attacks..[/quote']

Aw, geez peace, min (cue X-Files theme).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The backlash against Moore is more to do with the fact that his version of events is being held up as the "truth" about the Iraq war. Anyone who tries to justify the coalition action on any level (and believe me' date=' I've tried) immediately runs into the argument; "Michael Moore said so". You must agree that the film was a very one-sided document of the events at the time, and the publicity Moore managed to whip up by using fellow celebrities and the "usual suspects" from the political fringe only served to drown out any reasonable analysis and criticism of his work. I've been called a fascist, a right-wing lunatic, a warmonger, a Zionist (loved that one) and every other variant on the theme for saying that we did the right thing getting rid of Saddam.

At no time, though, did any of those people tell me what the UN was doing to contain Saddam's expansionist ambitions, his genocidal actions towards people within Iraq, his tacit support for terrorist activities and the wholesale breaches of trade sanctions in the years following the first Gulf war.

In effect what Moore has done is stifled reasonable debate on the issue, and is one of the key factors in the polarisation of American political discourse today.[/quote']

moore presents an argument in the form of a documentary. i don't think you can blame him for other peoples failure to use their own intelligence and to see what moore's missed out.

it's a shame moore's the only really high profile and effective voice the bush opposition seem to have amongst younger people in america as it makes it easier to point at his techniques as being uniquely disingenuine. perhaps on the bush opposition they are, the bush government is also keen to wheel out their own regular roster of political celebrities and techniques wholly intent on stifling debate and discourse with regards to their administration.

i don't really think anyone with a brain can argue that saddam was good for iraq, but the real argument has always and should always be about why and how we went to war. the government is accountable to the people who elected it yet both administrations have failed to answer questions that the electorate want answered. moore's techniques might not be great journalism but they're effective at raising awareness of important issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...