A different take on Fahrenheit 911 : Melbourne Indymedia

"It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact."

- George Orwell 1984

It is with this quote that Michael Moore concludes Fahrenheit 911 (F911). I wonder what his intention was in using it? To give the impression that he is widely read? More likely to have the audience leave the cinema with the impression that it is the theme of this quote that his film had just addressed. And there is no doubt that they will also take away the films implied 'solution' of voting Bush out of office.

How does changing the leader of a hierarchical society solve the problems of a hierarchical society? It doesn't. It is no different to a campaign to replace the CEO of a multi-national corporation that had just been exposed of committing one atrocity or another. It will not change things. The atrocities will continue but with a newly legitimised public image.

A film like F911 reinforces the illusion of democracy and that is why it can be made and shown. Sure one particular wing of the two headed fascist regime (the Republicans) aren't happy with the film and are pulling out whatever stops it can to discredit it but so would any CEO in similar circumstances. After all, as the film all too well illustrates, there are significant personal benefits that accrue to whowever claims the title of President of the United States. As usual the true rulers, the corporations, will simply cover their bases to ensure that whichever head gains control this November they will always be answerable to them.

The film is littered with references of removing Bush from the White House and constant mentioning of the Democrats as though they are the saviour in waiting. There is only one negative reference about the Democrats and this is quickly brushed aside, obviously included in an attempt to imply a balanced critique. Moore gives the impression that the problems of the US began with Bush's election in 2000 and will conclude with Democrats winning the next election.

The film does contain very moving footage of the Iraqi victims of US bombs. The footage is graphic, but probably not graphic enough. Especially when you consider the relative time given to the costs of the lives of US troops. It would appear that the lives of an illegal occupying military machine are of greater importance than obviously innocent Iraqi civilians.

Moore devotes significant screen time to following around a mother from his home town of Flint who lost a son in Iraq. Here he really screws notions of innocence around so that both he and his first world audiences can absolve themselves of any personal guilt. This is a woman who admits to always having hated anti-war protesters from Vietnam onwards because she has always encouraged family members to enter the military. She claims that she took it as an attack on her relatives but now that her son has been killed she sees that they were protesting the idea of the war not the troops themselves. She now wants to get rid of evil George, so life can return to the way it was. She hasn't stopped raising her American flag, she doesn't question further because she ONLY needs to address the specifics relating to the loss of her son. I'm sure you think that I am being harsh on her. I only singled her out because Moore decided to allocate so much time to her. She is symptomatic of the entire first world culture. It is only when events directly touch them that they start to give a stuff.

Which brings us to the September 11 attacks. The film does not address WHY these attacks took place at all, it merely focusses on Bush's response to them. The implication is that there was not justification for the attacks at all, after all that would implicate Democrats as much as Republicans. A serious investigation of this would also run the risk of finding little innocence in the 'victims' on the upper floors of the World Trade Centre and the US military headquarters otherwise known as the Pentagon.

F911 is essentially a patriotic film and Moore himself says that the US is a "great country". The message is that Bush is guilty while the Iraqis, America and the American public are innocent.

Who in the first world can really claim innocence anyway? We benefit significantly from death and exploitation committed in our name yet refuse to see or hear of it. I experience this with my family who will simply change the subject or cease to listen when I attempt to discuss anything that challenges their world view. Were they to fall victim to a "terrorist" attack, I would be devastated BUT I would not be proclaiming their innocence.

And what of the hundreds of thousands in Australia and millions around the world who protested the invasion of Iraq? How can they claim innocence when they are aware yet do nothing to put a stop the atrocities? A peaceful weekend march in protest does NOTHING other than to falsely ease the consciences of the marchers, who then return to business as usual to play their role in the death machine. If the same hundreds of thousands of Australians rioted and continued to riot would the government still have sent troops? If people had of refused to work thus bringing the economy to a standstill would troops still have been sent? But to do something more than marching would have meant giving up their privilege. Their privilege of bearing moral witness to the atrocities while continuing to benefit from them.

This film will do nothing to decrease the likelihood of a terrorist attack. It is a business as usual film encouraging one man to step aside and to put a less accident prone one in charge. Then we can keep the focus on the "terrorists" as being the bad guys, instead of us.

I learnt no significant new facts from F911. All that is contained in the film has been within easy reach of anyone with an internet connection or able to afford thirty dollars for a book. There is little excuse for being ignorant. The real issue isn't not knowing, it is not caring.

I would have said much the same thing in much the same way. However innit nice to have a balance veiw? on one side you have pulp bias on moore theres a indipendent couterweight and now we can all sit in the middle being swayed...but ultimatly theres not much choice between nasty and just plain evil.

Simon if you cut your comment to Eudora it shows you spelling mistakes - once fixed, which takes but a minute or two, it can be pasted back out - I just tell you that so you don't lose a single fan!

As for Michael Moore, he has long way to go to create as much pre-anarchy as the POTUS who is in a class of his own.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politicisation Running Amok
Senior Military Officers Say 'Vote Liberal'

Jul 16th 2004

Melbourne radio broadcaster and commentator Joseph Toscano has revealed that senior officers in the Australian military are telling their troops how to vote at the upcoming Federal election. Across the country and overseas, Australian military personnel are being told that if they want to keep their jobs, they, along with family and friends, must vote for the Liberal Party/National Party Coalition at the next Federal election, according to one source familiar with the military.
This news has come in the face of an allegation by General Peter Cosgrove to the Senate estimates committee hearing that Prime Minister John Howard is breaking a long-standing convention against the images of defence personnel being used for "unmistakably political purposes". Voters have been receiving images of John Howard posing with military personnel from Liberal Party MPs and candidates. Critics have been angry by the politicisation of the Australian military, which is supposed to be an arm of the state, rather than the Federal Government.

[Discuss | Anarchist Age Weekly Review | Department of Defence]

Thanks wildman for excellent crit of Far911. Moore certainly did pull his punches on many issues (e.g. 911 collusion, depleted uranium weapons as genocide, stolen electionS ) and helped first worlders feel like victims rather the perpetrators we are.

I dont think tho that it was ever a certainty that he could/would make this film. I reckon the massive resistence to the latest resource wars gave the Mil-Corp-State a fright. Afraid that the people, if aroused, would get to the bottom the very dark shit going on in the world, those holding the purse strings decided to sacrifice Bush & Co to the myth of democracy, to 'settle the natives'.

So Moore can expose a few minor lies & misdeeds, take down a few promising puppets, be part of the 'limited hangout' (Mike Rupperts phrase); but dont expect to see the big and ugly truths - that schooling imprints conformity, that resource depletion means our children will be lucky to visit Brisbane, never mind Mars, & that ecocide is our biggest legacy).

After Kerry wins US election (assuming the Bush junta goes quietly) expect lots of self congratulation by mainstream media, lots of cliches about how well it all works, and business as usual (i.e. more wars for oil).

Pr Good advice, but that’s cheating, I intend to make lots of mistakes, that is how one learns.
It’s a sorry world when such mistakes are rated higher than what is said, correct spelling is not as important as correct math. No one ever crashed a billion dollars of Tec on Mars because they spelt imperial wrong, their intellect was never discounted.

BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE
JULY 28, 2004
A NOT-SO-NEUTRAL CORNER
By Ciro Scotti

An Issue Too Hot for Fahrenheit?

[...]
And despite Moore's brilliant use of humor and pathos to deliver a political broadside, Fahrenheit is seriously flawed. A critic as tough as Michael Moore could make the case that the great auteur has foisted on the country an argument against U.S. involvement in Iraq that avoids the central reason behind the invasion. Talk about being chicken-hearted and missing the big story.

The film goes on about filial revenge and oil, but it never ventures onto really touchy turf -- namely the role of fiercely pro-Israel neocon hawks in convincing Bush to go to war. The elephantine Mr. Moore conveniently fails to mention that other pachyderm in the Democratic room. Why didn't Fahrenheit go there, Mr. Moore?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_2965_db009.htm

===============================
Michael Moore, Ugly American
Filmmaker Taken to Task for Arrogance, IGNORING ISRAEL
By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 13, 2004; 10:30 AM

[...]
"The most common SUBSTANTIVE criticism is that [Moore] scants the role of Israel in the politics of the Iraq war."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46304-2004Jul13.html

==============================
Stupid White Movie
What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire
By ROBERT JENSEN

[...]
To raise questions about U.S. policy in the Middle East without addressing the role of Israel as a U.S. proxy is, to say the least, a significant omission.

http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html
===============================

I have many political criticisms of this film, but my reservations are heavily outweighed by the fact that it's offering a wide audience in the US and around the world a taste of the class nature of war and imperialism. We see how the US war machine directly preys on the working class when Moore follows around two Marine recruiters as they single out young blacks and poor whites who might see the military as a way of getting an education and a decent job.

To say these kids are complicit in the crimes of Imperialist America is an absolute load of tosh. They are the victims of it. The quote by Orwell which the reviewer fails to understand is about the war the rich and powerful perpetuate on their own populations. The lastest wars on terror and Iraq have given cover to massive job cuts in the US were the poorest are copping it the hardest while the rich are getting tax cuts by the bucket load. The idea that "first world" workers are in some way responsible for the crimes of their rulers and therefore justifiably targets for terrorism takes political insanity to a new level. That makes everybody living in first world countries an enemy. How are you going to change the world, pilgrim? With your own isolated moral outrage? Call me an old fashioned Marxist, but I think it makes sense to reach out to these people and point out that first world workers and third world workers have more to gain by fighting war and capitalism together than they do in fighting one another.

As for the claim that Moore's soul political objective is getting Kerry elected, Marian Wilkinson reported in Saturday's age:

"Carter then appalled some in the Kerry camp by inviting the film maker, Michael Moore, to sit next to him in the convention hall. This gesture was not the whimsy of a man approaching 80, but one looking anxiously to the future. Moore's anti-war film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is wowing the party activists and many returning Iraq veterans around the country.

But while Moore is furiously promoting his documentary in an effort to defeat Bush, he made it clear that if Kerry wins this election, his camera will be turned on the new Democratic administration. Moore, along with many Democrats, will ask what Kerry's exit strategy from Iraq will be, beyond a vague hope that the international community will come to America's help."

Um Simey, I didn't mean don't make mistake mistakes old darling - just wanted to point out spelling mistakes can lead to fewer readers - pardon my rudeness.

Now for this Trotskist pain in the arse...

"...To say these kids are complicit in the crimes of Imperialist America is an absolute load of tosh. They are the victims of it..."

Kids like Lyndie Englund and her Cenobite boyfriend ARE FUCKING OBVIOUSLY FUCKING COMPLICIT IN THE FUCKING CRIMES OF IMPERIALIST AMERIKA!

What are you saying here GMAB..." who are you going to belive? Me or your lying eye's?'

More absolute tosh from an abolute trotting toshmeister it would be hard to top but I'm sure you'll find a way.
Those who commit crimes against humanity must pay and there is no statute of limitations either you Trotskyist arsehole.

I saw Farenheit 9-11 last night. It wasn't nearly as powerful a movie as I thought it was going to be - but then people on the left have seen all this kind of footage and more, because generally we seek it out. I think the important thing to remember is that for a lot of people it is a new way of looking at things, and they may not have been exposed to these kinds of anti-war arguments before - especially not in America.

The film is quite soft and annoyingly patriotic at times...but that doesn't mean that audiences can't draw their own conclusions and conclusions that go further than Michael Moore's.

I think just the idea of the movie itself is more powerful than actually seeing it. The way that right-wing critics are scrambling to discredit it and the way it presents the anti-war argument to a huge audience (even if a lot of us would make that argument in a much stronger way) - these are the things to feel hopeful about.

Michael Moore doesn't make a revolutionary argument, or even a hard left argument - because that is not his politics at all. He is a soft left populist, in my opinion - so we shouldn't expect much more than that from him. What his film does though is contribute hugely to the anti-Bush and anti-war sentiment out there, and the rest of us can build on that in the activism and campaigns we're involved in.

Lots of people know that Mike Moore doesn't have the answers - but seeing his movies gets them to start thinking about the issues and drawing their own conclusions. If we want people to draw better conclusions we have to be out there having the discussions with people and pushing for a harder position on the question of the war.

Thanks for identifying yourself as a marxist.

I did not deny oppression of first world workers. Oppression is created by the heirarchy and there is therefore a hierarchy of oppression. On this hierarchy of oppression I'd say that first world workers aren't too bad off when compared with the obscene oppression visitied upon those in the third world.

The underlying point I was making about guilt is that we claim moral superiority because we attend demonstrations, sign petitions, burn candles or whatever. None of this does anything tangible to change what is being visited upon the third world. The only thing it does is separate us (in our own minds) from the collective destruction imposed by the first world as a whole. When viewed from that angle it is nothing short of disgusting. On top of that it reinforces the illusion that we have a functioning democracy.

I find it sad that you are putting your faith in the likes of Mike Moore to keep the rulers of the world honest.

Obviously we're coming at this from different political perspectives. Whereas you see it as a problem of heirarchy (and who could deny the inherent power imbalances that exist?), I see capitalism as the underpinning cause of war and the other crises we face. I don't hold first world workers responsible for the situation of third world workers. The causes of the relative disadvantage faced by workers in the third world are embedded in a global system of exploitation.

I don't agree with your assumption about the supposed moral superiority of protestors at all. Many of the people who took part in the demonstrations prior to the war were very demoralised that the war went ahead regardless. This means they weren't seperated from the destruction of the war. The opposite is true. People were deeply upset by the horror that was unleash on the Iraq people and felt all of their efforts were useless. I don't recall anybody slapping themselves on the back at this point. Those demonstrations and the millions that marched highlighted the craven and bloody-minded direction Bush and Co had set themselves on in their decision to invade Iraq.

The other problem is that it pre-supposes that nothing can be achieve by this kind of political activity when history shows it can. Blockades by wharfies helped to secure Indonesian independence after WWII and massive global actions against the Vietnam War by regular people and returned soldiers turned the tide in the US and other allied countries like Australia.

There must be a starting point to movements that can achive these kind of outcomes and by saying its all useless before you start you might as well cut off your legs before running a marathon.

I don't put my faith in Michael Moore to save the world, as I said I have many politcal differences with him. This will be a task that only masses of people can achieve in both the first and third worlds. It goes without saying, the crappy so-called "democracy" we have is no substitute for a genuine global revolt against war and capitalism.

Yes, we are approaching this from different perspectives.

Just to clarify however. Of course people are demoralised that the war went ahead etc, I was not denying that they were (as we all were). Nor am I saying that it is useless to be doing anything. In my orignal article I pointed out two hypothetical possible actions, as opposed to a peaceful march, that in my opinion would have prevented Australia taking part. My point is that both of those options were within the capabilities of those who marched.

However they did not take those options for two main reasons. Firstly (in the case of rioting) it goes against a supposed 'morally superior' postion of pacifism. My point is that it is not morally superior, what it does is limit tactical options when what we should be doing is preventing the likes of the Iraq invasion by whatever means it takes. Secondly (in both cases) it does not preserve privlege - there is no magic pill to preserve first world privlige while ending exploitation of the third world.

our new "regulars"
by Too Hot for GMAB and wildman Monday August 02, 2004 at 06:34 PM

Nice bit of non-substative repartee you have going there, GMAB and wildman...

================================
BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE
JULY 28, 2004
A NOT-SO-NEUTRAL CORNER
By Ciro Scotti

An Issue Too Hot for Fahrenheit?

[...]
And despite Moore's brilliant use of humor and pathos to deliver a political broadside, Fahrenheit is seriously flawed. A critic as tough as Michael Moore could make the case that the great auteur has foisted on the country an argument against U.S. involvement in Iraq that avoids the central reason behind the invasion. Talk about being chicken-hearted and missing the big story.

The film goes on about filial revenge and oil, but it never ventures onto really touchy turf -- namely the role of fiercely pro-Israel neocon hawks in convincing Bush to go to war. The elephantine Mr. Moore conveniently fails to mention that other pachyderm in the Democratic room. Why didn't Fahrenheit go there, Mr. Moore?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_2965_db009.htm

===============================
Michael Moore, Ugly American
Filmmaker Taken to Task for Arrogance, IGNORING ISRAEL
By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 13, 2004; 10:30 AM

[...]
"The most common SUBSTANTIVE criticism is that [Moore] scants the role of Israel in the politics of the Iraq war."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46304-2004Jul13.html

==============================
Stupid White Movie
What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire
By ROBERT JENSEN

[...]
To raise questions about U.S. policy in the Middle East without addressing the role of Israel as a U.S. proxy is, to say the least, a significant omission.

http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html
===============================

"The world according to Bush" pissed all over Moore's pathetic film.

Just ask Andrew:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10264401%255E25717,00.html

I have not seen the movie, so this is more a general thing about Micheal Moore...

It is really noticable how Moore always plays both sides of the field. He constantly appeals to US patriotism yet plays on anti-American sentiment at the same time. Moore has his elect a Ficus campaign.. But then he speaks at the Democratic Convention.

If you watch "Bowling for Columbine" it is clearly not an anti-gun movie. It's not that I think this is a bad movie - I am not particularly supportive of legislation that arms the state and de-arms the people and the movie had some interesting stuff in it. It's just that it is really striking how Moore plays both sides. He has his anti-weapons protest outside of K-Mart which is rather exploitative of the young people involved... But then he compares the US to Canada which has more weapons per person than the US but one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. He is a lifetime member of the NRA and most of his criticisms of them revolve around how "insensitive" they were about the Columbine massacre and similar incidents rather than their actual politics.

Moore states in his own books his links to the Bush family. Moore has had a long association/friendship with some of the Bush family, infact it was GWBush's cousin or whatever that financed his movie "Roger'n Me".

I think that what it all amounts to is that Moore is a really good film-maker and comedian. But maily he is a really good business man. He knows his audience (Leftists and fluffy liberals) and he always makes sure not to offend them and to appeal to their weak points.

He also is no risk to the establishment who pay for his films, publishing and advertising. The few incidents where he had problems with distributers all seemed a little too much like smooth PR excercises - especially because non of this has ever led to anything but an increase in sales and popularity for him.

The political line he pushes may be progressive when compared to the Bush administration's racist, psychotic, fundamentalism - but it is no threat to the order of things. Infact it actually helps to re-inforce faith in "American values" in people who would otherwise be totally dissilusioned after the events of the last few years. Its fits right in with the scapegoating of a few young (and in Ms Englund's case clearly retarded) soldiers - its not the military or the Nation... Its "a few bad apples".

In essence, Micheal Moore's politics act more as a release valve for anger and social tension, than they do a real progressive information source or alternative.

An other thing to note about Moore is that he likes to make his movies look like they are small, independent films. He has huge budget as his disposal but he avoids special effects and anything to flashy deliberately.

His personal image reflects this too. He is fat, balding, sloppy and usually wears flannies and baseball-caps (I’m not having a go – just pointing it out btw). This is not because he is unable to afford expesive suits or a personal trainer or even a good hair-dresser. This is a carefully crafted image and marketing device. He needs to look like the “average joe” to appeal to working-class and particularly liberal Americans.

He often plays dumb and sounds a lot stupider than he is. This is sometimes effective for trapping stupid PR people… But the main reason he does it is to appeal to his audience. Most people would rather see someone who looks and sounds like them - rather than a hardened and obviously rich and well-educated reporter - getting at a slick politician or PR person.

All this reminds me a lot of the “Big Issue”. When this first came out there were many independent newspapers and magazines that had been set up by homeless peoples groups. The idea behind these was that they were written printed and published by the people who sold them. This way poor people could get their stories, news and opinions out to the public while earning some money to survive. The Big Issue was set up by the Body Shop and came out in direct competition with these causing a lot of anger and pushing many out of business.

This kind of commercialisation does not mean progressive ideas are becoming more accepted in the mainstream. What it represents is an attempt to CO_OPT, CONTROLL AND TAME PROGRESSIVE IDEAS by keeping the form but removing the substance. They look and sound progressive, but the grass-roots, independent and revolutionary basis has been removed.

I don’t think that Moore’s movies are bad. But I just think we should recognise them for what they are in order to defend our media and organisations from such attacks.

Just what exactly is it that supposedly useful leftists have against Michael Moore and fahrenheit 911? True there are no new facts for people well read on US foreign policy and the corporate influence. But in the US, Britain and Australia the mainstream – people who this writer would probably be quite dismissive of normally do not have access to the information Moore presents in Fahrenheit 911. These people don’t know who Chomsky, Pilger, Fisk are. For once we (and more importantly mainstream Americans) get to see reruns of Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney lies. For once more of us can see at least some of the horrible scenes of human death and suffering of Iraqi civilians and US troops - the most significant aspect of war. For once we get to see inside pictures of corporate involvement and those who profit from the generally low-income group victims of the war. For once we see the oil potential of the region being talked about in exactly the way so many protesters and dissenters had argued as the main reason for war - only to be dismissed by the establishment and establishment media. Moore could have invested time and effort in a less controversial cause, a cause that has less human suffering than the 11000 Iraqi civilians and 1000 troops dead and countless more maimed for life. Exposing some of these accredited lies to the mainstream, to carry out a war that has had absolutely devastating consequences for a huge number of human beings means Moore is a marked man in right-wing and patriot circles thus ensuring his need for security guards wherever he goes. What would people rather him do - stay safe with domestic gun laws or small time issues such as GM Motors' destruction of a small community in Flint Michigan? Or do nothing at all? The mere attempt by an American film maker to shed any light on the reality of 21st century brutal corporate empire to a bigger mass audience than anyone else has should be welcomed as a beginning. From here more writers, and movie makers should think of further creative ways to explain more the profundity of the corporate takeover, military madness and the fact that the Democrats will only be a marginal improvement. Moore slants the movie towards his target audience – Americans. This is normal – Americans are the principal people who can change the direction of all this. Playing on the fact that they are losing out as well is purely understanding the nature with which American mainstream has been so moulded and manipulated by media and political elites and plays on the culture of individual self-interest that has been for so long been encouraged there. The short term objective of getting rid of Bush was emphasised, but the suspicions of the general corporate control was also very apparent in the movie. Does wildman or any of these leftist idealists dismissive of Moore have a great 5 or 10 year plan to get the masses to rise up and overturn the entire system? Obviously not as he spends his time writing about someone who is at least revealing some important things to more people than anyone else.

If you had been reading anything alternative (for example this website) or even a lot of the mainstream papers you would know that there have been plenty of people exposing what is going on in Iraq for a lot longer than Moore. The internet has done WAY more to publicise this than Moore ever could have and the people who gave him information have given it to plenty of other journalists and left sources too. 11000 Iraqi civilians? Did you get that out of the movie? Over the last 12 years, including the first war, the blockade and all the bombing in between, it has been more like several MILLION.

I think Wildman and others who've agreed with what he's said are basically just exasperated with the anti-war movement and the lack of action against the war at the moment. Which is fair enough....but when Wildman says that an option the movement had was to riot - how was the movement going to get to that point? Should committed activists just stand at rallies urging everyone to riot, or substitute themselves for mass action by just creating a riot when the rest of the crowd is nowhere near that point?

It was fantastic to see 200,000+ people out marching against the war last Feb - but at the same time it was exasperating to see that the movement was committed to no more than these mass marches around the block. There were militants involved in the anti-war movement, and attempting to influence the Vic Peace Network - but our numbers were so small that it was difficult to move tactics on from pacifist-style protesting to militant direct action against the war.

I am still suprised that people's bitterness against the war and horror at the war never really translated into direct action last year. Perhaps, just as we have a more activist and militant wing of the refugee movement in the form of RAC, we should have initiated a direct action network against the war? I think this may have happened at some level but didn't have great success??

The only way to see a movement turn to riots and strikes and militant action is to be in there arguing with the movement and building those actions consciously. We can't just hope that that level of militancy will fall from the sky - in a country like Aust where people aren't yet feeling the absolute urgency of the situation we will only get mass militant action through consciously arguing for it and planning it. It'd be great if it happened spontaneously - but that's just not gonna happen.

"And what of the hundreds of thousands in Australia and millions around the world who protested the invasion of Iraq? How can they claim innocence when they are aware yet do nothing to put a stop the atrocities? A peaceful weekend march in protest does NOTHING other than to falsely ease the consciences of the marchers, who then return to business as usual to play their role in the death machine. If the same hundreds of thousands of Australians rioted and continued to riot would the government still have sent troops? If people had of refused to work thus bringing the economy to a standstill would troops still have been sent? But to do something more than marching would have meant giving up their privilege. Their privilege of bearing moral witness to the atrocities while continuing to benefit from them."

I sort of half agree with this...

I don't really think that the moral arguments about "easing consience" or blaming people for not acting, are at all usefull though. The only thing that really counts is what are we gonna do about it.

But there is a certain extent to which Wildman is right. No matter how huge a rally is; it is still not a threat if the state knows that this is the limit of peoples actions. I don't think that "rioting in the streets" is a usefull example because riots tend to be most destructive and demoralising to working class communities and the people involved. The issue about strikes is a better example. If the government and business had though for one minute that their profits might be affected, let alone any real threat to the system, the war would not have gone ahead - and that in itself would have been a massive victory for people power and a nasty blow for the state too.

"I am still suprised that people's bitterness against the war and horror at the war never really translated into direct action last year. Perhaps, just as we have a more activist and militant wing of the refugee movement in the form of RAC, we should have initiated a direct action network against the war? I think this may have happened at some level but didn't have great success??"

After re-reading your post. YES, EXACTLY! This is the kind of thing we should have done. Great idea Bella. I don't mean to spread the demoralisation either (btw sorry if my posts are a bit depressing sometimes); it's just to think about for the future.

You are right that anger won't necessarily be chanelled into fruitfull action spontaneously. Anti-war activists need to organise and push the issue. I don't like blaming working people for the war because it is not usefull. But activists (and I mean anybody involved - not some elite leadership or anything) have a responsibility to think through what will win a campaign. This isn't always as straight forward as numbers.

Hey, I appreciate your responses to what I wrote. After all the point is to get talking about our tactics, not to preach the golden law as to how it should be done.

bella said: "how was the movement going to get to that point? Should committed activists just stand at rallies urging everyone to riot, or substitute themselves for mass action by just creating a riot when the rest of the crowd is nowhere near that point?"

I think we have a lot to learn from the black bloc style tactics the first surfaced on a major scale in Seattle. There you're talking about a small group of people who turned Seattle into something other than 'just another protest'.

If we don't act because of concern about 'popular support' then how committed are we? I mean do we want the war (or whatever) to stop or not? Are we hiding behind 'the movement' not being ready for such actions so as to not personally risk more than we are comfortable with. I mean we're talking about the ongoing loss of millions of lives and we're concerned about what others think of our actions?

! said:"I don't really think that the moral arguments about "easing consience" or blaming people for not acting, are at all usefull though."

My point is (1) The march achieved nothing to stop the war or reduce exploitation and (2) some marchers would have felt better about themselves for having marched (I think this is fair). And finally I think that we do need to take a cold hard look at our tactics when they are clearly not working. Sometimes a bucket of cold water thrown over the head is the best way to achieve this.

! said:"I don't like blaming working people for the war because it is not usefull"

I was trying to put across a perspective of how someone in the third world might view things. I mean it is the first world collectively that is screwing them and we (workers and all) make up that collectivity. If we are not attempting to stop this exploitation by whatever means possible then surely we must accept a portion of guilt.

Thanks again for your reponses.

Firstly with my statements they were more general than just directed at you. I don't think that guilt is a good motivation for people. Self-interest is better. Self-interest like the survival of humanity and not wasting valuable resources - primarily human life, but also science, food, everything that goes into building what was destroyed or building weapons etc.. - that could be used for better things like improving this world for ALL people.

Seccondly, I don't quite get what you mean. WHich Black Block tactics should we learn from? In what circumstance does a riot achieve things? What kind of organising do you specifically suggest (I would like examples to illustrate what you mean)?

Thirdly on riots... I have been involved in a few situations that were close to or degenerated into riots. I consider this very different from organised direct action or mass action against police violence.

During one in particular I (and several other people) was beaten, arrested and charged. At the time it was both a massive adrenalin rush and extremely frightening and enraging all at once. The real shock diddn't set in till a couple of days afterwards. It reminds me of a song "tomorrow your homeless, tonight its a blast"...

This experience (including the court afterwards) was extremely stressfull and demoralising for everyone involved. It also caused a lot of division and miss-trust and scared a lot of people off coming to future events.

Looking back on it I realise that that is exactly why the police attacked us. Because they know that this kind of pressure destroyes movements. Also having activists comitting dissorganised and directionless acts of anger only helps propaganda that activists and not the state (who are usually the initiators of any violence) are responsible for these kind of disasters.

I'm not arguing against direct-action, civil dissobedience, self-defense or even violence (I'm not a pacifist). But I do think that these things need to be carried out in an organised, thought through and sensible way. Whereas the term "riot" to me implies the exact opposite. You just can't go charging into battle against an enemy that is a million times stronger than you to let off steam. This plays right into their hands.

I agree with !.

I think the fact that there hasn't been much militant action against the war isn't a measure of people's commitment or lack of, but rather a measure of our disorganisation on this front. I am sure there have been thousands of people involved on the anti-war rallies who would've been willing to do direct action - but without any organisation in place it just never happened.

Also, its not about wanting the 'approval' of the mass of the population. Its just about thinking about what will inspire them and enable them to take part.

In my opinion, the war would only have been stopped with general strikes. This means that the involvement of the mass of people is crucial...we can't be aloof to what they think and where they're at. That said, I think Seattle-style actions could have built the movement and upped the anti for all involved. Some would have been alienated, but many would've got the spark from that to consider taking more serious action than just marching.

But, Seattle-style street-fighting is limited in its effect. For a time it throws the system into chaos and inspires people (as well as demoralising others) - but at the end of the day if we don't organise serious industrial action against a war, the powers that be can just move on from a Seattle. They would hate that kind of action and try to crush it - but without real industrial muscle to back it up, they could tolerate it.

Also, I think the marches, though passive and limited, did inspire people in the 3rd world and middle east. We were all part of the movement together and sent an important message to them that they had support all around the world. I think the rallies made prosecuting the war quite difficult for our leaders too, it may have delayed the invasion for a time. All obviuosly not enough, but its a start and the only way we will get towards more serious action.

Tactics I have seen work...

- Legal observers to monitor police
- Police liason: I know this one isn't too popular with some but I really think it is necessary to prevent stupid missundersandings. I have seen it work best in a situation where violence was expected so the liason was a woman dressed as a clown - this provided much amusement for the protesters and the police were too embarrassed to drag off a clown.
- Organised crowd response. This means linking arms, sitting in front of cop cars etc.. It can be spontaneous - but it just means activists need to be trained and aware of tactics and how the crowd is feeling.
- Thinking through all the possibilities before hand and making sure the crowd is all aware what is going on. If there is violence expected then people should be warned so that they can get out if they want to.
- Democratic discussion. This doesn't have to be controlled by the chair or whatever. Infact it is better if it isn't. Open mikes and discussion work well.
- Options so that people can be involved to the level they want. For example the colour codes used in Genoa to distinguish the level of confrontation crowds were willing to go to. Affinity groups and stuff tie into this too.

Anyway this is like the ABC of direct action so I assume you get what I mean...

I don't think I ever suggested that guilt is a good motivation for people, I was simply calling things as I saw them. I responded to comments about blaming people but didn't mean to imply that guilt was somehow going to solve any problems. Still, I don't see a problem with pinting out that we're not exactly blameless.

The orignal piece was written as a critique of F911 and I simply threw in a couple of tactical options to make a point and get people thinking. It was not an article on tactics and shouldn't be taken as such. However what I was referring to with regards to the black bloc was targeted property damage which has the potential to grow into something bigger. Rather than have me elaborate, if you aren't familiar with the BB then a good starting place is http://www.infoshop.org/blackbloc.html

I appreciate your input regarding your personal experience with regards to riots. Perhaps I've generalised a bit too much by simply using the term 'riot'. However I do think that using black bloc style tactics which are 'organised' to a degree, targeted and sensible has great potential.

I guess what I am getting at here is the difference between a disorganised "riot" and organised direct-action (including - BUT NOT LIMITED TO - industrial action).

My definition of a riot (which may not be other peoples) is a dissorganised outburst of anger. Smashing windows at random, looting etc. This is not very usefull because it doesn't target agression at the real problem.

Infact, if anything it acts as a social release valve. In almost exactly the same way as Wildman (correctly) said that mass rallies SOMETIMES can. You riot, you let out all your agression, then you get caught up in the aftermath (which in many cases sucks what is left of life right out of the movement), then you go back to normal life.

The aim of direct action is to use that anger against the system and build on it. This may involve industrial action or setting up new networks and organisations or achieving small victories and improvements. But the general idea is build on and fuel anti-capitalist (or whatever) sentiment RATHER than to dissipate it.

I said that my comments were not directed specifically at you. I guess I was just making some general statements or throwing in my 2c. Anyway your article was pretty interesting and I agree with lots of what you have said here. I'll have a look at that link...

Just read some of the black bloc webpage. Its inspiring and really appealing in ways - the idea of unarresting people and targetted direct actions is appealing. In terms of carrying out direct action on a protest I think its a great idea for getting people united and being really open about your intentions to engage in militant action and confrontation with the police.

But the Black bloc appeals to me as a long-time socialist and activist who has been burnt by confrontations with the cops and exasperated by passive forms of protest. As far as appealing to really wide layers of people who haven't experienced this kind of thing, I'm not so sure.

I definitely agree that there should be a place on every rally for all kinds of actions, and whatever kind of protest anarchists and their supporters want to take part in. But as far as arguing to people that that is the best tactic to use - I wouldn't.

Like I've said, to stop a war you need mass general strikes. That means a huge chunk of the working class getting active and involved. If you're serious about the involvement of masses of people you have to be willing to take some sort of step towards meeting them somewhere near where they're at. I don't mean by this that we don't do direct action and we don't encourage militancy - but I think wearing masks is a leap out of the realm of most working people. I know it has legitimacy as far as reflecting the Zapatistas, and the practicalities of confronting the state - but it would also have a kind of sinister edge for a lot of people and seem very conspiratorial and dangerous.

Obviously, it is dangerous confronting the state, and it isn't a sign of anything 'sinister' about anarchists that they wear masks. But I think its important for activists to be as open as they can be - by not wearing masks and not setting up cliques on rallies. A lot of people would think "If I'm not an anarchist and I don't know what anarchism is does that mean I can't take part in the direct action?"

It just strikes me as a bit romantic and exclusive. We need to make anti-capitalist and anti-war protests approachable for people and to take them with us in the actions we do.

I don't mean to reduce everything down to industrial action in what I'm saying. Of course all forms of direct action add to the movement and spur things along - but I just mean that at the end of the day, if we're not organised amongst workers we won't have the industrial muscle needed to cripple the system economically and stop the war. So everything we do needs to be linked back to, or done with consideration to, organised workers - how they can get involved and how what we do will bolster working class action.

Yes, after reading that Website I tend to agree with much of what you said in your last post Bella.

One thing to note also is that the Zapatistas success had nothing to do with wearing masks. Their strategies are actually very typical of a lot of "Maoist" style guerilla armies. It works really well in remote and peasant areas. Because they are far away from the State forces (police and army). They can go in and help people in one villiage or area to liberate themselves of landlords etc and to organise and form small democracies around the place. Also because oppression is so extreme and visible on a daily basis people really need this kind of action to even be able to be pollitically active and they can see the results (in terms of standard of living and freedom) almost right away. The Maoists in Nepal and some in Columbia use almost exactly the same tactics.

The main difference with the Zapatistas is that they are WAY BETTER at PR. The masks, not knowing who Marcos is, a lot of the post-modern sounding rhetoric is directly aimed to appeal at western audiences. Same with their use of the Internet. If you can get hold of some of their pamphlets (aimed more at Mexicans than westerners) this is really obvious.

I do think though that this can be applied in the West. Not so much wearing masks but organising the community. Like I have said before about community-kitchens, community-childcare, self-defense, workers collectives etc.

An other thing to think about on that point is that only about 60% of the population actually participate in the workforce here. And of those many are only employed part-time here. That means that around half the populations main occupation is studying, unemployed, taking care of kids, retired or working the black market etc. Also many people who are employed are in dodgy work-places which are difficult to organise (in the traditional TU sense) and in some cases unable to participate in strikes as such. That is why I think that it is good to look at ways to organise the rest of the community. Not at the expense of industrial action of course, but in a way in which they complement each other.

Someone just put this up...

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/75710.php

One thing that I just thought was that Indymedia cam out of the whole Seattle thing too. That is a good example of building stuff that keeps going rather than just outbursts which dissipate energy.

We, the Global Justice Movement that includes everyone from Council communists and libertarian Marxists, and Autonomists on the left to Mutualist and Anarcho-crapitalist's on the right who are all NON STATIST will only ever attain critical mass by dumping the Leftist millstone off.
By Leftist I mean all those who want to play electoral games; Greens, Socialist Alliance's etc and then there's those who seek to overthrow the state by becoming a state themselves, ie Marxist-Leninists. Trot's like GMAB and Bella.

See all the masters have to do is point to them and a few " deformed workers state's' and we're all tarred with the same filthy bloody brush.

Away with the Lefties, the Trots and polititian's I say!

Roll on the social revolution.

my thoughts on f9/11 is that its a good movie & moore s style focuses on a wide range of people not just the lefty type to revolt against war

Did anyone see "The World According to Bush" - or are we not premitted to discuss it due to the Zionist content?

You guys have it all wrong, and I mean all of you. You should not be watching films like this 9/11 stuff as it gets you thinking crazy things, and stops you from watching me. DO YOURSELVES A FAVOUR, WATCH ME, I AM THE VOICE!!!! NOT MOORE.

-- Christopher Boyce, Traitor, Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary, Kansas, maximum security prison.

-- Prison Warden

-- Bill Doughety, Boyce's lawyer.

RAY MARTIN: Christopher Boyce was the villain in the biggest American spy scandal for forty years. He was gaoled for selling secrets to the Russians. And why did he do it? He says he was angry at the CIA's dirty tricks to bring down the Whitlam Government.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: It was a worry. Mr Whitlam's Government was a threat. Aside from the fact that he was also a socialist.

RAY MARTIN: What about when he was forced out of office?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: It was a celebration.

RAY MARTIN: Now, locked up until he's 94, Boyce agreed to an exclusive interview about his spying career, the bad times and the good.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: We used to make daiquiris in the document destruction blender.

RAY MARTIN: What, the CIA shredder?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Yes.

RAY MARTIN: To make daiquiri drinks.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Put it to some use. It wasn't my idea, but it made a hell of a daiquiri.

RAY MARTIN: Think back to Australia in the mid 1970s. Lots of strikes, the Whitlam Government in deep trouble, a growing controversy over American bases like Pine Gap, the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, more and more involved in a Parliamentary crisis regarding supply. At that, as it all turned out, marked the start of a truly amazing spy story. Christopher Boyce, at that time, was a young telex operator working for an American company known as TRW. It was a private company that had close connections with the US Government, particularly the CIA, because TRW helped run America's super-secret spy satellite system. And being where he was, Boyce occasionally came across telex messages -- in this story you will hear them referred as twickses -- and other material pertaining to CIA activity in Australia. And what he heard and saw made him so angry, that his own country could cheat such a good ally as Australia, that he started selling information to the Russians. He was caught and convicted in 1977, one of the most important spies since World War II. He staged a daring escape and was re-captured only last year. Since then, the big American media groups have been trying to get his story but, instead, he agreed to speak only to us in a remarkable meeting that took place at Leavenworth Prison in Kansas. So why choose us?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Because you are Australian journalists and because what kicked this all off was deception by my government against yours.

RAY MARTIN: What you did, as we described, was the greatest security breach in decades.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Serves them right.

RAY MARTIN: Serves them right?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: That's my feeling on it. I've no regrets. What was going on in Australia, what the twickes I saw concerning your labour unions, like you say, kicked it off. But my primary purpose was personal, a personal grudge.

RAY MARTIN: I don't want to be overly dramatic at all, but did you want to be a martyr.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: I thought it was a unique way to express myself.

RAY MARTIN: Only the Russians know exactly what secrets Christopher Boyce gave them. But the CIA calls what he did the most damaging act of espionage in decades. Boyce says that what finally turned him into a spy was America's deception of Australia.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: My Government was deceiving an ally, perhaps had been an ally for two world wars, English speaking parliamentary democracy. I thought it was indicative of to what my country had sunk to.

RAY MARTIN: This is Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary in Kansas. It's a maximum security prison. And right now there are 1,030 men locked up inside here. All of them are regarded as highly dangerous. There are kidnappers, hijackers, mass murderers and others. And there is also Christopher Boyce, the former Catholic altar boy who thought that, for a while, he might become a priest but instead ended up as a notorious Russian spy.

PRISON WARDEN: Ah, so why don't we go and take a look at the papers in here.

RAY MARTIN: It's almost as difficult getting into Leavenworth as it is getting out. There's a film magazine. It's much the same. The rest is just film. What exactly are you looking for?

PRISON WARDEN: Well, articles of contraband, you know, narcotics, weapons, drugs, anything of this nature.

RAY MARTIN: Boyce's new quarters in maximum security are a stark contrast to his family home in Palos Verdes in Southern California. His was a safe, affluent, comfortable childhood. The eldest of nine children, with a strict Catholic mother and an FBI agent father, Boyce was the student athlete with an IQ of 140. But the all-American schoolboy grew up to be a traitor.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Well, I have no problems with the label traitor, if you qualify what it's to, and I think that eventually the United States Government is going to involve the world in the next world war. And being a traitor to that, I have absolutely no problems with that whatsoever.

RAY MARTIN: Had you ever been one of those "my country right or wrong" kids?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Absolutely. I was brought up in a very conservative home, to the right of Kublai Khan. As I got older, I came to see that most everything that I believed in was hypocrisy in this country. Things just aren't as they appear.

RAY MARTIN: Do you think that shock would have been any less if you hadn't been brought up in such a strictly conservative family?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Well, it never would have happened. What has transpired never would have happened.

RAY MARTIN: Are you, or were you ever, a communist?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: No.

BILL DOUGHETY: He is rebellious, adventurous, ideological, a non-conformist.

RAY MARTIN: Bill Doughety once worked for the FBI. Now he's Boyce's lawyer.

BILL DOUGHETY: I don't know if it's enough reason or not, but that's probably why he did what he did.

RAY MARTIN: Why do you think, I mean, if you had to explain it to someone, why he sold secrets to the Russians?

BILL DOUGHETY: I think that the main reason was adventure. Then I think it was adventure in the crucible of the times of the Vietnam War, the disillusionment of American youth, being fed in the slaughter, time and time again, for no reason. I think these are some of the reasons he did what he did.

RAY MARTIN: Christopher Boyce worked here in Southern California for two years. It may not look like it, but TRW is a top secret installation. This is where they build satellites for the CIA, including the black satellites that spy on Russia and China, and use Pine Gap as a relay station for sending information back here to the United States. Now, within TRW, the most highly classified area was a place called the Black Vault. That was a room where they kept the messages and the codes. Though to work in there, you need to be passed by the FBI, to get a clearance then from the CIA, and beyond that, a clearance from the National Security Agency. At 21, and a College drop-out, Christopher Boyce had them all. Now, for other Californian kids, if they wanted to protest, they could smoke dope or they could burn their draft cards, or they could join the anti-war marchers. For Christopher Boyce, he had something else.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Well, I was pretty well astounded with all the gadgetry, and what was going on, and the fact that I had access to all this information. It had never in my wildest dream ever occurred to me that when I went to work for TRW that I would be, in fact, privy to information like that. It was pretty shocking.

RAY MARTIN: How did a 21 year old drop-out, earning $140 a week, get access to those kind of secrets?

BILL DOUGHETY: Well, through the "old boy" network. His father had been an FBI agent, the Chief of TRW Security had been an FBI agent.

RAY MARTIN: He said that. Is that all it takes?

BILL DOUGHETY: That's all it takes. They had absolutely no security in the Black Vault at TRW. Absolutely no security. The uncontradicted evidence in the trial is that there was a telephone with an extension cord outside the vault that could reach in and theoretically he could have sat at the code machine and read the code coming directly from Langley, CIA Headquarters, and dictated them on the telephone to anywhere in the world. You can't even do that at a race track.

RAY MARTIN: Boyce was a telex operator for a number of CIA projects, including the Rylite and Argus projects. These were sophisticated, highly-classified spies in the sky, monitoring and photographing military bases and missile launches in the Soviet Union and China. Because Pine Gap in the Northern Territory was an absolutely vital cog in the CIA's spy satellite network, Canberra and Washington had signed an Executive Agreement under which Australia was to share this secret information.

ANNOUNCER: Information derived from the research programmes conducted at the facilities shall be shared by the two governments.

RAY MARTIN: Boyce and his espionage accomplice, Andrew Dalton Lee, sold the Russians the codes and other secret details of both the Rylite and Argus projects. According to Boyce, that is much more than America's partner, Australia, ever got.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: When the Rylite project was first put in place, the Executive Agreement meant that all information was to be shared between the American government and the Australian government. And along came Mr Whitlam. When I went to work for the project, the initial security briefing that I had, I was told that, in fact, we weren't going to live up to that Agreement, and that we hadn't been. And that there was information that was being withheld. And also that the Argus project, which was the advanced Rylite project, was to be hidden from the Australians.

RAY MARTIN: What, you were told specifically that, by your ...

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: By Rick Smith, the Security Project Director.

RAY MARTIN: Was he CIA?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Former.

RAY MARTIN: So you were told that the Americans would not live up to the Agreement, that they had entered into.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: That all information wouldn't be shared. No, and wasn't being shared.

RAY MARTIN: I mean, that's very important. I mean, there was no attempt to try and hide it. That was part of your briefing.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Definitely, yes.

RAY MARTIN: Were you aware, though, that those American bases in Australia had become a very hot political issue?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Not to the extent that it was, but there was definitely conversations in the Black Vault, and in the Security Area, with members of TRW Security about the problems with Mr Whitlam.

RAY MARTIN: What, they spoke openly about this, did they?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Yes, Mr Whitlam was not a popular figure at all, to say the least.

RAY MARTIN: Did they say why?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Well, first of all, his politics - socialist. And the fact that enquiries were being made about the base. You were ... Mr Whitlam was, by wanting to know what was going on there, and by publicising it ... compromising the integrity of the project.

RAY MARTIN: Compromising the integrity, what's that?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: That's a familiar term that I heard quite a bit. Mr Whitlam had no business sniffing around the Rylite project, to their view he was on the wrong ball court.

RAY MARTIN: Even though the bases were in Australia?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Well, yes. Mr Whitlam's Government was a threat.

RAY MARTIN: That's the way they described it?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Yes.

RAY MARTIN: Did you get the impression that things had changed once the Labour Government, the Whitlam government, came into office, from what they had been before? And did they change after he left?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: There was a bit of celebration that Mr Whitlam had been canned, but my instructions as to what was to be sent on to Marino and Casino ...

RAY MARTIN: You mean, Marino was Canberra and Casino was Alice Springs?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Correct: Did they change - no.

RAY MARTIN: So after Mr Fraser was elected Prime Minister, after Mr Whitlam, the instructions were still the same?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Remained the same.

RAY MARTIN: Did they talk about how, or why, he was forced out?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: No, but there was references to your Governor-General by the Central Intelligence [Agency] residents there at TRW in the Rylite project. They called Mr Kerr "our man Kerr".

RAY MARTIN: What - the CIA man said that?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Yes, Joe Harrison said that in the Security Area, one time I overheard that.

RAY MARTIN: Christopher Boyce telling what he knows about the CIA and its meddling in Australian politics. But he goes on to mention other disturbing events, including CIA infiltration of Australian unions. More of that part of the spy story after this break ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RAY MARTIN: More of the story of Christopher Boyce, the disillusioned spy. As he told us in our meeting at Leavenworth Prison, he went over to the Russians after discovering some of the dirty tricks the CIA was ready to play on a good ally like Australia. Working, as he did, on the US spy satellite programme, Boyce could talk to CIA agents and read various telex messages, or as he called them, twixes, coming from and to Australia. What you will hear next are details of how the CIA infiltrated Australian unions, and more of its double dealings, even when the new conservative government of Malcolm Fraser came to power. That was after the sacking of the Whitlam government by this man, the then Governor-General, Sir John Kerr.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: There was references to your Governor-General by the Central Intelligence [Agency] residents there at TRW in the Rylite project. They called Mr Kerr "Our man Kerr."

RAY MARTIN: Just two days before a Federal Parliamentary debate was due on the American satellite bases, a CIA telex arrived in Canberra. It warned that Prime Minister Whitlam was in danger of blowing the lid off Pine Gap. The next day, the Whitlam Labor Government was dismissed.

GOUGH WITHLAM: The proclamation which you have just heard read by the Governor-General's official secretary was countersigned Malcolm Fraser, who will undoubtedly go down in Australian history from Remembrance Day 1975, as "Kerr's cur".

RAY MARTIN: How long did this deception, to use your word, how long did that go on?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Concerning the Argus project and not sharing the information? The entire time I worked for the people, and I imagine it continued right up until the point of my trial, until the Executive Agreement was renegotiated.

RAY MARTIN: So at least two years, the two years that you were there.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Yes, and it never changed.

RAY MARTIN: In your trial, you mentioned interference in the Australian unions. What was that?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: In this particular instance, we had hardware, software and personnel to ship out of Alice Springs, and there was worry over strikes at your airports. They had to do with pilots and air controllers. And there was an area that Petal had a definite need to know because ...

RAY MARTIN: That's TRW?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Right. Because strikes would wreck our schedule, and so in this one instance, a twix came from Pilot which said "Pilot will continue to suppress the strike, continue shipment on schedule". Words to that effect.

RAY MARTIN: So Pilot was the CIA Headquarters at Langley?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Langley, Virginia. Yes. The hub of the entire intelligence operation.

RAY MARTIN: Was there any more discussion about that? I mean, what did that imply? That the CIA had infiltrated those unions?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Well, my conclusion is, that either Central Intelligence directly or through intermediaries would had to have infiltrated the hierarchy of your trade unions at some level.

RAY MARTIN: So Boyce now had the motivation for espionage, what he calls the CIA's deception and interference in Australia. Working inside the Black Vault at TRW gave him the opportunity. For two years, Christopher Boyce found it ridiculously simple to steal America's most highly prized secrets, and hand them to the Russians.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: My superiors would send me on booze runs to the liquor store, and they would send me out with a satchel, past the guards. The guards knew what the satchel was for, never interfered with what was in it. That way I could take out whatever I wanted. Bringing it back was a bit more trouble if I had to keep it overnight.

RAY MARTIN: So you'd take out the top secret information on the American satellite system, under the pretext of going out to get some liquor.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Many times, yes.

RAY MARTIN: And how did you get it back?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: I had a roll of documents, hundreds and hundreds of them that I'd taken out in the satchel. I bought a pot that evening. I put the documents in a plastic bag, set them in the pot, put dirt over the documents, took a plant that I had bought in a store and stuck that on top of the dirt. I went to the gardener and told him to go out to my car and bring in the potted plant and put it in the Security Area.

RAY MARTIN: So the gardener brought back the documents.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Yes.

RAY MARTIN: Was there no trouble?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Keystone Cops.

RAY MARTIN: Pardon?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Keystone Cops.

RAY MARTIN: But was there no trouble, in terms of getting that out. I mean, if you are really determined to take out one of these top secret documents, you can do it?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Yes.

RAY MARTIN: Time and time again. Take them out, photograph them.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Oh, I'd photograph them inside. I would sometimes would just bring the Minox camera inside and do it in the Black Vault. But then no one had access there but myself and a limited amount of other people.

RAY MARTIN: That Black Vault you speak of, I mean, there were stories there of booze parties, of sex parties.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Marijuana growing in the plants inside the Communications room. A pretty wild scene. I walked into it, the Black Vault was almost like the project bar. We used to make daiquiries in the document destruction blender.

RAY MARTIN: What, the CIA shredder?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Yes.

RAY MARTIN: To make daiquiri drinks.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Put it to some use.

RAY MARTIN: Now, again, that's the Centre. That's where the top information ...

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: They were doing it before I got there. It wasn't my idea but it made a hell of a daiquiri.

RAY MARTIN: Was there any excitement of being in espionage? Was there a thrill to that?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: At 21 years old, that's quite a thrill, yes. It's high adventure.

RAY MARTIN: High adventure, and pretty dangerous stuff.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: It gets a little hard on your adrenalin gland but it's a very exciting thing to become involved in. There is no way around that. You never knew when they were coming to get you. It tainted everything else in your life. Much as you tried to lead a normal life, above board, regularly you still had this other life behind the curtain which, at any moment, could destroy everything else you had.

RAY MARTIN: How much were you paid by the Russians?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Personally or ? About $20,000. Money was never important to me. I knew from the beginning that I would eventually be caught. There was no escape from it.

RAY MARTIN: Once you'd started, there was no escape.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Absolutely not. After all, I'm an amateur, 21 years old, and the Central Intelligence Agency had been in business a lot longer than I had. And, to tell you the truth, I didn't think it would go on longer than a month or two. I was amazed that it went on for two years. Almost two years.

RAY MARTIN: Boyce was finally caught in January 1977. Tried and convicted of espionage, he got the maximum, 40 years. But just two years later, Boyce went over the wall and escaped from Longpoc Federal Prison in California.

RAY MARTIN: There were reports at the time of the fact you'd got out of Longpoc, that you could only have done it with the help of either the Russians, or with the help of the CIA.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: I did it with the help of the incompetence of the United States Bureau of Prisons. I had no outside help.

PRISON WARDEN: Why did you order this stuff for? You don't look like the painting type to me.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: The Bureau of Prisons showed a movie _Escape from Alcatraz_, and it's a true story. A man escapes from Alcatraz by making a paper maché dummy, putting it in his bed, and he's counted and then he leaves. I then went to the arts and crafts people at the prison and I asked them for paper maché class, which then showed me how to make the dummy. And I did exactly what was in the movie. I just repeated it. Made the dummy, put it in the bed. And in the meanwhile I was out in a drain by the fence, fences. And, the dummy was counted. So I had an eight hour jump on them. And then I went over the fence, through the razor wire in front of a tower that - the guard in the tower wasn't on the ball.

RAY MARTIN: Once outside, Boyce survived alone in the woods for months, living off acorns and berries he'd read about in the prison library books.

RAY MARTIN: There were reports at the time that you'd gone to South Africa. Did you go to South Africa?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: No, I didn't go to South Africa.

RAY MARTIN: Australia? Alice Springs?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: No, I missed out on that too.

RAY MARTIN: Were there times when you came close to being caught in those 19 months you were away?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: When I was pulled over by six officers up in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, late at night, with no ID, driving the car and - but up in Idaho, they asked me where I was going and I mentioned a friend of the sheriff's and they let me go.

RAY MARTIN: This is the most, perhaps at that stage, the most wanted fugitive in the country.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Well, that's how they classified it. Then up in Idaho during the '80 elections, I was sitting in a restaurant in Sandpoint called "Connie's", eating a ham and egg omelette, and in walks Senator Church, campaigning with his whole entourage, reporters, body guards. And he walks in that restaurant, come up to my table, shook my hand and told me how much he needed my vote. Ruined my breakfast.

RAY MARTIN: But obviously someone was looking after you at that stage. Luck was on your side. Did you think ...

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: I have been incredibly lucky. I was lucky to escape. I was lucky that it continued for two years as it had. Incredible luck.

RAY MARTIN: But your luck ran out.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Luck always does.

RAY MARTIN: Now you were close to escaping again, weren't you?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Yes, I was taking pilot lessons up on the coast of Washington. I was being instructed by a Brigadier-General in the Air Force, General Georgi, which made me a little nervous.

RAY MARTIN: He didn't know who you were, of course.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: No. Then I had two weeks to go to get my pilot's licence, and then I would have left the country. So the Government caught me within two weeks of my complete freedom.

RAY MARTIN: Why did you stay around for so long? I mean, you were in the country for nineteen months. Why didn't you go, for example, to Russia?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Well, I'll tell you. If you have ever gone to Boundary County, Idaho, it's some awful nice country, and I had a whole lot of friends up there. And there were so many neat things to do. And I did a lot of hunting, and I hunted bear and elk. And I liked it up there.

RAY MARTIN: So many neat things to do. That doesn't sound like the Number One Fugitive.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Well, I'm not a, I'm not a professional spy, and I'm not a professional anything. I'm an amateur at everything I do, or else I wouldn't be here right now, sitting here in this prison.

RAY MARTIN: Boyce robbed seventeen small banks whilst on the run. Bank cameras filmed this hold-up with Boyce in disguise. Finally re-captured by the FBI, he was sentenced to a further 25 years in prison, and that was on top of his 40 years for espionage.

BILL DOUGHETY: It's a terrible waste. He's a, depending on who you want to believe, which study, he's got an IQ of 127 or 140. He is personable, charming guy. Young man, I should say. He is a student of history. Women like him. I don't want to say that he's a ladies' man in that sense, but young girls are drawn to him.

RAY MARTIN: Was there any other way to do it?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: I suppose there was, but I was 21 and saw things black and white. And it seemed to me my Government had betrayed me long before I ever betrayed them.

RAY MARTIN: Prison wardens are taking no chances this time around. Only three men have escaped from maximum security here at Leavenworth. And they don't intend Boyce to be number four.

PRISON WARDEN: Will you stand there a second? OK, guy, you've got one.

RAY MARTIN: But if there is no hope of getting out, then Boyce says he'll have to consider suicide.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: It would be a viable option.

RAY MARTIN: If the front door was opened, would you walk out.

CHRISTOPHR BOYCE: I'd take off like a jack rabbit.

RAY MARTIN: Christopher Boyce didn't kill or kidnap anybody. He's just not a violent man. But what he did do was commit treason. And nobody loves a Russian spy, whatever the reason. As Boyce himself says, the chances of him getting paroled are next to nil, so unless he escapes once again, which seems unlikely, unless he is murdered in here, which is always on the cards, or unless there is some kind of a deal, which nobody is talking about, Christopher Boyce is going to be 94 years old before he walks out of these doors here at Leavenworth.

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: I think that if Mr Nixon's Government hadn't gone in flames, I don't think that this would have happened. But at the same time, it goes way beyond Richard Nixon and Watergate. I think that it's just the whole general drift of where this government is headed. I think that this Government is a threat to mankind. You can't protect freedom and liberties behind stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and nuclear weapons. My Government built atomic weapons, used them first, stockpiled them first, moved our ICBMs first, which was a grotesque escalation, and now that the Russians have played catch-up for 20 years and finally achieved equality, the only policy to come out of the White House is build 17,000 more of the monsters. And to me that's madness.

RAY MARTIN: Your motivation is not pro-Russia as against anti-Washington, anti-American?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: Correct.

RAY MARTIN: Could it be said that, in getting those secrets for the Russians, that in fact you had thrown into jeopardy the lives of every American man, woman and child?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: They are already in jeopardy. A Third World War is inevitable.

RAY MARTIN: So you don't think you added to that at all?

CHRISTOPHER BOYCE: It's a hard one.
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_oz/60min.htm

===============================
"The most common SUBSTANTIVE criticism is that [Moore] scants the role of Israel in the politics of the Iraq war."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46304-2004Jul13.html
===============================

No-blame approach to bullies comes under attack
By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent
04 August 2004

Children are being driven to anorexia, self-harm and truancy because schools are unwilling to punish bullies, children's charities have warned.

They have told the Government that the no-blame policy used by an estimated third of schools is failing to stop violence and may even be sending a message to bullies that their behaviour will go unpunished.

The Government has insisted that each school draw up an anti-bullying strategy but concerns have been raised with the Home Office that many schools are not punishing children who assault, victimise or even molest their classmates

Kidscape, a charity specialising in child abuse, has been in talks with the Home Office about the problem of the no-blame approach after dozens of parents contacted them with concerns that bullies were not being dealt with by teachers.

MORE ON...

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=547700

The movie, I'm saving my moment to see it. I pretty much have an idea what it is going to show. Sure there will be bits that I think could have been better but bet I come out of the movie, once was film, grinning from ear to ear.

Somebody using their tools, having a go at them. GO FOR IT. Ok he's a shifty left reformist peddling ideas that support the hierarchical, patriarchical, at times farcical society. And he can still get up their noses – proves how big a hooter they have. SNORT, SNORT, where’s the horse? (two meanings there, sleuths!)

And a lot more fun, a lot more human and a lot more humane than:

“”This is a woman who admits to always having hated anti-war protesters from Vietnam onwards because she has always encouraged family members to enter the military. She claims that she took it as an attack on her relatives but now that her son has been killed she sees that they were protesting the idea of the war not the troops themselves. She now wants to get rid of evil George, so life can return to the way it was. She hasn't stopped raising her American flag, she doesn't question further because she ONLY needs to address the specifics relating to the loss of her son. I'm sure you think that I am being harsh on her. I only singled her out because Moore decided to allocate so much time to her. She is symptomatic of the entire first world culture. It is only when events directly touch them that they start to give a stuff.”

What kind of warped little turd thinks like this? They are somehow different if not vastly superior to ordinary people that they can feel outrage just by thinking about things, this woman needs to experience the death of her son to “give a stuff”

As I indicated above I believe I almost concur with “I learnt no significant new facts from F911. All that is contained in the film has been within easy reach of anyone with an internet connection or able to afford thirty dollars for a book.”, but when absolutely knackered after facing up to the daily, grime reality of life when your poor, you just log on or pop down the bookstore with your $30 dollars, food money for the family for the next three days. Nup, I think there are a lot more people who are really going to get an eye opener than “Wildman”, that’s a funny one, would ever excuse.

“There is little excuse for being ignorant. The real issue isn't not knowing, it is not caring.” And this is caring, sounds more like the moral re-armament brigade.

Later on we get the straw man, jee these intellectuals, these wildmen who can experience events in the head (I think we call them idealist – you know their ideas are about 300 years out of date): “The underlying point I was making about guilt is that we claim moral superiority because we attend demonstrations, sign petitions, burn candles or whatever.”

No Wildman we don’t claim moral superiority on this, that’s your fucked up head again.

And there’s more to come – now the idiot is extolling “Organised crowd response. This means linking arms, sitting in front of cop cars etc.. Now, this could be the smart tactic against the hierarchy? What all the good guys who can tune into events without directly feeling them will be so low on the ground that when the ‘tall’ police hit out, they only hitting those who are still standing. It’s all part of the big plan I guess. Those who need to be directly touched by events – copper’s truncheon at this point – will be so touched and what with a bust skull will rise up to overthrow the perpetrators. Doubt it more likely they’ll trip and fall over those who are sat on the ground at their feet.

Thankfully nobody who is seriously going to do something which could overthrow society is ever going to listen to “Wildman” Ha Ha!

“The film does not contain many new facts that a person with the internet could not find out.” The reality is that many people do not have the time to look through the internet to find out what is wrong with the society. Do they not care? Maybe. More likely, they do not realize how bad the American propaganda is. They know, they heard, it is all about the money and the oil but maybe it is really about the poor people anyway.

American but also Canadian public never experienced the war in their own backyard, they never had their houses burned, they have never been taken to the concentration camps from their homes, they never had to hide in bunkers to wait for the bomb raids to be over. American kids were never exposed to the true war. Yes, there was a Vietnam, were Americans realized how easy it is to loose a son or a daughter, husband or wife, were many were exposed to the war first hand. All of it, is not the same as actually living through the war, being a 5 year old and having a bullet being taken out of your leg without any pain killers simply because none is available. Yes, the internet is great, but many, especially the older generation and the poor, still have no access to it and/or no time. The American and Canadian media, never show the footage of the events such as the operation on a 5 year old girl or the many killed and lying in the lakes of blood on the streets of Iraq. Throughout all of it, there is an American soldier standing in the centre, in the full gear, saying: “People of Iraq are safe because we are here”. Footage like this can only be seen on the European television, only by those that can afford it. The irony is, the military recruitment operations target the poor, low income families, offering great benefits and adventures. Oh really, the adventures are truly unforgettable.

“Moore devotes significant screen time to following around a mother from his home town of Flint who lost a son in Iraq. Here he really screws notions of innocence around so that both he and his first world audiences can absolve themselves of any personal guilt. This is a woman who admits to always having hated anti-war protesters from Vietnam onwards because she has always encouraged family members to enter the military. She claims that she took it as an attack on her relatives but now that her son has been killed she sees that they were protesting the idea of the war not the troops themselves. She now wants to get rid of evil George, so life can return to the way it was. She hasn't stopped raising her American flag, she doesn't question further because she ONLY needs to address the specifics relating to the loss of her son. I'm sure you think that I am being harsh on her. I only singled her out because Moore decided to allocate so much time to her. She is symptomatic of the entire first world culture. It is only when events directly touch them that they start to give a stuff.”
Again, it is the lack of exposure or the experience of American people with the war, it is okey to go in and kill other people especially when the people in charge tell you it is for the greater good but it is a different story when Americans start dying. Now, the war has a different face, suddenly one realizes that implications of war and at the same time questions the necessity of it. I have to give Bush administration credit for playing the public as they wanted, for gaining the trust and support of the public for the war, for making fear its greatest ally.

F 9/11 is an eye opener to most, it uncovers the fear factor, which is the best propaganda that Bush administration put on. The constant threat of terror helps to raise the support for the war. Basically, if we do not attack them, they will attack us. Makes you think, 9/11 worked so well for Bush, he could invade Afganistan, Iraq and now there is mention of Iran, was it a set up?

Wildman says “The film is littered with references of removing Bush from the White House and constant mentioning of the Democrats as though they are the saviour in waiting. There is only one negative reference about the Democrats and this is quickly brushed aside, obviously included in an attempt to imply a balanced critique. Moore gives the impression that the problems of the US began with Bush's election in 2000 and will conclude with Democrats winning the next election.” I do not think that Moore visualizes Democrats as saviours, he makes fun of them, not only in the movie but also in the book “The stupid white man”. He does not give the alternative to Bush, he simply says, Bush has no ethics, no morals and all his actions have no other goal but economic benefit. Not for the country though, but for himself. We have to get rid of him. Not only America but the world has to oppose Bush, in the hope that the next President would have morals and ethics.

If F/911 moves just one person from "knowing" to "caring" it will have justified its existence. I thought it was a fine film and sure, Mike Moore didn't mention every single issue he could have but so what? The point is to get people off their bums and doing something to make the world a better place. If people think they're going to be criticised every time they put their heads up no-one is going to take the step of caring and doing. Let's keep the criticism for those who really deserve it.

Yes, no mention of Clinton partnership with Blair in the bombing
of Yugoslavia and Kosovo, No mention of the extension of sanctions
against Iraqi children. No mention of carrying on of the Caribbean Basin Initiative in order implement NAFTA. No mention of Carter
and Ford and the East Timorese and the renewed arming and funding of the Indonesian military by the US during these administrations.
Moore somehow thinks that since workers are media supervised
that their mystification will end with revelations from Miramax, and
petit b. democracy will begin.

I think what wildman has to say is valid. There should be more self criticism.

His criticism is of the movie, not of the woman. Mike Moore did devote a lot of time to her and his intention was to play on emotions. Moore used her to achieve his aims. I don't see a problem with wildman criticising Mike's use of her when a lot more time should have been devoted to the suffering of the Iraqis.

===============================
"The most common SUBSTANTIVE criticism is that [Moore] scants THE ROLE OF ISRAEL in the politics of the Iraq war."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46304-2004Jul13.html
===============================

I love to eat poo!!!!!!!11

They even keep cutting off my MIM mail - not that I miss it, so, no, I am not in ' Zion IMC'.

Where are you?

Thomas Embling?

Listen up troll(s) - In an Australia-first, the Bracks Government is legislating to make cyberstalking a crime punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

Attorney General Rob Hulls today announced that he was amending the Crimes Act's current definition of stalking to include email communication, the manipulation of the operating system on another person's computer, and the publishing of offensive material electronically.

"Stalking will not be tolerated in Victoria, whether it takes place in the streets of Melbourne or cyberspace. The Crimes (Stalking) Bill delivers on the Bracks Government commitment for safer streets, safer public places and safer communities across all of Victoria," Mr Hulls said.

"There has been a dramatic increase in stalking complaints in Victoria. Between 1995-96 and 2000-01 the number of stalking complaints increased by 282% from 1,391 to 5,318.

"A small number of those complaints involved email harassment, but there have been a growing number of cases overseas that underlined the need to ensure that Victoria's laws are equipped to handle cyberstalking."

Cyberstalking case studies:

· On September 12, 2002, the US Federal Court sentenced convicted cyberstalker, Eric Bowker, to eight years in prison for sending obscene emails and telephone messages to TV reporter Tina Knight. Bowker also stole Knight's mail and continued after she moved interstate from Ohio to West Virginia.
· A California woman's home address was published in Usenet groups by an ex-boyfriend, along with a message indicating she fantasized about being raped. Six volunteers arrived within days.
· In 2000, a stalker killed Amy Boyer of New Hampshire after buying her Social Security number off the Internet for $45 and using it to get more of her personal information.

"It is widely recognised that the development of new technologies, particularly the Internet, provide new ways for stalkers to locate, contact and potentially harm their victims," Mr Hulls said.

"That's why we are introducing Australia's first anti-cyberstalking legislation.

"Posting false information about a person, impersonating another person in chat sites, tracing a person's steps through the Internet, up-loading offensive or doctored images of a person to Websites or providing personal information online will all be covered by these reforms.

"Since cyberstalking can occur from anywhere in the world the reforms have been extended to allow extra-territorial operation," Mr Hulls said.

"That means the Bracks Government's cyberstalking laws will apply to people living interstate or overseas if they are found to be stalking a person residing in Victoria, or a person living in Victoria who uses technology to stalk a victim residing interstate or overseas."

Mr Hulls said current provisions did not currently deal with cases of stalking where a victim might be being followed and in very real danger, but unaware of the threat.

"This new legislation will remove the requirement that the victim be aware of the stalking behaviour in order for it to be considered an offence," Mr Hulls said.

"Removing the requirement that the victim be aware of the stalking behaviour will enable police to intervene earlier and provide better protection to prospective victims," Mr Hulls said.

The Crimes Act currently defines stalking as a persistent course of conduct undertaken with the intention of causing harm or of instilling apprehension or fear in a person and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. END

I have always encouraged those who dislike what I write to note the sig to the article or comment, 'pr' and not read anything by ' pr' in the future. That way you'll avoid most of it.

So go chew on that trollface, go eat the peanuts out of my shit. Eat your little heart out.

Face it - if they ever seriously decide to crack down on "cyberstalking" we are ALL going to prison.

*"The film does contain very moving footage of the Iraqi victims of US bombs."

Well, "Iraqi victims - ", at least.

*"She is symptomatic of the entire first world culture. It is only when events directly touch them that they start to give a stuff."

'First World culture'? Try Third, if you want to make such a ridiculous sweeping generalisation at all. Western civilisation is notoriously concerned with the world beyond it's borders.

If history, philosophy and politics are too hard to research, then you only need look at the flow of financial and physical aid, both from government and public groups.

Hint: 'First-world culture' is a much wider statement than 'my local RSL'.

*"Which brings us to the September 11 attacks. The film does not address WHY these attacks took place at all, it merely focusses on Bush's response to them."

That's what i would expect from the image conjured by a title such as 'Farenheit 9-11' - that it's an exploration of events after-the-fact.

*"The implication is that there was not justification for the attacks at all, after all that would implicate Democrats as much as Republicans. A serious investigation of this would also run the risk of finding little innocence in the 'victims' on the upper floors of the World Trade Centre and the US military headquarters otherwise known as the Pentagon."

This is really just as bad as Moore, or any other blatant propagandist - the innocent Iraqis, the tarnished Americans (who aren't victims, but 'victims')...

Have you performed such a 'serious investigation', and can you please provide me with the evidence that these people deserved to die?

Do you really think the attacks did anything to affect blind funding of the Isreali military? Do you seriously beleive they were even MEANT to do anything in that regard?

Do you really think the demolition of Western civilisation is a noble aim? Huh. Maybe you do, being an anarchist. (Kind of hypocritical for someone opposing "heriarchical society", when you think about it.)

So what about the creation of Islamic theocratic monarchies?

And do you really think murder is an acceptable form of protest? (Oh, well, you did suggest "rioting" as a sensible response to sending troops in to Iraq...)

Please, explain to me exactly how the WTC attacks were justified. They didn't even make sense from a PRO-Al Qeada STRATEGIC viewpoint, for hel's sake!

*"F911 is essentially a patriotic film and Moore himself says that the US is a "great country". The message is that Bush is guilty while the Iraqis, America and the American public are innocent.

Who in the first world can really claim innocence anyway? We benefit significantly from death and exploitation committed in our name yet refuse to see or hear of it."

So boycotts, protests, legislation, etc... etc... all those measures that western society regularly employs to oppose this same "death and destruction"... that all just wooshes over your head?

Plenty of people in the first world can claim innocence, and rightly so.

Our most fundamental benefits come from the systems we use in government, science, and art (those little things that make up civilisation) - systems that have nothing to do with benefitting from other peoples misery. Much of it exists SPECIFICALLY to prevent that, and to reduce misery.

Is this some bizarre reworking of Christian Original Sin?

Do we need to feel guilty for daring to be alive? For example, for daring to use these computers in front of us (a peice of technology whose existence is only possible within the context of civilisation?)?

Bull.

*"I experience this with my family who will simply change the subject or cease to listen when I attempt to discuss anything that challenges their world view. Were they to fall victim to a "terrorist" attack, I would be devastated BUT I would not be proclaiming their innocence."

I doubt your family murders people, much as you seem to want to beleive that they do, by merely existing in our society.

*"And what of the hundreds of thousands in Australia and millions around the world who protested the invasion of Iraq? How can they claim innocence when they are aware yet do nothing to put a stop the atrocities? A peaceful weekend march in protest does NOTHING other than to falsely ease the consciences of the marchers, who then return to business as usual to play their role in the death machine. If the same hundreds of thousands of Australians rioted and continued to riot would the government still have sent troops? If people had of refused to work thus bringing the economy to a standstill would troops still have been sent?"

So you think hurting people over here is the solution?

It's awesome that they could protest peacefully, respecting the lives and rights of the people around them.

The fact is, democracy is not an illusion. The fact is, those protests were quite capable of changing peoples minds, and of putting pressure on the government. The fact is, the Liberals only do what they do for votes. If democracy was an illusion, then they may not have bothered going to war.

*"But to do something more than marching would have meant giving up their privilege. Their privilege of bearing moral witness to the atrocities while continuing to benefit from them."

No, their privilege of benefitting from the protection we get in our society, and of granting that to others - the privlege of human rights.

Exactly why should anyone give that up? So you get to watch a fight? You sound awfully like a military man, for a supposed anarchist.

*"I learnt no significant new facts from F911. All that is contained in the film has been within easy reach of anyone with an internet connection or able to afford thirty dollars for a book. There is little excuse for being ignorant. The real issue isn't not knowing, it is not caring."

And here's the crowning hypocrisy.

You say "there is little excuse for being ignorant", and yet you are clearly ignorant of many of the problems with the film.

Have YOU even done any of this internet research that you claim is so easy to do, that you claim we have a moral responsiblity to do?

Clearly not! You don't even seem to be AWARE of the questionable information contained in the film! You listed portions of it without any comment... you wrote "this information is easily available", again without comment on veracity or controversy... You don't even seem to be aware of any controversy, at least beyond the black-and-white, Herald-Sun version of the "debate".

You swallowed the bullcrap just as much as the people that you're attacking!

Well, there is an excuse for being ignorant about a propaganda film like 9-11 - things like that are *designed* to suck you in. Charlatans like Moore play off human weaknesses, like "camera's don't lie". But like you said, it doesn't take too long to do a bit of hunting and find the flaws.

Most of the time, I don't mind someone being innocently ignorant.

What i DO mind is someone beating his chest and saying "Hey, you're all so stupid for not doing your homework", when HE hasn't done a bloody thing!

It's easy to create a review (or a Documentary, for that matter) that LOOKS genuine. But it turns out you have to put in a teensy weensy bit of effort to actually make it so...

I've sort of been reading some of your posts, and I was wondering where you idiots are from. You sound like a bunch of sixteen year-old children. Please, tell me that you're not Australian, as I would be so ashamed to know that we share a common ancestor. Morons like you deserve to have Boeing 757's flown up your asses by crazed, islamic savages.

Hey Pookie! Isn't it great that we've blown up that terrorist ringleader asshole Saddama bin Laden?
Our victory is assurred!