Michael Moore 's Fahrenheit 9 / 11

On September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center buildings one and two were attacked. However, who we were attacked by and even if we were attacked is a hard decision to make. There have been many different claims about how everything on that fateful day happened. There are facts that we know are true, though; Flight 11 flew into the North Tower at eight forty- six in the morning. Soon after, Flight 175 attacked the South Tower. By the end of the day, both towers had collapsed and other hijacked flights had caused damage. The amount of lives lost on September 11 was substantial; 2,749 people from eighty-three different countries died from the attacks (Facts about the attacks…, n.d.). All in all, America was changed forever.

Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, America has been on edge about the topic of terrorism. Groups like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban, and now more recently, ISIS, has kept the world cautious of their every next move. Looking more closely into how these groups are formed and operate could help us better understand how they can be stopped. Studying the history of terrorist organizations can help us better predict the future of terrorist organizations.

On September 11, 2001, a series of terrorist attacks were directed for the United States by means of four hijacked planes. Two of which hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one hit the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Department of Defense, and the fourth crashed in a field near Pittsburg after it was meant to hit the White House. The terror spread in the United States and brought concern and fear to the citizens. The impact of these terrorist attacks caused serious and detrimental damages within the country, and their result on the people were enormous; insecurity, helplessness, and susceptibility spread. Especially after the release of a videotape in which Osama Bin Laden, head of Al-Qaeda, admitted that he was responsible for the terrorist attacks. Hence, President George W, Bush declared the “war on terror” against all terrorists in the Arab world, specifically Afghanistan and Iraq. In the following paper, we will be discussing how the war on terror was waged, its effects on the target countries, and how it was perceived by political thinkers, where some saw it as a conspiracy theory against the Arab countries, and others believed the USA was the victim.

The organization of the essay is impressive. The introduction is effective in grasping the audiences’ attention. Mae begins the essay by giving information about the topic. She states that “[i]n 2004, when the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib became known, many Americans became concerned that the government was using torture as part of its interrogation of war-on-terror detainees.” This quote makes readers want to read further into the essay, and it also shows how the topic of essay is

The obvious bias illustrated throughout Michael Moore’s film certainly does detract from the messages conveyed however when presented in the right circumstances it adds more value to the messages. The obvious bias leaves many people questioning the credibility of the director’s message as it doesn’t show the full spectrum of the situation, which is what documentaries are for, and ultimately this detracts the films message. However, in some circumstances the obvious bias brings more light on important aspects which should be acted upon thus adding more value the message being portrayed. Michael Moore has directed over 12 documentaries and a handful of them have been awarded with prestigious film awards. “Where to invade next”, “Sicko”, “Bowling for Columbine”, “Capitalism: a love story” and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, these are just half of the documentaries in which Michael Moore has directed. The purpose of a documentary is to present a nonfictional motion picture which aims to promote or

The 1970s was a rough time for Americans. The economy was struggling and gas prices were doublings, sometimes gas stations even ran out of gas. While all this was going on, the media caught the attention of the American people on the story of the sixty six hostages that were captured in Tehran. Soon that became the center of attention. Both in Iran and America, people focused on what would happen and especially how President Jimmy Carter would respond. In his book, Taken Hostage, David Farber closely examines the events that led up to the hostage crisis. He informs us of America’s first encounter with radical Islam and what had caused the conflict between them. For four hundred and forty-four days, President Carter tried to put effort into resolving the issues but he failed on releasing the hostages. Since the American people paid close attention to this issue, they were highly disappointed with President Carter and his processes. From our class lectures and throughout the tensions illustrated in Farber’s book, we learn of how the role of Cold War policy had fueled the crisis between the United States and “Radical Islam”, the Cold War policy shaping the response of the U.S. to the crisis, and also understanding the present War on Terror.

George W. Bush once said that “Our enemies have made the mistake that America’s enemies always make. They see liberty and think they saw weakness.” 9/11 was a devastating day in American history. Men, from the terrorist group Al Quada, attacked America on their own soil for the first time since Japan attack us at Pearl Harbor. But there are some things we can isolate from it. The basic overview of it. What were the terrorists doing to get ready for the day, and what was their major purpose and intention.

On September 11th 2001, the United States was hit with a devastating blow when four commercial airplanes were hijacked by Al-Qaeda terrorist who deliberately crashed two of the planes into the World Trade Center complex, and a third plane into the Pentagon. The fourth plane, headed for Washington D.C., instead crashed in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 lives were lost on this egregious day. In response, President George W. Bush waged the controversial “Global War on Terrorism” which turned out to be a self-inflicted wound for America, bleeding still today. Bush’s highly-criticized decision was inconsistent with the strategic principles of war.

The Abu Ghraib torture scandal left a large blemish on the occupation of Iraq and George Bush’s War on terror. As stories of the torture happening in the Abu Ghraib prison began circulating, American citizens had trouble comprehending the acts of evil their soldiers had committed on Iraqis. Some began to see a correlation between Abu Ghraib and the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Though the guards in both situations were brutal to their captives, distinct differences lay in the severity of their actions. Abu Ghraib’s guards were much more vicious to their captives, and this can be attributed to the prejudices the guards felt against their captors, the environment, and the lack of training, compounded with a lack of accountability in the leadership.

The United States citizens have been wrestling with the question of, whether their government intelligence agencies should be prohibited from using torture to gather information. According to Michael Ignatieff, this is the hardest case of what he describes as ‘lesser evil ethics’—a political ethics predicated on the idea that in emergencies leaders must choose between different evils Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture was viewed by most American’s as only actions that brutal dictators would employ on their citizens, to keep order within their country. However, this all changed when in May 2004, The New Yorker released photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The disturbing pictures were released on the internet showing bodies of naked Iraqis piled onto each other, others showed Iraqis being tortured and humiliated. There was a huge up roar, which caused the President at the time George W. Bush to publicly apologize, and threaten the job of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Soon after, the CIA Conformed the use of waterboarding on three Al-Qaida suspects in 2002 and 2003, which further annihilated the topic. Since these reports, torture has been in the forefront of national politics, and the public opinion has been struggling to commit on whether torture is right or wrong.

The September 11 attacks were tragic events that had spread shockwaves of horror and grief across the United States. The tragedy became the subject of controversy as some skeptics began to doubt the details reported to have transpired that day. Some people question its legitimacy, theorizing that the Bush administration devised and orchestrated the attacks to further its agenda. Filmmaker Dylan Avery discusses and promotes this prevalent conspiracy theory in his documentary, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup. Avery argues that the government possessed foreknowledge of the attacks by comparing them to precedents of similar situations. He challenges the official explanations and provides his analyzations of evidence from the reports and media. Avery effectively appeals to pathos, ethos, and logos in his film, but his compelling argument is ultimately undermined by fallacies.

Michael Moore’s latest film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” presents a critical look at the administration of George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism. In this film Moore investigates the rapid growth of the United States government and its trend of trampling the rights of individuals, and the corporatism that is spawned out of the close ties between big government and big business during wartime. Michael Moore may not convince all audiences, but is successful for its factual accuracy in which the evidence spoke for itself, and at the same time proclaimed Moore's artistry in transposing and splicing scenes to create impressions that supported his allegations and opinions. Michael Moore has employed two main techniques in an

The tragic events that occurred on September 11th, 2001 will live on forever in the history of the United States as citizens shed fresh tears for those lost every year. Hundreds upon thousands of articles have been written since the life-shattering catastrophic event, most of which – unsurprisingly – focus on the politics of the entire situation. In one article, “9/11,” Susan Sontag ruthlessly criticizes the government response following the attacks, making bold claims that they were withholding information from the public and leaving citizens blind and ignorant. Though Sontag is effective in describing a valid argument against the government’s response after the events of 9/11, her success is lost in her failed establishment of ethos in her lacking appearance of knowledge, little fairness toward the government’s side, and lost credibility due to inadequate facts and strong emotions.

After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.

September 11th changed the lives of many Americans, irrevocably. The horrendous attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon altered the way American’s viewed their positions within the world, not to mention their lives and their safety. The attacks brought terrorism to the forefront of national attention, in every aspect. The government became immediately immersed in an effort to understand and defeat terrorism, and simultaneously, the media, with its perverse fascination with violence and profit-driven espousal to round-the-clock, up-to-the-minute coverage, demonstrated an obsession with the attacks, by broadcasting almost nothing but the latest developments in the search and rescue efforts and investigations