Just saw this again in April 2004. This film just seems to get better and better. So we have had Clinton and Lewinsky but now there's more. Listen to the stuff about terrorist cells and suitcase bombs. Now we have a President at war with Iraq and supressing images of American coffins.
Funny or chilling, guess we'll be able to make that call after the next US elections.
www.breheny.com
Yeah I watched this as well..last night on bbc2..for the first time..
And it scares me!..
It scares me how easy this could happen..with computer cgi evolving and everything..
Also I keep thinking about the moon landing..how it was the perfect way to make the public forget about what was happening in Nam at the time
Comments?
Wake up!..Time to die!
It scares me how easy this could happen
It already does. There was a fuss a couple of years back when a Royal image was doctored to get Prince Harry smiling. Oponents of Dean photoshoped him into a photo with Hanoi Jane. These are just a couple of the ones we know about??!
www.breheny.com
I had the same feeling (about the movie being prescient, I didn't get all conspiracy theorethical )
"International terrorism. Small groups working alone, not states. This is the war of the future my friend."
"Why do people go to war?" "To protect their way of life."
"Why do these terrorist wanna blow us up?"
"They want to destroy the Godless Satan of the United States... They want to destroy our Way of Life."
"protecting our way of life. War of the future." Granted, it's standard rhetoric, but it seems like Bush's speech writer is an avid fan of Wag the Dog. Go figure.
Some advice to those frightend by this movie: This movie is presented in a realistic manner, but of course *beep* like this could never be pulled off in real life. There are hundreds of people involved! One of them [b]will[b] talk, since their is no common interest to bind them. (No limitless suplies of cash exist, and you can only knock off so many people before it becomes suspect)
On the other hand, of course you can 'engineer' certain *beep*. Like the existence of W of MD in Iraq . Then again, a skeptic can know when something is backed up by hard evidence and when it is not. Journalists don't like to lie. Apart from it being unethical (not a consideration for some) other journalist might find out. This also applies to the goverment.
GOVERMENT / NEW YORK TIMES LIES ABOUT TERRORISM makes for a better headline than TERRORISTS LURK ALONG CANADIAN BORDER. Of course, many newsmedia trust 'the goverment' as a source. If you, for whatever reason, don't, read a story critically. There is only circumstancial evidence supporting lies. If there was real evidence, it wouldn't be a lie.
"say they wanna save the earth...but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad."