Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (57963)	9/15/2002 2:56:26 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Don't take this the wrong way- i understand what you are saying- but I'm not sure he thought he was taking the money "on behalf" of Iraq. That is your spin. What comes across pretty clearly is this guy has a temper, and also a very definite opinion about Iraq and the US actions against Iraq. I think he "admits" he wanted to get HIS view across. And he took money from someone to finance it- though it doesn't sound like it was for personal gain. I don't know who that someone was, or how closely tied they were to Iraq- I sense that you do not know this either. Sometimes interests coincide even in people who are enemies. This man could very well be opposed to Sadaam and still want to produce this movie. I am opposed to Sadaam, but am also opposed to invading Iraq. I simply think it would be against international law, and a very bad sign to the Arab world, and an equally bad precedent for our behavior regarding Very Bad Leaders- of whom there are multitudes. Sadaam isn't even at the top of the list (imo) as far as really horrible leaders goes. And we've been in bed with some of the most ruthless and most horrible. Not that we usually care. After all, we've cuddled under the covers with Sadaam, as a nation. I wasn't for that either.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (57963)	9/15/2002 3:21:37 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

it certainly gives the appearance of funny business... Yes, that the film was backed by an alleged Iraqi interest appears iffy. This needs to be looked into. It appears that the media are doing just that. I imagine the FBI and/or CIA are, as well. Whether or not Ritter profited from the transaction and to what extent is also relevant or whether he "received" funds solely in his capacity as producer for distribution to employees and ventors should also be looked at. Has anyone seen this film? Or seen a review of it? What exactly is problematic about the film, itself? would you take money from an Iraqi interest to produce a film on behalf of Iraq? Of course not. My point is only that we do not know if Ritter would, or did, either. We surely know he didn't say that he did during the Reilly interview. At least one of us does. I am not applauding or criticizing whatever it was that has or hasn't done, since I really don't know what that is. I'm addressing only the accuracy of your assertion of what Ritter "admitted" during that interview. My interest in this, the reason I engaged this topic, is much the same as JLA's hobby-horse--a distaste for blatant misinformation. We each deal with that distaste differently. He calls people names, laughs at them, and tries to get them banned. I am trying to point out to you where your statement got ahead of your available information in the hopes that you and all of us posters will curb that kind of excess.