Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

gov135 · 10-08-2003, 05:19 AM

"Danger - multi-millionaires at large

I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not?

Osama bin Laden has assets totaling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!"

I found this passage interesting. We often label rich people with a screw loose as "ecentric." Sure, poor people can have a screw loose too, but they are too busy scraping a living together. It's those that are worth the kind of money that have isolated themselves from others - these are the people that have an agenda and the money to carry it out. I think the parallels Moore draws here are interesting - special interest groups are killing the representation of the common man. Bush is a millionaire - he tried to maker a buck - but failed miserably every step of the way - only to be bailed out by millionnaires. How could he not listen to their agendas? I agree with Moore - the super rich that have alot of time on their hands are dangerous when they have agendas - they can do something about it. That's not democracy at best and seeds for terror at worst.

10-08-2003, 05:19 AM	#25 (permalink)
gov135 Junkie Location: Midwest	"Danger - multi-millionaires at large I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not? Osama bin Laden has assets totaling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!" I found this passage interesting. We often label rich people with a screw loose as "ecentric." Sure, poor people can have a screw loose too, but they are too busy scraping a living together. It's those that are worth the kind of money that have isolated themselves from others - these are the people that have an agenda and the money to carry it out. I think the parallels Moore draws here are interesting - special interest groups are killing the representation of the common man. Bush is a millionaire - he tried to maker a buck - but failed miserably every step of the way - only to be bailed out by millionnaires. How could he not listen to their agendas? I agree with Moore - the super rich that have alot of time on their hands are dangerous when they have agendas - they can do something about it. That's not democracy at best and seeds for terror at worst.