Zeitgiest: Opinions?

[Interviewer/surveyer]

I'm really sorry if this topic has been overdone here, but I watched a video entitled Zeitgiest a few months ago that put a pretty compelling argue about 9/11; that it was an inside job. I'm sure many of you well-informed Sputnik users have seen it, and I know many of you are pretty damn smart here in PNWI, so I'd like to here some opinions about either the movie or the issue at hand. Thanks.

[guitrguy]

ugh, these conspiracy theories have debunked over and over.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I find it odd and depressing that nobody in the US gets enraged over real situations in which the government assrapes its people yet they swallow fake 9/11 BS like a free sandwich.

[Jude]

Edit: ^^ right on it's because Americans are stupid as hell

OK

It IS appalling how Bush exploited 9/11 to destroy half the middle east and get hundreds of thousands of people killed, a lot of them his own citizens

but this is BS

[Volumnius Flush]

and I know many of you are pretty damn smart here in PNWI,

Well thank you Interviewer/surveyer!

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

It IS appalling how Bush exploited 9/11 to destroy half the middle east and get hundreds of thousands of people killed, a lot of them his own citizens

but this is BS

Exactly.

I'm not even American and my blood starts to boil when I think of the lies and deceit that led to thousands of innocent deaths. War crimes in your own backyard, and the guy gets... reelected? Insanity.

[Smokey D]

War crimes?

[BassRevelation1029]

These threads pop up every now and then.

[GreyHam]

i thought it was an awesome bit of filmmaking

is it true? probably not, but its still a damn good film

[Jude]

War crimes?

Well I consider the wars to be crimes in the moral if not legal sense

And our soldiers have done some stuff that probably qualifies as war crimes, even everybody higher up has managed to escape judgment

[guitrguy]

Well I consider the wars to be crimes in the moral if not legal sense

And our soldiers have done some stuff that probably qualifies as war crimes, even everybody higher up has managed to escape judgment

The excuse is that are they are killing machines. This came from my father who is a Squadron Commander in the USAF.

[Smokey D]

Well I consider the wars to be crimes in the moral if not legal sense

And our soldiers have done some stuff that probably qualifies as war crimes, even everybody higher up has managed to escape judgment

It's a crime maybe in the sense that it's an illegal war but it's not a crime in the sense that it's a Holocaust.

[Jude]

It's a crime maybe in the sense that it's an illegal war but it's not a crime in the sense that it's a Holocaust.

Well it's a crime in that it's an illegal war AND a crime in the sense that it's a hugely immoral and evil act

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's not really evil. It's stupid.

[Jude]

It's evil

[Dave de Sylvia]

Sure. In the sense that you could go outside and yell "evil!" at things you find even slightly objectionable.

[Jude]

Um, I would consider starting a war that you know is going to result in thousands of deaths, to be evil by basically any standards

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'd say you need to introduce some nuance and critical thought to that worldview.

[DBoons Ghost]

Great movie! 3 out of 5 stars.

Compelling.. I found myself really into it and I wanted to see what happened!

(Spoiler: Everyone got away at the end.)

[Jude]

I'd say you need to introduce some nuance and critical thought to that worldview.

Not really
Even if it's for a good, or arguably good, or hopefully good purpose, the act is still evil (if you consider causing massive death and destruction evil)

[guitrguy]

Its unrealistic to avoid war completely.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

War crimes?

Your leaders went in front of you and gave reasons why you should sacrifice your sons and daughters to fight a far-off war. They were lying to you, and they knew it. Now thousands of people are dead and more are dying for a series of indefensible lies. Thousands of lives ruined so they could boost their approval ratings and give the impression they actually gave a crap about the war on terror. If that's not a war crime, I don't know what is.

Plus let's not forget Guantanamo, which in and of itself would probably be grounds to get everybody involved executed if they were put on trial for war crimes.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Not really
Even if it's for a good, or arguably good, or hopefully good purpose, the act is still evil (if you consider causing massive death and destruction evil)
No it's not. Actions don't have evil and non-evil properties.

[Jude]

Its unrealistic to avoid war completely.

So

Your leaders went in front of you and gave reasons why you should sacrifice your sons and daughters to fight a far-off war. They were lying to you, and they knew it. Now thousands of people are dead and more are dying for a series of indefensible lies. Thousands of lives ruined so they could boost their approval ratings and give the impression they actually gave a crap about the war on terror. If that's not a war crime, I don't know what is.
And yeah all this, to get back to the original point.

No it's not. Actions don't have evil and non-evil properties.
Well I'm assuming for the purposes of this that evil exists and can be satisfactorily defined, which isn't actually the case, but still, I figured we could both agree that it's evil to intentionally unleash destruction and death and all around hell on a whole country even if you think that you might accomplish something arguably positive by it

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

Thousands of lives ruined so they could boost their approval ratings and give the impression they actually gave a crap about the war on terror. If that's not a war crime, I don't know what is.
do you think their motives were as trivial as approval ratings?

Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Kanan Makiya- yeah these guys were definitely looking for political approval and farcical humanitarianism was obviously a core part of the neo-conservative agenda.

and jude you're being mellodramatic i guess just for the sake of argument idk

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well I'm assuming for the purposes of this that evil exists and can be satisfactorily defined, which isn't actually the case, but still, I figured we could both agree that it's evil to intentionally unleash destruction and death and all around hell on a whole country even if you think that you might accomplish something arguably positive by it
If you remove it completely from context like that it would be very difficult to deny. But it's still a lazy way of approaching a complex moral problem.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

do you think their motives were as trivial as approval ratings?

Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Kanan Makiya- yeah these guys were definitely looking for political approval and farcical humanitarianism was obviously a core part of the neo-conservative agenda.


I believe that they preferred to be seen taking action and get it wrong than wait longer and get it right.

Every reason they gave to go in has turned out to be a lie; the only redeeming quality would have been if they truly had the intention of restoring some sort of peace in Iraq, which they should have known was impossible and/or unrealistic given their bungled rebuilding plan. I really don't see what else could have motivated them other than to beat on their chests about the awesomeness of freedom and democracy and attack a false enemy.

[guitrguy]

I believe that they preferred to be seen taking action and get it wrong than wait longer and get it right.

Every reason they gave to go in has turned out to be a lie; the only redeeming quality would have been if they truly had the intention of restoring some sort of peace in Iraq, which they should have known was impossible and/or unrealistic given their bungled rebuilding plan. I really don't see what else could have motivated them other than to beat on their chests about the awesomeness of freedom and democracy and attack a false enemy.

To be fair there is almost certainly information about Iraq that was not released to the public. What it is was and whether it would made the action more justifiable is a completely different question.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

To be fair there is almost certainly information about Iraq that was not released to the public. What it is was and whether it would made the action more justifiable is a completely different question.

People said there was evidence proving that there were WMDs in Iraq. They later admitted this was not even a mistake, but a lie.

They said the Iraqi people would welcome them with open arms and probably even help overthrow Saddam. This did not happen. Much the opposite, in fact; as soon as there was no tyranny to oppress them, factional conflicts erupted. Cooperation was either a pipe dream or another lie.

They said Iraqi oil would pay for the rebuilding effort. Because of foolishness or incompetence, Iraq is still importing oil and costing hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

They said the Iraqi government was complicit in plotting 9/11. They later admitted this was a lie.


Do I really need to go on? There is nothing they could be hiding that would justify lies on this scale.

[guitrguy]

People said there was evidence proving that there were WMDs in Iraq. They later admitted this was not even a mistake, but a lie.
Yet there was massive stalling by Saddam during attempts to inspect in the run up to the war. Regardless of that, bad information is not necessarily lying.
They said the Iraqi people would welcome them with open arms and probably even help overthrow Saddam. This did not happen. Much the opposite, in fact; as soon as there was no tyranny to oppress them, factional conflicts erupted. Cooperation was either a pipe dream or another lie. thats not necessarily a lie either, thats not knowing your enemy and their environment.

They said Iraqi oil would pay for the rebuilding effort. Because of foolishness or incompetence, Iraq is still importing oil and costing hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
Not everything runs an ideal course, you should know that.
They said the Iraqi government was complicit in plotting 9/11. They later admitted this was a lie.
Bad information is not necessarily a lie.

Do I really need to go on? There is nothing they could be hiding that would justify lies on this scale.
You really don't have the information to say that. So much for being objective.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

You really don't have the information to say that. So much for being objective.

If you're still willing to give the current administration the benefit of the doubt, you're exactly the kind of person that I'm talking about.

edit: and how about adressing the first 90% of my post? Tell me how any of that is forgiveable.

[guitrguy]

If you're still willing to give the current administration the benefit of the doubt, you're exactly the kind of person that I'm talking about.

edit: and how about adressing the first 90% of my post? Tell me how any of that is forgiveable.

how about seeing my edit, and not pretending you are exactly in the know. Also please don't make assumptions, you are just coming off annoyed by some one not willing to jump on the "everything is a lie bandwagon."

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

No, I didn't see your edit. Now I did.

Yet there was massive stalling by Saddam during attempts to inspect in the run up to the war. Regardless of that, bad information is not necessarily lying.


They admitted they had no evidence. They freakin' CONFESSED. How are you still defending them on this?

And would you let your gun-owning neighbour into your house to make sure you didn't have any guns? I sure as hell wouldn't.

thats not necessarily a lie either, thats not knowing your enemy and their environment.

How could they declare something of such critical importance without doing their homework? It shows they knew absolutely nothing about the country and instead chose to assure the American people of something they knew nothing about.

Not everything runs an ideal course, you should know that.

Incompetent planning and wishful thinking guarantees it won't run an ideal course. If you don't study for a test, you can't blame your F on bad luck.

Bad information is not necessarily a lie.


Again, they admitted it was a lie. You're right, bad information is not necessarily a lie, but again, they CONFESSED. And nobody seemed to care.

You really don't have the information to say that. So much for being objective.

How can you give them the benefit of the doubt after all this? I really do want to know. This is what boggles my mind.

[Jude]

If they DID have some kind of evidence, odds are they would have brought it out by now to salvage some kind of respectability before the administration goes out. Unless it's so super super sensitive that it would cause world war 3, but I highly doubt that.

[guitrguy]

They admitted they had no evidence. They freakin' CONFESSED. How are you still defending them on this?
They said they had bad evidence, and that was after the fact.
It pretty hard to verify that information when the regime in question is unwilling cooperate.


And would you let your gun-owning neighbour into your house to make sure you didn't have any guns? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I sure as hell don't see how thats a remotely apt analogy.

How could they declare something of such critical importance without doing their homework? It shows they knew absolutely nothing about the country and instead chose to assure the American people of something they knew nothing about. You gravely understate the complexity of war and planning. Its not that simple to go look up all the information you need on the complexities of Iraqi culture, we had very little contact with Iraq. There were very few if any operatives on the ground. I'm not arguing that the War was mistake, but I am arguing the fact you want to paint this completely malicious act with deliberate misinformation.


Incompetent planning and wishful thinking guarantees it won't run an ideal course. If you don't study for a test, you can't blame your F on bad luck.
Except test is no where near as complex as waging war and post war reconstruction. The plans are merely educated guess, and with as little contact as we had, they plans can only be so accurate. You're acting as if they purposely twiddle their thumbs. This is professional military, and their plans can only be as good as the information gathered.


Again, they admitted it was a lie. You're right, bad information is not necessarily a lie, but again, they CONFESSED. And nobody seemed to care.
I'd like to know where the said they lied.


How can you give them the benefit of the doubt after all this? I really do want to know. This is what boggles my mind.
I'm not willing to judge motivation so easily with so little information.

If they DID have some kind of evidence, odds are they would have brought it out by now to salvage some kind of respectability before the administration goes out. Unless it's so super super sensitive that it would cause world war 3, but I highly doubt that.

You doubting it means as much as suspecting it. The fact is we could easily be wrong. Just as wrong as the administration was with their information.

[Der Übermensch]

It's bullshit. Steel may not melt at that temp, but it does lose over 50% structural capacity.

Can we ban anyone who makes a thread about Zeitgeist from now on?

[Against Miik!]

As far as the question of war crimes go...

I'm not an expert in international law or anything, but not only is this an illegal war, but I find it a bit problematic that a slightly disproportional number of Iraqi civilians have been killed or displaced from their homes. War crime or not, it shows a complete disregard and lack of respect for the Iraqi people who really have nothing to do with the whole situation.

[guitrguy]

As far as the question of war crimes go...

I'm not an expert in international law or anything, but not only is this an illegal war, but I find it a bit problematic that a slightly disproportional number of Iraqi civilians have been killed or displaced from their homes. War crime or not, it shows a complete disregard and lack of respect for the Iraqi people who really have nothing to do with the whole situation.

And try the military for a natural effect of war?

[Against Miik!]

Natural effect my ***. Look up the numbers. You think 4,000 dead Americans is sad? **** that. Between casualties and those displaced from their homes, the numbers of Iraqis negatively affected by this war is in the millions. MILLIONS. That is a fact that rarely gets reported on. Considering that this war is illegal, and it has been proven that we are over their for no reasons but to instill our own selfish plans, I believe the Bush administration is personally responsible for every single Iraqi killed or forced to leave their home.

Even if Bush really really thought that they had WMDs at one point, I see that as no excuse. He has no more justification for his actions than the 9/11 hijackers do for theirs.

[spitfirejunky]

Your leaders went in front of you and gave reasons why you should sacrifice your sons and daughters to fight a far-off war. They were lying to you, and they knew it. Now thousands of people are dead and more are dying for a series of indefensible lies. Thousands of lives ruined so they could boost their approval ratings and give the impression they actually gave a crap about the war on terror. If that's not a war crime, I don't know what is.

Plus let's not forget Guantanamo, which in and of itself would probably be grounds to get everybody involved executed if they were put on trial for war crimes.

New Zealand?

[guitrguy]

Natural effect my ***. Look up the numbers. You think 4,000 dead Americans is sad? **** that. Between casualties and those displaced from their homes, the numbers of Iraqis negatively affected by this war is in the millions. MILLIONS. That is a fact that rarely gets reported on. Considering that this war is illegal, and it has been proven that we are over their for no reasons but to instill our own selfish plans, I believe the Bush administration is personally responsible for every single Iraqi killed or forced to leave their home. Funny how leaving a power vacuum is far more irresponsible than entering the war. Also the war being fought in Iraq is known as Urban Asymmetrical warfare. The insurgents do not fight in an organized army and us the citizens as meat shields. I hate to break it to you, but idealism doesn't change what happens in that type of war. Its unfortunate and pretty shitty, but that still is not grounds to try people for the effects of war. The main problem we have is people are willing to deal with the situation at hand. We are in Iraq whether you like it or not. And its irresponsible to the nation worse than when we entered.

Even if Bush really really thought that they had WMDs at one point, I see that as no excuse. He has no more justification for his actions than the 9/11 hijackers do for theirs.
that still doesn't change the fact we are there and made mess. We have to deal with and at least try rebuild the country we destroyed. Leaving unconditionally and immediately is as irresponsible as it was to go to war.

[Jude]

Its unfortunate and pretty shitty, but that still is not grounds to try people for the effects of war.
Not for the effects, for starting it in the first place

[guitrguy]

Not for the effects, for starting it in the first place

good luck with that. You know nothing is going to happen.

[Jude]

I wasn't really pushing that in the first place I was just saying the Bush administration is evil

[guitrguy]

Subjectivity at its finest.

[Against Miik!]

Funny how leaving a power vacuum is far more irresponsible than entering the war. Also the war being fought in Iraq is known as Urban Asymmetrical warfare. The insurgents do not fight in an organized army and us the citizens as meat shields. I hate to break it to you, but idealism doesn't change what happens in that type of war. Its unfortunate and pretty poopty, but that still is not grounds to try people for the effects of war. The main problem we have is people are willing to deal with the situation at hand. We are in Iraq whether you like it or not. And its irresponsible to the nation worse than when we entered.


I'm not saying we peace out right now necessarily. I'm not over there, so I don't know what the situation is. What I can see though, from accounts of people over there, is that it is questionable whether or not the country is better off now than before we invaded. People are still dying, the government is still corrupt...at least under Saddam they had running water, a power grid maybe. Things were somewhat stable, all things considered. And tbh, even if they are better off, it is illegal to invade a sovereign country who is of no threat to you. Maybe we THOUGHT they were, but they most certainly were not, and ignorance is no excuse.

I understand what you are saying about urban warfare, but the fact that we did not take that into account before the invasion again shows a complete lack or respect or concern for the average American citizen. I mean, Bush didn't even know there were different sects of Islam before we invaded. That is admitted. Considering things like that, how can you even pretend the administration gives a rats *** about what happens to those people. We have one concern over their, and that is control. We have the Saudis on our side, the Israelis. Kuwait and UAE are pretty pro American. Take over Iraq, maybe a little Iran on the side, and we are sittin pretty in the region. That is all it is about.

Taking that into consideration, maybe no actual law was broken, nothing that would hold up in a court. But that doesn't change common sense. And common sense tells us that somebody needs to be stoned, dragged through the streets, and burned at the stake, if by anybody, the Iraqi people.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

Every reason they gave to go in has turned out to be a lie;
I wouldn't say that. war with iraq had been in the cards long before the gulf war even, it dates back to the late 70's during the cold war, when a specific reaganite (wolfowitz) was asked by the pentagon to examine threats to national interests other than the soviets and ended up settling on middle eastern totalitarianism (specifically the baath party) in conjunction with that area's natural resources as a potential quagmire. the perceived threats that justified that viewpoint are still understandable and relevant if not entirely plausible, and that's just from an american standpoint- which is not taking into account the domestic trends and turmoil that was developing and shaping iraq itself. a couple of significant iraqi exiles ended up in key positions during the war and its subsequent transition from fascism to democracy, and many of them were still embittered from the disappointing and some would say negligent ending to the first gulf war (bush senior called for uraqis to rise up and throw off the shackles of oppression. many iraqis did, assuming the u.s. had their back.)
the only redeeming quality would have been if they truly had the intention of restoring some sort of peace in Iraq
you think there wasn't? don't confuse negligent post-war managing for artificial desire for a stable democratic middle eastern state. I sincerely believe the bush administration thought they were doing a win-win- iraqis get freedom, the united states gets resources, influence, and an ally.

[Against Miik!]

Sure their was a potential win win, but clearly, the prosperity of the Iraqi people was a distant second.

[guitrguy]

I'm not saying we peace out right now necessarily. I'm not over there, so I don't know what the situation is. What I can see though, from accounts of people over there, is that it is questionable whether or not the country is better off now than before we invaded. People are still dying, the government is still corrupt...at least under Saddam they had running water, a power grid maybe. Things were somewhat stable, all things considered. And tbh, even if they are better off, it is illegal to invade a sovereign country who is of no threat to you. Maybe we THOUGHT they were, but they most certainly were not, and ignorance is no excuse.I'm not arguing that, at the point we are in now, its pointless to argue the motivates because it does not address the situation we are in. Mistakes happen, this war was a mistake, but we should at least fix what we ****ed up.

I understand what you are saying about urban warfare, but the fact that we did not take that into account before the invasion again shows a complete lack or respect or concern for the average American citizen. I mean, Bush didn't even know there were different sects of Islam before we invaded. That is admitted. Considering things like that, how can you even pretend the administration gives a rats *** about what happens to those people. We have one concern over their, and that is control. We have the Saudis on our side, the Israelis. Kuwait and UAE are pretty pro American. Take over Iraq, maybe a little Iran on the side, and we are sittin pretty in the region. That is all it is about. Again I'm not arguing motivation, as its a fruitless argument that changes nothing in the situation.

Taking that into consideration, maybe no actual law was broken, nothing that would hold up in a court. But that doesn't change common sense. And common sense tells us that somebody needs to be stoned, dragged through the streets, and burned at the stake, if by anybody, the Iraqi people.
Thats absurd, and you know it.

[Against Miik!]

Its absurd because we have been conditioned to believe that our government is immune to punishment. There will be no impeachment. We will not be even close to getting out of Iraq by the time the next president is out of office, be it 4 or 8 years. But when this administration is done, they need to be held responsible for their actions. That is what a democracy is about, a transparent government that answers to the people. If people had the slightest clue what was going on, it would be absurd to believe that we wouldn't call for somebody's head on a stick.

[guitrguy]

Its absurd because we have been conditioned to believe that our government is immune to punishment. There will be no impeachment. We will not be even close to getting out of Iraq by the time the next president is out of office, be it 4 or 8 years. But when this administration is done, they need to be held responsible for their actions. That is what a democracy is about, a transparent government that answers to the people. If people had the slightest clue what was going on, it would be absurd to believe that we wouldn't call for somebody's head on a stick.

Except their really isn't much of legal case against them. Making a mistake, albeit a bad one, is not a legal charge.

[Interviewer/surveyer]

I'm sorry I made this thread if it's been overdone. I'd like opinions at least from people other than my friends about this movie. Have a lot of the arguments in the movie been proven false?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Yes. Do a search for threads with Zeitgeist in the title and you'll pretty much find every argument possible.

[Interviewer/surveyer]

Yes. Do a search for threads with Zeitgeist in the title and you'll pretty much find every argument possible.

thanks. :)

[Against Miik!]

Except their really isn't much of legal case against them. Making a mistake, albeit a bad one, is not a legal charge.

If it can be proven that it wasn't a mistake, then I think legal charges could be brought up. Although again, I don't know much about this kind of law.

[Smokey D]

You could impeach him. You might be able to indict him for lying to Congress or something.

[Against Miik!]

In reality, nothing will happen. When those calling for impeachment are people like Dennis Kucinich, well, yeah, nothing will happen.