http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Anyone ever seen this movie? Quite a conspiracy but a lot of facts to support it. It ties religion, terrorism, and the economy together.

Don't watch it if talks of religion bother you. I'd like to hear someone else's opinion on this movie though.

 

For the benefit of those on dial-up or who don't feel like watching the whole film, can you give us a summary of the film content/conspiracies raised?

Thanks.

Dave

 

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Anyone ever seen this movie? Quite a conspiracy but a lot of facts to support it. It ties religion, terrorism, and the economy together.

Don't watch it if talks of religion bother you. I'd like to hear someone else's opinion on this movie though.

..........

 

Thank you for sharing. Any particular reason why? I don't have any connection speed, so I would need a week to load it down to watch.

 

religion, terrorism, and the economy
i m sure the first two always go together(one leads to another and they always coexist) and surely they both kill economy,
never heard of the movie before (but then i rarely do).

 

For the benefit of those on dial-up or who don't feel like watching the whole film, can you give us a summary of the film content/conspiracies raised?

Thanks.

Dave

Yes. It basically says religions are based off of astrological events and that so many religions have so much in common that it is hard to believe that any religion is just another copy of another. Like christianity, and the egyptian god horus that was documented 3000 years before christianity was ever even thought of.


The claims that 9/11 was a setup, or should i say an incident that could have been prevented but wasn't for some reason, by the bush administration to put america in debt and make the international banking cartels (that fund both sides of these wars) richer, ie. rockefeller family. Anti-terrorism is just one way to take away our rights, ie. search and seizure. The funny things about the wars of the 20th century is that every single one of them ww1, ww2, vietnam, and the war on terrorism and desert storm is that there was an "incident" that could not be fully explained by the powers that be to be a reasonable explanation to enter a war. WW1, the sinking of the Lusitania when sending a ship into enemy waters and expecting it to not get attacked is about as dumb as russian roullette. WW2, teasing japan to the point of retalliation and knowing they are coming but not informing them. Vietnam, the sinking of some ship, I forget, that ended up being "a misunderstanding" or something, and now 9/11 with so many questionable things like some of the hijackers ended up being ALIVE???? and pictures of the main columns cut in a fashion to show a controlled demolition, not to mention civil engineers saying that it was designed to take the impacts of the jets and NORAD conducting exersizes on the same day as the attack, etc.


Anyway, on to the economy, Rockefeller and a few other families who founded the federal reserve (a central bank that we fought to flee from england 200 and some years ago) use religion and terrorism as basically a tool to start wars to make money.


Yeh some wild crazy, hope it ain't true, type scary stuff going on. After watching this movie and doing some research it's hard for me not to believe what they are saying. Just too many coincidences. Thinking statistically, it's almost impossible to be NOT true, if what they are saying is true anyway.

I used to like bush, now I do not. Maybe I am just gullible, that is why I ask for others opinions.

 

My views on religion are my own, and like I expect others who may be of religious persuasion to do, I keep my thoughts and opinions to myself. That is an outspoken on that matter as I will get.

As for 9/11, well I might believe negligence, but a full scale set-up? Nah, I'm not having it. The Controlled Explosion Theory, its all too big a task to implement successfully without the 'cat-getting-out-of-the-bag'.

And WW1 and WW2, well I'm not sure about US motives, but you maybe should read into the reasons the initial conflicting powers entered into those wars. WW2 in particular was an endeavour to maintain our sovereign identity - then I am speak from my point of view.

Dave

 

Just too many coincidences. Thinking statistically, it's almost impossible to be NOT true, if what they are saying is true anyway.

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

i too believe that its not possible to plot on that large scale and so m aganst the theory.
but yup i think all the wars and WW really did start for a stupid reason.

 

i too believe that its not possible to plot on that large scale and so m aganst the theory.
but yup i think all the wars and WW really did start for a stupid reason.

The problem with war is that it seems like a good idea at the time of going to war - and by that I mean there are valid reasons to go and fight/disarm the enemy. It is only retrospectively that it looks like a bad idea. I cannot comment on the situation in the US, but here in the UK the Iraq War is certainly viewed in this light.

Dave

 

Popular support for the Iraq fiasco is pretty well gone in the States, too. It might have been different if any connection between Saddam and any terrorist organization had been made. Now it just feels like it's a "wars are good for the economy" situation.

 

Popular support for the Iraq fiasco is pretty well gone in the States, too. It might have been different if any connection between Saddam and any terrorist organization had been made. Now it just feels like it's a "wars are good for the economy" situation.

Yeah, sounds like the same situation here in the UK. The press in the UK tends to be right-of-centre so there was general support for the war based on the 45 minute claim. When it came out that the government had not been wholly true on this claim, and it was adapted from a thesis on the Internet, Blair lost all hope of keeping British support. Although I can forgive the Labour backbenchers and those on the opposition benches for believing the case put forward by the government and thus voting to go to war, I cannot believe that the cabinet were not fully aware of the claims and their sources - that includes our now PM Mr Brown.

Dave

 

Turning loose of the tar baby will be quite the feat. I suspect that the effort from the US will be prolonged so that the new administration has the dripping bag burst on it's shoes.

 

..........

 

Dear gonzo,

Sorry your toes got stepped on. I spent 7 months off the coast of Nam, helping bomb the place flat. Couldn't care less about the dinks, but it was a complete waste of money and life.

Are you related to Carl Rove? Ever wonder why a country with all its abilities can't find one raghead? That's Ossama, if you've forgot. He's the one we need to kill.

Please stay offended and go away.

 

That's the first time someone has branded me a liberal! Quite an amusing tirade.

Anyway to set the point straight, UK popular support for the war was initially quite strong, however the case was weakened by Blair's 45 minute claim which proved to be less than accurate (ref. The Dodgy Dossier). Given the PM's support, that was huge in 1997, was beginning a wane at this point there was little confidence left in him by the people. Some advocate upping sticks and walking, I do not, I think we went in there with a job to do, and we should do it irrespective of the rights and wrongs of being there in the first place.

Dave

 

No matter how u put it war is meaningless, no matter what the reason.
going out and killing in masses is not what we r sent in this world for. we r here to make cool engineering marvels not destroy them just becoz one leader thought it was a good idea to do so.

 

No matter how u put it war is meaningless, no matter what the reason.

Could you not argue there is case for a 'just-war'?

Dave

 

i would really like to avoid the political complications that accompany a war,
but it should not be forgotten that war does not and for that matter has never occurred with only one side at fault. War has two sides equally keen on battle and both have been at fault for what they might face which has always been the result of wars.

this is why i feel war is meaningless.

throughout human history there have been great leaders of men -both good and bad,
good leaders have led men on constructive paths, great leaders like mahatma gandhi and martin luther,
but there have been leaders like hitler who for the false sense of their pride and overambitious goals led masses towards utter destruction. meaning a huge number of human life were lost over a meaningless conflicts between handfuls.
Dont u think hitler wasn't the only one at fault, if the treaties post world war one weren't so punishing and partial to the countries which lost the war such
discontent might never had been there. Even something as the first world war broke out for silly reasons the final one (that of the assassination of the prince) being the most illogical of the rest.reasons like jealousy and over expansionist visions of a few leaders who govern the country (like in case of bismark) were the reasons why nations(more appropriately humans) suffered
huge losses which also gave birth to economic depression in the years which followed.
even now if it wasn't for saddam would the whole country of iraq had to undergo the hardships of war? and are Iraqi the only one who r suffering ? what about the US forces and the forces from different countries? again was only saddam at fault? did the war break out only because of him?
i have a lot to say but since it risks hurting the emotions of others i refrain from commenting any further but from what i know there is nothing that can be called as a just war, however a lot of people have already died because they were made to believe in one such thing.

 

Interesting post recca02, and I understand your decision to refrain from commenting further on this.

Can I pose a scenario that would typically be proposed as a 'just-war' (incidentally, this scenario is purely ficticious on my part and parallels with an actual war are purely conicidental): a country is invaded by a dictatorial regime, after several appeals the international comminity doesn't respond in a appropriate fashion therefore the invaded country must either a) defend itself, thus provoking a war, or b) let the invading nation invade without opposition. Which is the appropriate action? Perhaps there is no appropriate action?

This is a very deep topic and probably one that is straying into the realms of "too-off-topic" and probably away from the intentions of the OP.

Dave