Zeitgeist the movie (would be mandatory viewing if up 2 me)

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:37 pm

smartass303 wrote: Brèqs...

You are a Nazi

You're only name-calling because you can't refute my arguments.

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:53 pm

djgroovy wrote:M Breqs, you don't have any tolerance for other belief systems. That makes you an extremist. If you were born on a islamic country, you would be a terrorist, Since you were not, you just talk shit!

I certainly do have tolerance for other belief systems. I'm an atheist. I have no problems with most Christians, Jews, Hindus, Moonies, Scientologists, Taoists, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Animists, Wiccans, Wierdos, Jedis or Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers. I also have no problem with a minority of muslims (Ishrad Manji, Wafa Sultan, Khaleel Mohammed, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Asra Nomani, Amina Wadud, Dr Omid Safi, and their ideological ilk) who eschew literal interpretation of the Quran and demand radical reform of their religion.

By the way, I wish to inform you of something: It's perfectly legitimate to dislike a belief, and to dislike people for what they believe. Do you like the Klu Klux Klan (KKK)? Probably not. Why? Because they have pointy hats? Probably not the main reason I bet... You probably don't like them because you don't like what they BELIEVE.

Unlike skin colour, sex, disability, or other unchosen conditions, WHAT YOU BELIEVE is a valid target. People can disagree, and even detest another's conclusions should they choose to view the world and interpret it themselves (or have somebody else's conclusions if you let others interpret it for you).

So why bring this up?

...Because it seems obvious to me that you don't like me because of what I believe. Luckily for both of us, that's a legitimate reason for dislike. So to all the name-calling, accusatory assholes aligned against me on this board, feel free to hate my guts; it's legit. But with that hatred comes the acknowlegement that it's ok to dislike a belief, or to dislike somebody because of what they believe.

So I say your accusations are grounded in hypocrisy.

'bye for now.

djgroovy · Post by **djgroovy** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:14 pm

Yeah, i dislike your beliefs.

BUT, that doesn't get me full of "hatred" like you say.
And i don't want to kill or nuke anyone because of their belief, religion, color or race.

Because as you and i are intitled to our beliefs and values, so are they.

And you defend those who lied to their own people and to the world, in order to make "pre-emptive strikes" - meaning attacking other countries - to whomever they choose, even if those countries didn't do anything.
Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. That's called genocide! Pre-emptive strikes my ass. How far better where the iraquis and afganis before their liberation??

And then you expect these people to not strike back at you, and the world to like you. You say, those damn muslims are terrorists! Hello! You stole their country, set up definitive military bases, started building pipelines one week after the invasion (!), killed their families...

So you don't believe in a man's right to defend his country, family and honor - hey they're from islam - but you believe in a man's right to lie about why he's stealing and mudering, and pass as a hero?

I don't like those values

trip_out · Post by **trip_out** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:20 pm

M. Bréqs:

I don't think anyone hates you. Personally I found your opinions very hardline and quite offensive. To say point blank that a multi-cultural society is a failed experiment, and base your opinions on ghetto or ex-pat communities is just wrong. In addition to myself I know plenty of mixed CULTURED relationships (not race; culture, religion, nationality...), this is in addition to the family, friendships, and working relationships we all have. I am European, and I do not agree with you that most Europeans feel the way you do.

So I think it fair enough to take exception to your words.

But to get back on subject, I find the video just plain conspiracy theory tripe. I had to turn it off after 20mins as it is just plain annoying.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:25 pm

trip_out wrote:I had to turn it off after 20mins as it is just plain annoying.

Then your opinions on it are moot. It's clearly in 3 distinct parts, watch it, or listen to it while you do something else.

It's always good to remember that the world is made up of people with varying view points, there is no singular answer to the worlds' problems, it takes people of all opinions to come up with the best ideas. If everyone was a liberal like me we'd probably be fucked, if they were all conservatives, same outcome (probably worse

).

trip_out · Post by **trip_out** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:50 pm

Tone Deft wrote:
trip_out wrote:I had to turn it off after 20mins as it is just plain annoying.
Then your opinions on it are moot. It's clearly in 3 distinct parts, watch it, or listen to it while you do something else.

That is the only opinion I have made on it! I simply found it painful to watch and had to turn it off after 20mins.

Tone Deft wrote:It's always good to remember that the world is made up of people with varying view points, there is no singular answer to the worlds' problems, it takes people of all opinions to come up with the best ideas. If everyone was a liberal like me we'd probably be fucked, if they were all conservatives, same outcome (probably worse ).

I'm fully aware of this. I've only made one comment so far in that I take exception to anyone saying a multi-cultural society is a 'failed experiment'. I've stated why, and got told I do not know what the word culture means!

I know I should bite my tongue and just ignore things, but fucking hell, some people.

pilcrow · Post by **pilcrow** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:15 am

I'm with trip. Some movies you can easily tell w/i five minutes they're not going to be worth your time. Yes, TD, it's good to give divergent opinions a hearing, but sometimes it's easy to tell really quickly that someone's just full of crap. And in those instances, you don't owe them a complete hearing. Life's too short for me to watch a two-hour diatribe on a forum-poster's say-so or because it's somehow incumbent on me in the interest of "fairness" to listen the entire rant. Not EVERY viewpoint deserves that much of my time. At some point, I just gotta say, "mmm. I've seen enough to make my judgement" and get on with my life.

I know some folks here like the nutjob conspiracy stuff, but it's just nonsense. It really is. You can't just sign up to agree with anything as long as it's anti-US or anti-religion or whatever. Boring.

Breqs, by the way, makes a whale of a lot of sense. And he's done his homework.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:58 am

pilcrow - I totally hear ya, hoffman2k called me out for not finishing it and I found the 'best' was put last. I wouldn't take it as a perfect history presentation but the highlights hit some things I didn't know but had heard about, like HOW central banks have us by the balls.

pilcrow · Post by **pilcrow** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:11 am

Tone Deft wrote:pilcrow - I totally hear ya, hoffman2k called me out for not finishing it and I found the 'best' was put last. I wouldn't take it as a perfect history presentation but the highlights hit some things I didn't know but had heard about, like HOW central banks have us by the balls.

all right then... I'll check out that last section. I took the next two days off work, so I should be able to spare the time.

I know zero about int'l banking, so maybe I'll learn something.

fortycoats · Post by **fortycoats** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:32 pm

Rosko wrote:I'm just trying to put together in my head how you are suggesting all this happened. If you are suggesting they flew the planes by remote control its
a bit of a leap of faith for me to just to believe that it happened in such a way & i'm simply asking you to suggest how they could of gone about doing so with 4 passenger planes.
How would such an operation take place if it is so simple?
where they mock/real planes, people on board yes/no pilots & staff on board
yes/no, if they where real & piloted did they take over by remote mid flight ect ect.

boeing installs the QRS-11 gyrochip on it's planes
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191050,00.html

i wonder what that device is used for?
http://www.systron.com/pro_QRS11.asp

"APPLICATIONS

* Stabilization
o Satellite Communication Antennas
o Optical Line-of-Sight Systems
o Missile Seekers
* Controls
o Aircraft & Missile Flight Control
o Attitude Control
o Yaw Dampers
* Guidance
o Missile Mid-Course Guidance
o Inertial/GPS Navigation Systems
* Instrumentation
o Rocket Boosters
o Simulation & Training Aids"

trip_out · Post by **trip_out** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:36 pm

fortycoats wrote:i wonder what that device is used for?

Its a gyroscope. It helps stop you from spilling your coffee.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:45 pm

Rosko wrote:ok just a simple question, the planes. Who flew them into the buildings, the pilots, the cia? Who was behind the act of actualy flying the planes into the buildings?

fortycoats · Post by **fortycoats** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:49 pm

why do the specs list "Aircraft & Missile Flight Control"?

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:52 pm

fortycoats wrote:why do the specs list "Aircraft & Missile Flight Control"?

That's just one of many applications. It's a generic gyro.

Gyro stabilization and navigation systems are use in both civilian and military applications, and not just aircraft.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:47 am

hambone1 wrote:
fortycoats wrote:why do the specs list "Aircraft & Missile Flight Control"?
That's just one of many applications. It's a generic gyro.

Gyro stabilization and navigation systems are use in both civilian and military applications, and not just aircraft.

"Surely you can't be serious."