* Hits the snooze button *

Having recently watched Zeitgiest on Youtube, I think all three sections are rather absurd. Particulary the one of the 9/11 attacks. Those "explosions" can very well be floors failing etc...

The third about the world bank, whilst true that banks are greedy, I don't think it is close to the forming a New Wolrd Order non-sense.

Having conversed with "NWO 'Truthers' " on Youtube, the part I find most absurd, is they make it out to be black and white. If you don't think Bush is a psycho maniac bent on global domination and uses "false flag operations" to kill his own citizens than you must think he's the best president ever.

"Ouch, Daddy. Does my tinfoil hat have to be so tight while we watch the videos?"

"Yes, Sweety. Otherwise you'd let the bad thoughts in like it might just be exactly what it is instead of what we think it is."

Having seen the films, I have to agree with the previous posters. The material presented is sensationalist and poorly researched. To refute each and every fact would take hours. In fact, I think there's a two hour video on Google Videos doing just that, so I could recommend that to you.

The idea of a "new world order", for example, is patent nonsense. The United States using the world bank as a political weapon is so obvious that it makes me wonder why there would be anyone claiming a conspiracy is going on. That's like saying it's conspiracy when the CIA tries to kidnap Hugo Chavez. That's not a conspiracy, that's foreign policy!

One sheet of truth does not validate a book of lies.

I watched the first four on the sixteen youtube vids.

I'll find it - it got buried in a bunch of videos by preachers assuring their congregations that Jesus is a totally unique and beautiful snowflake in the pantheon.

Ugh. That sucks, because it was an annotated version of the movie, where the guy had researched all the claims and shot them down as notes over the movie. I had a good laugh, but I was kind of pissed at the level of misrepresentation. I mean, I figured there was some shifting of the truth, there, but this guy checked it out, and it was pretty bad. It led me to look up a lot of the things, and it turns out the refutation had more merit (as far as I could see, at least).

I largely agree, but to be fair to my beloved, obese, blood-crazed country of birth, I think you'll find that the ultimate origin of the Evil International Banker myth is not the US but The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, an invention of the Russian Orthodox Church.  And we lost a lot in World War II, not "essentially nothing".  That's too foolish a thought to come out of a brain as strong as yours, Kevin.  

'A lot' proportionate to which of the belligerents? Russia lost the better portion of it's male population, Britain, France and Germany were so abhorrently mauled that some thought Europe may never recover, Italy was twisted into a grotesque parody of it's former self for the duration of the conflict until Mousillini finally got what he deserved, Japan was set ablaze and had two of it's cities literally atomized and the strength gained by Joseph Stalin paved the way for future Soviet terrorization of the various Bloc 'buffer' states.

America had a harbor bombed and incurred just over 400,000 total casualties over the course of the war (all but just over a thousand of them military casualties - this in stark contrast to the casualty tolls of other nations). This is easily one of the lowest tolls of any of the belligerents in the war (Canada's was far lower still - about 45,000 deaths if memory serves - but then, I don't hear Canadians giving the sob story about how daring & heroic we were).

Compare this to, say, the Soviet Union, with a catastrophic 10,000,000 military casualties and just as many civilian casualties.

So, yes. 'Essentially nothing' I contend to be an accurate statement.

  Actually, if you watch the movie, it's supposed to be the Federal Reserve Bank that benefits- it explains this theory in the movie. It says that during war time, the government must borrow large amounts of money from the Federal Reserve- at interest - which thus makes the "Fed" as the film usually calls it, shitloads of money.

 The death toll has nothing to do with it. And the destruction of banking efforts in foreign countries really doesn't either.

"International bankers," as the film calls them, are not just bankers with international interests. The film refers to a certain number of elite (many of them named in the film). If you're going by the definition of "international banker" as cited in Wake Up Call, those things you listed would have no effect on them. The idea it sets forth is that these people (mostly men) are important banking families from America, and the people tied to their agenda elsewhere. 

The damaging of the actual economy of the nation would not have anything to do with it; the same principle that it suggests applies in America (where war, damage to the economy, and destruction of banking institutions other than the central bank- the Federal Reserve is desirable), should then also apply in foreign lands. The movie paints a picture of these 'rich and powerful' people well aware of, in fact, controlling the disaster... for their own benefit. Also the film discusses that whole New World Order ordeal. When you entertain the proposed state of the world and the 'behind the scenes' outlook of the film, the arguement you made does not sit as well.

I'm not saying all this shit is true. I'm just pointing out that the damage to the other nations isn't really a good arguement, because the theory presented here accounts for it.  But maybe you're right, maybe it's conspiracist bullshit, and those who concocted it simply ventured so far as to account for the possible arguements in their fabrications.

My point is I've found no solid facts to argue anything here. I haven't looked far and wide or anything, but no one's given me a really substantial way to prove things like this wrong.