GamiSB wrote:

ReProgrammed wrote:

GamiSB wrote:

Omega0 wrote:

Illyria22 wrote:

And yet again, Zion/EPN jumps through hoops backwards to deny the truth.  The Zion archives say the humans struck first, and now someone who was around at the time confirms that the humans struck first, yet they refuse to accept it.  (Kind of like when one of their liaisons admitted, in public, that they broke the truce, and then denied that "we broke the truce" meant "we broke the truce".)

Zion/EPN needs to man up and accept that humans started all this, and that it came back to bite us in the hindquarters.

 

 

Illyria

I've seen the Zion archives (The Animatrix), and I accept that humans started the war.  As a matter of fact, that is why I seriously considered working for the Machines when I first entered the Matrix.  However, I realized that all of the humans that decided to start a war with the Machines are long gone by now, and I don't think we need to be punished for their mistakes.  Nor do I think that gives the Machines the right to enslave people from birth.

/facepalm

Go watch them again buddy and this time with your eyes open and ears listening. The Archive does not state who started the war.

Must be difficult to realize something inless it is said in exact words for you? Can't add two and two together?

Yes I am perfectly capable using addition however normally you need numbers to do such don't you? The Archives have none. It moves from one event to another but does not mention any amount of time between the two (or any for that matter) 

While the bombing of Zero One could have been directly their denial into the UN it could have just as easily been years later. It could have been Zion's first attack, or it could have been a response to an attack. In other words your left with only your opinion of what happened and as any intelligent being should know opinions mean jack poop when it comes to what really happened.

Key questions (namely "Why and When"" width="15" height="15"> are not answered and all the file is good for is pointing out that Zero One got bombed at some point in time. Thus it is stupid to assume (let alone state as fact) that anything other then what is being presented happened. So unless you have something to prove your assumption of what the Archive says please stop talking and pretending like you all know something. You don't.

If the bombing of Zero One was a response to an attack, don't you think the archive would've mentioned that?  Seems like a pretty important piece of information, if you ask me.

I'll throw the question back at you. If this was the start of the war don't you think the Archive would have mentioned that as well? In both scenarios we have key pieces of information left out so all we have to conclude is that it is left out for a reason. The most likely reason is that the writters of the archives did not know if this was the start, or if it was a response to something. Again, when and why are left out.

It gives us a reason for why B166ER is on trial, it explains what his verdict was and why. It explains why humans darked the sky, it explains why they were denied from the UN. It even told us why humans are inside the Matrix (although that ones up for debate now as well) But it skips over that part about why we are bombing Zero One suddenly.

Omega0 wrote:

GamiSB wrote:

ReProgrammed wrote:

GamiSB wrote:

Omega0 wrote:

Illyria22 wrote:

And yet again, Zion/EPN jumps through hoops backwards to deny the truth.  The Zion archives say the humans struck first, and now someone who was around at the time confirms that the humans struck first, yet they refuse to accept it.  (Kind of like when one of their liaisons admitted, in public, that they broke the truce, and then denied that "we broke the truce" meant "we broke the truce".)

Zion/EPN needs to man up and accept that humans started all this, and that it came back to bite us in the hindquarters.

 

 

Illyria

I've seen the Zion archives (The Animatrix), and I accept that humans started the war.  As a matter of fact, that is why I seriously considered working for the Machines when I first entered the Matrix.  However, I realized that all of the humans that decided to start a war with the Machines are long gone by now, and I don't think we need to be punished for their mistakes.  Nor do I think that gives the Machines the right to enslave people from birth.

/facepalm

Go watch them again buddy and this time with your eyes open and ears listening. The Archive does not state who started the war.

Must be difficult to realize something inless it is said in exact words for you? Can't add two and two together?

Yes I am perfectly capable using addition however normally you need numbers to do such don't you? The Archives have none. It moves from one event to another but does not mention any amount of time between the two (or any for that matter) 

While the bombing of Zero One could have been directly their denial into the UN it could have just as easily been years later. It could have been Zion's first attack, or it could have been a response to an attack. In other words your left with only your opinion of what happened and as any intelligent being should know opinions mean jack poop when it comes to what really happened.

Key questions (namely "Why and When"" width="15" height="15"> are not answered and all the file is good for is pointing out that Zero One got bombed at some point in time. Thus it is stupid to assume (let alone state as fact) that anything other then what is being presented happened. So unless you have something to prove your assumption of what the Archive says please stop talking and pretending like you all know something. You don't.

If the bombing of Zero One was a response to an attack, don't you think the archive would've mentioned that?  Seems like a pretty important piece of information, if you ask me.

I'll throw the question back at you. If this was the start of the war don't you think the Archive would have mentioned that as well? In both scenarios we have key pieces of information left out so all we have to conclude is that it is left out for a reason. The most likely reason is that the writters of the archives did not know if this was the start, or if it was a response to something. Again, when and why are left out.

It gives us a reason for why B166ER is on trial, it explains what his verdict was and why. It explains why humans darked the sky, it explains why they were denied from the UN. It even told us why humans are inside the Matrix (although that ones up for debate now as well) But it skips over that part about why we are bombing Zero One suddenly.

Considering that the bombing was the first attack we see, I thought it was implied that it was the first attack that happened.  I didn't think it was necessary for them to spell it out.  Also, it does not skip over the part about why we are bombing Zero One.

Female Reporter 2: No matter what the finance minister ahd her spokespeople say, the market has spoken, the human nation's credit rating is falling like a stone, while Zero One's currency is climbing without stopping for breath. With headlines like that, the money markets have no choice but...

Narrator: The leaders of men, their power waning, refused to cooperate with the fledgling nation, wishing rather that the world be divided.

U.S. President: ...the world's community of nations cannot tolerate this kind of flagrant deception...

http://www.x-matrix.net/Scripts.shtml

Considering that the bombing was the first attack we see, I thought it was implied that it was the first attack that happened.  I didn't think it was necessary for them to spell it out.  Also, it does not skip over the part about why we are bombing Zero One.

Female Reporter 2: No matter what the finance minister ahd her spokespeople say, the market has spoken, the human nation's credit rating is falling like a stone, while Zero One's currency is climbing without stopping for breath. With headlines like that, the money markets have no choice but...

Narrator: The leaders of men, their power waning, refused to cooperate with the fledgling nation, wishing rather that the world be divided.

U.S. President: ...the world's community of nations cannot tolerate this kind of flagrant deception...

http://www.x-matrix.net/Scripts.shtml

And we resort to out of context quotation. First off your quote happened even before the UN denial. In fact it explains the why to the UN denial. NOT the bombing of Zero One. The Narrator even points at this to be the interpretation by explaing the wish to be divided NOT the wish for the Machines to be destroyed.

And if we are to base what happend first off of what we see first then its okay to assume that B166ER and all those humans were the first to ever grace this planet right? After all they are the first things we see as far back as we can historically go. The example is a bit of an over statement but you catch my point I hope that what yous ee first is not necicarily what happend first.

The problem with your argument is you thought. You did not reason. You interpreted how you wanted to see it, not as it was presented.  You went in biased and didn't bother questioning yourself after you had already made up your mind. Lastly I believe it was you that pointed out that it had to be spelt out in order for the attack to have been a response to something, was it not?

Omega0 wrote:

Considering that the bombing was the first attack we see, I thought it was implied that it was the first attack that happened.  I didn't think it was necessary for them to spell it out.  Also, it does not skip over the part about why we are bombing Zero One.

Female Reporter 2: No matter what the finance minister ahd her spokespeople say, the market has spoken, the human nation's credit rating is falling like a stone, while Zero One's currency is climbing without stopping for breath. With headlines like that, the money markets have no choice but...

Narrator: The leaders of men, their power waning, refused to cooperate with the fledgling nation, wishing rather that the world be divided.

U.S. President: ...the world's community of nations cannot tolerate this kind of flagrant deception...

http://www.x-matrix.net/Scripts.shtml

And we resort to out of context quotation. First off your quote happened even before the UN denial. In fact it explains the why to the UN denial. NOT the bombing of Zero One. The Narrator even points at this to be the interpretation by explaing the wish to be divided NOT the wish for the Machines to be destroyed.

And if we are to base what happend first off of what we see first then its okay to assume that B166ER and all those humans were the first to ever grace this planet right? After all they are the first things we see as far back as we can historically go. The example is a bit of an over statement but you catch my point I hope that what yous ee first is not necicarily what happend first.

The problem with your argument is you thought. You did not reason. You interpreted how you wanted to see it, not as it was presented.  You went in biased and didn't bother questioning yourself after you had already made up your mind. Lastly I believe it was you that pointed out that it had to be spelt out in order for the attack to have been a response to something, was it not?

The example you gave about B166ER and all those humans is a huge overstatement.  The bombing of Zero One wasn't the first thing we saw in the archive, it was the first attack that we saw.  We also saw a lot of things happen before then.  If there was another attack before the bombing, which is actually what started the war, then why would the archive completely skip over that?  It doesn't make any sense.

And now you're saying that I interpreted it how I wanted to see it, and I was biased?  Are you *CENSORED* kidding me?  Have you forgotten that I work for Zion?  Why would I want to think that humans started the war?  That's absurd, and I could much more easily make the argument that you are the biased one.  Don't forget that this is the Zion archive we're talking about.  Surely they realized that some people, after they watch this, will believe that humans started the war.  If that wasn't the case, or if they weren't sure, don't you think they would have made that more clear?

Lastly, I did not say that it had to be spelt out in order for the attack to have been a response to something.  Read my post again.  I was saying that, while the archive showed footage of the bombing of Zero One, it was not necessary for the narrator to say, "Hey!!  Look at this!  This was the attack that started the war!!  And as you can clearly see, it was the humans who attacked the Machines.  Yeah, we're the ones who started the war... Sorry about that."

The example you gave about B166ER and all those humans is a huge overstatement.  The bombing of Zero One wasn't the first thing we saw in the archive, it was the first attack that we saw.  We also saw a lot of things happen before then.  If there was another attack before the bombing, which is actually what started the war, then why would the archive completely skip over that?  It doesn't make any sense.

And now you're saying that I interpreted it how I wanted to see it, and I was biased?  Are you *CENSORED* kidding me?  Have you forgotten that I work for Zion?  Why would I want to think that humans started the war?  That's absurd, and I could much more easily make the argument that you are the biased one.  Don't forget that this is the Zion archive we're talking about.  Surely they realized that some people, after they watch this, will believe that humans started the war.  If that wasn't the case, or if they weren't sure, don't you think they would have made that more clear?

Lastly, I did not say that it had to be spelt out in order for the attack to have been a response to something.  Read my post again.  I was saying that, while the archive showed footage of the bombing of Zero One, it was not necessary for the narrator to say, "Hey!!  Look at this!  This was the attack that started the war!!  And as you can clearly see, it was the humans who attacked the Machines.  Yeah, we're the ones who started the war... Sorry about that."

Then let me use another example to better articulate my point. Say I witness a car accident and shortly after a woman limping away. Now my first conclusion would be that she is limping away because of the accident. However after we ask ourselves, why is she limping and when did she start limping, the answer is not that simple. It could be that she was in the accident and that caused her limp. Or she could have had nothing to do with the accident and just be walking by. Her limp could be from falling somewhere earlier during the day. Point is that just because I witness something first or something is presented to me first does not mean it happened first.

And no I *poop* you not I am accusing you of inserting your own bias into it. Morpheus for instance. He saw the archives, he worked for Zion and, he didn't think they told us who started the war. Obviously you working for Zion doesn't prove your point when others that work for them as well disagree with you. Actually all it proves is that we put our own biases into everything sense we have two members of Zion disagreeing on interpretation. Imagine that. They made it clear enough that they did not know the cause or the time for the 01 bombings by not telling us when or why they are happening. It was not necessary for the narrator to say "HEY! Look! We don't know when this happens or why it just sorta does"

And again with the thinking and not the reasoning. You think it doesn't need to be spelt out. Guess what it does. History sorta requires that everything be verified and factual. Nothing can be left to interpretation if you want an accurate history thus it all needs to be spelt out for you. You have yet to answer 'When' or 'Why' 01 is being bombed. Thus you fail to show anything to disprove that while this may be the start of the war it very well also be in the middle of the war. Seeing humans attack Machines only proves that humans attacked Machines. It doesn't tell us why or when. No ones refuting that they two fought. We're debating who attacked first.

Omega0 wrote:

The example you gave about B166ER and all those humans is a huge overstatement.  The bombing of Zero One wasn't the first thing we saw in the archive, it was the first attack that we saw.  We also saw a lot of things happen before then.  If there was another attack before the bombing, which is actually what started the war, then why would the archive completely skip over that?  It doesn't make any sense.

And now you're saying that I interpreted it how I wanted to see it, and I was biased?  Are you *CENSORED* kidding me?  Have you forgotten that I work for Zion?  Why would I want to think that humans started the war?  That's absurd, and I could much more easily make the argument that you are the biased one.  Don't forget that this is the Zion archive we're talking about.  Surely they realized that some people, after they watch this, will believe that humans started the war.  If that wasn't the case, or if they weren't sure, don't you think they would have made that more clear?

Lastly, I did not say that it had to be spelt out in order for the attack to have been a response to something.  Read my post again.  I was saying that, while the archive showed footage of the bombing of Zero One, it was not necessary for the narrator to say, "Hey!!  Look at this!  This was the attack that started the war!!  And as you can clearly see, it was the humans who attacked the Machines.  Yeah, we're the ones who started the war... Sorry about that."

Then let me use another example to better articulate my point. Say I witness a car accident and shortly after a woman limping away. Now my first conclusion would be that she is limping away because of the accident. However after we ask ourselves, why is she limping and when did she start limping, the answer is not that simple. It could be that she was in the accident and that caused her limp. Or she could have had nothing to do with the accident and just be walking by. Her limp could be from falling somewhere earlier during the day. Point is that just because I witness something first or something is presented to me first does not mean it happened first.

And no I *poop* you not I am accusing you of inserting your own bias into it. Morpheus for instance. He saw the archives, he worked for Zion and, he didn't think they told us who started the war. Obviously you working for Zion doesn't prove your point when others that work for them as well disagree with you. Actually all it proves is that we put our own biases into everything sense we have two members of Zion disagreeing on interpretation. Imagine that. They made it clear enough that they did not know the cause or the time for the 01 bombings by not telling us when or why they are happening. It was not necessary for the narrator to say "HEY! Look! We don't know when this happens or why it just sorta does"

And again with the thinking and not the reasoning. You think it doesn't need to be spelt out. Guess what it does. History sorta requires that everything be verified and factual. Nothing can be left to interpretation if you want an accurate history thus it all needs to be spelt out for you. You have yet to answer 'When' or 'Why' 01 is being bombed. Thus you fail to show anything to disprove that while this may be the start of the war it very well also be in the middle of the war. Seeing humans attack Machines only proves that humans attacked Machines. It doesn't tell us why or when. No ones refuting that they two fought. We're debating who attacked first.

That's still a bad example.  If there was an attack before the Zero One bombing, it would have been shown in the archive, because that is very important information.

(The script of the first Matrix movie was written before the script for the Animatrix, and I think that's why Morpheus said he didn't know who struck first.  At that time, the Wachowski brothers probably didn't have any plans of showing all of the events that happened before the Matrix was created.)  And I know that me working for Zion doesn't prove my point.  I never said that.  I'll I'm saying is that it proves that I'm not biased on this issue, since I am willing to accept the idea that the people I work for have made mistakes in the past.  As far I know, you are not able to accept that.  If I was putting my own bias into this, then I wouldn't be agreeing with Machinists.

And if history requires that everything be verified and factual, then where is the verification for a possible attack that occured before the Zero One bombing?  There isn't any.  So why do you think it might have happened?  What would have motivated the Machines to attack the humans before then?  The reason I haven't disproven that this may be the middle of the war is because it's impossible to disprove that.  If you look at my first post in this thread, I didn't say it was a fact that the humans started the war, I just said that I accept it.  And I think other Zionites and EPN should also accept it, considering that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.

That's still a bad example.  If there was an attack before the Zero One bombing, it would have been shown in the archive, because that is very important information.

(The script of the first Matrix movie was written before the script for the Animatrix, and I think that's why Morpheus said he didn't know who struck first.  At that time, the Wachowski brothers probably didn't have any plans of showing all of the events that happened before the Matrix was created.)  And I know that me working for Zion doesn't prove my point.  I never said that.  I'll I'm saying is that it proves that I'm not biased on this issue, since I am willing to accept the idea that the people I work for have made mistakes in the past.  As far I know, you are not able to accept that.  If I was putting my own bias into this, then I wouldn't be agreeing with Machinists.

And if history requires that everything be verified and factual, then where is the verification for a possible attack that occured before the Zero One bombing?  There isn't any.  So why do you think it might have happened?  What would have motivated the Machines to attack the humans before then?  The reason I haven't disproven that this may be the middle of the war is because it's impossible to disprove that.  If you look at my first post in this thread, I didn't say it was a fact that the humans started the war, I just said that I accept it.  And I think other Zionites and EPN should also accept it, considering that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.

Okay you completely have missed the point. The bombing of Zero One is the first KNOWN attack. It is not known however if this is the FIRST attack in the war (which is my point). The reason it does not state that this is the first attack is because that is still unknown. Same  reason why it does not state that it is a response to an attack because that to is unknown. Thus why Morpheus says "We do not know who attacked first". As I said from the start. The Archives do not say who attacked first. Only that humans at some point in time attacked 01 and that this is the first attack Zion has on record. What happened between UN denial and this bombing is unknown and it is within this time period that the first attack was decided and made.

((Also wrong, the Matrix was from its birth planned to be a trilogy. The W Bros made it more then clear with the depth the first movie had that they had thought everything out and had plans for the sequels. What happened in between and before maybe even after to some degree was thought up before production began. In fact the B166ER trial first appeared as a comic written by them before the Animatrix was even released showing that time before the Matrix was built had been discussed and an outline drawn.))

It is impossible for one to convey a point or have an opinion of something without being biased. Everything is for a reason, the way you interpreted the archives is for a reason and that reason is your biased view of humanity. While you working for Zion may mean you lean towards their line of thinking in some areas it doesn't prove you were not biased on this issue as we have another captain of Zion stating a complete opposite of what you have said. Your conclusion on the matter failed to ask "why" or "when" any of it happened. Instead you went with your first guess. Had you bothered to sit down and ask just two questions, why is this happening and when did this happen, you would have been able to figure that the Archives do not tell why and do not explain when. Thus they are about as useful as explaining who shot first as they are explaining how the pods work. They show us that there was a war, what lead up to it, and its outcome, but do not explain what drove the situation from denying 01 into the UN into a full blown war.

Lastly stop trying to spin around your meanings. You said you accepted it meaning you believe that Humanity started the war. If you don't believe that then why accept it in the first place? Take a rational view of it instead and concluded that we don't know who started the war. My point has never been that there was an attack before this by the machines or that the bombing was in the middle of the war. My point is that we don't and can't as of yet know that there wasn't an attack before. We don't know anything about what started the war. Which is why it is impossible for anyone to prove using the Archives that the humans did attack first.

My opinion on what I think happened? Irrelevant as the only thing that matters is what did happen not what anyone thinks happen.

Omega0 wrote:

That's still a bad example.  If there was an attack before the Zero One bombing, it would have been shown in the archive, because that is very important information.

(The script of the first Matrix movie was written before the script for the Animatrix, and I think that's why Morpheus said he didn't know who struck first.  At that time, the Wachowski brothers probably didn't have any plans of showing all of the events that happened before the Matrix was created.)  And I know that me working for Zion doesn't prove my point.  I never said that.  I'll I'm saying is that it proves that I'm not biased on this issue, since I am willing to accept the idea that the people I work for have made mistakes in the past.  As far I know, you are not able to accept that.  If I was putting my own bias into this, then I wouldn't be agreeing with Machinists.

And if history requires that everything be verified and factual, then where is the verification for a possible attack that occured before the Zero One bombing?  There isn't any.  So why do you think it might have happened?  What would have motivated the Machines to attack the humans before then?  The reason I haven't disproven that this may be the middle of the war is because it's impossible to disprove that.  If you look at my first post in this thread, I didn't say it was a fact that the humans started the war, I just said that I accept it.  And I think other Zionites and EPN should also accept it, considering that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.

Okay you completely have missed the point. The bombing of Zero One is the first KNOWN attack. It is not known however if this is the FIRST attack in the war (which is my point). The reason it does not state that this is the first attack is because that is still unknown. Same  reason why it does not state that it is a response to an attack because that to is unknown. Thus why Morpheus says "We do not know who attacked first". As I said from the start. The Archives do not say who attacked first. Only that humans at some point in time attacked 01 and that this is the first attack Zion has on record. What happened between UN denial and this bombing is unknown and it is within this time period that the first attack was decided and made.

((Also wrong, the Matrix was from its birth planned to be a trilogy. The W Bros made it more then clear with the depth the first movie had that they had thought everything out and had plans for the sequels. What happened in between and before maybe even after to some degree was thought up before production began. In fact the B166ER trial first appeared as a comic written by them before the Animatrix was even released showing that time before the Matrix was built had been discussed and an outline drawn.))

It is impossible for one to convey a point or have an opinion of something without being biased. Everything is for a reason, the way you interpreted the archives is for a reason and that reason is your biased view of humanity. While you working for Zion may mean you lean towards their line of thinking in some areas it doesn't prove you were not biased on this issue as we have another captain of Zion stating a complete opposite of what you have said. Your conclusion on the matter failed to ask "why" or "when" any of it happened. Instead you went with your first guess. Had you bothered to sit down and ask just two questions, why is this happening and when did this happen, you would have been able to figure that the Archives do not tell why and do not explain when. Thus they are about as useful as explaining who shot first as they are explaining how the pods work. They show us that there was a war, what lead up to it, and its outcome, but do not explain what drove the situation from denying 01 into the UN into a full blown war.

Lastly stop trying to spin around your meanings. You said you accepted it meaning you believe that Humanity started the war. If you don't believe that then why accept it in the first place? Take a rational view of it instead and concluded that we don't know who started the war. My point has never been that there was an attack before this by the machines or that the bombing was in the middle of the war. My point is that we don't and can't as of yet know that there wasn't an attack before. We don't know anything about what started the war. Which is why it is impossible for anyone to prove using the Archives that the humans did attack first.

My opinion on what I think happened? Irrelevant as the only thing that matters is what did happen not what anyone thinks happen.

Listen to me.  I watched the Zion archive again, and I had my eyes open and ears listening.  Shortly before Zero One was bombed, the United Nations approved initiatives for both economic sanctions and a naval blockade of the region.  The reason they did that is because the human nation's credit rating was plummeting, and Zero One's currency was soaring.  However, I don't think that the United Nations' actions completely stopped that.  On the other hand, destroying Zero One would definitely stop that.  I've seen footage of Zero One being nuked, and I can understand why the humans did that (even if we assume that was the start of the war).  I haven't seen any evidence of a Machine attack that happened prior to that, nor can I understand why the Machines would do that, therefore I don't believe there was a prior attack.  I may not be able to prove this, and I don't know this for a fact, but that doesn't stop me from believing it.

(And I really don't think I'm wrong about the Animatrix script being written after the first movie script.  The Matrix came out in 1999, and the Animatrix came out in 2003.  If The Matrix hadn't done well, then the Animatrix probably would never have been made.  And you think they wrote the script for the Animatrix first?  That's *CENSORED*.  The fact that the Matrix was planned to be a trilogy has nothing to do with this.)

I'm not trying to put any spin on my meanings.  I never said that I know who started the war.  All I'm saying is that I believe that humans started the war.  There is a difference between knowing and believing.  I'm not trying to prove that humans attacked first.  I'm just trying to make the argument that there is evidence which might lead a rational-minded person to believe that.  You need to realize that just because someone doesn't interpret things the same way you do, that doesn't mean they are biased, or irrational, or they weren't paying close enough attention.  I find that insulting.

Listen to me.  I watched the Zion archive again, and I had my eyes open and ears listening.  Shortly before Zero One was bombed, the United Nations approved initiatives for both economic sanctions and a naval blockade of the region.  The reason they did that is because the human nation's credit rating was plummeting, and Zero One's currency was soaring.  However, I don't think that the United Nations' actions completely stopped that.  On the other hand, destroying Zero One would definitely stop that.  I've seen footage of Zero One being nuked, and I can understand why the humans did that (even if we assume that was the start of the war).  I haven't seen any evidence of a Machine attack that happened prior to that, nor can I understand why the Machines would do that, therefore I don't believe there was a prior attack.  I may not be able to prove this, and I don't know this for a fact, but that doesn't stop me from believing it.

(And I really don't think I'm wrong about the Animatrix script being written after the first movie script.  The Matrix came out in 1999, and the Animatrix came out in 2003.  If The Matrix hadn't done well, then the Animatrix probably would never have been made.  And you think they wrote the script for the Animatrix first?  That's *CENSORED*.  The fact that the Matrix was planned to be a trilogy has nothing to do with this.)

I'm not trying to put any spin on my meanings.  I never said that I know who started the war.  All I'm saying is that I believe that humans started the war.  There is a difference between knowing and believing.  I'm not trying to prove that humans attacked first.  I'm just trying to make the argument that there is evidence which might lead a rational-minded person to believe that.  You need to realize that just because someone doesn't interpret things the same way you do, that doesn't mean they are biased, or irrational, or they weren't paying close enough attention.  I find that insulting.

Obviously you are not listening to me. The naval blockade was shortly before the bombings you said. Well prove it. No time stamp anywhere on when these events are takeing place makes it a bit hard to account for any amount of time passing (agian there is your own bias creeping in). But lets play with the idea a bit.

The narrator points out that humans would rather have the world divided. What do you know we have a blockade go figure, hmm what else was she referring to oh that's right the UN denial. The narrator does not say that humans would rather have the machine destroyed. Well that explains why there is only a blockade and denying UN acceptance and not a full blown attack.  On to part 2. No mention at all of them saying that the blockaded didn't work. Or that they rethought things and decided they wanted them all dead. In fact no mention at all as to why they are bombing the Machines. You would think that sorta info might be important and enclosed in the file wouldn't you? Again you thinking is the problem. What you think or your opinion of the humans or machines motive is irrelevant. What you can't understand is irrelevant. I have no idea how quantum physics works and can hardly understand them but guess what they still work. I can think Elvis is still alive but guess what, he's still dead and in the dirt. Just because you can or can't imagine how something happened does not mean that is how or how it could not have happened. Point is your belief is put into something that you can not prove and we call that stupid. Especially when you try and use it as a foundation for other beliefs.

(Not saying they wrote the script. I'm saying they had the story planned from day one. Before the first film was even casting they had a story and knew how deep they wanted it to go. Shoot in the first film we see foreshadowing all over the place about the next two films. Sure had the first film not done so god we would have never seen these but the point is the story was already written and planned to be a trilogy.)

Right so you admit that you believe in something that you can not prove and cling to personal interpretation rather then rational thought or logic. Rational thinkers ask who, what, when, where, why, how, etc. and don't proclaim they know the answers when not all of these have been given. The fact that you admit that it is only what you believe and not what you know only proves my point that your only useing your own bias/opinion/interpretation. Yes you have one and yes that is all your using to back you up. I see thought this discussion coming from you "I think" stop thinking! It doesnt matter what you think, all that matters is what happened which is something that you can not prove. Sorry if you find the truth insulting.

Omega0 wrote:

Listen to me.  I watched the Zion archive again, and I had my eyes open and ears listening.  Shortly before Zero One was bombed, the United Nations approved initiatives for both economic sanctions and a naval blockade of the region.  The reason they did that is because the human nation's credit rating was plummeting, and Zero One's currency was soaring.  However, I don't think that the United Nations' actions completely stopped that.  On the other hand, destroying Zero One would definitely stop that.  I've seen footage of Zero One being nuked, and I can understand why the humans did that (even if we assume that was the start of the war).  I haven't seen any evidence of a Machine attack that happened prior to that, nor can I understand why the Machines would do that, therefore I don't believe there was a prior attack.  I may not be able to prove this, and I don't know this for a fact, but that doesn't stop me from believing it.

(And I really don't think I'm wrong about the Animatrix script being written after the first movie script.  The Matrix came out in 1999, and the Animatrix came out in 2003.  If The Matrix hadn't done well, then the Animatrix probably would never have been made.  And you think they wrote the script for the Animatrix first?  That's *CENSORED*.  The fact that the Matrix was planned to be a trilogy has nothing to do with this.)

I'm not trying to put any spin on my meanings.  I never said that I know who started the war.  All I'm saying is that I believe that humans started the war.  There is a difference between knowing and believing.  I'm not trying to prove that humans attacked first.  I'm just trying to make the argument that there is evidence which might lead a rational-minded person to believe that.  You need to realize that just because someone doesn't interpret things the same way you do, that doesn't mean they are biased, or irrational, or they weren't paying close enough attention.  I find that insulting.

Obviously you are not listening to me. The naval blockade was shortly before the bombings you said. Well prove it. No time stamp anywhere on when these events are takeing place makes it a bit hard to account for any amount of time passing (agian there is your own bias creeping in). But lets play with the idea a bit.

The narrator points out that humans would rather have the world divided. What do you know we have a blockade go figure, hmm what else was she referring to oh that's right the UN denial. The narrator does not say that humans would rather have the machine destroyed. Well that explains why there is only a blockade and denying UN acceptance and not a full blown attack.  On to part 2. No mention at all of them saying that the blockaded didn't work. Or that they rethought things and decided they wanted them all dead. In fact no mention at all as to why they are bombing the Machines. You would think that sorta info might be important and enclosed in the file wouldn't you? Again you thinking is the problem. What you think or your opinion of the humans or machines motive is irrelevant. What you can't understand is irrelevant. I have no idea how quantum physics works and can hardly understand them but guess what they still work. I can think Elvis is still alive but guess what, he's still dead and in the dirt. Just because you can or can't imagine how something happened does not mean that is how or how it could not have happened. Point is your belief is put into something that you can not prove and we call that stupid. Especially when you try and use it as a foundation for other beliefs.

(Not saying they wrote the script. I'm saying they had the story planned from day one. Before the first film was even casting they had a story and knew how deep they wanted it to go. Shoot in the first film we see foreshadowing all over the place about the next two films. Sure had the first film not done so god we would have never seen these but the point is the story was already written and planned to be a trilogy.)

Right so you admit that you believe in something that you can not prove and cling to personal interpretation rather then rational thought or logic. Rational thinkers ask who, what, when, where, why, how, etc. and don't proclaim they know the answers when not all of these have been given. The fact that you admit that it is only what you believe and not what you know only proves my point that your only useing your own bias/opinion/interpretation. Yes you have one and yes that is all your using to back you up. I see thought this discussion coming from you "I think" stop thinking! It doesnt matter what you think, all that matters is what happened which is something that you can not prove. Sorry if you find the truth insulting.

It's not stupid to put your belief into something that you cannot prove.  Everybody does that.  Haven't you ever heard of religion, or the theory of evolution?  I still think that the humans had more motivation to attack first than the Machines did.  Even though the archive didn't say anything about the blockade not working, it never said that the blockade did work either.  The human nation obviously felt threated by Zero One at some point in time before the first attack, but there is no evidence of Zero One feeling threatened by the humans before the war started.  And I never used it as a foundation for other beliefs.  As a matter of fact, I explicitly said that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.  If you accused a Machinist of using this as a foundation for other beliefs, I could understand that, but saying that about me is just silly.

Personal interpretation and rational thought/logic are NOT mutually exclusive.  Not everything is black and white.  Just because something can't be proven, that it doesn't mean there is no evidence for it.  One person will view the evidence and come to a certain conclusion.  Another person can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, or no conclusion at all.  That doesn't necessarily mean that someone is not using rational thought or logic.  If you think that everyone who is rational or logical will come to the same conclusion (or lack of a conclusion), and everyone who says different is irrational, then you are the one being biased.  This is just a hunch, but if the first known attack was of the Machines attacking the humans, then I doubt that you would be so insistent on saying that we don't know who started the war.

He did confirm, within the extent of his knowledge and access level, that humans bombarded 01, though was it not more implied than stated definitely that this was the original armed assault between the two?

One could also consider the Machines' inflation of human currency - and subsequent devalued economies - an act of war in itself, especially if its production of goods was specifically towards such an outcome. Without doubt, one of the reservations those humans who originally declinded to trade with the machines based their decision upon.

However, regardless of that which we discover to be historically "factual", our being in a position to influence how we proceed remains unaltered.

It's not stupid to put your belief into something that you cannot prove.  Everybody does that.  Haven't you ever heard of religion, or the theory of evolution?  I still think that the humans had more motivation to attack first than the Machines did.  Even though the archive didn't say anything about the blockade not working, it never said that the blockade did work either.  The human nation obviously felt threated by Zero One at some point in time before the first attack, but there is no evidence of Zero One feeling threatened by the humans before the war started.  And I never used it as a foundation for other beliefs.  As a matter of fact, I explicitly said that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.  If you accused a Machinist of using this as a foundation for other beliefs, I could understand that, but saying that about me is just silly.

Personal interpretation and rational thought/logic are NOT mutually exclusive.  Not everything is black and white.  Just because something can't be proven, that it doesn't mean there is no evidence for it.  One person will view the evidence and come to a certain conclusion.  Another person can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, or no conclusion at all.  That doesn't necessarily mean that someone is not using rational thought or logic.  If you think that everyone who is rational or logical will come to the same conclusion (or lack of a conclusion), and everyone who says different is irrational, then you are the one being biased.  This is just a hunch, but if the first known attack was of the Machines attacking the humans, then I doubt that you would be so insistent on saying that we don't know who started the war.

I have and remain skeptical of each. Just because everyone does it makes it ok? So because we have a high percentage of high school drop outs its considered smart for them to do so then? Yeah that makes sense. Having more of a motive also doesn't mean anything because all it takes is pulling a trigger on accident without any motive at all and you have the start of a war. Again one possibility is just as likely as the other and without anything to point you towards one the answer remains elusive. Whether or not you used it as a foundation others have and people parading around claiming to know the answer when they don't doesn't help in showing them that their foundation's are built on air.

And that is where you are wrong again. Black and white is all there is. There is a right answer and there are wrong answers to every question. For instance this conversation. You say Humans attacked first, well if I said it was the Machine we obviously have a problem don't we? We both can't possibly be right so who is? The only time when its all gray is in opinions which incidentally those don't matter when it comes to the truth. The relative **bullcrud** that people try to pass off as intelligent philosophy is just humans trying to made up excuses for why they don't have to admit they are wrong.

Your concern about how one views the evidence is based off of someone interpreting what they see with their own bias. Not with a rational mindset because rational thinking without the bias. Without anything pushing you away from the set course of the evidence there is only one track on which it can follow. Cause and effect. We reach one conclusion after we apply one line of thinking and another if we throw something else in. Eliminate all outside influence and look at only what you are given not what you throw in and you will only reach and are able to only reach one conclusion.

And your hunch would be wrong. If the first known attack was from the Machine I'd be asking the same questions. When and why. Unless it answered these I would never take what it shows to be enough to prove the Machines attacked first.

Omega0 wrote:

It's not stupid to put your belief into something that you cannot prove.  Everybody does that.  Haven't you ever heard of religion, or the theory of evolution?  I still think that the humans had more motivation to attack first than the Machines did.  Even though the archive didn't say anything about the blockade not working, it never said that the blockade did work either.  The human nation obviously felt threated by Zero One at some point in time before the first attack, but there is no evidence of Zero One feeling threatened by the humans before the war started.  And I never used it as a foundation for other beliefs.  As a matter of fact, I explicitly said that it doesn't change anything about the way things are now.  If you accused a Machinist of using this as a foundation for other beliefs, I could understand that, but saying that about me is just silly.

Personal interpretation and rational thought/logic are NOT mutually exclusive.  Not everything is black and white.  Just because something can't be proven, that it doesn't mean there is no evidence for it.  One person will view the evidence and come to a certain conclusion.  Another person can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, or no conclusion at all.  That doesn't necessarily mean that someone is not using rational thought or logic.  If you think that everyone who is rational or logical will come to the same conclusion (or lack of a conclusion), and everyone who says different is irrational, then you are the one being biased.  This is just a hunch, but if the first known attack was of the Machines attacking the humans, then I doubt that you would be so insistent on saying that we don't know who started the war.

I have and remain skeptical of each. Just because everyone does it makes it ok? So because we have a high percentage of high school drop outs its considered smart for them to do so then? Yeah that makes sense. Having more of a motive also doesn't mean anything because all it takes is pulling a trigger on accident without any motive at all and you have the start of a war. Again one possibility is just as likely as the other and without anything to point you towards one the answer remains elusive. Whether or not you used it as a foundation others have and people parading around claiming to know the answer when they don't doesn't help in showing them that their foundation's are built on air.

And that is where you are wrong again. Black and white is all there is. There is a right answer and there are wrong answers to every question. For instance this conversation. You say Humans attacked first, well if I said it was the Machine we obviously have a problem don't we? We both can't possibly be right so who is? The only time when its all gray is in opinions which incidentally those don't matter when it comes to the truth. The relative **bullcrud** that people try to pass off as intelligent philosophy is just humans trying to made up excuses for why they don't have to admit they are wrong.

Your concern about how one views the evidence is based off of someone interpreting what they see with their own bias. Not with a rational mindset because rational thinking without the bias. Without anything pushing you away from the set course of the evidence there is only one track on which it can follow. Cause and effect. We reach one conclusion after we apply one line of thinking and another if we throw something else in. Eliminate all outside influence and look at only what you are given not what you throw in and you will only reach and are able to only reach one conclusion.

And your hunch would be wrong. If the first known attack was from the Machine I'd be asking the same questions. When and why. Unless it answered these I would never take what it shows to be enough to prove the Machines attacked first.

First you say that there is no mention of the humans motive for bombing Zero One, and you would think that sorta info might be important.  Now you're saying that having more motive doesn't mean anything?  That doesn't sound like rational thinking to me.  In fact, it sounds like you're not even being consistent.  I've never heard of a war being started because someone accidentally pulled a trigger.  Furthermore, the Machines don't do anything on accident.  Everything they do is intentional and for a reason.  You might not think it's a good reason, but there is still a reason.

If you want me to believe that there may have been a Machine attack before the bombing of Zero One, then you need to at least explain what the motivation may have been.  If you can't do that, then you're not going to convince me, and you might as well stop trying.  You can continue insulting me and my thought process if you want to, but that's not going to convince me that you're right.