I have no clue what movie you watched, and I have to wonder if your understand what “Trutherism” is. Trutherism suggests that Bin Laden had NO involvement in the events of 9-11 and the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were all inside jobs perpetrated by George Bush and the “military industrial complex.” This movie makes ZERO comparisons to the events.
Khan blows up the Section 31 facility to exact revenge for Admiral Marcus’ capture of Khan’s compatriots. He then attacks Federation HQs to eliminate all of the senior staff whom he knows are gathering to discuss Starfleet’s response. Marcus uses the events to further his own plan to draw the Klingon’s into a conflict. Sure the movie asks the question whether an organization meant for exploration should be actively trying to begin a war, and whether or not you agree with that premise it’s asking a political question here, not unlike the old show.
You basically fell into the trap the writers laid for you when Khan gives his speech in the brig trying to sway Kirk to his position by pointing out that he, like Kirk, are simply pawns in a larger game perpetrated by Marcus. He tries to come off as a figure to be pitied, not feared, and he’s banking on Kirk’s compassion... heck he even tells Kirk that his compassion is his weakness. It’s abundantly clear by the final act that in no way was Khan ever really a pawn, and he was simply using Marcus and the resources of Starfleet to build his superweapons then he would revive his crew and eventually rule Earth again. Both men were using each other to further their own agendas.
The reality is JJ Abrams has never, ever made any comments regarding 9-11 to suggest the national tragedy was Bush’s fault, what an inside job, or that Osama Bin Laden was a patsy. In fact, Abrams has been a very vocal and active supporter of military vets and their families. One organization he’s actively involved in is “The Mission Continues.” Four vets (including a Navy SEAL) appear at the end of the film folding the Federation flag during the Enterprise re-christening ceremony.
Sure JJ may be a lib, but he’s one of the better guys in this industry.
There are many theories of trutherism.
One involved Osama Bin Laden attacking the US in revenge for his being driven by the CIA to attack the Russians during the Afghanistan battles and then abandoned when it no longer suited US interests.
Both theories and STID are the same - Khan/Osama wouldn’t have done anything if not for the initial actions of the CIA/Starfleet trying to get us into a war.
it wasn’t a trap the writers laid because the writers lay the ultimate responsibility of Khan’s creation at Marcus’ feet. He found Khan, tried to use Khan to further his own ends and then tried to destroy Khan when he became a rogue agent. Sure, Khan is meant to be the ultimate bad guy... it was never “The Wrath of Marcus” (although there’s some irony in that...) But Khan wouldn’t have come back at all or gained power if not for Marcus’ war-monkey antics to get us into Iraq.
JJ Abrams doesn’t blame the soldiers, yeah, get that... They’ve learned the lessons of Vietnam...But he certainly does blame Bush and Cheney and certainly not Obama.
Wonder why that is?
Oh yeah...
http://www.thewrap.com/media/slideshow/president-obamas-hollywood-backers-george-clooney-jeffrey-katzenberg-and-more-39056