Are you ready for a world without antibiotics?

[featherstick]

Syberberg I broadly agree with you, but that doesn't mean the military-industrial complex does.

[Ludwig]

Beria, you have to be very careful with these accusations and insinuations. I have personally banned a person on our local PO forum for continuously spewing out conspiracy theories and scaring people away.

Who decides what's a conspiracy theory and what isn't? Is global warming a conspiracy theory? Some say it is.

Or is the "correct" view the one that the majority holds, and everything else is a conspiracy theory?

It must be nice to be so sure of your opinions that you feel entitled to ban people from voicing dissenting ones.

[Comp_Lex]

I do ban people if they continu to spew out 9/11 inside job stuff if they can't back it up with proof and evidence (and after a few warnings).

[2 As and a B]

I understand that this is a crazy topic to most normal people, but if the Project for the New American Century explicitly mentions gene-specifiic biological warfare as a key future trend in US national strategy, i think we should take notice!

If you are going to post 'conspiracy' theories on here, you will only be taken seriously by this poster if you back up your assertions with original sources.

[Ludwig]

I do ban people if they continu to spew out 9/11 inside job stuff if they can't back it up with proof and evidence (and after a few warnings).

But that is absurd. There's no proof of US Government involvement in 9/11, but there is a mass of evidence that much of the official story is bunkum.

Can YOU prove that the official line on 9/11 is the truth? No, you can't. You just have an embedded belief that there can't have been a cover-up. You're applying double standards - requiring proof for other people's arguments that you can't offer for your own (but that you don't think are needed for your own because it's so obvious to you that you're right).

[Guest]

EDIT

[Ludwig]

I understand that this is a crazy topic to most normal people, but if the Project for the New American Century explicitly mentions gene-specifiic biological warfare as a key future trend in US national strategy, i think we should take notice!

If you are going to post 'conspiracy' theories on here, you will only be taken seriously by this poster if you back up your assertions with original sources.

From PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses", page 72 (http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf):

And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

It's true that there's no explicit suggestion that America's foreign policy should incorporate bioweapons, but the implication is that this is the way things are going, the world over.

[Comp_Lex]

+1

Many people consider PO as a conspiracy theory, and if you look at some of their arguments, the man in the street is easily convinced.

What are their arguments?

Just because someone in authority says something is so, it doesn't mean it is so. We need to question everything if we seek the truth.

You don't need to listen to an authoritative figure if you want to know more about PO. You just need to look at the data and results of models. That's it, just pure science and it's easy to understand.

Please don;t make this a closed forum that doesn't question anything for fear of being banned as a conspiracy theorist. I left a previous forum because a Mod removed a thread that mentioned the Bilderbergs. He said it was anti-semitic!

You are allowed to question anything as long as you can back up your stories with extra information.

[Ludwig]

You are allowed to question anything as long as you can back up your stories with extra information.

Not necessarily. You can just say, "The existing information doesn't support the existing story", and explain why not.

Beliefs have the "feeling of truth" about them, so most people assume that their beliefs are self-evident, and that they MUST have been acquired through logic and analysis. Very often this is not the case. Underlying many, if not most, beliefs are assumptions that are so ingrained that people don't even realise they ARE assumptions.

[Comp_Lex]

Assumption is the mother of all f**k ups.

[Guest]

EDIT

[Lord Beria3]

Comp_Lex, if I told you that the US government had secretly conspired to arrange false-flag operations against American citizens to provoke a attack on a foreign country - you would say I was a mad conspiracy theorist.

Well im not, its called conspiracy fact.

Operation Northwoods.

Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Here are the declassified documents;

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/northwoods1.gif

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... woods.html

What I don't understand is that with the knowledge that the US military elite had signed of a plan to to organise false terrorism on American soil, people like you scream conspiracy theorist if anybody suggests that 9/11 might have been orchestrated by the US government or that President Kennedys assasination might have involved a the elements within the government.

After all, a Congressional commitee in 1977 concluded the following; that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, probably as a result of a conspiracy

This is the key point, they concluded that the probability was some sort of conspiracy behind Kennedys assasination, which surely provides space for theories on whom may have arranged the presidents death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ssinations

Regarding 9/11, the only coherant case for a inside job has come from Mike Ruppert, I have read his book and he seems to give a reasonably credible case. If you have not read it, here is a free link.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ezyL ... 11&f=false

[Comp_Lex]

@TroubledTimes: PO does not say anything about reserves. How fast the stuff is getting on the market is what matters.
And computer models being unreliable doesn't mean that the predictions made with those models are wrong all the time and that the entire concept is wrong as well. The models just need to be refined sometimes.

@Lord Beria3:

Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed.

[Guest]

EDIT

[Comp_Lex]

There is no connection between reserves and production other than you have to find stuff first before you can produce it. The influence of new reserves on the prices is small and further price speculation will be punished after a few years (at most). The current oil price corresponds with my prediction of the oil price for now. That's what I can do with my stupid models.
Further, the opinion of the man on the street only matters if it's somewhat okay and not completely wrong. For example, saying that oil produced from tarsands will save the world economy for the next 100 years is completely wrong.
Also, I really don't care about the government or the market. They are not going to save us anyway. That's for sure.