Osama Bin Laden Accused America of Bringing "AIDS as a Satanic American Invention"

OutOfBreath

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp

Just throwing it out there. Now, I wish some of the biology people on here would comment on the nature of diseases and how they work.

In the meantime, I find the snopes explanation at least as credible as Osama Bin Laden's...

Peace
Dan

he still stands

OutOfBreath wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp

Just throwing it out there. Now, I wish some of the biology people on here would comment on the nature of diseases and how they work.

In the meantime, I find the snopes explanation at least as credible as Osama Bin Laden's...

Peace
Dan

Yeah I don't think you'll find any peer-reviewed journal article that will make any claims about AIDS being a man-made disease.

I believe that in this case -- as is most any conspiracy theory -- if you subcribe to the theory of Occam's Razor then this is just a bunch of fun/funny science fiction. Seriously though, because Osama bin Laden says that the US government did something evil (as if he would ever say anything to the contrary) we should believe it? Is someone here about ready to pull a John Walker???

And secondly, from the Snopes article... "We make the arrogant assumption that our world should always make sense according to our current level of knowledge; such a premise works well in most cases but breaks down in the face of matters our understanding does not yet encompass. At those moments at least some of us scramble to find explanations – any explanations – that can be shoehorned into service." This quote pretty much summarizes the frame of mind required to believe in this bologna.

bigdvs

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

Zoonosis- it happens and in all likelihood is what started HIV in the world

(list contains a handful of retroviruses that are not HIV/AIDS related, formed natrually with in the wild, so humans did not have the market on reverse transcriptase Mother Nature was working on it as well)


In regards to the Letter to America-2002, just be careful reading translations OBL makes those messages with the intent that it says one thing to Western Readers and a whole completely different thing to Muslims. Someone trying to translate to make a point will leave out some of the more colorful language flourishes which would mean little to us, such as the wonderful "peace through guidance" which means little to western ears but literally translates in the minds of muslims to "one day you will submit to our rule".

Kann

OutOfBreath wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp

Just throwing it out there. Now, I wish some of the biology people on here would comment on the nature of diseases and how they work.

In the meantime, I find the snopes explanation at least as credible as Osama Bin Laden's...

Peace
Dan

Extensively discussed here http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=286273
I think the point of the thread was to discuss wether Osama saying America created AIDS adds weight to that theory.
(And I don't think so, not only does he probably know little in bology he also is bordeline psychopath)

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Kann wrote:

Extensively discussed here http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=286273
I think the point of the thread was to discuss wether Osama saying America created AIDS adds weight to that theory.
(And I don't think so, not only does he probably know little in bology he also is bordeline psychopath)

Psychopath most likely, but what if he's also a highly intelligent person trained to do something specific by the CIA?

Bush personally said finding him wasn't that important. Little windows of opportunity from which to glimpse inside the little shop of horrors.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

he still stands wrote:

And secondly, from the Snopes article... "We make the arrogant assumption that our world should always make sense according to our current level of knowledge; such a premise works well in most cases but breaks down in the face of matters our understanding does not yet encompass. At those moments at least some of us scramble to find explanations – any explanations – that can be shoehorned into service." This quote pretty much summarizes the frame of mind required to believe in this bologna.

truer words have never been written. Most conspiracy theories are an oversimplification of why certain things happen the way they do, and the people who create them can't comprehend that these events occur because of far more complicated interactions than they (or anyone) can calculate.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

When it comes to certain things snopes is as useless as mainstream TV.

I like the Fanta nazi thing which they said was false according to a study done by coke

we asked coke and they said they were totally awesome and perfect, so that's absolutely good enough for us...

:rolleyes:

yeah...snopes...

DriftingByTheStorm

I came across this book, Full Disclosure, by Dr. Gary Glum, first published in 1994.

Folks i implore you to brush up on this.
Gary Glum, Leonard Horowitz, Robert Srickler, John Seale, and even Boyd Graves are ALL saying the SAME THING.

There research ALL points to the same place.

Hell.
I gave you a link to the Government iteself announcing that AIDS is a CANCER VIRUS ...

and by god, if that isn't just what ALL of these researchers are claiming as the origins of this disease: The US SPECIAL VIRUS CANCER PROGRAM.

Look it up.

OffHeGoes29

So please tell me, how do you deal with a man like this and not go to war at the same time?

Drowned Out

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

So please tell me, how do you deal with a man like this and not go to war at the same time?

You do realize you're asking how to deal with ONE man without going to war, right? Shouldn't that answer be relatively obvious....? Cut off the head n all that....?

OffHeGoes29

Drowned Out wrote:

You do realize you're asking how to deal with ONE man without going to war, right? Shouldn't that answer be relatively obvious....? Cut off the head n all that....?

Well an ideology really, but my question is how does passifism solve the problem? This man, and thousands of others like him out there will stop at nothing untill the world is under Islamic control. Even if we completely cut our selves off from the Middle East, I don't think they will go away. I'm looking for answers here.

OffHeGoes29

MrSmith wrote:

truer words have never been written. Most conspiracy theories are an oversimplification of why certain things happen the way they do, and the people who create them can't comprehend that these events occur because of far more complicated interactions than they (or anyone) can calculate.

Holy shit, this is the smartest thing I've ever read on this board! No really, great point, I say it all the time when it comes to issues like Iraq, or the current economic situation in the US. There is a lot more to these issues then any of us can understand. All we see is what the media reports, the truth is complicated. All we can do is go into it with and open mind and ask questions.

DriftingByTheStorm

Chapter 3 of Full Disclosure by Gary Glum:

Chapter 3 wrote:

CHAPTER THREE
AIDS is the weapon of a powerful segment of society whose spiritual forefathers date back centuries. The epidemic is the culmination of the intellectual and spiritual tradition of some of the richest and most powerful people alive, many of them famous and respected figures from families whose names are household words and held in high esteem by the public. Their indifference-or contempt-for the lives of common humanity should not come as a surprise, nor be hard to believe.

Since at least the height of British colonial domination of the world, there has been a potent strain of thinking among "aristocrats" about superior races (white, English speaking, educated and rich) and inferior races (white or black or colored, uneducated and poor). The entire British colonial system was based on the ruthless domination by a few of the "superior" over vast numbers of the "inferior."

America itself was founded in rebellion against that domination. The American Revolution was an overthrow of those old ideas about who should rule-and how. And then the new Americans turned right around and did the same thing to their own "inferiors," allowing slavery for blacks and committing genocide against Native Americans with a rapacity that would have gratified the most ruthless British colonialists.

Philosophers revered as great thinkers by the British aristocrats of those centuries openly expressed their views that the inferior peoples of the planet must not be allowed to increase sufficiently in numbers to use up the earth's precious natural resources and, eventually, to overrun by sheer numbers the existing political and economic system.

The most prominent 18th Century spokesman for the British East India Company policies of global genocide was the economist Adam Smith. His book, The Wealth of Nations, is still required reading in college economics classes. He wrote several works on forced population reduction, the most notable being The Treatise of Human Nature and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which he placed mankind on the level of animals.

Smith's ideas were advanced in the 19th Century by philosophers as prominent as Thomas Malthus, another high-ranking employee of the British East India Company. To the acclaim of the British upper classes, Malthus actually wrote in the mid-1800's: "All children who are born, beyond what would be needed to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons.We should facilitate, instead of desperately trying to impede, the operation of nature in producing this mortality, and if we dread the all too often visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction which we compel nature to use."

Malthus' modest proposals included that the poor be educated into habits of filth rather than cleanliness and that poor villages should be built "near stagnant pools and particularly encourage settlements in marshy and unwholesome situations." And he encouraged that restraint be enforced upon those misguidedly benevolent men who would try to protect the poor from contagious diseases.

Malthus was a respected writer of his era, and though not one American in a thousand has read his work since some boring college class, his name remains famous. His writings were eminent enough to be responsible for the invention of a word that remains in our language even now: Malthusian. Meaning: "Of or pertaining to the theory of Thomas Malthus that population tends to increase faster than food supply, with inevitably disastrous results unless the increase in population can be checked."

Inevitably disastrous results unless the increase in population can be checked. Precisely. And in one sentence, the meaning of "Malthusian" captures perfectly what the AIDS epidemic is really all about: Population control. Malthusian philosophy was heralded in the 20th Century by esteemed British writers who included H. G. Wells (of "War of the Worlds" fame) and Lord Bertrand Russell. Near the end of his long life, Lord Russell won acclaim among antiwar activists for his outspoken opposition to American involvement in Vietnam. But what they didn't know was that he just thought war was a horribly messy and inefficient way to kill people. Not to mention the property destruction and expensive munitions.

Throughout his career, Lord Russell spoke of the aristocratic aspiration toward a more refined form of genocide. In The Impact of Science on Society, he made it clear what they had in mind: "I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the conscience of the devout or to restrain the ambition of nationalists. This state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it. Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others."

But of course. How else to run an empire? In 1953, when Lord Russell's book was published, there was very little public knowledge of bacteriological warfare. Yet he spoke of it knowingly and lovingly, and he clearly indicated that poor nations would be targeted.

That virulent strain of thought continues-and reaches to the top. In 1962, the CIBA foundation held a symposium, "Man and His Future," at which the keynote speaker was Francis Krick. His favored tactics of population control included putting a chemical that would cause sterility in the water supplies of those nations he judged as "not fit to have children." Other nations deemed fit would be given a license to purchase an antidote.

"This approach may run against Christian ethics," he said in a nice touch of understatement, "but I do not see why people should have a right to have children. We might be able to achieve remarkable results after twenty or thirty years by limiting reproduction to genetically superior couples."

He talked about the benefits that could come to a country that "improved its population on a grand scale." What type of people was Frick talking about? A study of his work leaves no doubt that "limiting reproduction to genetically superior couples," as he wished to do, would exclude Negroes, Jews, Gypsies and the Asian races. The year was not 1939 but 1962, and the country was not Nazi Germany, but the United States of America. These were not the musings of a deranged madman, but the philosophical essence of one of the foremost microbiologists in the world. Francis Krick was a winner of the Nobel Prize.

And thirty-some years later, here we are. Those responsible for the AIDS epidemic have at long last created the perfect tool for their Malthusian solution to their most pressing problem: Population control.

Who are those people?




"Code Word" is one of the highest security ratings for classified government documents. "Code Word Cardinal" is the password to the file containing intelligence information on a small group of the world's most powerful people. Some intelligence officers call them "Force X." They call themselves "The Olympians." They stand behind numerous organizations that deal in areas of global policy-such as the Global 2000 Committee and the Club of Rome-and even the closed and elite circle of government officials who know of their existence and some of their activities stand in awe at their power to dictate to governments and multinational corporations they control through ownership-or fear.

Their ruthlessness is well known to those who might fantasize about opposing them-or blowing the whistle on them. There's nowhere to hide. These families rule the world-and they take that power as their absolute, God-given right, and destroy without mercy anyone who might seriously threaten their privilege.

The existence of this group-let's call them "The Olympians," just as they call themselves-is one of the best-kept secrets of the 20th Century. And what they've done to mold life and humanity to their will-from the scourge of pellagra through the AIDS epidemic-is the scandal of the century. AIDS is merely their latest-and potentially most ruthless and destructive-form of warfare against ordinary humanity.

Nice stuff, huh?
I mean the thoughts of those great thinkers of the past, with regard to population, that is.

And yet there are those who would question why some in the elite would want a tool like AIDS?

Is it not plainly obvious?
Really?

Drowned Out

he still stands wrote:

I believe that in this case -- as is most any conspiracy theory -- if you subcribe to the theory of Occam's Razor then this is just a bunch of fun/funny science fiction. Seriously though, because Osama bin Laden says that the US government did something evil (as if he would ever say anything to the contrary) we should believe it? Is someone here about ready to pull a John Walker???

And secondly, from the Snopes article... "We make the arrogant assumption that our world should always make sense according to our current level of knowledge; such a premise works well in most cases but breaks down in the face of matters our understanding does not yet encompass. At those moments at least some of us scramble to find explanations – any explanations – that can be shoehorned into service." This quote pretty much summarizes the frame of mind required to believe in this bologna.

Isn't occam's razor all about arrogant assumptions, and making sense of the unexplained? I see occam's razor being invoked in SO many 'alternative history' ( ) threads, then see contradictory comments like the one above...and this one:

MrSmith wrote:

Most conspiracy theories are an oversimplification of why certain things happen the way they do, and the people who create them can't comprehend that these events occur because of far more complicated interactions than they (or anyone) can calculate..

oversimplification = occam's razor, no? (I know you didn't bring it up).

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Well an ideology really, but my question is how does passifism solve the problem? This man, and thousands of others like him out there will stop at nothing untill the world is under Islamic control. Even if we completely cut our selves off from the Middle East, I don't think they will go away. I'm looking for answers here.

Do you really think that Al Qaeda, with a membership of like 1000 people, has any chance at world domination, regardless of their intentions? A radical ideology is only as strong as those that support it...I'm sure white supremacists would love to rule the world....should we invade and occupy Idaho, killing any who we deem a threat? Pacifism doesn't doesn't stop fundamentalism, but it breaks the cycle of violence that drive people to it.

OffHeGoes29

Drowned Out wrote:

Isn't occam's razor all about arrogant assumptions, and making sense of the unexplained? I see occam's razor being invoked in SO many 'alternative history' ( ) threads, then see contradictory comments like the one above...and this one:

oversimplification = occam's razor, no? (I know you didn't bring it up).



Do you really think that Al Qaeda, with a membership of like 1000 people, has any chance at world domination, regardless of their intentions? A radical ideology is only as strong as those that support it...I'm sure white supremacists would love to rule the world....should we invade and occupy Idaho, killing any who we deem a threat? Pacifism doesn't doesn't stop fundamentalism, but it breaks the cycle of violence that drive people to it.

Karl Marx was one person, Hitler was also just one person with a small gathering. Its amazing what people will follow in desperate times. It only takes one radical to tell people what they want to hear to get into power.

Please correct me, but I can't think of one point in history where pacifism worked in ignoring a problem? We seen what pacifism does in the past, it lets the problem get bigger and bigger. And the cycle of violence continues untill someone stops it. If we ignor the issue, fundamentalism will take control one place at a time.

Cosmo

Why is this dickhead still running around out there? I mean, maybe we should try to get the dipshit.
Whadda ya think?

DriftingByTheStorm

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Hitler was also just one person with a small gathering.

You do realize that Hitler was backed by massive international financial interests, and his warchest and industries were heavily funded by American, British, and shadowy international figures, right?

Ford, Rockefeller -- Standard Oil \ IG Farben, IBM, The Bush family via Thyssen, Citibank, and many other large players on the international elite scene were the real players behind Hitler's stupendous rise.

Similarly,
if you want to buy in to the "conspiracy theory",
that would be why Al Qaeda is such a smashing "success".
They have the tacit approval of the US government and its own international controlers. They serve a purpose. They create a shadowy enemy that can be fought in perpetuity, and they can be blamed for anything that intelligence operatives can fabricate a link to. In short, they are the perfect patsy.

:(

OffHeGoes29

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You do realize that Hitler was backed by massive international financial interests, and his warchest and industries were heavily funded by American, British, and shadowy international figures, right?

Ford, Rockefeller -- Standard Oil \ IG Farben, IBM, The Bush family via Thyssen, Citibank, and many other large players on the international elite scene were the real players behind Hitler's stupendous rise.

Similarly,
if you want to buy in to the "conspiracy theory",
that would be why Al Qaeda is such a smashing "success".
They have the tacit approval of the US government and its own international controlers. They serve a purpose. They create a shadowy enemy that can be fought in perpetuity, and they can be blamed for anything that intelligence operatives can fabricate a link to. In short, they are the perfect patsy.

:(

About Hitler, where did you find this information that he was financially backed by Britian and America prior to his election? Just for my own knowledge?

And where did you get your facts that Al Qaeda is a mearly a puppet for the West to use as an excuse?

Or is this just an opinion?

Drowned Out

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Karl Marx was one person, Hitler was also just one person with a small gathering. Its amazing what people will follow in desperate times. It only takes one radical to tell people what they want to hear to get into power.
Please correct me, but I can't think of one point in history where pacifism worked in ignoring a problem? We seen what pacifism does in the past, it lets the problem get bigger and bigger. And the cycle of violence continues untill someone stops it. If we ignor the issue, fundamentalism will take control one place at a time.

Pacifism alone can be viewed as ignoring a problem...kinda like what the majority of us Westerners are doing while our soldiers die (and destroy families and countries overseas). But pacifism combined with non-violent protest has proven successful many-a-time. I'm sure you can think of several achievements of pacifist, non-violent protest.

Now, I know that this doesn't work with fundamentalists....but I can't support invading a country to find one man and a few followers (two countries if you count the reason the US invaded Iraq, revision 2). If the US wants to take out their old buddy, they should find a way to do it without creating more terrorists. We're only making things worse.

What's this thread about again?

DriftingByTheStorm

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

About Hitler, where did you find this information that he was financially backed by Britian and America prior to his election? Just for my own knowledge?

And where did you get your facts that Al Qaeda is a mearly a puppet for the West to use as an excuse?

Or is this just an opinion?

I don't mean Britain and America proper as governments, i mean as hotbeds of sponsorship via the "elite", their corporations, and their behind the scenes collusion with the reich.

I don't think i could give you any specific source, its all over the net though. Here. That link looks amazingly thorough. I forgot about GE. doh.

Check it out.
Western interests were totally in bed with Hitler.
They used him to help balkanize europe, and also to loot europe and plunder gold. The gold was secretly routed through Switzerland and Swiss banks, and some of it even found its way to the USA.

Conversely, they were doing fair amount of bet hedging, by ensuring that the reich was friendly to their business and to their blood.

You have never heard of things like the IBM-Hollerith connection to the 3rd Reich? There have been whole books written on IBM alone. Without IBM (and there is documented proof of direct contact with IBM New York, not just the German subsidy, as IBM STILL claims today) the holocaust could NEVER have happened. IBM routed the trains, tracked the prisoners, was the reason for the tattoos on the forearms, and controlled ALL movement of jews and undesirables via their punchcard accounting systems -- tailored and designed specificaly to the needs of the Reich.

Blech. Blech. Blech.

As for Al Qaeda, i guess that falls more under "opinion" at this time, since true "facts" are very slow to emerge in this world (it took what, 40 years for JFK to be figured out in large part? and we are still probably only 75% on that) ... but suffice to say that islamic extremism was all but invented by Zbignew Brzezinski in order to defeat the Russians, and that "Al Qaeda" and wahhabist sunni muslims in general have been used as mercenaries for hire by the US government for a LONG time ... and they have been used around the world! Bought and sold.

That is not to say that they don't have their own "real" aims, not to say that they may believe they are acting in their own interests without manipulation, but at the end of the day they are only still alive because the US wants them alive, and because we often buy their services in order to create chaos and conflict. Hell we have been doing it in Iraq for the past few years. It came out in reports that we were paying them to fight and stir up shit when there was that lull a few years ago ('04-'05 or so) and then when shit got too hot ... we started paying them not to fight. incredible shit, i tell ya.