• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My final post on 9-11

Well - your point about vaccines and cautioning against it is a realistic and reasonable concern.

People weigh out the two negatives and often choose the one which is less harmful.
Our rural area, for example, had few cases - so I opted *not* to get my kids vaccinated.
But if I lived in a far more populated area I would have considered it and likely would have chose to vaccinate because it would have seemed more likely that they'd be exposed to it. (this was my logic)

And then we all got it anyway.
And it wasn't as bad as it had been for many others - but the symptoms we did have lasted for over a month and the infections were horrid (sinus, ear) but all treatable in their own respects.

But concerns about vaccines, food contamination and so forth is on a far different level of concern than conspiracy theories.
 
For reading pleasure.....

1962 Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was the code name for various proposals for false flag actions, including domestic terror attacks on U.S. soil, proposed in 1962 by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal. The draft memorandum was declassified in recent years through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive.
Click to expand...

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag operation plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

Operation Northwoods included proposals for hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. The plan stated:

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Several other proposals were included within the Operation Northwoods plan, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. 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. Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conspiracy theories are just that -- until they're proven to be true...
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Well - your point about vaccines and cautioning against it is a realistic and reasonable concern.

People weigh out the two negatives and often choose the one which is less harmful.
Our rural area, for example, had few cases - so I opted *not* to get my kids vaccinated.
But if I lived in a far more populated area I would have considered it and likely would have chose to vaccinate because it would have seemed more likely that they'd be exposed to it. (this was my logic)
Click to expand...

Yes, it's about making an INFORMED choice...It's not that there isn't SOME reality to the fact that you can expose a person to a small amount of something in order to develop a resistance... BUT there are so many different vaccines, and each of them has a different risk - reward... but then there's medicines coming out where the list of side-effects is about 50 names long and many of them are considerably worse then the disease being treated.

I also urge people to get vaccinated with the single dose vial rather then multi-dose vials because the single doses have less preservatives (mercury bi-product). I could go on...

But concerns about vaccines, food contamination and so forth is on a far different level of concern than conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

As far as vaccine development, the Rockefeller foundation for nearly a century has been funding the development of health care treatments such as vaccines... Like back in the 29 the discussion was how increased standards in sanitation had provided for much better overall health of the populations... and had the discussions of how to develop vaccinations and serums that could be used to build on that effect. Then in the 60's the discussion turned to using pseudo-hormones in order to impact womens fertility to be added to tetanus shots (don't worry, most women won't be affected or will only have reduced fertility... where a small percentage becomes infertile) and then there's other similar reports in the 70's and 90's...

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/e22f12f9-6e29-42a2-a2ea-1903a1edc99c-1927.pdf
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/5728382a-f066-447f-b00c-196ed33cd9e2-1928.pdf
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/ebac1f03-f2cc-4afe-a88e-2d6092c9867e-1929.pdf
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/0c797e3d-68d5-4121-923d-bb353948c181-1979.pdf
(There's more and this is ALOT of reading... but it's not from any 'conspiracy site')


Then, if we remember sometime last year there was the delivery of a 'bird flu' vaccine that was mixed with a human flu... but the final leg of the journey to open distribution was a contractor who tested the vial on a ferret (for comparable biological reactions)... the ferret died. It turns out this batch had kept the LIVE VIRUSES in them and would have proven to mix the two (bird and human) flu viruses into a super-deadly mix that could have potentially killed upwards of 60% of humanity... No joke, it's in the articles.

CTV Ottawa- Baxter admits flu product contained live bird flu virus - CTV News

Further, look at Factor 8, a drug for hemophiliacs... Baxter in the US had been selling MILLIONS of doses of this drug that had been tainted with HIV... and it was proven in court that they KNEW this was the case... SO, because the batches were no longer sellable in north america, did Baxter destroy the drug??? No. They went and resold this HIV tainted drug to hemophiliacs in europe, africa and asia. KNOWING that it would kill EVERYONE injected with it.

YouTube - Bayer Exposed ( HIV Contaminated Vaccine )

Now, in terms of food... we've been hearing about GMO foods more and more (the latest is GMO salmon, which includes genes from : cockroaches, rabbits, eels, etc)... but look at the studies of some of these 'SAFE' GMO foods :

Institute for Responsible Technology -
Jeffrey Smith: Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters (if you don't like huffington post, look at the PDF of the research findings, it's on the page)

But this is really just touching on larger topics in which there's lots of room for debate.

My main criticism of GMO foods has been (since a relative who had a small family farm was nearly run out of business because his farm became tainted with 'monsanto' genetics in his crops), is that while sure we might have mapped the genome, but I sincerely doubt that we have a true understanding of the codes and processes at the genetic level for reproduction... meaning, the DNA strands split and then recombine, but it's not as simple as Gene 1 matches Gene 1 and the all link in... SO, to give a computer programming analogy, once the genetic code is re-written in reproduction, where there is supposed to be an 'end of file' is replaced with the 'modificiation' and then leading to genetic deformations, which could lead to mutations down the line...

And that's essentially what these studies on BT corn has shown. The GMO food is fine for you... fine for your children, but after the third generation.... if the rodent study translates into human results... the third generation of people eating GMO foods almost exclusively will die off 90%, and the survivors are pretty horribly mutated.

So, is this the result of conspiracy, laziness, or something else?? Well, that's up for debate.... but why are the companies with these amazing violations allowed to continue to do business??
 
MaggieD said:
For reading pleasure.....

....
Conspiracy theories are just that -- until they're proven to be true...
Click to expand...

Haven't the debunkers told you yet... Operation Northwoods was meant to fight commies not muslims, so it's completely irrelevant. Just like PNAC's document is 'we need a new pearl harbor' in SOME OTHER CONTEXT then 'we need to use suicide planes as bombs against targets to accomplish our objectives quickly'
 
BmanMcfly said:
'we need to use suicide planes as bombs against targets to accomplish our objectives quickly'
Click to expand...

Oh but you're just asking questions. Nowhere are you "making the statement that it was a deliberate act by the US govt". Yup. So full of ****.
 
505 said:
Oh but you're just asking questions. Nowhere are you "making the statement that it was a deliberate act by the US govt". Yup. So full of ****.
Click to expand...

Listen, I didn't write the document... and what happened in pearl harbor?? Why would a 'pearl harbor' help in the 'transition' (which you need to read the first chapter to understand the 'transition')?? Why would NO LESS THAN 8 mainstream local papers ran with the headline on sept 12 of "new pearl harbor"??

What I'm saying is that IN THE CONTEXT of the document, the statement is tantamount to "In order (to transition the military into the high tech era, and to maintain American supremacy militarily, will require showing the world that we can wage two simultaneous conflicts, including the "regime change in Iraq", and be winning them both,) (because we cannot simply 'pause' our military situation while we make this transition.) The justification process, even if it brings out a revolutionary change (within the military more specifically) will require a long and drawn out justification (or a) catastrophic and catalyzing event... " I mean, if you really take the 'what is meant', you need to read through the document to understand the 'definitions' of the words being used in order to see proper context. () = modified to show the contextual meaning of that section

That's the people that later became Bush's administration, saying that this was required to prevent a long justification process... That doesn't mean an 'admission' that they did it... but it does show their intention to take advantage of any such tragedy.

You are LITERALLY deluding yourself if you can explain it to mean something OTHER then that context... or you haven't actually read the document in completion. They still have it on the PNAC website, it's not like it's classified information.

However, if you want to believe they were writing prophetically, then sure... but on some level I view this more as planning. Either planning the attack, or planning for the repercussions... and if they WERE simply writing hypothetically, then they got the 'top of the line scenario best case for their agenda', by a coincidence? That they put pen to paper and while the muslims were randomly writing out the same mplans half way around the world?

But YA, I'm still asking questions... but the FACTS are what they are... I know you don't LIKE what these FACTS point to... but my questions are based ON THE FACTUAL information.

If you are going to debunk this will require a DEEP explanation into the context to convince me to say less... what comes AFTER this quote is a whole new thought. The starting of the document provides the global agenda, and then discusses all the various elements of the plan, and then it comes to the initiation of this plan... and then aspects of the implementation. There is NO legitimate way to legitimately argue ANY OTHER CONTEXT....
 
505 said:
Oh but you're just asking questions. Nowhere are you "making the statement that it was a deliberate act by the US govt". Yup. So full of ****.
Click to expand...

Its like hes the human embodyment of 'a little knowledge being a dangerous thing'
 
This thread went interesting.

There's more "blind faith" to believing in a conspiracy theory than there is vaccination concerns - that's my basic view of it.

But asking me to heavily consider and possibly accept a conspiracy theory which is rooted in the hypothetical (at best) is like asking me to believe that Jesus walked on water or Noah actually did build the ark and loaded it up with animals - 2x2.
Yet there are flaws in these various religious stories and tales which contradict their plausibility. . .but far more people believe *those* stories and tales than believe in the myriads of conspiracy theories (not just referring to the Truther's versions of 9-11)

Interesting - later on in my life I'm sure there will be some rather solid psych-studies into the mindset of such people. It'll be gripping.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
This thread went interesting.

There's more "blind faith" to believing in a conspiracy theory than there is vaccination concerns - that's my basic view of it.

But asking me to heavily consider and possibly accept a conspiracy theory which is rooted in the hypothetical (at best) is like asking me to believe that Jesus walked on water or Noah actually did build the ark and loaded it up with animals - 2x2.
Yet there are flaws in these various religious stories and tales which contradict their plausibility. . .but far more people believe *those* stories and tales than believe in the myriads of conspiracy theories (not just referring to the Truther's versions of 9-11)

Interesting - later on in my life I'm sure there will be some rather solid psych-studies into the mindset of such people. It'll be gripping.
Click to expand...

To a conspiracy theorist I guess the best way to put it is that the word possible is freely and brainlessly interchanged with probable. The words are totally different but since something is possible, they feel probable is a good substitue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom