Dvergar wrote:
And why would it be released in Africa? Until the end of WWII Europe owned Africa anyway. Even if it was some plot to take over the natural resources (which are/were owned by Europeans and could easily be controlled again) who is going to work the land if you wipe out all the cheap labor? The US had no reason, the Allies had no reason, the only country that had even the slimmest chance of creating something like this was Germany, and Africa would have been a shitty place to unleash AIDS. Infact it would be a shitty place for anyone to unleash a weapon, it took 20 years just to start killing people who weren't bushmen.
Because some people really don't like blacks and gays and wish they would disappear. The disease initially appeared in the Western world in many gay clubs and not the general population. It was originally called "GRID" not "AIDS".
It is a fact that contemporaneous with the times in question (50s-90s) many illegal experiments and covert activities were undertaken to oppress, harm and eradicate unpopular populations so to claim that such activities are without motive or means is flatly untrue.
Dvergar wrote:
I know we've all been conditioned to see these kinds of conspiracies, but this is just ludicrous. You say the natural transmission theories have too many holes, but you don't know dick about pathology of have done any substantial non-wikipedia research, and yet you try to shoot down the claims of people who have done this their whole lives.
You don't know any more about pathology than anyone else and theories advanced by the "experts" about phenomena with too many unknowns to make a hard-and-fast judgements have been proven wrong before.
You say that people are "conditioned to see conspiracies" but you are flatly wrong, the opposite is true: people today are conditioned to take things at face value even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If this was not so, advertising would be a dry well and not a highly profitable and successful industry, and people wouldn't red-herring otherwise valid lines of inquiry as "conspiracy theory".
As the central tenet of your reasoning here is contrary to eminently apparent fact, it is sensible that you should question the rationality of your analytical processes. Perhaps you are making other incorrect assumptions?
