´óÏó´«Ã½

I've listened to this pastor preach and I have to say I can't disagree with his major points. He is being targetted by some in the media who are opposed to the bible. When a nation engages in violence, violence comes home to that nation. Pacifism is the only hope for the world and that is inspired by the prince of peace, Christ himself.

William

Tuskagee proved the most civilised and wealthy country in the world -the US- was deliberately using STDS to kill hundreds of specifically black men



This went on from 1932-1972, which would have been the time AIDS began appearing among this type of people groups in different countries around the world.

And there are plenty of reports of pharmaceutical companies doing similarly destructive things today to Africans, and through medical programmes;-





The Times on 11 May 1987 accused WHO of setting off aids in africa and other countries through smallpox innoculations in the 1960s - hardly crackpots, The Times!

WHO records show it had been working on creating an AIDs type virus.
WHO bulletin vol47 p.259 1972 said:
"An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert seelctive effects on immune function.

"The possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be impaired, if the infecting virus damages more or less selectively the cell responding to the virus."

In Federation Proceedings of the US in 1972 WHO said: "in relation to the immune response a number of useful experimental approaches can be visualised."

They apparently suggested a neat way to do this would be to put the virus into a vaccination program and observe the results.

"This will be particularly informative in sibships."
ENDS QUOTE

Has anyone got a reasonable explanation for this. It is not my field at all.

Why was WHO trying to create an AIDS like virus and also proposing to spread it around?

The UK health minister was also questioned about the spread of AIDS through vaccination in the commons if you google it.

I am fully prepared to have gotten the wrong end of the stick here.

But please, dont suggest no Govt or MNC ever deliberately killed black people in the name of science/profit/other.

It seems quite clear that while the most powerful nation on earth was killing hundreds of black men using STD experiments in Tuskagee, it was also spending huge resources developing biological weapons;-



The ´óÏó´«Ã½ claims the US also used biological weapons on its own people without consent;-





Here are a list of medical experts who believe it was man-made;-


Henry Kissinger chaired a US Govt committee which reportred that overpopulation in the developing world was a national secuirty threat to the US;-





I can't say HIV was deliberate, but there seems to be plenty of evidence which can be interpreted that way.

I am interested to see if any of the main objections to such a theory can stand up in light up the above links.

Interested in thoughts....



PB

This isn't a criticism, Will, but an observation about language, and the standard way we refer to 'black theology' or the 'black lobby' in politics.

I would be incensed to have someone generalise thus about 'white theology': it is well-understood that there is no 'white theology', but many 'white theologies'; white people are thinking for themselves and making choices about their adherence to this theology or that. That we can so easily refer to 'black theology' is an indictment of some kind, surely?

Either it's an indictment upon a vast majority of black people for merely following the herd, resulting in our CORRECT generalisation of the theology of black people, or it's an indictment upon society for INCORRECTLY generalising when in fact there are many black theologies just as there are many white theologies.

I don't know which it is, and it's clear that most black people don't seem to mind the use of terms which bind them together as a people... but I think it's an interesting observation nonetheless.

John, the term "Black Theology" is a standard academic term that was coined by James Cone. Sometimes it's called black liberation theology. It is the title of university courses and you will find it on book titles. It's not similar to the phrase "white theology" (which doesn't exist as an academic description). think of the other comparisons, such as "Feminist Theology".

PB,

No one doubts that the US mistreated its black citizens. Bill Clinton, when President, gave a formal apology for Tuskagee.

You cannot argue from this fact, however, that the US must have conspired to introduce the Aids virus in order to strike Aftrican Americans.

That is fallacious reasoning.

You refer us to a list of medical experts who contend that Aids was manmade. Check the link. They are listed as conspiracy theorists. Merely listing them doesn't amount to an argument for the claim they make.

It is logically possible that Aids is a manmade virus. So far, no international body has concluded that it is, however. One theory is that Aids emerged from oral polio vaccination experiments in Africa. This has been investigated closely by various international body and discounted. To date, it is the most serious attempt at a case for the synthesis of HIV.

In the absence of ANY evidence suggesting that the US created HIV, I think it is right to regard Dr Wright's claim as bogus.

You also refer to the Times article of 1987. The date should alert you to the danger of that reference when the story concerns medical science at the cutting edge. The smallpox theory has collapsed under investigation.

The truth is, the origins of HIV are something of a mystery. If we knew the origins, we could produce a vaccine very quickly.

I've another concern with your American Government Conspiracy Theory. Tuskagee taught us that big organisations can't keep a big secret. The creation of Aids by the US government is a MASSIVE secret if it is true. I simply don't believe that everyone involved in that work, and the figure must be in the hundreds at least (if true), could possibly maintain secrecy for 25 years.

PTL- Re-read my comment. I used the word 'standard' to describe it, and nothing you've told me is an answer to my observation.

I think Black theology is a perfectly appropriate description of a theological movement that tries to theologize on the basis of the black experience.

Augustine of Clippo- I'd like to try to theologise on the basis of the white experience, but I can't, because all white people are having different experiences. "The black experience" is a collectivist term by nature, where people of African descent are regarded to be sharing the same experience (singular?). I know several black people who would take umbrage about that.

What is Hillary Clinton doing on the Factor? American politics is depressing.

Obama's denunciation of Wright (not his earlier support of Wright...) cost me any chance of supporting him in November. For a fuller explanation, read my pots on Justin Webb's blog.

Thanks Augstine

If you read my email again you will see I said clearly "I can't say that HIV was deliberate but there appears to be a lot of evidence which can be interpreted that way."


I dont consider you have rebutted any of the points I raised, you have only asserted they are wrong.

You say a conspiracy this size could not be kept secret but the information I have presented could be argued to say that it wasnt!

The best thing anyone could do is to explain what those funny WHO experiments were all about!

I am all ears.


Is it also worth mentioning, how many hundreds of thousands of non-whites has the US killed in Iraq, when it is very hard not to consider oil is a major factor.

Some mainstream historians also believe the US deliberately allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbout to justify using the H bomb.


PB

OriginalPB:

You can find examples of all kinds of conspiracy theories. I notice from your replies that you don't seem willing to champion or even agree with any of the conspiracy theories you mention. Which is curious; why even raise them? There are people who believe the US allowed the Japanese to bomb Pear Harbour? I'm sure there are. There are people who believe the world is flat, that the US never made it to the moon, that Princess Diana was killed in a royal plot. We can find all kinds of examples of conspiracy theory, but that in itself doesn't mean we should take any of them seriously. To help us clarify what are actually arguing PB, why not answer these questions clearly:

1. Do you believe the US government is responsible for the creation of the Aids virus?

2. Do you believe the US government deliberately permitted the bombing of pearl harbour - for strategic reasons?

I don't think it's useful to go back over 20 year old newspaper reports about the World Health Organisation.

I've a feeling I am wasting my time engaging with you on a logical level, PB - I get that impression from that last reply from you. If you are serious about HIV work, as I am, let's try to remain sensible in argument.

John,

I understand the point you are making. But there are some groups who have a shared experience of suffering, exclusion or abuse, and that experience has been developed into theologies reflecting their experience.

For example: Feminist theology, gay theology, black theology, Liberation theology, Asian theology, Korean theology.

I think it would be interesting to explore theological reflection on the basis of a white male experience, and in fact most of theology does reflect that perspective, since white males have dominated theology historically.

Augustine- That's a sensible approach. While I might find belonging through some collectivist thought, I may also find it aggravating to be thus 'collected' at times, particularly since the human 'experience' happens on an individual basis. It seems to me that Wright's congregation could do with a healthy dose of individualism at this stage.

Augustine

I didnt say there are "people" who believe the US allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour.

I said it was mainstream historians...

So lets leave straw men like flat earth and diana out of it pls!

Slight difference.

Anyway, I asked first if you could explain those weird WHO experiements.

I am sure there could be some rational explanations and I would be reassured to hear them.

PB

jovial ptl
"I've listened to this pastor preach and I have to say I can't disagree with his major points. He is being targetted by some in the media who are opposed to the bible. When a nation engages in violence, violence comes home to that nation. Pacifism is the only hope for the world and that is inspired by the prince of peace, Christ himself."

Well perhaps there is something to this. After all, look at the violence in Europe. It is to a large extent being perpetrated by descendants of those in colonial empires who were the victims of European violence. Moslems blowing up trains and buses in Britain, North Africans burning down the suburbs of large cities in France, their forefathers all victims of European Imperialism. Maybe there is a lot more to come. The Arabs seem to be getting their share of lumps following the violence they inflicted on Israel. Iran and Syria should be in for a whole lot.

I think a lot of scientists agree that AIDS probably first infected humans in Africa where they ate contaminated monkey or chimpanzee meat. Human HIV virus doesn't affect them the way it affects humans. Of course, many in South Africa died needlessly becaue Thabu Mbeki refused to believe that AIDs is caused by a virus. He denied his people life saving drugs. More African theology for you.

OriginalPB
What about all those white Serbians the US killed? What about all those white Germans? When it comes to the race of the enemy, America is an equal opportunity killer.

Marcus says: "After all, look at the violence in Europe. It is to a large extent being perpetrated by descendants of those in colonial empires who were the victims of European violence."

Exactly. Now maybe someone could tell the Guardianistas and ´óÏó´«Ã½ liberals?

Augustine of Clippo

ref AIDS, William said it was a bizarre claim that the US Govt created it to kill black people.

I am simply uneasy with an assumption that this is "bizarre".

We have proven the US did deliberately kill black people using disease, Tuskagee.

The fact that Clintoin apologised for it doesnt erase it from history.

We also know the US Govt has done much work on biological warfare.

The WHO/US Govt refs above show that they defintiely were working on creating a virus which would attack the immune system. see post 2.


The links I have given above, to me, show motive, opportunity, victim, weapon and suspect, without a shadow of a doubt.

It is also an unassailble fact that no court has ever tied all these factors together to convict any one or nation.

Innocent until guilty I say.


I simply challenge Willian to explain what exactly might be "bizarre" about the US Govt killing a racial group of its own citizens using disease.

Tuskagee proves this is a fact of history.

Up until recently, a potential President of the US was quite comfortable in being closely associated with these TYPE of views, even if we do not know he believed them himself.


Part of me thinks we dont want to consider such a thing could happen because we cant believe that human nature is that depraved.

This is not a biblical worldview of human nature, but thankfully Christ has given us the remedy on the cross.


PB