More than a 'conspiracy theory'?

Joined
23 May 2004
Messages
15,490
Reaction score
737
Country
United Kingdom
"Chinese military scientists discussed the weaponisation of SARS coronaviruses five years before the COVID-19 pandemic, outlining their ideas in a document that predicted a third world war would be fought with biological weapons.

The document, written by People’s Liberation Army scientists and senior Chinese public health officials in 2015, was obtained by the US State Department as it conducted an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, The Weekend Australian has confirmed.

The paper describes SARS coronaviruses as heralding a “new era of genetic weapons” and says they can be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponised and unleashed in a way never seen before”.

Thus are we in the experimental phase?
 
Sponsored Links
It's wise for all nations to consider the use of biological weapons. Otherwise if it ever happened nations would be left undefended.
Similarly, it's wise for all nations to consider the use of nuclear weapons.
Nations have to consider their defensive positions in cases of such attacks.

Why do you think UK has places like Porton Down?
A biological testing station for over 100 years.
 
It's wise for all nations to consider the use of biological weapons. Otherwise if it ever happened nations would be left undefended.
Similarly, it's wise for all nations to consider the use of nuclear weapons.
Nations have to consider their defensive positions in cases of such attacks.

Why do you think UK has places like Porton Down?
A biological testing station for over 100 years.
So do you think that it's wise that all people have guns just in case they can't defend themselves against those that do?

But as for 'defending' against biological weapons, do you think all nations should thus ignore the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, 1972/75 ?
 
Sponsored Links
So do you think that it's wise that all people have guns just in case they can't defend themselves against those that do?

But as for 'defending' against biological weapons, do you think all nations should thus ignore the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, 1972/75 ?
I think it's wise to consider the events, and the appropriate actions in the events of such issues.
I think nations should honour international agreements and conventions.
Not all nations sign such international conventions, treaties and agreements.

If we think what might happen if events are not planned for, say Brexit :rolleyes: or a pandemic.
 
I think it's wise to consider the events, and the appropriate actions in the events of such issues.
I think nations should honour international agreements and conventions.
Not all nations sign such international conventions, treaties and agreements.
Well 183 nations have ratified that convention...

Including China and the UK...

And yet you say...
I think it's wise to consider the events, and the appropriate actions in the events of such issues.
A bit of a contradiction wouldn't you say?

Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran wants to acquire them...

Do you think Iran should be prevented from getting a 'deterrent'?

And as I asked earlier, do you think that individuals should have a right to have guns as a 'deterrent'/defense?
 
The Chinese made an investigation
By the WHO difficult / impossible

cover up / deflection

probably carried out research experiments ? in there concentration camps :idea:;)
 
The Chinese generally ignore good practice

conventions

They have sent a rocket into space
Knowing full well that there was a problem with the last one they sent up

due to 20 tons of debris falling onto some blokes house in the Ivory Coast

now the world is waiting to see we’re the current rocket debris is going to fall :confused:

Best every one keep an eye out ;)
 
The Chinese generally ignore good practice

conventions

They have sent a rocket into space
Knowing full well that there was a problem with the last one they sent up

due to 20 tons of debris falling onto some blokes house in the Ivory Coast

now the world is waiting to see we’re the current rocket debris is going to fall :confused:

Best every one keep an eye out ;)

falls on Iran and they will think they are under attack and start launching missiles

best advised that civil aviation stay clear of Iran :?: ;)
 
The Australian. A Murdoch paper. :ROFLMAO:
And yet some people who believe in right wing thinking also mock the BBC...

Why is that?

Too 'left wing' perchance?

Do we believe Murdoch or the BBC?

Seems we are entering into a new 'Cold'/'Virus' war?
 
And yet some people who believe in right wing thinking also mock the BBC...

Why is that?

Too 'left wing' perchance?

Do we believe Murdoch or the BBC?

Seems we are entering into a new 'Cold'/'Virus' war?

The point is- does the article you reference to supply this document or not?

What is their source of information?
 
Well 183 nations have ratified that convention...

Including China and the UK...

And yet you say...

A bit of a contradiction wouldn't you say?
Not at all a contradiction. Not all nations have signed the convention, so use of biological and other mass-destruction weapons is still a possibility, so it's wise for nations to consider the possibility of their use.
Additionally, some regimes have used chemical weapons on their own population.
Some terrorists have released biological weapons. It's necessary to understand the implications, treatment and long-term effect of such biological and chemical weapons.

Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran wants to acquire them...

Do you think Iran should be prevented from getting a 'deterrent'?
We're straying way wide of your OP.
I'd much prefer a solution that resulted in nuclear non-proliferation. For that to be effective non-nuclear nations must feel sufficiently secure to not need to acquire nuclear weapons.

And as I asked earlier, do you think that individuals should have a right to have guns as a 'deterrent'/defense?
We're straying way wide of your OP.
It's immaterial what I think. Individuals will make their own choice, most within the confines of the law, some regardless of the law.
Guns are used for other purposes other than aggression, defence, or deterrent against others.
 
Not at all a contradiction. Not all nations have signed the convention, so use of biological and other mass-destruction weapons is still a possibility, so it's wise for nations to consider the possibility of their use.
Additionally, some regimes have used chemical weapons on their own population.
Some terrorists have released biological weapons. It's necessary to understand the implications, treatment and long-term effect of such biological and chemical weapons.


We're straying way wide of your OP.
I'd much prefer a solution that resulted in nuclear non-proliferation. For that to be effective non-nuclear nations must feel sufficiently secure to not need to acquire nuclear weapons.


We're straying way wide of your OP.
It's immaterial what I think. Individuals will make their own choice, most within the confines of the law, some regardless of the law.
Guns are used for other purposes other than aggression, defence, or deterrent against others.
183 countries out of 195 is a pretty large majority...

Can you name those who haven't signed?

I'll give you one notable nation that hasn't done so - Israel!
(Palestine has signed btw)


Your contradictions are breathtaking, and none of my questions are 'straying way wide of my OP'

You talk about nuclear non-proliferation and 'non-nuclear nations must feel sufficiently secure to not need to acquire nuclear weapons'...

How safe can they ever feel?
So why shouldn't they want to acquire 'weapons of deterrent' when fairly recent history shows us that supposed 'civilised countries' start illegal wars particularly when they wrongly claim about WMD's

But you say that nations that have signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention should nevertheless be allowed to break the convention 'just in case'....

So which countries should be allowed to do so?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top