That's the conflation we're going to see a lot. Conspiracy theorists are going to take the FBI's statement as agreement with all of these things even when it says no such thing.
Likewise they are going to avoid and ignore the things conspiracy theorists were claiming about the virus, such as claims that the virus was a man made bioweapon or was created to sell vaccines.
Such claims didn't need a concerted effort to be discredited. They earned that all by themselves.
You are absolutely right. The NATO attack on Libya had nothing to do with regime change or supporting one side in a CIA backed civil war. Nothing at all.
Yeah, the “no fly zone” where NATO attacked infantry.
Interestingly one can no longer embed the video of Hilary Clinton’s reaction to the death of Gadaffi. “ We came, we saw, he died”.
The conflation has been from those dismissing anything but the official narrative.
Conflating believing that the pandemic was as a result of a lab leak to believing it was a NWO attempt at population control.
Vaccine hesitancy being conflated with Bill Gates trying to hack your brain.
It is just a means of dismissing any scepticism of the official narrative by smearing everyone as fringe, Tin foil hat wearers.
Gaddafi attacked his own people when they rose up against him, the UN passed a resolution to use force to prevent that. The Arab league, of 22 nations, supported it. As mentioned China and Russia didn't vote against it.
The method used was a no-fly zone, it was to free the skies to attack Gadaffi's military ground targets. There was no secret about this, that was it's purpose. It received criticism because it went on much longer than expected and had some mission creep (they had to help rebels on the ground at the end for the final push)
The whole time this was occurring Gaddafi's forces and his hired mercenaries were killing his own people and shelling his own towns and cities.
With hindsight, multiple politicians have said it might not have been the best approach, but of course there's no way of knowing because conversely it could have been worse (e.g. like Syria).
Getting off the main topic, but indeed many conspiracy theorists share a similar vein of history narratives that leave out large amounts of context/nuance
Ok. But you've avoided my question again.
It's hard to tell you apart from "the fringe ton foil hatters" when you are similarly unable to elaborate or explain your conspiracy theory in a rational way.
People on this forum (and probably this thread) have claimed that the virus was artificially created as part of some giant global plot.
These are the people who are being discredited (by their own beliefs).
People who were speculating that the virus might have been a result of a lab leak (and nothing more) were not discredited.
If they were, then the FBI would be in the process of being discredited or they wouldn't have said what they did. This is the fundamental issue with your conspiracy theory. The FBI's stance is a very large indication that it's not true.
Don’t forget the NATO members forces on the ground aiding one side in a civil war. Yet you say it wasn’t about regime change.
Don’t forget the NATO members forces on the ground aiding one side in a civil war.
In my post.
Yet you say it wasn’t about regime change.
I didn't write this.
People who speculated that the pandemic was the result of a leak from the lab in Wuhan were dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
The speculation of the lab leak being the origin of the pandemic was censored and given warnings where it was allowed to appear.
Do you deny that?
what was the official narrative on the source of covid? i dont remember one. even now government agencies cant agree.
The official narrative was that it was zoonotic in origin and speculation that it was the repot a lab leak was wrong and dangerous.
There's no such thing as an "official narrative". I've noticed that individuals who use this term often rely heavily on narratives themselves, hence the projection.
It is widely believed to be zoonotic in nature, but scientists and experts also said that lab leak as origin couldn't be ruled out.
There is no credible evidence for the third theory, that it was deliberately created in a lab, i.e. man-made.
the prevailing opinion was that it was zoonotic in origin and that has not changed. the evidence points that way. the wrong and dangerous opinion was that it was designed by the chinese and deliberately released. there was no (and still isn't) any evidence to support that. It was spread by the usual malcontents to cause fear.
You said there was no coup attempt in Libya. Regime change was actively supported.
The mention of the lab leak theory was dismissed and labelled dangerous.
There is an attempt now to conflate lab leak theory with deliberate release of an engineered bio weapon.
we have different recollections. it was the mention of a deliberate release that was labelled dangerous. because it was.
Yes. We definitely have different recollections.
Were they? You continually repeat this claim, and yet provide zero evidence to support the contention that merely for speculating it was the result of a lab leak of a naturally originated virus they were dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
On the possibility of a lab leak:
"That possibility certainly exists, and I am totally in favour of a full investigation of whether that could have happened," Anthony Fauci, President Biden's chief medical adviser, told a US Senate committee hearing in May 2021.
The possibility was reported on by in 2020 eg the Washington Post. It was not censored.
The claims in 2020 were given warnings on social media because it was based on speculation. The best available scientific evidence at the time was that it was natural in origin. Do you see the difference?
why cant it be both zoonotic and lab leaked?
are people who claim it was lab leaked also claiming it was man made?
Typically they are dog whistling that implication yes. Lab leak means man made.
It ain't necessarily so though.
Were all theories on the origin of Covid not based on speculation?
Yet some were promoted and others were removed entirely or given warnings.
Do you see the difference?
No, they were based on analysis of the virus indicating probable natural origin. At the time 'lab leak' was fairly synonymous also to mean man made.
Plus there is a difference between speculating on it and couching it in those terms and declaring IT WAS A LAB LEAK.
Noted that you're unable to support your claim that people who speculated on the possibility of a lab leak of a naturally originating virus were labelled conspiracy theorists merely for that.
It wasn't a "coup", it was an uprising by the Libyan people against Gaddafi, an unelected dictator. He had tanks and bombs, they didn't. After it happened, the UN voted to support them.
I don’t believe this to be the case. In my opinion a lab leak origin does not mean that it was engineered although there does seem to be some missing links from the closest naturally occurring virus to Covid 19.
Who armed and funded the rebels seeking to overthrow the Libyan government?
They were the Libyan people, the UN supported them militarily, against a dictator who was at war with them.
And the other people in the civil war were not the Libyan people? I see.
No no fly zone in the second Libyan civil war in which more people were killed. That’s interesting.
How about in Yemen where NATO countries are supplying weapons to kill the rebels. Are those rebels not Yemeni people or are they just not on the side the west wants to win.
It was an uprising. The country is complex and tribal, Gaddafi had given his loyalists many of the key spots, and he had heavy control of the military and sprawling security apparatus.
When the people protested against Gaddafi's rule, 40 years of it, he had his forces violently suppress them. It basically turned into Gaddafi loyalists vs the protesters, unfortunately his "side" had most of the weapons.
Prior to the Arab Spring, Gaddafi had actually formed closer ties to the West, especially the US.
That obviously changed when pictures starting coming through of his forces brutally killing people. Naturally the world sided with the protesters. The UN passed a resolution to protect them from the skies via NATO. Only later did that develop (as mentioned) into more direct support for those against Gaddafi.
Some people don't like context though, they just try to paint all these things as "1960's CIA COUP"
I for one love context. I also understand that Libya is, as you say “complex”. Yemen is complex but the west don’t choose to back the rebels against a regime condemned for torture, they actively arm and support them. As they have armed and supported despicable regimes against their own people for decades as long as their interests aligned.
The west has been no stranger to supporting corrupt, despotic regimes against their own people as long as it served western interests. Context doesn’t change that fact.
"the west"
Ah Shure a great bunch of lads
As mentioned it's clear you see a country, not the administration, but an entire country as "bad", and your posts demonstrate how you cherry-pick and reframe history to serve that narrative. When someone has that kind of belief, it's impossible for them to be objective.
Your fringe world view is very similar to that of conspiracy theorists who think the same way. They hold the belief that a particular country is to blame for most of their fictitious conspiracy theories. They assume it's responsible and work backwards to create narratives whereby that country is always responsible somehow.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
