Big war coming?

@Nanomaster said
@Metal-Brain:

"I did not propose a single conspiracy theory on this thread..."

Metal Brain made the same mistakes as his opponents. Metal Brain has tacitly accepted the demagoguery of conspiracy theory critics.

Namely, Metal Brain assumes that a proven conspiracy theory ceases to be a conspiracy theory.

Instead, a conspiracy theory posits the existence of som ...[text shortened]... nded conspiracy theories. Instead, Metal Brain claimed he had not presented any conspiracy theories.

A theory that is later proven true is no longer a theory. It is a fact.
Prove that a scientific theory that is proven to be fact remains a theory. The definition of a theory does not change just because you put the word conspiracy in front of it. See #8 on the list below proving CIA drug trafficking.

https://sussquatches.com/blogs/news/10-conspiracy-theories-proven-true

@Metal-Brain said
A theory that is later proven true is no longer a theory. It is a fact.
Prove that a scientific theory that is proven to be fact remains a theory. The definition of a theory does not change just because you put the word conspiracy in front of it. See #8 on the list below proving CIA drug trafficking.

https://sussquatches.com/blogs/news/10-conspiracy-theories-proven-true

None of your theories are ever proven true. They remain firmly in the conspiracy camp.

@Metal-Brain said

You are attempting to contaminate this thread by digressing into completely unrelated threads

Your first reply to me in this thread was to digress into Starmer and Digital ID cards.

Get a grip.

@MickeyD said
You know there will not be a”new war, that this is a foolish notion. How doyou know that?,?!
Sue? How do you know that?!.?
Because in your heart, you know that Donald Trump is against War and has the Power, because he’s Donald Trump, to stop any wars, once he resolves his immediate matters.
He hardly wants to start one. Why do you want to poison the minds of your many many followers. Rise up!!

The ONLY reason Trump is against war is because he wants to do stuff like turn Gaza into a big casino, kick out all the natives, put up a dozen casino's.
He wants all of it himself so he can get it without war because war destroys buildings and kills people. He could care less about how many people die, he just doesn't want to have to build his casinos in places that need complete rebuilding due to wars blowing up residential buildings and hospitals and such.
Don't ever hear Trump saying a WORD about the hospitals destroyed by Israeli forces.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Your first reply to me in this thread was to digress into Starmer and Digital ID cards.

Get a grip.

That is a lie. Anyone can look and see you are a liar.

@Metal-Brain said
That is a lie. Anyone can look and see you are a liar.

Happy to remind you of your first reply:

"What you Brits have is a conspiracy reality. Starmer wants you to have digital ID to work in the UK. Do you ever experience a day without denying a conspiracy fact that you used to call a conspiracy theory? Or do you just pretend you were never wrong about it?

https://rumble.com/v6zj4ws-everyone-hates-keir-starmers-u.k.-digital-id-plan.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a


Where's the lie?

@Ponderable said
So you want a real deabte?

lets begin with definitions:

conspire - to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement

This is Merriam Webster, I am open for other defintions.

Main points are "secret" and "wrongful resp. "unlawful".

So an opinion as such is not a conspiracy, ne ...[text shortened]... r to okbtain a wrngful result e.g. attacking a ship without warning, this could count as conspiracy.

No real debate can originate from such a comment.

Webster's definition of "conspire" as an everyday word is not conclusive concerning the rational definition of "conspiracy theory".

It leads to the dubious definition that conspiracy theory is a theory about unlawful conspiracy. Such a definition is not prevailing among the definitions of "conspiracy theory". Regarding international relations, such a definition cannot be applied, as different countries have varying laws and differing interpretations of these laws. The present thread is about a possible war between the states (countries).

It is reasonable to say that the state A conspires to start a war against the state B.

Concerning secrecy, it is true that conspiracies involve secrecy, which is why conspiracy theories can be difficult to prove, even if they are true.

I insist, however, that if the existence of the conspiracy has been publicly proven (it is no longer a secret), the initial theory about that conspiracy still remains a conspiracy theory. The only difference is that then that conspiracy theory becomes a proven conspiracy theory.

However, if you wish, you can continue using your flat-earthers terminology.

@Metal-Brain said
A theory that is later proven true is no longer a theory. It is a fact.
Prove that a scientific theory that is proven to be fact remains a theory. The definition of a theory does not change just because you put the word conspiracy in front of it. See #8 on the list below proving CIA drug trafficking.

https://sussquatches.com/blogs/news/10-conspiracy-theories-proven-true

You can use the phrases "conspiracy assertion", "a proposition about conspiracy", "a conspiracy sentence", etc.

Then, perhaps you can see that a proven assertion concerning conspiracy is still an assertion concerning conspiracy.

If to use the term "theory" as you do, then I can reformulate my point as follows:

Discussing conspiracy theories has been banned using demagoguery. Several important conspiracy theories have been proven to be true and have become well-known facts. Critics of conspiracy theories overlook the fact that, before becoming widely accepted as facts, the assertions about these conspiracies were conspiracy theories.

I am not so much interested in such quarrelling about words. I clearly feel that such a game is meant to ignore my thoughts.

@Nanomaster said
You can use the phrases "conspiracy assertion", "a proposition about conspiracy", "a conspiracy sentence", etc.

Then, perhaps you can see that a proven assertion concerning conspiracy is still an assertion concerning conspiracy.

If to use the term "theory" as you do, then I can reformulate my point as follows:

Discussing conspiracy theories has been banned using d ...[text shortened]... ted in such quarrelling about words. I clearly feel that such a game is meant to ignore my thoughts.

Pizza hut.

Are you suggesting there is a basic truth underlying the moronity?
And, if so, what?

@shavixmir said
Pizza hut.

Are you suggesting there is a basic truth underlying the moronity?
And, if so, what?

My ideas were presented above.

I suggest that there is nothing wrong with discussing conspiracy theories or presenting them as hypotheses.

I also suggest that it is incorrect to present an unproven theory as proven. That applies to the conspiracy theories as well.

I also suggest using more rational terminology, which enables one to distinguish between justified and non-justified conspiracy theories and facilitates discussion about the degree of justification of a particular conspiracy theory.

The current terminology is CIA-produced, intended to facilitate political propaganda and hinder rational discussion.

I also noticed that the user Metal Brain, while presenting and defending some conspiracy theories, is using the CIA flat-earthers' misleading terminology and is even explicitly defending it.

Besides, you are not a lord, as you name yourself.

I shall not say who you are.

@Nanomaster said

The current terminology is CIA-produced, intended to facilitate political propaganda and hinder rational discussion.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory...

@Nanomaster said
My ideas were presented above.

I suggest that there is nothing wrong with discussing conspiracy theories or presenting them as hypotheses.

I also suggest that it is incorrect to present an unproven theory as proven. That applies to the conspiracy theories as well.

I also suggest using more rational terminology, which enables one to distinguish between justified an ...[text shortened]... defending it.

Besides, you are not a lord, as you name yourself.

I shall not say who you are.

Just because I suggest I live in the sewers or look like a warhammer model thrown through an editor, equally does not make me any of it.

As for your assertion that the CIA is behind using “conspiracy” as a method of misdirection, I cannot imagine this didn’t happen before CIA times, nor can I imagine that the flat earthing benefits the CIA in any substantial matter.

And no, if you know who I am, I would prefer it not made public. Thank you for your etiquette.

@Great-Big-Stees said
Mar-a-Lago? I say ADX Florence would be the choice…ya know, in Colorado.🤔😲👍

Just please don't send him to Indonesia.

Whilst I'm here; as regards starting a war, I don't think he'd start one deliberately, but he's patently so unaware of the consequences of his actions that he might start one by mistake. Therein lies the biggest danger....

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
That sounds like a conspiracy theory...

Well, it is such a well-proven theory.

@Nanomaster said
My ideas were presented above.

I suggest that there is nothing wrong with discussing conspiracy theories or presenting them as hypotheses.

I also suggest that it is incorrect to present an unproven theory as proven. That applies to the conspiracy theories as well.

I also suggest using more rational terminology, which enables one to distinguish between justified an ...[text shortened]... defending it.

Besides, you are not a lord, as you name yourself.

I shall not say who you are.

Flat earthers? What are you talking about?

It is as if you defend conspiracy theories and ridicule them at the same time.
I don't know what to think of you.