Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Biolabs in Ukraine...
Collapse
X
-
1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
It sounded like a hypothetical to me."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Every time the U.S. government attempts to clarify the biolabs in Ukraine, they end up making things less clear.
In the most recent example, Deborah Rosenbaum, the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, told the House subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations on Friday that “I can say to you unequivocally there are no offensive biologic weapons in the Ukraine laboratories that the United States has been involved with.”
[...]
Technically, all of the weapons in the U.S. military are classified as “defensive” weapons, ergo the Department of Defense. Every weapon is defensive until it is used; then, depending on the circumstances, the use of the weapon changes its classification to offensive. Why would biological weapons be any different?
By the current standard of Defense Department definitions, all of the biological weapons they might be working with Ukraine to develop would technically be classified defensive weapons. As a result, saying “there are no offensive biologic weapons” is a rather moot and irrelevant point.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...t-was-working/Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostEvery time the U.S. government attempts to clarify the biolabs in Ukraine, they end up making things less clear.
In the most recent example, Deborah Rosenbaum, the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, told the House subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations on Friday that “I can say to you unequivocally there are no offensive biologic weapons in the Ukraine laboratories that the United States has been involved with.”
[...]
Technically, all of the weapons in the U.S. military are classified as “defensive” weapons, ergo the Department of Defense. Every weapon is defensive until it is used; then, depending on the circumstances, the use of the weapon changes its classification to offensive. Why would biological weapons be any different?
By the current standard of Defense Department definitions, all of the biological weapons they might be working with Ukraine to develop would technically be classified defensive weapons. As a result, saying “there are no offensive biologic weapons” is a rather moot and irrelevant point.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...t-was-working/
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostEvery time the U.S. government attempts to clarify the biolabs in Ukraine, they end up making things less clear.
In the most recent example, Deborah Rosenbaum, the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, told the House subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations on Friday that “I can say to you unequivocally there are no offensive biologic weapons in the Ukraine laboratories that the United States has been involved with.”
[...]
Technically, all of the weapons in the U.S. military are classified as “defensive” weapons, ergo the Department of Defense. Every weapon is defensive until it is used; then, depending on the circumstances, the use of the weapon changes its classification to offensive. Why would biological weapons be any different?
By the current standard of Defense Department definitions, all of the biological weapons they might be working with Ukraine to develop would technically be classified defensive weapons. As a result, saying “there are no offensive biologic weapons” is a rather moot and irrelevant point.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...t-was-working/
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
The bit about everything being defensive because it is called the department of defense is not true. That's pure idiocy. Who wrote that? Also they never said we had "defensive biological weapons" A defensive biological agent would be a vaccine or cure. It would not be a weapon. They clearly said there were no offensive bio weapons in the labs. Conspiracy nuts like you glom on to that word and assume they are hiding something like a "defensive" biological weapon.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
The bit about everything being defensive because it is called the department of defense is not true. That's pure idiocy. Who wrote that? Also they never said we had "defensive biological weapons" A defensive biological agent would be a vaccine or cure. It would not be a weapon. They clearly said there were no offensive bio weapons in the labs. Conspiracy nuts like you glom on to that word and assume they are hiding something like a "defensive" biological weapon.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
Why was Nuland concerned Russia might gain access to these labs and then use biological agents as an attack?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Because they probably do store dangerous viruses there so they can work on cures and vaccines. How else could they test them? Also the Russians could release their own bio weapons from there and claim that the lab was the source.
Or is it more likely we were funding biolabs in a corrupt non-NATO country because we knew we'd be able to get away with the type of research we wanted to do without inquiries and believed the reward of that was worth the risk. Hence, the reason Nuland and Rubio are concerned about it.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
Well, then I guess it begs the question why we were funding biolabs with dangerous pathogens in one of the highest corrupt ranking countries on the continent right next to an even higher corrupt country. It would be about as risky as funding biolabs in Afghanistan and hoping the Taliban didn't gain access to those labs in order to use it for their own purpose.
Or is it more likely we were funding biolabs in a corrupt non-NATO country because we knew we'd be able to get away with the type of research we wanted to do without inquiries and believed the reward of that was worth the risk. Hence, the reason Nuland and Rubio are concerned about it.
As to the "dangerous pathogens", theyrr BSL-2 and BS-3 labs. Even a disaster of a country such as Haiti and most African countries have BSL-3 labs, my dude.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Remember when people dismissed the very existence of the bio weapon labs as a conspiracy theory? It's funny how these "conspiracy theories" have an unsettling habit of being true.
In fact, the opposite of bioweapon labs; They have literally decommissioned and been disposing of ACTUAL weapon labs leftover from the Soviet Union, so they are safely and properly destroyed or dismantled, which is why the IS was providing some funding, so they could do so safely with modern equipment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostEvery time the U.S. government attempts to clarify the biolabs in Ukraine, they end up making things less clear.
In the most recent example, Deborah Rosenbaum, the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, told the House subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations on Friday that “I can say to you unequivocally there are no offensive biologic weapons in the Ukraine laboratories that the United States has been involved with.”
[...]
Technically, all of the weapons in the U.S. military are classified as “defensive” weapons, ergo the Department of Defense. Every weapon is defensive until it is used; then, depending on the circumstances, the use of the weapon changes its classification to offensive. Why would biological weapons be any different?
By the current standard of Defense Department definitions, all of the biological weapons they might be working with Ukraine to develop would technically be classified defensive weapons. As a result, saying “there are no offensive biologic weapons” is a rather moot and irrelevant point.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...t-was-working/
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
Well, then I guess it begs the question why we were funding biolabs with dangerous pathogens in one of the highest corrupt ranking countries on the continent right next to an even higher corrupt country. It would be about as risky as funding biolabs in Afghanistan and hoping the Taliban didn't gain access to those labs in order to use it for their own purpose.
Or is it more likely we were funding biolabs in a corrupt non-NATO country because we knew we'd be able to get away with the type of research we wanted to do without inquiries and believed the reward of that was worth the risk. Hence, the reason Nuland and Rubio are concerned about it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
No, I remember when the claim of "bioweapons labs" was made and it wad dismissed because these aren't bioweapons labs and you're doing nothing more than parroting Russian propaganda. They're biolabs, not biological weapons labs.
In fact, the opposite of bioweapon labs; They have literally decommissioned and been disposing of ACTUAL weapon labs leftover from the Soviet Union, so they are safely and properly destroyed or dismantled, which is why the IS was providing some funding, so they could do so safely with modern equipment.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
160 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment