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.
See more
See less

Biolabs in Ukraine...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Were news outlets being criticised days earlier for peddling "fake news" about such institutions? Or is that merely the opinion of the anchor?
    It sounded like a hypothetical to me.
    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.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      It sounded like a hypothetical to me.
      The silence following my question was almost deafening.
      "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


      • #48
        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 thatI 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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          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 thatI 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/
          At first I thought Rubio might have been trying to bolster a neocon narrative about Russia's supposed propensity to use bioweapons. But now I'm thinking maybe Rubio was actually trying to slyly open a can of worms about the biolabs by forcing Nuland to publicly spill the beans about that subject. IOW, whereas I thought Rubio might have been the bad guy along with Nuland, maybe he was actually the good guy in this case.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            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 thatI 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/
            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


            • #51
              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.
              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.
              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


              • #52
                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.
                Why was Nuland concerned Russia might gain access to these labs and then use biological agents as an attack?

                Comment


                • #53
                  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?
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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.
                    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


                    • #55
                      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.
                      We were "funding" them to bring them up to modernity (and thus safety), in order for them to go through and dispose of biological agents from the Soviet Union. This was explained earlier in the thread.

                      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


                      • #56
                        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.
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          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 thatI 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/
                          What braindead twit wrote the bolded? Good grief, can't your tree house hire journalists with actual cognitive abilities?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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.
                            I gave a link to an actual biolab's website and the government contract earlier in this thread that explains it very well.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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.
                              They are bioweapon labs as confirmed by the Pentagon. They're just not offensive bioweapons (a definition which I'm certain is malleable).
                              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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                                They are bioweapon labs as confirmed by the Pentagon. They're just not offensive bioweapons (a definition which I'm certain is malleable).
                                No, they are not. Are you just making up stuff now?

                                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 One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X