this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2022
-6 points (25.0% liked)
World News
32311 readers
913 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's a fake:
The pentagon has pivoted by claiming things like anthrax, "aren't offensive weapons". Those two articles you posted are just rehashing the pentagon press release,which you would have to be extremely ignorant or heavily propagandized to believe.
Could you point out where the Pentagon claims anthrax isn't a bioweapon? At least in that press release, the only reference to anthrax is weaponization (anthrax is minimally dangerous until in a weaponized form).
They are intentionally vague and don't get into details.
Here's just a few of the times the US has used biological agents and chemical weapons on innocent people and animals.
That is a good list (if a little dated), but that doesn't answer my question of where the US said that anthrax is not a bioweapon?
They are being intentionally vague, and playing tricks, as I stated above. Its like someone asking you "do you have a gun?" And you responding: "I have no offensive weapons".
I just showed you plenty of cases of the US killing people with chemical and biological agents. People had to discover these atrocities, because the pentagon didn't have press releases stated they did them (shocker).
Question: Do you think anyone has the pressure to get the US to close down their biochemical warfare departments? What's the solution to getting them to stop killing innocent people with bioweapons?
Your question has a poor premise. All of your examples are at least forty years old, well predating the fall of the Soviet Union. Asking the US to stop now would be like staging an intervention for a 40 years sober alcoholic.
In 2016 alone, dropped 26,171 bombs in the Middle East and North Africa. That's about 3 bombs every hour.
Question, how did you get to be this ignorant?
Unfortunately I accidentally submitted my comment before I was done composing it. That brings me to what would have been the point. The US is perfectly capable of using conventional weapons to fulfill its goals on the typical modern battlefield. Biochemical weapons are more likely to be harmful to the US's objectives. The trend has been towards more precision weapons, but biological weapons especially are incredibly imprecise.
Fake?! https://youtu.be/ydSf57SRtcQ
You cannot target Russian DNA. For starters, it's very similar to Ukrainian DNA...
It is functionally identical, given the close recent history between the two countries. For that matter, all humans are close, especially at a population level. People are trying to make this too complicated. Conventional weapons are perfectly capable of doing massive damage to an army without insane amounts of collateral damage, both to civilians and allies.
You won't believe what genocidal empire won't sign bioweapons control treaty https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt0901-793
The US doesnt care about sacrificing Ukrainians as long as they can hurt Russia.
But Ukraine would, and the accusation is that this is being developed in Ukrainian labs.
Ukraine isn't a sovereign state, it's a puppet régime run by US.
It is, since 91, even Boris Yeltsin recognized Ukraine's independence.
Too bad the US didn't recognize Ukraine's independence and put in a puppet regime in 2014.
Organizations like CIA have a long history of pursuing precisely these kinds of insane ideas.
You seem to know as much about genetics as you do about politics.
Didn't say anything about genetics troll. What I said was that the CIA has a history of pursuing absurd projects like this. This is just one example https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758989641/the-cias-secret-quest-for-mind-control-torture-lsd-and-a-poisoner-in-chief
Yet, there's no actual evidence of any of it
Seems too soon to claim that, we don't know what's in those labs and this will come out after the conflict is over.
Ok, I should have been more specific: the way it is often framed (and the way I have seen it framed, and how the linked article frames it) is as if these were US-affiliated labs working on bioweapons. That is not what Nuland said. Biological research facilities do not have to be bioweapons labs, just as explosives research facilities need not be arms manufacturers.
Greenwald (the author of the linked article) of course does what Greenwald recently is hell-bent on doing, which is to try to scandalize anything he can. I used to respect the man, but that was a long while ago.
These were bioweapons labs left over from USSR days, and US didn't take over these labs for any sort of altruistic purpose.