Drop Ebola on ISIS?

[Kosh]

There are some real sickos on this board.

Besides being illegal, biological warfare is inhuman and inhumane.

For those who don't care about those two reasons, it would not work and would kill many innocents.

WTH is WRONG with you people?

I bet you would support Obama for doing this.

Absolutely not. No one would.

Why would anyone think the wholesale killing killing of an untold number of innocent people is a good idea?

This is what I would expect from ^^people^^ who SAY they hate all Muslims but actually just hate people in general.

Yes you would and all the far left programmed drones like you would as well. just like you support the illegal wars of Obama now.

I've noticed that your posts are almost all lies. Other traitorous, anti-American RWs, like MaryL have said they would support killing innocent people on the off chance the virus just might get a Muslim. Stupid beyond comprehension.

Why don't you address the question posed in the OP?

Or, are you really just a troll?

And I am pointing out that you are far left Obama drone and would support Obama doing this. I am pointing the far left hypocrisy on this thread, like your hypocrisy, especially since you support Obama illegal wars.

You claim you do not understand, but would support Obama doing this.

And the far left is Anti-American.

Obama is killing innocents now in his illegal wars, still no outrage from the far left on this issue since 2009.

 

[Kosh]

I voted "NO -- I wouldn't drop on my worst enemy." If war must exist it must be an effort to root out specific enemies while minimizing innocent casualties. Once we open the door to chemical warfare or the purposeful spreading of disease then we're giving the green light to would-be enemies to do the same thing to innocent folks around the world including the USA.

I realize the folks will disagree with me and say that our enemies are already doing these sorts of things to innocent bystanders but I oppose the idea that two evils make a right.

To some there is difference between biological/chemical warfare vs hellfire missiles fired from drones. But then again in 2009 we saw a major shift from the antiwar far left crowd.

Chemical warfare should be banned and never used ever again, that being said. It will not stop many of the extremist groups from trying to develop something like this to attack the US.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There are some real sickos on this board.

Besides being illegal, biological warfare is inhuman and inhumane.

For those who don't care about those two reasons, it would not work and would kill many innocents.

WTH is WRONG with you people?

I bet you would support Obama for doing this.

Absolutely not. No one would.

Why would anyone think the wholesale killing killing of an untold number of innocent people is a good idea?

This is what I would expect from ^^people^^ who SAY they hate all Muslims but actually just hate people in general.

Yes you would and all the far left programmed drones like you would as well. just like you support the illegal wars of Obama now.

I've noticed that your posts are almost all lies. Other traitorous, anti-American RWs, like MaryL have said they would support killing innocent people on the off chance the virus just might get a Muslim. Stupid beyond comprehension.

Why don't you address the question posed in the OP?

Or, are you really just a troll?

And I am pointing out that you are far left Obama drone and would support Obama doing this. I am pointing the far left hypocrisy on this thread, like your hypocrisy, especially since you support Obama illegal wars.

You claim you do not understand, but would support Obama doing this.

And the far left is Anti-American.

Obama is killing innocents now in his illegal wars, still no outrage from the far left on this issue since 2009.

Post links to proof or admit you're lying.

 

[Kosh]

I bet you would support Obama for doing this.

Absolutely not. No one would.

Why would anyone think the wholesale killing killing of an untold number of innocent people is a good idea?

This is what I would expect from ^^people^^ who SAY they hate all Muslims but actually just hate people in general.

Yes you would and all the far left programmed drones like you would as well. just like you support the illegal wars of Obama now.

I've noticed that your posts are almost all lies. Other traitorous, anti-American RWs, like MaryL have said they would support killing innocent people on the off chance the virus just might get a Muslim. Stupid beyond comprehension.

Why don't you address the question posed in the OP?

Or, are you really just a troll?

And I am pointing out that you are far left Obama drone and would support Obama doing this. I am pointing the far left hypocrisy on this thread, like your hypocrisy, especially since you support Obama illegal wars.

You claim you do not understand, but would support Obama doing this.

And the far left is Anti-American.

Obama is killing innocents now in his illegal wars, still no outrage from the far left on this issue since 2009.

Post links to proof or admit you're lying.

You voted for Obama twice and you want proof of your support of Obama and his illegal wars..

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes. I believe that is an excellent idea.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes. I believe that is an excellent idea.

Why?

You think you might actually kill a few ISIS?

Its a DUMB idea because it would not accomplish anything for our side.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes. I believe that is an excellent idea.

Why?

You think you might actually kill a few ISIS?

Its a DUMB idea because it would not accomplish anything for our side.

It would be a painful way for isis to die. Im all for it. In addition to the aforementioned festivities I would drop other agents such as napalm, sarin gas, small pox, and so on. I wouldnt lose a wink of sleep.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are some real sickos on this board.

Besides being illegal, biological warfare is inhuman and inhumane.

For those who don't care about those two reasons, it would not work and would kill many innocents.

WTH is WRONG with you people?

I bet you would support Obama for doing this.

Absolutely not. No one would.

Why would anyone think the wholesale killing killing of an untold number of innocent people is a good idea?

This is what I would expect from ^^people^^ who SAY they hate all Muslims but actually just hate people in general.

OK so what can we learn from this response:

1. Do you see it as people DO have compassion for humanity underneath all the rhetoric:
as they are NOT serious about really "killing off masses without regard for innocent"
because they would NOT support the dropping of Ebola on masses.

They might support nuking a whole country, including innocent people,
but not using biological warfare. So there is some conscience coming into play,
some concern for humanity that isn't totally blinded and willing to sacrifice all.
There IS a limit to what people would do or not do, because of concern for something.

2. notice that even when
you, Luddly Neddite, claim you do NOT support such acts,
someone claims you do because of your liberal association or label:

How is this different from when
atheists CLAIM that Christians are responsible for supporting a genocide God
and interpretation of the Bible, simply by "association or group label,"
even when such persons
explain otherwise, that no they DON'T support any such merciless condemnation.

This reminds of those same religious arguments!

Why argue about what people DON'T believe in,
to the point of accusing them of supporting it
when they explained and insisted they don't believe in it.

Very interesting
and I hope we get over these same patterns.

Thanks for bringing up those points on this thread,
which I didn't expect but hope gets resolved in the process.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes. I believe that is an excellent idea.

Why?

You think you might actually kill a few ISIS?

Its a DUMB idea because it would not accomplish anything for our side.

What about preparing for the threat of this happening?
Would it be a good strategy to work with both sides
to make sure the hospitals are equipped IN CASE someone gets into the
biological weapons in Syria and/or tries some stunt or even a scare with Ebola
that still requires isolation of potential cases.

Could all sides agree to set up off limits neutral medical containment areas
just in case this gets so far out of hand it affects all sides that will need help
if contagion breaks out. Could we prepare in advance.

 

[emilynghiem]

The west needs to hack genomes and find a virus that only affects Arabs, and wipe these bastards out. Because, if is feasible, Muslim extremist will find a way to wipe the rest of us out and THEY won't hesitate to use such a thing. They started this mess, and good Muslims aren't doing enough to stop the bad ones....So the hell with them all, waste them.

Hi MaryL
What about this analogy: the same way innocuous versions of a virus can be used to fight the harmful versions,
can the unified leadership among the Muslims, Christians and Jews be strengthened and spread to wipe out the bad influences
and abuses by groups mixing bad religion with bad politics. Wouldn't a longterm solution, like a vaccine, be based on that?

 

[Politico]

What about threatening to infect ISIS with Ebola? yay or nay?

Can you add an am I an idiot option?

An idiot for not guessing that some people will not have a sense of humor about this? Or won't be okay with some people being dead serious and other people being stupid or silly?

Do I need to add about 10 more options to the poll next time, so people can rag on the poster instead of sharing thoughts on the issue itself?

Sure if that works, cool with me!

You can spin it back all you want. You did not ask the question with a sense of humor and sarcasm to stimulate discussion. Your question was worded seriously and straightforward.

 

[emilynghiem]

What about threatening to infect ISIS with Ebola? yay or nay?

Can you add an am I an idiot option?

An idiot for not guessing that some people will not have a sense of humor about this? Or won't be okay with some people being dead serious and other people being stupid or silly?

Do I need to add about 10 more options to the poll next time, so people can rag on the poster instead of sharing thoughts on the issue itself?

Sure if that works, cool with me!

You can spin it back all you want. You did not ask the question with a sense of humor and sarcasm to stimulate discussion. Your question was worded seriously and straightforward.

Yes, it is a serious question
and people can address it any way they want.

Why do you insist it has to be only one way?

I've written entire satires that were several ways mixed together.
Both satire and serious statements, and making fun of both, big deal.

If you want to take this seriously, great, I'm all for addressing it seriously.
But if people want to answer or talk about it like it's something stupid,
let's talk about that, too.

I'm open either way.
What do you want to address with this issue?
SERIOUSLY?

Can we talk about that?
Sorry if I offended you in any way. SERIOUSLY that bothers me and I apologize.

Even when the extreme idea was brought up, the idea of dousing dead
bodies of terrorist with pig's blood, that is both near-satirical in its extremity
but also dead serious. It can be both, at the same time, and taken both ways.

Either way, whatever people think whatever comes to mind, let's get it out there.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We'd need to drop something a little more effective on the bastards. How about smallpoxs?

 

[Esmeralda]

What about threatening to infect ISIS with Ebola? yay or nay?

Very stupid.
First, it is biological warfare and very unethical.
Also, it would kill lots of innocents, whether they be people in the vicinity of ISIS or their own families -- children, women, the elderly.
As well, they could send 'suicide bombers' into any territory they wanted: i.e., they could send their own Ebola infected people around the world to infect others.

Really stupid and unethical.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I apologize for my harsh attitude.

What do I suggest we do to defeat them? We send in ground troops. That's the only way. Of course, whether or not we should do that is another issue.

Best way to defeat them, pull out and don't go back.

 

[Esmeralda]

I apologize for my harsh attitude.

What do I suggest we do to defeat them? We send in ground troops. That's the only way. Of course, whether or not we should do that is another issue.

Best way to defeat them, pull out and don't go back.

The best way to defeat them is to pull the money out from under them.

 

[emilynghiem]

We'd need to drop something a little more effective on the bastards. How about smallpox?

Since people on both sides of the left/right spectrum are in agreement
that biological weaponry is off limits as it opens the door to wider abuses and sets a dangerous precedent
by crossing the wrong lines,
can we at least push to set up neutral medical care facilities
with access by all fighters, with the understanding and preparation
that biohazardous chemicals or toxins/virus COULD end up contaminating
the areas where fighting is distracting the people from civilian operations.

So whether or not such hazards occur, whether they happen by accident or deliberately,
ask all the people to agree to be prepared and have medical systems set up.

In the days of war in America, I remember reading about medical help that was respected for remaining neutral.
Betty Williams, the Nobel Laureate from Northern Ireland, has also promoted the idea of safe
zones for women and children; so this would be related to those ideas.

And just come in with a completely neutral and all inclusive
approach that if this genocide is going to go on, can we
have some neutral zones and medical stations in place
"just in case" any biohazardous substances get deliberately abused or spread
by accident, that gets so out of hand that all sides are going to be affected anyway.

So it has to be contained right away if it gets to that point.

If we can even raise awareness that this other concern
is going on, would that help put things in perspective?

To understand that this can get so bad that everyone in the region could
get affected and nobody would survive without outside intervention,
because of the risks going around right now, and if the
military fighting disrupts the ability for medical monitoring and emergency response.

So could we agree on places and procedures to agree on will be neutral
sanctuaries in case something breaks out that cannot be contained.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I apologize for my harsh attitude.

What do I suggest we do to defeat them? We send in ground troops. That's the only way. Of course, whether or not we should do that is another issue.

Best way to defeat them, pull out and don't go back.

The best way to defeat them is to pull the money out from under them.

No, it isn't.

People need ownership of their own country, by this I mean they need to fight for what they want and fight to keep it.

The Kurds are fighting better than the Iraqis because the Kurds (apart from experience) know what they want and know they can get it and will die for it. The Iraqis from the south know as soon as they beat ISIS the US or someone else is going to come along and take it away from them AGAIN AND AGAIN.

 

[emilynghiem]

I apologize for my harsh attitude.

What do I suggest we do to defeat them? We send in ground troops. That's the only way. Of course, whether or not we should do that is another issue.

Best way to defeat them, pull out and don't go back.

The best way to defeat them is to pull the money out from under them.

Don't they just extort and steal from the civilian population as
why the sanctions on Iraq didn't work but just crippled the civilians
while the oppressive regime continued to support itself.

Do you mean starve out the entire region including the civilians?
Where more children were dying each month from the sanctions
than people were dying from the later war.

What are you suggesting that wouldn't backfire like the sanctions did and hurt the victims of the oppressive regime?

 

[emilynghiem]

I apologize for my harsh attitude.

What do I suggest we do to defeat them? We send in ground troops. That's the only way. Of course, whether or not we should do that is another issue.

Best way to defeat them, pull out and don't go back.

The best way to defeat them is to pull the money out from under them.

No, it isn't.

People need ownership of their own country, by this I mean they need to fight for what they want and fight to keep it.

The Kurds are fighting better than the Iraqis because the Kurds (apart from experience) know what they want and know they can get it and will die for it. The Iraqis from the south know as soon as they beat ISIS the US or someone else is going to come along and take it away from them AGAIN AND AGAIN.

How do we help the Kurds and Iraqi's team up so they can have independence separately
if they fight united against the oppressors attacking everyone.

How can we set it up where it is clear they will be fighting for real freedom as in restoring sovereignty
and not like Vietnam where they would lose their country to one enemy or the other trying to take advantage.

You make a good point.

But I do believe the help of other troops ARE needed,
and you are right it is set up wrong if it is adding to the
perception of motivated by a conflict of interest and not really fighting
for Iraq to be independent.

We do not need any more fear that the fighting is just to install another puppet govt that is going
to favor one group or another (just like Vietnam taking the risk of
getting support of Chinese Communists in order to fight for freedom
and ending up falling to Communists dominating instead of Ho Chi Min's
real vision of a sovereign Viet Nam where the people would own the land.)

Would it help to make sure all the other groups are truly united first?
So that when the outside troops come in to help, they are working
in partnership and letting the other groups lead?

I guess this is where it conflicts with American govt structure,
where the military is only supposed to be fighting for American security interests,
and was never Constitutionally set up to be under UN or any other foreign agenda.

[Back to the idea of intervening under medical services.
Could that be made the focus where it is agreed to be neutral
with the focus on emergency support and services in case of biohazard contagion.

Is there a way to set that up where it is within the agreed laws?
Or would even asking this open up the channels to put a check on this whole thing,
if there is no way to contain an outbreak should one occur and spread.
So this would compel people to set up means to fight this out
another way where it doesn't put the entire population at risk,
including ISIS fighters and captives if contagion were to break out and spread.]