I have to imagine that the GOP doesn't even need the Kremlin for this shit. They're more than skilled enough at stirring up their base on their own.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
NYT: Conservative voices promote Russia-backed conspiracy theory that the US is funding Bioweapons in Ukraine
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
I have to imagine that the GOP doesn't even need the Kremlin for this shit. They're more than skilled enough at stirring up their base on their own.
OP
OP
They'd say the same thing anytime a terrorist attack happened under Obama.
"This never would have happened under a Republican President."
I am not an American. I don't believe in all these crazy conspiracy people and I hate Conservatives to my core . But as a middle eastern, I have seen the damage caused by the US and their military industrial complex in my region. So hearing the US is developing Bio weapons doesn't seem unbelievable to me .
I see why a lot of people might have misunderstood my comment. To clarify I hate Conservatives like tucker carlson and their propaganda to progress their psychotic agendas to their bigot audience. I am not an American and I am highly critical of American imperialism and militarization and the damage it has done especially in my region ( middle East). For me it doesn't seem unbelievable that the US would develop bio weapons. But I acknowledge that this might not have been the right thread to confess my anti imperialism especially with the situation being very charged with the ukraine war .
*IF* the US were developing bioweapons, only a moron would think they would do it in another country, let alone one that's not actually protected by the US. Too many potential vectors for shit to go wrong.
Also, they have too many conventional weapons that can do the job, no need for that shit.
Also, they have too many conventional weapons that can do the job, no need for that shit.
I get it
Most of the conspiracy theories that come from the right are like "liberals are sneaking gay pathogens into your kids balls to make them join theater club" or some crazy shit like that. The US is probably developing chemical weapons, like the ones they used in the middle east, but most likely not in Ukraine. It is one of the more believable ones up front for sure
I am a Latin American who was born in a country where the US had the fucking galls to take our lands and even shoot students when they tried to put our flag in the Panama Canal. And I don't believe this bullshit from Russia.
To add a little bit of context as well because you're from the Middle East, Russia used the same tactic prior to using chemical weapons in Syria in 2018. They accused the US of arming Syrian rebels with illegal weapons, and then a few weeks later proceeded to provide or use chemical weapons with the Syrian military on civilians, and then later disputed the allegations and said that nobody can know for sure if chemical weapons were used or, if they were used, "which side" used them.
U.S., Russia clash at U.N. over chemical weapons attacks in Syria
Russia and the United States tangled on Tuesday at the United Nations over the use of chemical weapons in Syria as Washington and its allies considered whether to strike at President Bashar al-Assad's forces over a suspected poison gas attack last weekend.
www.reuters.com
US: Russia, Syria Made Up Chemical Weapons Story
US State Department accuses countries of blaming false attack on rebels to undermine cease-fire deal
www.voanews.com
Syria: Coordinated Chemical Attacks on Aleppo
Syrian government forces conducted coordinated chemical attacks in opposition-controlled parts of Aleppo during the final month of the battle for the city. Human Rights Watch documented government helicopters dropping chlorine in residential areas on at least eight occasions.
It's very likely to follow the same playbook, not unlike when Russia/Pro-Russian separatists armed by Russia, shot down the Malaysian passenger jet in Crimea in 2014. They flood the zone with bull shit and then arm propagandists.
But it takes vigilance, patience, and measured responses to combat propaganda. Kneejerk reactions promote propaganda, so it's not that "people misunderstood your comment," it's that the propaganda is working exactly as intended. Flood the zone with a ton of bull shit enough that people shrug and say "Hm, maybe the US is? Or maybe Russia is? How can anybody know for sure...?" which is the cover to then use chemical or biological weapons. Most propaganda and intelligence narratives work because they play on something that sounds believable or possible to some people, and then the propagandists rely on individual people to push the narrative, and then they're not hearing it from the Kremlin or Russian intelligence or Tucker Carlson, they're hearing it from you, a person they can otherwise trust, or from their Freedom Convoy trucker buddy, or Facebook or what have you.
That's not what's being claimed here though. The specific claims made by Russia and those supporting the Kremlin is that the US is helping Ukraine develop biological weapons throughout labs in their country. Not only is this a blatant lie, it goes against all known actions taken by the west, Russia, and ex-Soviet countries post 1990s.
A lot of hard work was put into removing weapons of mass destruction from those countries, and Ukraine voluntarily gave up all of its WMDs over assurances of territorial sovereignty from Russia (lol). Russia claiming the US is helping Ukraine develop bio weapons isn't just projection, it's one of their justifications for invading in the first place ("see they broke the Budapest memorandum first!").
You realize it was Russia who used them in the Middle East, right? Not the US. The US weren't the ones who gassed the Syrian rebels.
The GOP wants to be Russia. They'll parrot whatever the Russians come up with. RT says the moon is made of cheese, Tucker is on the next night taking about what the liberals won't tell you about the moon. These idiots have been huffing their own farts since '08 and it's totally broken them.
Yeah what we did in Latin America (and continue I'm sure) was horrendous and worse than what the soviets were doing towards the end of their power.
That said, even if we had bioweapons labs in Ukraine, Russia would probably take it for granted and not give a shit beyond using it as justification. Every conspiracy I've heard wouldn't motivate a country to military action nearly as much as basic economic motives like "we don't want Ukraine to compete with our oil and gas supply to Europe". Why embrace craziness when the real reasons are so plain?
I believe white phosphorous and tear gas, no?
I think this is reasonable and not your fault.
The US and the military industrial complex lie. A lot. The erosion of faith in our intelligence and government institutions is really just an organic result of this.
Yes
Russia has two dominant narratives they are attempting to perpetuate: this is a special operation to liberate Ukrainians from a Nazi-like regime in Ukraine threatening their people and peace. That Ukrainians, in collusion with the west, are funding offensive measures such as secret biolabs that are actually being used to build offensive bio weapons that are a threat to Russia and their people. Yes, there is bio research labs in Ukraine, just as pretty much any country with advanced science infrastructure or research facilities has, and the WHO and US have collaborated on these projects, like they probably have with Russia as well. A common practice in science and tech.
But Neither of those allegations have even a single shred of evidence to support them. And even if they did, Russia's actions in no way support that is why they are doing what they are doing or is their sole aim.
When people say, "well, could be plausible" and the BBC can't be trusted either, it's wartime, or, we would be remiss if we didn't talk about how bad America is etc. People are playing right into what that propaganda is meant to achieve to the non-captured audience, which is doubt and ambiguity about the moral justification of resistance forces. To inject their narratives into the conversation and spread them, assisting in lending legitimacy to them, insert doubt into the factual consensus, or trigger blameshifting and whatsboutisms. Anything to take the narrative away from Russia as the unequivocal bad guy that unjustifiably invaded a sovereign country and is killing civilians and committing war crimes.
It's like when oil companies try and poke holes in climate science, it's not that they want to win the fight outright, they just want to muddy the waters and create uncertainty so they can continue to operate business as usual and with impunity. Give their partisans a digestible and powerful narrative to grasp onto and rationalize behavior that if presented honestly, would harm their goals and create doubt even within their base.
This has been the Russian playbook for basically since shortly after Putin's reign began. And it has only gotten more brazen and bold as time went on. Honestly, mirroring in many ways how right wing media in America has evolved into just being a completely alternate reality for the real world.
Last edited:
What is White Phosphorous then?
Did the Russians bomb Fallujah?
Birth Defects and the Toxic Legacy of War in Iraq - MERIP
In Iraq, birth defects are a visible embodiment of the enduring toxic legacy of war, burn pits, sanctions and other military interventions. War and occupation shattered public infrastructures necessary for health and well being, but also triggered cascades of environmental degradation. Kali...
merip.org
While the use of white phosphorus by the US in Fallujah in 2004 was absolutely shameful, white phosphorus is actually not considered a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention.What is White Phosphorous then?
Did the Russians bomb Fallujah?
Birth Defects and the Toxic Legacy of War in Iraq - MERIP
In Iraq, birth defects are a visible embodiment of the enduring toxic legacy of war, burn pits, sanctions and other military interventions. War and occupation shattered public infrastructures necessary for health and well being, but also triggered cascades of environmental degradation. Kali...
The US may be developing buttons bio weapons domestically in secret. But do people genuinely believe the US would develop secret bioweapons in a lab 30 km from the Russian border in a country that has been under Russian incursion for the last eight years? Like please think for even a few seconds how stupid that sounds.
Convenient!
I guess since technically it doesn't count then it's not the same :)
Even if we're going by a "legal" disqualification of something like WP, tear gas IS classified as a chemical weapon and has been used in both Afghanistan and Iraq (by the US and our PMC army). As well as here on domestic soil!
That's the thing, these people don't think. They've willingly given up their critical thinking skills.
They just regurgitate whatever talking points they are given without a single thread of thought.
Paradoxically, tear gas is considered a chemical weapon when used in combat, but not when used in police action.
Though this discussion really seems off topic in this thread.
I don't believe there's any truth to the idea of a bioweapons lab in Ukraine. Just more Russia propaganda which the GOP love.
White phosphorus was used by US-led forces in Syria in heavily populated areas. While not the same as what Russia did, the US did us chemical weapons in Syria.
It can be even under the Chemical Weapons Convention if not used as a smokescreen. But, even if they don't consider it a chemical weapon, it is one. Same with tear gas. No matter how it's used.
White phosphorus was used by US-led forces in Syria in heavily populated areas. While not the same as what Russia did, the US did us chemical weapons in Syria.
It can be even under the Chemical Weapons Convention if not used as a smokescreen. But, even if they don't consider it a chemical weapon, it is one. Same with tear gas. No matter how it's used.
Last edited:
Nobody but an idiot would seriously consider developing bioweapons because the goal of creating a weaponizable biological agent and the goal of having a biological agent that can be controlled so that the creator can't be harmed by it are diametrically opposed. It's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of practicality. A bioweapon by it's vary nature needs to infect a ton of people to do damage, which means it's going to have ample opportunity to mutate, so even if some evil government did human experiments to create vaccines beforehand for themselves, chances are the agent will mutate. If it's bacterial you also risk horizontal gene transfer so even if you're immune to your own agent it might pass the problematic genes to another pathogen you don't have control of. And if it's viral it'll mutate even faster which means an increased chance of vaccine failure. There are plenty of horribly unethical weapons that I wouldn't be surprised if the US had projects in regards to, but if you really wanted that type of weapon biological agents are a terrible choice and anyone with half a brain would use chemical weapons instead
The first time I heard the biolab/weapon theory was in that channel 5 video. Seems the independent GOP media is just running with it because what other narrative could you possibly spin? The whole "Ukrainian's are nazi's" thing blew up in their face when they were made to face the realization that there are a lot of American regiments with heavy ties to the KKK.
No, that's incorrect. White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon under the CWC. What you're talking about it is its legality to use under the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), which covers the use of incendiary weapons, and is what makes the distinction between different uses of WP.
As for your larger point, that would be worth its own thread if someone wants to make it. But in this thread it seems like a distraction from the actual tropic: Russian state lies about biological weapon labs in Ukraine.
Last edited:
I see, thank you for your post.
As for the doubts, yeah that's more difficult. We can both be sure that Russia is the unequivocal agressor and not trusting much several stories going around. It's not just war time, where stories get either push down or glorified depending on their usefulness, It's just decades of lies, where plenty of people were given plenty of reasons to not trust things at face value just based solely on side of the fence. I don't think the US has secret bioweapons labs in Ukraine, but if it ended up being true I wouldn't be shocked shocked. Just as I didn't thought Russia would invade, but it didn't shock me that they ended up going that route. It fucking sucks but that's what it is, and that's the biggest issue. We don't even need to believe that it might be true to consider that it is plausible. Same shit if you tell me Russia may have secret bioweapons labs. I wouldn't think it's true, but it would be considered plausible. Specially because it would be reported by "trusted" sources. The only thing I'm really completely sure in this moment is Ukraine's right to defend themselves and exist as a nation.
I feel like the discussion in this thread is underselling the ridiculousness of the Russian allegations. They're saying that the US was developing biological weapons engineered such that they would only affect people with Russian DNA.
It's 100% nonsense conspiracy theorizing and disinformation. No need to do the whole "oh well um gee I don't think it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were." Let's just call it what it is.
It's 100% nonsense conspiracy theorizing and disinformation. No need to do the whole "oh well um gee I don't think it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were." Let's just call it what it is.
You wouldn't be shocked the US has set up special secret biolabs in Ukraine in order to develop a bioweapon that specifically targets Russian people that was planned to be distributed in the near future throughout Russia using birds? And Russia is in any way a believable source for this information?
At some point a willingness to believe something speaks less to the realities of the world and more to personal biases and lack of critical thinking.
What are you talking about? Where did I mention a plan like that? When? Why?
Why is distrust of the west such a taboo thing to say?
Because that's the lie being propagated. If you don't actually know anything about the misinformation, why do you feel it's appropriate to post "maybe I don't believe it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true" in this thread?
The russian propaganda has been a useful barometer recently to gauge how far gone my dad is when it comes to being brainwashed by the right.
Currently he's at "something is off with Putin, he may be losing his mind due to an illness he's hiding" on the chart, but luckily he seems pretty anti-putin and hasn't shown any signs of swallowing any of the bioweapons nonsense being spewed by the puppets.
Currently he's at "something is off with Putin, he may be losing his mind due to an illness he's hiding" on the chart, but luckily he seems pretty anti-putin and hasn't shown any signs of swallowing any of the bioweapons nonsense being spewed by the puppets.
My father-in-law has started getting into this shit. He identified as 'a true ex-hippie' liberal when I first got to know him in the 90s, fell down the 9/11 conspiracy rabbit hole, and now nothing is off limits.
I have to leave the room when he starts going into this, because actually engaging him is pointless and makes me sad/mad.
I have to leave the room when he starts going into this, because actually engaging him is pointless and makes me sad/mad.
Tulsi's always been this way, she just kept a tight lid on it while she had a political career in Hawaii. Once she figured out that she was never going to get a higher office than US Congress here, she jumped ship and took off the mask.
If you read up the chain, I specifically asked what this is about. At no point in the conversation your line poped up. Why would you assume I'm referring to the plan instead of a broader comment in light of the conversation had?
No, I don't believe the Russian story.
No, I wouldn't be shocked if the US is involved in bioweapons in some way.
Why would I feel a simple statement like that is not appropriate?
Well no, that's not what you said, you said "I don't think the US has secret bioweapons labs in Ukraine, but if it ended up being true I wouldn't be shocked shocked."
You're coming into a thread specifically about an active disinformation campaign being perpetrated by an invading imperialist power. And, without any actual knowledge or understanding of the lies being perpetrated, feel it's appropriate to give any credence at all to these outlandish and baseless claims that are, again, being used to justify the invasion and conquest of a sovereign nation and the murder of its people.
You are, even unwilling and even with good intentions, actively playing into Russian propaganda.
Of course I wouldn't be shocked. I have 0 reasons to have faith and trust in the US. But it's not the Russians who have made me distrust the north, it's the US itself through decades. It's not that I suddendly believe Republicans and watch Fox News. And I'm not alone on this. Sucks, but it is what it is.
So, to be specific, no, I'm not talking about the very very specific plan using birds or whatever. I thank you for your enlightment on how crazy the claim is. Wish you would have been around before to enlight earlier. But it really doesn't change my levels of trust in Russia or the US.
And no, it doesn't mean that I can support using that claim as justification for the invasion. Even if it was real, I would still not support the invasion.
If it's still playing into Russian propaganda for you, well, it sucks. I can't change that.
It's on screens in businesses everywhere, too. Fast food restaurants, employee lunch rooms, doctors offices. It's everywhere. In my experience, it's at least 10 times more common than the next most popular channel in businesses, which is CNN.
I sometimes see people downplay Fox News' influence, citing their actually fairly small measured viewership (which is true of all televised news, these days). Supposedly, many more people get their news online these days. While that's no doubt true, I think people are severely underestimating the significance of Fox being on so many public-facing screens.
Yeah, it's gross. When I lived in NYC, my gym suddenly started putting it on and I always requested it be turned off. They did for a while then stopped indulging me so I let myself into their control booth to change the channels myself. When the manager got pushy with me about it, I went off on him about LGBTQ folks and right wing propaganda (the gym was in a very gay downtown neighborhood with a huge gay clientele). He seemed dumbfounded but eventually relented and it didn't end up on the screens for the next couple years I used it. Wish more people would push back on their regular spots and the damage Fox News is doing.
I once posed the question, here on Era, as to whether we should try to get something going - a petition, a hashtag, whatever - to get Fox News off of all these business screens. I live in Las Vegas, and it's on almost every business TV I've ever seen...and Vegas is fairly blue. Or, whether I should just protest at each business (mostly fast food) that I go to.
The answer was a resounding, overwhelming no. Which shocked me, given what a left-wing bubble this place is.
I've never seen anything indicating that Fox pays, or otherwise pushes for their channel to be shown. But it's so ubiquitous that there's no way it's a coincidence.
I get what you're saying but I think "The US has a recent history of using/developing weapons that just skirt outside of the convention" is something that leads people down that belief (when they're not being led by pro-war Russia-led propoganda).
But anyways, on topic, fuck this Russia-led propaganda. It's one thing to think the US is researching those weapons in general as a conspiracy theory, it's another to push anti-Ukraine pro-war propo. Fuck the right, fuck FOX news, fuck Putin, fuck his oligarchs.
It's crack for wackos and old people. If you have a remote on the table someone's going to change it to fox news. They don't need to pay for it.
Chemical weapons are typically defined as usually blood, blister, choking, or nerve agents that are typically deployed in gaseous (or more accurately, droplet) form. White phosphorus is an incendiary, not a chemical agent like that. It's just a really nasty incendiary because if you're ignited by it, you could immediately jump in a lake and you're still going to burn to death because it won't be easily put out. It's not skirting by convention; it's a different thing altogether. These headlines mentioning it in the context of chem warfare are a bit sensationalist.
Yuuuup, went visit my brother last week up at Fort Lee. Walked around the PX and Fox News was playing on all the TVs in the Powerzone. I have friends at Fort Bragg, Fort Worth who all echo the samething.
What is White Phosphorous then?
Did the Russians bomb Fallujah?
Birth Defects and the Toxic Legacy of War in Iraq - MERIP
In Iraq, birth defects are a visible embodiment of the enduring toxic legacy of war, burn pits, sanctions and other military interventions. War and occupation shattered public infrastructures necessary for health and well being, but also triggered cascades of environmental degradation. Kali...
It's an incendiary and also unrelated to that article which is about pollution and depleted uranium, not chemical weapons
It's not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention at all, because it isn't one. It is covered under an entirely different treaty -- the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons -- which allows incendiaries as weapons, not just smokescreens. As long as they aren't targeted at civilians or near population centers. The US has not actually agreed to the second half of that clause (near population centers) which is why we see it used tragedies like Fallujah (and the protocol was only adopted at all when Obama was inaugurated in 2009)
Last edited: