I can't believe we haven't found a way to dismantle their propaganda system of KremlinBS.
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.
I can't believe we haven't found a way to dismantle their propaganda system of KremlinBS.
They'd say the same thing anytime a terrorist attack happened under Obama.It was only a matter of time until conservatives found a way to be contrarians with this war. They simply can't agree with the "other side" about anything. So tiring. Makes me wonder what would happen if 9/11 happened during this time.
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 .
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.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 .
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.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 .
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.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
…what chemical weapons did the US use in the Middle East?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
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.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.
I believe white phosphorous and tear gas, no?
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 .
YesThe problem, under what I assume is that poster's logic is that media "fact check" that basically comes from "the other side" isn't totally trust worthy. It's war time, I doubt that BBC or NYT would come saying that the US has weapons biolabs while there's a Russian invasion. The consequences of such a story would be disastrous.
I'm really confused about all of this from what I've been reading, including the BBC source, so there was/are biolabs backed/funded by the US in Ukraine, that aren't weapons, but they're still sensitive? and so that's been used as propaganda to say that there are weapons labs?
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.
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...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.
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!Convenient!
I guess since technically it doesn't count then it's not the same :)
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.
Paradoxically, tear gas is considered a chemical weapon when used in combat, but not when used in police action.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!
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.
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.
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 insteadI 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 .
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.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.
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.
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?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.
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.
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?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?
Can someone explain to me what happened to Tulsi? Like, has she been diagnosed with anything post-military service?
She seems completely insane but I don't remember her always being this way.
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?
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."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.
You want to know something completely fucked?
Every waiting room and every commissary in every USA military base is showing FOX News.
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.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.
Do Fox News pay establishments to put it on in some cases or it's just at the whim of a shit employee or customer requesting it?
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).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.
Do Fox News pay establishments to put it on in some cases or it's just at the whim of a shit employee or customer requesting it?
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).
You want to know something completely fucked?
Every waiting room and every commissary in every USA military base is showing FOX News.
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
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.
The United States of America, with reference to Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, reserves the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons, but in so doing will take all feasible precautions with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.