NationStates

New Laikland wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Because fuck the innocent, right?

It's protecting the innocent. Why would innocent Europeans and Americans have to suffer because of them?

white power amirite

Nord Amour wrote:

T Roosevelt wrote:The United States should not use Ebola to fight ISIS, using disease on the battlefield is inhumane and beneath the United States of America.

As if the US were known for its moral backbone...

Asyir wrote:Dumbest idea I've ever fucking heard. Not only is it illegal, but we would have to mutate it to spread via air. Which in its own right is a fucking dumb idea.

What about the innocents as well? I can tell you from experience, not everyone in the Middle East is a radical terrorist planning on killing Americans.

I'm starting to lean toward the conclusion that this was a troll post. The concept is too radical even for NSG.

I would hope so. Anyone holding this radical viewpoint of using Ebola against ISIL is no better then them.

I knew people around here were nuts, but this takes the cake.

Should we commit horrific crimes against humanity that make us ten times worse than the enemies we fight?

Tune in tomorrow to find out!

Nord Amour wrote:

T Roosevelt wrote:The United States should not use Ebola to fight ISIS, using disease on the battlefield is inhumane and beneath the United States of America.

As if the US were known for its moral backbone...

It most definitely is in Kosovo where we stopped genocide.

Congratulations!

You, Mr. OP, have earned the achievements:

"Broken a large amount of international law"

"Caused a worldwide pandemic"

"Successfully made me at this proposal"

---

Anyways, this idea is just idiotic. Plain and simple.

T Roosevelt wrote:

Asyir wrote:Dumbest idea I've ever fucking heard. Not only is it illegal, but we would have to mutate it to spread via air. Which in its own right is a fucking dumb idea.

What about the innocents as well? I can tell you from experience, not everyone in the Middle East is a radical terrorist planning on killing Americans.

Ease is not worth the cost of violating the merit of your own state.

Correct. I'd rather not have all of our merit be dashed. Thank god congress and the president aren't thinking of plans like this.

I'll admit, I'm legitimately surprised that this idea has actually crossed someone's mind. I'm not sure if this is just unfunny satire or if OP is legitimately confused as to why this is not at all practical.

I guess I'll take OP seriously for a second:
1. Biological weapons are indiscriminate; it is better used if one's goal is the extermination of an enemy population (meaning if you just want to kill a lot of Syrians and Iraqis, and alot of other Arabic people, and probably a lot of Europeans too, then maybe it would be a good idea). ISIS is essentially an insurgent force that any reasonable person would want to eliminate without significant collateral damage. Therefor, bio-weapons are not the weapon of choice against them.

2. Ebola is poorly understood, difficult to treat (no vaccine exists), and hard to contain; deliberate release of the virus into developing, war-torn nations (meaning poor/limited access to health care) sounds like a good way to just complete fuck said nations and ensure an epidemic-level outbreak in the region; if your goal is to try and play a real-life game of Pandemic, then yeah, I suppose this would be the way to do it.

3. Why did you even think of this? Were you high? If you were high, what drugs were you making use of?

The Sheika wrote:That would help. Project Blue for the win.

By dawn they were running east across Nevada and Charlie was coughing steadily.

using Ebola is obviously the best solution

Turkbekistan wrote:Serious question:

Should America use Ebola and fight ISIS?

I had the idea earlier today and I think it would work well although there may be some civilian casualties so it would have to be done carefully and with extreme caution. ISIS is a huge problem and so is Ebola. If we gave a constructive usage to Ebola and ended ISIS it would be killing 1.5 birds with one stone.

What does everyone else think?

This is literally the most stupid thing I have heard all day.

Lingang wrote:

Turkbekistan wrote:Serious question:

Should America use Ebola and fight ISIS?

I had the idea earlier today and I think it would work well although there may be some civilian casualties so it would have to be done carefully and with extreme caution. ISIS is a huge problem and so is Ebola. If we gave a constructive usage to Ebola and ended ISIS it would be killing 1.5 birds with one stone.

What does everyone else think?

This is literally the most stupid thing I have heard all day.

YAP

New Laikland wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Because fuck the innocent, right?

It's protecting the innocent. Why would innocent Europeans and Americans have to suffer because of them?

Because fuck the innocent Middle Easterners, they're all Damn dirty terrorists, right?

The Rich Port wrote:I think the right to bear Ebola should extend to all Americans, because then only the bad guys will have Ebola.

The only way to stop a bad guy with Ebola, is with a good guy with Ebola.

Arumdaum wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:I think the right to bear Ebola should extend to all Americans, because then only the bad guys will have Ebola.

The only way to stop a bad guy with Ebola, is with a good guy with Ebola.

People may think we're being snarky liberals, but that is exactly what a lot of people, who are somehow thinking this is a good idea, are arguing.

And it's fucking ridiculous.

Why is this dumb thread still going on? It has just degenerated into people making fun of right-wing caricatures that only exist in their imaginations.

Empire of Narnia wrote:Why is this dumb thread still going on? It has just degenerated into people making fun of right-wing caricatures that only exist in their imaginations.

Where are you posting in?

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Empire of Narnia wrote:Why is this dumb thread still going on? It has just degenerated into people making fun of right-wing caricatures that only exist in their imaginations.

Where are you posting in?

I posted in it once to point out how what the OP was advocating violated international law and common decency then I posted again to point out the off-topic nature of the current discussions.

Prezelly wrote:

Laerod wrote:Shit does not make a good foundation for any sort of building.

It's a plausible idea
You're telling me that we couldn't modify it? At all?

Getting it to understand the difference between ISIS and other people would only be possible in something that has a brain. Ebola does not have a brain. It does not have a nervous system of any kind. It doesn't even have cells. For what you are proposing, a paramecium would be a more useful starting point than Ebola. Yeast would be more useful than Ebola. Rabbits, strawberries, and butterflies would be more useful than Ebola. Ebola is just too simple and its genome is too short for the kind of information that you would need to specifically target ISIS.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Prezelly wrote:It's a plausible idea
You're telling me that we couldn't modify it? At all?

Getting it to understand the difference between ISIS and other people would only be possible in something that has a brain. Ebola does not have a brain. It does not have a nervous system of any kind. It doesn't even have cells. For what you are proposing, a paramecium would be a more useful starting point than Ebola. Yeast would be more useful than Ebola. Rabbits, strawberries, and butterflies would be more useful than Ebola. Ebola is just too simple and its genome is too short for the kind of information that you would need to specifically target ISIS.

... Are you implying we should make an army of rage-viral killer rabbits?

... I AM SO ON FUCKING BOARD WITH THIS IDEA.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Prezelly wrote:It's a plausible idea
You're telling me that we couldn't modify it? At all?

Well, we could change it so that it could eat lactose (milk sugar) in addition to whatever it eats now.

It doesn't eat. Modifying it to eat lactose would require enough of a change that it would no longer be Ebola (or any kind of virus).

Turkbekistan wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Stopped, yes. BUt using a biological weapon? Fuck that noise. No.

That's not how you go on about stopping ISIS. Furthermore, diseases spread. What makes you think an Ebola bomb, for example, will only affect ISIS members and won't spread to other innocent people? Do you have any idea how Ebola spreads? Think your shit through.

The USA, France, UK, UAE, Israeli and other airplanes drop Ebola onto the military training camps in the desert.

Ebola likes fluids. It's not going to do well in a desert.

Empire of Narnia wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Where are you posting in?

I posted in it once to point out how what the OP was advocating violated international law and common decency then I posted again to point out the off-topic nature of the current discussions.

I guess my joke didn't pan out.

What I meant was about where are you posting at, as in, this forum, and the propensity of some posters to well, post this kind of spiel. Trying to joke isn't apparently my forte. :/

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Turkbekistan wrote:The USA, France, UK, UAE, Israeli and other airplanes drop Ebola onto the military training camps in the desert.

Ebola likes fluids. It's not going to do well in a desert.

New plan:
US needs to accelerate the pace of carbon emissions so as to speed-up global climate change so that THIS plan can then be utilized in the newly temperate/moist Middle East.

Vekalse wrote:Again, there is a MEGATHREAD for this.

Ebola threads proliferate faster than Ebola viruses.