Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
These terrorist don't care.......They are on a mission to die for Allah..........It's hard to fight someone who already knows they will die in their attack. It's hard to kill an Ideology........Anyway, what measures do people think the United States should take to defend ourselves against such an attack (biological weapons that is - not necessary the Ebola virus, but any deadly agent). As is noted in my links, it is cheaper to produce than other types of weapons, it is easier to hide and smuggle into a country, and like another poster noted, with those terrorists who are willing to commit suicide in order to harm others, this could potentially be a very serious threat, IMO.
Peace thru strength....Any group or country that attacks us via a Bio chem weapon will be obliterated off the face of the earth.......If they are terrorist who claim no country then those countries who support these countries should be wiped off the face of the earth.
Bio Weapons are part of the mad principle.
I don't know if some of these terrorists even care though. I wonder if there is anything we could do to prevent such an attack from occurring, and I can't think of anything other than being VERY vigilant and to keep going after terrorists that are a threat to our security.
Its at least as important as Sarah Palin's family life, which Ive seen discussed around here quite liberaly
I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
I think post #112 is a good question for you to answer. I don't care about that troll. I want to talk about terrorism and biological weapons.
No, that's not what you want. I've already "answered" that post a number of times already.
Nothing else to say? Okay then.
Which is the point the critics are missing. All Ebola patients have sought help, they want to live. Now take an infected person whose intent is to spread. Also attach an accomplice who is willing to die. He collects body fluids from the infected person when he is too sick to move, puts the liquids in a spray bottle and like those morons who throw acid at women's faces, he goes out and sprays people in the face. He doesn't care, he's early in his own infection phase, so the cops come and get him, big deal, that's no solace to the newly infected.Alright I'll engage on this one. Even though I believe there are far more effective bio agents to attack us.............
Yes, they could go to Ebola Land and jump on a plane, to other parts of the globe or America and use their own saliva and bodily fluids to cause others to catch the disease............
It would only take them willing to die for their cause, and enough money to buy some plane tickets......They would have a couple of weeks to do the deed...........Yes it could be a bio weapon.
That's a good point. It's easy to contain when you know about it, but when it's in the form of an attack it might be completely different.
Ebola would be an excellent biological weapon. Terrorists getting injected, a quick flight to the US and with a two week incubation, one person could infect thousands before he died a horrible, painful death. These clowns here aparrently haven't watching the news lately. Too busy reading Obama's poll numbers I suppose.What purpose does "discussing the very real possibility" of a bio-terror attack serve?
Its at least as important as Sarah Palin's family life, which Ive seen discussed around here quite liberaly
I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
I think post #112 is a good question for you to answer. I don't care about that troll. I want to talk about terrorism and biological weapons.
What purpose does "discussing the very real possibility" of a bio-terror attack serve?
Its at least as important as Sarah Palin's family life, which Ive seen discussed around here quite liberaly
I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
Could they purposely get infected jump on a plane and then spread the disease here.......Is that feasible?
I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
Could they purposely get infected jump on a plane and then spread the disease here.......Is that feasible?
Of course. But "feasibility" isn't the metric that I use to decide what to be afraid of. Almost anything is "feasible"
Like I said to you earlier, you don't have to be living in fear and hiding in a bomb shelter or something because you want to discuss the potential of a terrorist attack.
It really DOES seem like you afraid. Afraid to acknowledge that there is probably a very high likelihood that we WILL be attacked again eventually, we just don't know when, where or with what type of weapon.
Which is the point the critics are missing. All Ebola patients have sought help, they want to live. Now take an infected person whose intent is to spread. Also attach an accomplice who is willing to die. He collects body fluids from the infected person when he is too sick to move, puts the liquids in a spray bottle and like those morons who throw acid at women's faces, he goes out and sprays people in the face. He doesn't care, he's early in his own infection phase, so the cops come and get him, big deal, that's no solace to the newly infected.Alright I'll engage on this one. Even though I believe there are far more effective bio agents to attack us.............
Yes, they could go to Ebola Land and jump on a plane, to other parts of the globe or America and use their own saliva and bodily fluids to cause others to catch the disease............
It would only take them willing to die for their cause, and enough money to buy some plane tickets......They would have a couple of weeks to do the deed...........Yes it could be a bio weapon.
That's a good point. It's easy to contain when you know about it, but when it's in the form of an attack it might be completely different.
Like I said earlier, this is now a CHEAP bio-agent. No lab needed, no fabrication equipment needed, no transportation equipment needed, just martyrs willing to die a gruesome death for a cause and enough money to fund the operation.
Ebola would be an excellent biological weapon. Terrorists getting injected, a quick flight to the US and with a two week incubation, one person could infect thousands before he died a horrible, painful death. These clowns here aparrently haven't watching the news lately. Too busy reading Obama's poll numbers I suppose.Its at least as important as Sarah Palin's family life, which Ive seen discussed around here quite liberaly
I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
I think post #112 is a good question for you to answer. I don't care about that troll. I want to talk about terrorism and biological weapons.
Its at least as important as Sarah Palin's family life, which Ive seen discussed around here quite liberaly
I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
Could they purposely get infected jump on a plane and then spread the disease here.......Is that feasible?
Of course. But "feasibility" isn't the metric that I use to decide what to be afraid of. Almost anything is "feasible"
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
Could they purposely get infected jump on a plane and then spread the disease here.......Is that feasible?
Of course. But "feasibility" isn't the metric that I use to decide what to be afraid of. Almost anything is "feasible"
Like I said to you earlier, you don't have to be living in fear and hiding in a bomb shelter or something because you want to discuss the potential of a terrorist attack.
It really DOES seem like you afraid. Afraid to acknowledge that there is probably a very high likelihood that we WILL be attacked again eventually, we just don't know when, where or with what type of weapon.
No, you're really not getting it.
I understand that it's almost certain that we'll be "attacked" again.
The amount that I worry about it will have absolutely no effect on whether or not it will happen.
If it happens, either I'll die, or I'll live. It's no different than my thoughts about dying in a car accident. Being afraid of it isn't going to change anything. So I choose not to be afraid.
I've already been hit by a truck. I've already survived 9/11. Living in a state of fear just guarantees (as was said all the time back when Bush was President) that the terrorists win.
So, your fears are unfounded – you should be more worried about dying in a car accident than a 'terrorist attack.'It is a good possibility that we could be attacked with biological weapons some time in the future. Why would you call that fearmongering? It's a very viable possibility.
Ebola would make for a terrible bio weapon.
So? It doesn't have to be Ebola. It could be anything. It's the idea that terrorists could use biological weapons that could case massive amounts of death that is frightening, not the specific agent used.
Ebola would be an excellent biological weapon. Terrorists getting injected, a quick flight to the US and with a two week incubation, one person could infect thousands before he died a horrible, painful death. These clowns here aparrently haven't watching the news lately. Too busy reading Obama's poll numbers I suppose.I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
I think post #112 is a good question for you to answer. I don't care about that troll. I want to talk about terrorism and biological weapons.
There are hundreds of thousands of diseases more deadly and more easily spread than ebola.
Great. I'll put that on Facebook and a hundred million Americans will start naming their kids after you. Right now Ebola is in the catbird seat.Ebola would be an excellent biological weapon. Terrorists getting injected, a quick flight to the US and with a two week incubation, one person could infect thousands before he died a horrible, painful death. These clowns here aparrently haven't watching the news lately. Too busy reading Obama's poll numbers I suppose.I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
I think post #112 is a good question for you to answer. I don't care about that troll. I want to talk about terrorism and biological weapons.
There are hundreds of thousands of diseases more deadly and more easily spread than ebola.
So, your fears are unfounded – you should be more worried about dying in a car accident than a 'terrorist attack.'It is a good possibility that we could be attacked with biological weapons some time in the future. Why would you call that fearmongering? It's a very viable possibility.
Ebola would make for a terrible bio weapon.
So? It doesn't have to be Ebola. It could be anything. It's the idea that terrorists could use biological weapons that could case massive amounts of death that is frightening, not the specific agent used.
Ebola would be an excellent biological weapon. Terrorists getting injected, a quick flight to the US and with a two week incubation, one person could infect thousands before he died a horrible, painful death. These clowns here aparrently haven't watching the news lately. Too busy reading Obama's poll numbers I suppose.I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
I think post #112 is a good question for you to answer. I don't care about that troll. I want to talk about terrorism and biological weapons.
There are hundreds of thousands of diseases more deadly and more easily spread than ebola.
Ebola would be an excellent biological weapon. Terrorists getting injected, a quick flight to the US and with a two week incubation, one person could infect thousands before he died a horrible, painful death. These clowns here aparrently haven't watching the news lately. Too busy reading Obama's poll numbers I suppose.I can promise you that you have not seen me discuss Sarah Palin.
But that's also completely missing the point. No one is claiming that a bio terror attack is "impossible". What is there to discuss when no one is disagreeing with the premise?
When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
I think post #112 is a good question for you to answer. I don't care about that troll. I want to talk about terrorism and biological weapons.
There are hundreds of thousands of diseases more deadly and more easily spread than ebola.
So, your fears are unfounded – you should be more worried about dying in a car accident than a 'terrorist attack.'It is a good possibility that we could be attacked with biological weapons some time in the future. Why would you call that fearmongering? It's a very viable possibility.
Ebola would make for a terrible bio weapon.
So? It doesn't have to be Ebola. It could be anything. It's the idea that terrorists could use biological weapons that could case massive amounts of death that is frightening, not the specific agent used.
Fear!
Fear fear fear fear!
Fear fear fear fear. Fear fear fear.
FEAR!
No, it's called IMAGINATION — the failure of which is one of the key reasons 9-11 happened, according to your own boy, Mr. Richard A. Clarke.
Moron.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch11.pdf
No, it's called hysterical fearmongering.
What makes Richard A. Clarke my "own boy", exactly?
Ebola would be an excellent biological weapon. Terrorists getting injected, a quick flight to the US and with a two week incubation, one person could infect thousands before he died a horrible, painful death. These clowns here aparrently haven't watching the news lately. Too busy reading Obama's poll numbers I suppose.When you are trying to have a discussion about it, and some idiot comes by and says "it's ridiculous." That is pretty much disagreeing with the premise, is it not?
The problem is that the "premise" of this thread, and what OldSchool referred to as "ridiculous" is about Ebola as a bio-terror agent, not the idea of bio-terror attacks in general.
I think post #112 is a good question for you to answer. I don't care about that troll. I want to talk about terrorism and biological weapons.
There are hundreds of thousands of diseases more deadly and more easily spread than ebola.
Well, you also have to consider how easy it is to obtain. Right now, at this time, it would not be very challenging to spread Ebola, considering the outbreak that is occurring.
