- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
TigerDoc
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Texas |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 11918 |
| Registered on: | 4/25/2004 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
Nixon was the deep state.
yes. Everybody heard him on tape telling the CIA to shut down the investigation of dudes who broke into his opponents' campaign offices to fix the bugs they had previously planted but had gone bad (funded by his campaign, btw).
0
re: Vance says Nixon was taken down by the deep state for Watergate.
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/27/26 at 9:23 am to Stinger_1066
quote:
His admin should have just admitted to it and fired the participants.
or at least not taping the cover-up conspiracy conversations in the first place.
quote:
Senate would never have gotten 2/3 for conviction
Barry Goldwater counted the votes and told him on August 7, 1974 that he was going to be removed. He resigned the next day.
re: Tulsi releases incriminating Fauci comms & docs on her final day as DNI
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/19/26 at 3:09 pm to Meauxjeaux
I'm curious about that too. For those who've dug into the release, what's actually new here versus material that was already known through prior investigations, hearings, emails, etc? Trying to figure out whether this is primarily a disclosure event or an interpretation event.
quote:
Hey dipshit, do you know where biological weapons are developed? That's right, in these precious labs that you seem so precarious about defending.
So we either can panic about all labs or try to distinguish between labs with offensive capabilities and those without. Which should we do?
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/14/26 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
heh. I edited to add that. :lol:
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/14/26 at 10:33 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
That's not a part of what is being said ITT. The distinction matters because Fauci, et al, took their GOF research overseas specifically to conduct experiments that were outlawed in the US. People seem to be averse to explain why that is
The biological threat reduction program is the origin of US involvement (unless someone has something earlier to show) had to do with cold war biosafety stemming from the destabilization and collapse of the USSR and Soviet bloc. Programs continue to evolve over time as it must have in the post-cold-war, but anybody alleging an offensive bioweapons program in Ukraine has to start from the original purpose and mission and show how it changed and show that they were actually doing it with actual evidence.
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/14/26 at 9:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only AlterEd has been brave enough to claim basic biological lab work creates a biological weapons program.
Placekicker is claiming what ODNI released suggests we're "manufacturing" that long list of diseases in his latest post.
Does anyone see anything that suggests manufacturing? Defensive and offensive programs will have disease agents in them (you need those for developing/scaling up diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics).
Is there evidence of what we would see for offensive capabilities here?
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/14/26 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
That's actually where my head is at. If we set aside the labels for a second and ask what an offensive biological weapons program would physically look like, what would we expect to find?
E.g, if someone posted a slide showing pathogen surveillance, sequencing, diagnostics, lab training, etc, I can see both military and civilian uses.
What activities would make people say "that's a weapons program" rather than "that's biodefense/public health"?
E.g, if someone posted a slide showing pathogen surveillance, sequencing, diagnostics, lab training, etc, I can see both military and civilian uses.
What activities would make people say "that's a weapons program" rather than "that's biodefense/public health"?
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/13/26 at 9:40 pm to plazadweller
Russia had raised concerns about the US having supported biolabs in Ukraine for years (this is an old and non-secret program back to the Nunn-Lugar Biological Threat Reduction program in the 90's), just as Russia has objected to US involvement in Ukraine in a gazillion ways. I'm specifically curious about the timeline for the stronger claim that Ukraine itself was engaged in offensive bioweapons work. Does anyone have examples of Russia publicly alleging that Ukraine was operating an offensive biological weapons program before the February 2022 invasion like they were doing in March '22 and beyond?
ETA: Vox found one from March '22 above and Placekicker showing Biden reacting to Russian allegations from the same time-frame.
ETA: Vox found one from March '22 above and Placekicker showing Biden reacting to Russian allegations from the same time-frame.
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/13/26 at 7:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
And they never made a peep about it until after the full-scale invasion started (they picked up a western narrative and ran with it).
the split developing over this is interesting.
That's not how conspiracism works, baw.
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/13/26 at 12:55 am to somethingdifferent
I guess we have different ideas of the important ideas to OP here. Enjoyed the chat.
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/13/26 at 12:32 am to somethingdifferent
appreciate your patience. I’m not trying to exhaust you. I think your answer is basically that the broader pattern of official lies and reversals makes you less willing to accept the benign explanation here. I get that as a reason for skepticism.
I’m just trying to separate that from the narrower question of what would establish the Ukraine-specific claim. For example, documents showing bioweapons work, grant language showing GOF in those facilities, whistleblower testimony, pathogen records, etc.
I’m not asking because I think official sources deserve blind trust. I’m asking because if the claim is true, that’s the kind of evidence that would make it harder to spin away.
I’m just trying to separate that from the narrower question of what would establish the Ukraine-specific claim. For example, documents showing bioweapons work, grant language showing GOF in those facilities, whistleblower testimony, pathogen records, etc.
I’m not asking because I think official sources deserve blind trust. I’m asking because if the claim is true, that’s the kind of evidence that would make it harder to spin away.
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/12/26 at 11:58 pm to somethingdifferent
That's fair as an argument for skepticism toward official narratives.
But I was asking a slightly different question.
What evidence would convince you one way or the other about the Ukraine lab claims specifically?
But I was asking a slightly different question.
What evidence would convince you one way or the other about the Ukraine lab claims specifically?
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/12/26 at 9:38 pm to somethingdifferent
What would count as proof either way?
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/12/26 at 4:43 pm to somethingdifferent
I think they're disagreeing with you on who has the burden of proof.
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/12/26 at 4:42 pm to somethingdifferent
Maybe, although that seems to assume the significance of the announcement tells us exactly how far the evidence goes. I've noticed people often reason in both directions:
"If there wasn't more there, why make the announcement"?
"If there was more there, why not say it outright"?
"If there wasn't more there, why make the announcement"?
"If there was more there, why not say it outright"?
re: DNI Gabbard Releases US-Funded Biolab Evidence, including Ukraine
Posted by TigerDoc on 6/12/26 at 3:52 pm to somethingdifferent
that's only the case if you think all narratives are connected to evidence (they're not).
Maybe in some cases. But a lot of the original Ukraine funding connected to post-Soviet threat reduction efforts - securing pathogens, improving biosurveillance, and reducing the risk that dangerous biological materials or expertise would proliferate after the USSR collapsed (analogous to threat of unsecured nukes).
It seems like we'd have to distinguish between funding research overseas, and funding research overseas because it couldn't legally be done in the US Those are related possibilities, but they're not automatically the same claim.
It seems like we'd have to distinguish between funding research overseas, and funding research overseas because it couldn't legally be done in the US Those are related possibilities, but they're not automatically the same claim.
Popular
36
