Current Events > Tulsi Gabbard claims 25+ Biolabs are in Ukraine; Romney calls remarks treasonous

(+) Yeah! (+)

Utah Sen Mitt Romney fiercely criticised former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii on Sunday and suggested that her remarks about the existence of so-called US biolabs in Ukraine would result in people being killed.
The Republican senator accused his ex-House counterpart, who served as a Democrat but has shifted far to the right since leaving office, of spreading treasonous lies that amounted to Russian propaganda. His statement came in reference to a video posted by Ms Gabbard that claimed the existence of 25 to 30 US-funded biolabs that she went on to assert if breached would release & spread deadly pathogens to US/world.
There are a handful of Ukrainian-run biological threat analysis and defence labs in Ukraine, but theres no evidence to suggest that they are working on biological weapons as far-right commentators and the Russian government have claimed. Its also not a certainty that the labs would release dangerous pathogens if damaged in the ongoing conflict, as experts have worked to destroy any dangerous substances on site.
The US and Ukrainian governments have both denied the existence of bioweapons facilities in Ukraine.
The Independent has reached out to the former congresswoman for comment.
While Ms Gabbard did not directly accuse the US of nefarious purposes in funding the labs operated by Ukraines government, the narrative plays into the hands of the Russian government, according to US officials, given that the Biden administration has said in recent days that their Russian counterparts are spreading false claims about supposed US-supported manufacturing of bioweapons in Ukraine which US officials say could be pretext to the deployment of chemical or biological weapons by Russias military in its bloody onslaught through Ukrainian territory.

Russias invasion has already reportedly killed thousands of civilians and US officials are now openly warning that the use of chemical or biological weapons by Moscow would escalate the conflict significantly.
US national security adviser Jake Sullivan warned on Sunday that the Biden administration would make Russia pay a steep price if chemical or biological weapons were used in Ukraine, but did not define what specific punishment Moscow would face. The White House has remained firm that US or Nato troops will not be used to defend Ukrainian territory.

Why would she tweet that

Why would she tweet that

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1503146207132200965?t=EwsE9ectrNXtB7xHgwVM3A&s=19



"If you didn't serve (...or have family in the service), you can't criticize opinions of those who did!!"

Why would she tweet that

For the sgment of the right that is concerned solely with opposing whatever CNN and media liberals have to say, the false notion that Ukraine had some sort of biological weapons program gives them a rhetorical weapon to wield against the current narrative that the Russian invasion was bad and should be opposed, and plausible deniability against claims that they're pro-Putin.

Yknow I'd give them some benefit of the doubt

If Russia was wholly strategic in their attack

And not

Yknow

Murdering fucking children in cities/places where there are no bio-labs

Yknow I'd give them some benefit of the doubt

If Russia was wholly strategic in their attack

And not

Yknow

Murdering fucking children in cities/places where there are no bio-labs

So what she said is bad because nothing dangerous would be released if the US funded bio labs in Ukraine are destroyed?

Nobody is disputing that there are US funded bio labs, so the argument is that there is nothing dangerous in them?

She's using the existence of the biolabs (and the possibility that they'd have bio weapons) as a pretext for justifying Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

So what she said is bad because nothing dangerous would be released if the US funded bio labs in Ukraine are destroyed?

Nobody is disputing that there are US funded bio labs, so the argument is that there is nothing dangerous in them?

But there aren't "US funded bio labs", there are Ukranian labs that receive funding from the US, WHO, EU, and other countries.

This one's a doozy

Has anyone from the US stated that it would not be dangerous for these labs to be destroyed? If so, who, and if not, there is no counter-argument to her claim.

Stop thinking so much you're going to hurt yourself. Just say you don't like Putin, and that she is supporting Putin so she is bad too.

Has anyone from the US stated that it would not be dangerous for these labs to be destroyed? If so, who, and if not, there is no counter-argument to her claim.

There are a handful of Ukrainian-run biological threat analysis and defence labs in Ukraine, but theres no evidence to suggest that they are working on biological weapons as far-right commentators and the Russian government have claimed. Its also not a certainty that the labs would release dangerous pathogens if damaged in the ongoing conflict, as experts have worked to destroy any dangerous substances on site.

Stop thinking so much you're going to hurt yourself. Just say you don't like Putin, and that she is supporting Putin so she is bad too.

So is your gimmick that you support Putin?

This one's a doozy

You missed the part where I told him to say Putin is bad. Do you not agree with that? I thought we were all agreeing.

Yes. It's literally in the OP

Its also not a certainty that the labs would release dangerous pathogens if damaged in the ongoing conflict

Not exactly somebody refuting their claim, seeing as it is not a claim, and there is no indication of who said that. At most, you could say the person writing the article claimed it, but even then, they didnt.

Unless there is someone saying there is no danger of harmful things being released you cant really say that someone saying harmful things could be released is out of line.

So you feel it's appropriate wording for her to say people WILL be killed?

Naturally, Id prefer the term may be killed.

Are you saying that you agree that there are bio labs but are refuting that they contain dangerous pathogens? Or are you saying that they have dangerous pathogens but there is no danger if the labs are destroyed?

You placed a large amount of focus on the verbiage ( there is no danger of harmful things being released). Since you asked for a counter argument (post 27), the counter argument is that her definitive statement ("will be killed) is false/unprovable.

I haven't claimed either statement as I don't have enough information (haven't searched enough) to determine WHAT is in the Ukrainian labs. As a parallel, the CDC has "labs" but not everything in each of them are dangerous (research on carcinogens, genetics, etc) should they be "blown up".

I can see the argument about her labeling the danger so absolutely.

Here are the facts that we can all agree on:

There are bio labs in Ukraine.

These labs are at least partially funded by the US.

The state department has stated that the Ukraine has bio labs that they are quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of.

Russia claims that these labs develop bio weapons, which the state department does not confirm nor deny(which is the appropriate response).

Here are your rubles comrade

Ugh, I hate when Hillary Clinton is right

Russia claims that these labs develop bio weapons, which the state department does not confirm nor deny(which is the appropriate response).

There's your problem. Stop falling for Russian propaganda.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1503146207132200965?t=EwsE9ectrNXtB7xHgwVM3A&s=19



"If you didn't serve (...or have family in the service), you can't criticize opinions of those who did!!"

Odd claim to make with no proof, but it's alarming how many people trust Mitt Romney

I love when they say shit like this.

Benedict Arnold was in the military.