Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by identity-X, Jun 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    7.5 million in tax dollars

    http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html

    (CBS 5) BERKELEY A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

    Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

    Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

    As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

    The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

    "The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviwing the documents.

    "The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.

    The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.

    "The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching and developing non-lethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform," said a DOD spokesperson, who indicated that the "gay bomb" idea was quickly dismissed.

    However, Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has acknowledged.

    "The truth of the matter is it would have never come to my attention if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed," he said. "In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote non-lethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."

    Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was abandoned.

    Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the notion of a "gay bomb" both offensive and almost laughable at the same time.

    "Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction," said Geoff Kors of Equality California. "So, it's just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And its absurd because there's so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed."
    test
  2. M.Maestro

    M.Maestro Ghost

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    12,124
    test
  3. Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A "Fire Bomb"

    "Throughout history we have had so many uses of fire serving our society with distinction," said Bob, a normal fucking person.. "So, it's just offensive that they think by using fire as a weapon to use on people that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And its absurd because there's so much scientific data that shows that when you cook with fire, it makes people hungry, not dead. That is immutable and cannot be changed."
    test
  4. So, ID-X... if the military can deploy nanomaachines that an invade a person's brain and adjust the neurochemistry to effectively imitate a gay person's brain... would that be that considered eventual genocide or liberation?
    test
  5. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny]

    Hilarious and sad
    What a waste of tax dollars
    test
  6. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Did this story come from THE ONION?

    LMAO!

    If They're going to spend my tax dollars on anything military they should spend it on Invisibility.

    Weren't most the greeks homosexual? Yet they managed to conquer the persians. LOL! Don't we have homosexuals in our army? Don't ask don't tell policy! Can you imagine what would happen if they took one of us prisoner? Two in the stink.
    test
  7. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    eventual genocide, especially if it affects huge percentages of a particular population

    why?

    *scratches head*
    test
  8. So.. are you suggesting that a group entity that finds a way to force homosexuality on a population that doesn't want it is committing eventual genocide on that population?
    test
  9. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    lol @ gay bomb

    that shit would be ill
    test
  10. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    Checkmate

    [funny]
    test
  11. Konscious

    Konscious Resident Sage

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 1999
    Messages:
    10,508
    This is perfect fodder for comedians... I see so many great jokes coming out of this.
    test
  12. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    if it can "force" them to be physically unable to have sex with members of the opposite sex, then yes.

    if it can devise a way to make sex with the opposite sex so traumatic psychologically, perhaps to the point that it is physiologically painful or even harmful, then yes.

    if it can do this to nearly everyone within that population, then yes. if it only affects, say, 10% of the population then no.



    I also assume you mean "forcing" homosexual acts as opposed to "forcing" attraction for the same sex. if not, let me know...
    test
  13. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I wasn't going to say anything, Because I wanted to see if identity-X would figure it out. Obviously he still doesn't get it.

    I wrote this out yesterday, but never posted it in respect to ghet's trap.

    You walked right into that one like a sliding glass door had just been windexed.

    LMAO @ X agreeing Homosexuality is forced genocide. LOL!

    LMAO!

    label this thread classic [funny]
    test
  14. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I drop gay bombs like God hates fags.
    test
  15. Advertising cultures and lifestyles on television is very close to forcing. If it wasn't, people woudln't spend billiosn a year on advertising at all. I work in the industry. I make commercials *ALL* day.

    Wait... how the fuck does physical pain have anything to do with a condition for effectively sterilizing an entire population?

    Jews were *FAR* under 10% of the European population in 1930.

    The statement was clear:

    You suggesting that a group entity that finds a way to force homosexuality on a population that doesn't want it is committing eventual genocide on that population.

    You can make these cute boundaries on why it isn't genocide, which is... again, cute... but the fact remains. Trying to convince a population to be homosexual or sit quietly and tolerate it (under penalty of lawsuit or prison time) or downright rewiring how one views the social constructs of reproduction in general is ultimately eventualy genocide.

    You had it right the first time.
    test
  16. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    no...it isn't close...not in the least...

    everywhere I look, men and women have stopped fucking each other...

    the end is nigh!

    just an example.

    I wouldn't want to fuck women if fucking women put me in intense physical pain.

    [dunno]

    and?

    the point was, if 10% of Jews (not Europeans) are not having heterosexual sex, the number of Jewish people isn't necessarily going to start dwindling.

    if 90% of Jews aren't having heterosexual sex, it might be a different story

    I wasn't giving cute boundaries to explain how such a situation wouldn't be considered genocide...i was setting the boundaries that would have to be in place for it to be consdered genocide.
    test
  17. Tequila Jong-il

    Tequila Jong-il SALAD TOSSER

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426
    test
  18. UnbrokeN

    UnbrokeN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    22,568
    what do you mean
    test
  19. ....

    So now Id-X doesn't seem to believe advertising isn't effective! That's completely awesome! Anything to win an argument! Let's take an example of how effective advertising is!

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ3r5cOKTXY[/youtube]

    I have a job doing this shit. If you think this video is bad, you should see the propaganistic shit I have to do for a bunch of hippies at the Grammies. It's no fucking different.

    Homosexuality is, by your own admission, eventual genocide when it is being administered on a population that doesn't want it. There is no loophole to get around it *ESPECIALLY* when the population *DOESN'T* want it!
    test
  20. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    dude...i teach a course on culture and mass media. you think i don't cover the ways that we're all being duped, how we all buy into shit, and how we usually don't even know it?

    is homosexuality "on the rise"? is our population dwindling solely because everybody is turning homosexual? not in the leasat

    are more people becoming accepting of OTHERS who are homosexual? perhaps, and that gets a big hoorah from me. currently, this has nothing to do with genocide.

    it very well could be, assuming the above boundaries are in place.

    ANYthing that would lead to an extermination of an entire people is genocide...that's the definition, no? If a bomb can be created that completely strips people of their human agency and make heterosexual activities impossible, that would in fact constitute genocide. You can't make offspring, you can't survive.

    You were fishing for an answer from the get-go. Under no circumstances would i consider dropping a gay bomb "liberation", but under SOME circumstances dropping a gay bomb could lead to "genocide". Ergo I chose the latter. As always, the world isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)