4 ms·

What “horse-shit” are they peddling? If they’re saying that vaccine programs are being used by the US to kill people, they’re right. That’s the whole problem: i

• writepub 8y ago
  "vaccine programs are being used by the US to kill people," That couldn't be further from the truth. They infiltrated the vaccination program of one single street to catch the world's most wanted terrorist. They aren't on a mass killing campaign via vaccinations! Again - stop lending credence to the distortions pedaled by terrorists.
  • monocasa 8y ago
    Just because they're using the program to kill someone you want dead, doesn't mean they aren't using the program to kill people.
    • writepub 8y ago
      Here's the kind of credence you're lending to terrorist's narratives: "How ISIS' use of trucks to kill pedestrians poses a grave threat to us all" - Despite ISIS' use of vehicles to mow down pedestrians, I think we can safely agree that vehicles don't pose a threat to the civilized world. In a similar vein, an isolated incident of targeted infiltration of a vaccination campaign doesn't endanger anyone - unless you lend credence terrorist narratives that it does
      • monocasa 8y ago
        The 'narrative' is that the US will co-opt programs as critical and important as vaccination to meet it's temporary geopolitical goals. That is demonstrably and objectively true. Comparisons with ISIS are unfounded in mind. We're expected to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that. ISIS is such a rock bottom standard it's sitting in a lava pool in hell.
        • writepub 8y ago
          How's the elimination of the most wanted terrorist who reshaped geopolitics a 'temporary geopolitical goal'? Your deduction is neither demonstrable, nor is it objective. You've really proven nothing
          • monocasa 8y ago
            > How's the elimination of the most wanted terrorist who reshaped geopolitics a 'temporary geopolitical goal'? How is it not?
            • writepub 8y ago
              We're drifting into debating opinions, which is typically a dead end. Suffice to say that the elimination of Osama - the killer of over 10,000 innocent Americans, and head of a terrorist organization with hundreds of thousands of members and sympathizers, was high priority for America, across the political spectrum
              • mikeash 8y ago
                The opinions don’t even matter here. The fact is that the US subverted a vaccination program in order to kill people. Whether you think that was net good or bad is irrelevant.
          • nl 8y ago
            In a similar vein, an isolated incident of targeted infiltration of a vaccination campaign doesn't endanger anyone - unless you lend credence terrorist narratives that it does To quote the link Scientific American article: The distrust sowed by the sham campaign in Pakistan could conceivably postpone polio eradication for 20 years, leading to 100,000 more cases that might otherwise not have occurred, says Leslie F. Roberts of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. “Forevermore, people would say this disease, this crippled child is because the U.S. was so crazy to get Osama bin Laden,” he argues. and As outlined in a letter signed by the deans of a dozen prominent schools of public health that was sent to the White House, President Barack Obama should direct all U.S. military and intelligence agencies to refrain from using a medical or humanitarian cover to achieve their objectives. So I think your point that there is no danger and it lends credence to terrorist narratives to say it does is difficult argument to make. It's public health officials in the US saying that when they criticized Obama.
  • mikeash 8y ago
    So, they used a vaccine program to kill people? Edit: downvoted, huh? Well, sorry, but facts are facts even if you don’t like them.