Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: S0122017
Unless they plan to spread the common cold virus, yes. Besides, they coined the terms 'bioagents' in the war against terror, as something very lethal that terrorists use. Not to mention that the concept of any weapon based on live biological organisms is outlawed by conventions

So you are assuming this rifle has no other application than in war, right?

I really don't understand the big deal here.

10 posted on 03/15/2006 10:01:10 AM PST by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: frogjerk

The problem? You don't see it?
No matter how you define bioagents, the official definition is that of a weapon. No weapon designer or researcher in their right mind would include it as 'potential use'. It would immediately classify the weapon as being part of outlawed weaponry.

And it doesn't matter what it will be used for in the end, what matters is that someone expected it to be used for war, and possibly for dispersal of outlawed agents.
How can the US army confront terror countries because of their bio and chemical weapons, if they are cosnidering their own?


14 posted on 03/15/2006 10:07:05 AM PST by S0122017 (I know something you don't know. If you know something I don't know, we can trade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson