The Ledge
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Ledge (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/index.php)
-   Chit Chat (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Chemical weapons designed to make the enemy homosexual (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=17711)

½ ¡Ñ§ÅñË ® 01-16-2005 11:48 AM
Chemical weapons designed to make the enemy homosexual
 
http://www.newscientist.com/article....800&print=true

Pentagon reveals rejected chemical weapons
15 January 2005
From New Scientist Print Edition.

THE Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.
Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behavior among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.
Other ideas included chemical weapons that attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats to troop positions, making them uninhabitable. Another was to develop a chemical that caused "severe and lasting halitosis", making it easy to identify guerrillas trying to blend in with civilians. There was also the idea of making troops' skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight.
The proposals, from the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, date from 1994. The lab sought Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals". The plans have been posted online by the Sunshine Project, an organization that exposes research into chemical and biological weapons.
Spokesman Edward Hammond says it was not known if the proposed $7.5 million, six-year research plan was ever pursued.
:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

77Rumours77 01-16-2005 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ½ ¡Ñ§ÅñË ®
http://www.newscientist.com/article....800&print=true

Pentagon reveals rejected chemical weapons
15 January 2005
From New Scientist Print Edition.

THE Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.
Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behavior among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.
Other ideas included chemical weapons that attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats to troop positions, making them uninhabitable. Another was to develop a chemical that caused "severe and lasting halitosis", making it easy to identify guerrillas trying to blend in with civilians. There was also the idea of making troops' skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight.
The proposals, from the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, date from 1994. The lab sought Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals". The plans have been posted online by the Sunshine Project, an organization that exposes research into chemical and biological weapons.
Spokesman Edward Hammond says it was not known if the proposed $7.5 million, six-year research plan was ever pursued.
:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

for once I have no comment :eek: :shocked: :confused: :rolleyes:

GateandGarden 01-16-2005 12:12 PM
What is with that avatar?

Though not as shocking as the article, I guess.

ontheEdgeof17 01-16-2005 12:16 PM
Where is that weapon?!?!!? I'm shooting down the White House with Homo Pox. :laugh:

Violet 01-16-2005 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GateandGarden
What is with that avatar?
They really do look like they're eating each other, don't they?

ryan8472 01-16-2005 12:31 PM
OMG :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

ontheEdgeof17 01-16-2005 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GateandGarden
What is with that avatar?

It's better than the dancing Santa penis. :nod: :lol:

estranged4life 01-16-2005 01:11 PM
Ya know...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ½ ¡Ñ§ÅñË ®
http://www.newscientist.com/article....800&print=true

Pentagon reveals rejected chemical weapons
15 January 2005
From New Scientist Print Edition.

THE Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.

Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behavior among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.

Other ideas included chemical weapons that attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats to troop positions, making them uninhabitable. Another was to develop a chemical that caused "severe and lasting halitosis", making it easy to identify guerrillas trying to blend in with civilians. There was also the idea of making troops' skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight.

The proposals, from the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, date from 1994. The lab sought Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals". The plans have been posted online by the Sunshine Project, an organization that exposes research into chemical and biological weapons.

Spokesman Edward Hammond says it was not known if the proposed $7.5 million, six-year research plan was ever pursued.
:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

that's kinda strange to read. I remember reading an article years ago (At least back in the late eighties) about how the US military had "possibly" created a bio/chemical weapon and tested it successfully on a part of the population that the government considered "Expendible to society", And how this bio/chem could shorten one's lifespan and also how it could "eradicate their being"...

Once this "weapon" was tested it spread out of control and not only were those who were considered "Expendible to society" affected but those who were considered "intergral parts of society" were also unknowingly infected...

The bio/chemical weapon in question has long been rumoured to have been AIDS/HIV! For some reason the article posted above sounded ironically smiliar to that article I read...Hell, I never forgot that article because it still sounds somewhat plausible.

77Rumours77 01-16-2005 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GateandGarden
What is with that avatar?

Thought not as shocking as the article, I guess.
That would be Madonna and Britney Spears
Unless you already figured it out... :wavey:

GateandGarden 01-16-2005 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 77Rumours77
That would be Madonna and Britney Spears
Unless you already figured it out... :wavey:
Yeah, I saw it replayed on TV eighty times. I considered it quite offensive to the GLBT community.

ontheEdgeof17 01-16-2005 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GateandGarden
Yeah, I saw it replayed on TV eighty times. I considered it quite offensive to the GLBT community.

How so? It was just for shock value. I don't see how it is offensive....just as 'offensive' as what goes on during Will and Grace.

Lala 01-16-2005 01:24 PM
I read about this in the paper last night on my break @ work. I thought it was pretty disgusting.

In Mr. Buckingham's words..."What's the world coming to?"

77Rumours77 01-16-2005 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GateandGarden
Yeah, I saw it replayed on TV eighty times. I considered it quite offensive to the GLBT community.
It was cool the fist 20 times now its just annoying!

Madonna! You could of done better than that! God only know the STD's she has now.. Poor poor Madonna! She now has Herpes, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, ect, ect, ect.. :laugh:

GypsySorcerer 01-16-2005 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
How so? It was just for shock value. I don't see how it is offensive....just as 'offensive' as what goes on during Will and Grace.
I know I can't speak for the GLBT community. I don't know if it was offensive, but I think that portrayls of lesbianism as "two girls showing off and trying to turn men on" is negative. :shrug: I don't know, that was just my take.

GateandGarden 01-16-2005 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
How so? It was just for shock value. I don't see how it is offensive....just as 'offensive' as what goes on during Will and Grace.
The characters on "Will and Grace" are supposed to actually be gay or bisexual. Britney and Madonna (and Christina) just wanted to take advantage of the fact that insincere homosexual acts seem to be trendy in our times. Homosexuality is not a game, a joke, or a publicity stunt. Like heterosexuality, homosexuality should not be a trend. I don't want people to be saying "Oh yeah, the decade of 2000-2009, when it was cool to watch reality TV, sport tacky furry boots, wear 80s retro fashion, and be gay for 2 minutes." Homosexuality should not be in that category. What made all of it worse was when Britney came out and said she would never kiss a woman again unless it was Madonna. What an idiot. I just really hated that and talked to quite a few other gays who felt the same way. Perhaps we're uptight. :shrug:

GateandGarden 01-16-2005 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer
I know I can't speak for the GLBT community. I don't now if it was offensive, but I think that portrayls of lesbianism as "two girls showing off and trying to turn men on" is negative. :shrug: I don't know, that was just my take.
And what she said. :nod: :wavey:

ontheEdgeof17 01-16-2005 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GateandGarden
The characters on "Will and Grace" are supposed to actually be gay or bisexual. Britney and Madonna (and Christina) just wanted to take advantage of the fact that insincere homosexual acts seem to be trendy in our times. Homosexuality is not a game, a joke, or a publicity stunt. Like heterosexuality, homosexuality should not be a trend. I don't want people to be saying "Oh yeah, the decade of 2000-2009, when it was cool to watch reality TV, sport tacky furry boots, wear 80s retro fashion, and be gay for 2 minutes." Homosexuality should not be in that category. What made all of it worse was when Britney came out and said she would never kiss a woman again unless it was Madonna. What an idiot. I just really hated that and talked to quite a few other gays who felt the same way. Perhaps we're uptight. :shrug:

Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is/was a trend. If it wasn't a trend, we wouldn't have the gay shows and gay themes on the media. As you can see, since it is becoming more taboo again, the gay shows are more calmer. You don't see kissing on Will and Grace....it's very calm compared to what it was in like 2000.

For me, it was a good thing to have everything out in the open so people can see how 'normal' it was. However, it was overkill and now the backlash has begun. Eventually, there will be little to no gay references on the media, IMO.

GateandGarden 01-16-2005 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is/was a trend. If it wasn't a trend, we wouldn't have the gay shows and gay themes on the media. As you can see, since it is becoming more taboo again, the gay shows are more calmer. You don't see kissing on Will and Grace....it's very calm compared to what it was in like 2000.

For me, it was a good thing to have everything out in the open so people can see how 'normal' it was. However, it was overkill and now the backlash has begun. Eventually, there will be little to no gay references on the media, IMO.
I think you're right that a lot of it is necessary just to get it out to the public so everyone can be aware that homosexuality is here. (I'll restrain myself from the "We're here, we're..." yeah, you know :laugh: ) Anyway, I think there's a fine line. I think Britney, Madonna, and Christina crossed it. When it becomes something that is not at all about tolerance and acceptance but merely about making money and arousing straight guys, I do not approve. I'm not sure but I think the backlash you're talking about that is a response to two guys kissing on "Will and Grace" is different from one that would come from two straight women kissing for publicity. I expect people to accept two gay men kissing but I expect people to be offended by Britney and Madonna obviously exploiting homosexuality. Of course, I always expect too much of people. :rolleyes: Are people not able to differentiate? I think "Will and Grace" should be very open because we haven't reached lots of people yet. There is still so much to be done. I don't think Britney and Madonna made anyone more open-minded about homosexuality or bisexuality. I hope this makes sense. I felt like I just rambled. :o

Serrart 01-16-2005 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 77Rumours77
It was cool the fist 20 times now its just annoying!

Madonna! You could of done better than that! God only know the STD's she has now.. Poor poor Madonna! She now has Herpes, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, ect, ect, ect.. :laugh:
I think it was very pathetic, Madonna shamelessly and consciously used the not so bright Britney Spears in a trashy way only to rise media attention. :nod:

Romy

ontheEdgeof17 01-16-2005 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GateandGarden
I think you're right that a lot of it is necessary just to get it out to the public so everyone can be aware that homosexuality is here. (I'll restrain myself from the "We're here, we're..." yeah, you know :laugh: ) Anyway, I think there's a fine line. I think Britney, Madonna, and Christina crossed it. When it becomes something that is not at all about tolerance and acceptance but merely about making money and arousing straight guys, I do not approve. I'm not sure but I think the backlash you're talking about that is a response to two guys kissing on "Will and Grace" is different from one that would come from two straight women kissing for publicity. I expect people to accept two gay men kissing but I expect people to be offended by Britney and Madonna obviously exploiting homosexuality. Of course, I always expect too much of people. :rolleyes: Are people not able to differentiate? I think "Will and Grace" should be very open because we haven't reached lots of people yet. There is still so much to be done. I don't think Britney and Madonna made anyone more open-minded about homosexuality or bisexuality. I hope this makes sense. I felt like I just rambled. :o

I just don't see the difference. Madonna hasn't had sexual boundaries long before being gay was 'in'. There was no surprise from me because she's been kissing girls for years.

I just don't understand why you think it is okay for actors playing gay to kiss, but not for two women who are straight? Will and Grace plays on the sterotypes of homosexuals.....guys that can't have a monogamous relationship....having "fag hags"......being flighty and fruity. I think that is worse for the GLBT community than Madonna...who embraced the gay community long before anyone else did.

GateandGarden 01-16-2005 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
I just don't see the difference. Madonna hasn't had sexual boundaries long before being gay was 'in'. There was no surprise from me because she's been kissing girls for years.

I just don't understand why you think it is okay for actors playing gay to kiss, but not for two women who are straight? Will and Grace plays on the sterotypes of homosexuals.....guys that can't have a monogamous relationship....having "fag hags"......being flighty and fruity. I think that is worse for the GLBT community than Madonna...who embraced the gay community long before anyone else did.
Well, I guess I haven't considered the negative things that "Will and Grace" has presented. I suppose if I had done that I would have a problem. But then if they tried to be unrealistic and make gay people out to be perfect people then would definitely be a problem as well. I would prefer some sort of happy medium. But, you're right about Madonna--she has always done that, but what about Britney? You know she wasn't about promoting tolerance when she said there's no way she'd ever do that again unless it was with Madonna. I almost took that comment as homophobic, but then I just thought it was too stupid and senseless to be homophobic. :laugh: I know they're both acting, but I didn't think the cast of "Will and Grace" really thought of homosexuality as a joke. I thought there was something more genuine there. :shrug:

77Rumours77 01-16-2005 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
I just don't see the difference. Madonna hasn't had sexual boundaries long before being gay was 'in'. There was no surprise from me because she's been kissing girls for years.

I just don't understand why you think it is okay for actors playing gay to kiss, but not for two women who are straight? Will and Grace plays on the sterotypes of homosexuals.....guys that can't have a monogamous relationship....having "fag hags"......being flighty and fruity. I think that is worse for the GLBT community than Madonna...who embraced the gay community long before anyone else did.
Someone clue me in.... I though Madonna was an Icon in the GLBT community?? :shrug:

GateandGarden 01-16-2005 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 77Rumours77
Someone clue me in.... I though Madonna was an Icon in the GLBT community?? :shrug:
She is. But all I can say is that I talked to some gays and bisexuals on the internet who said it offended them. And I talked to some straight people who said it offended them because they are straight allies. Perhaps it was more so Britney's involvement and her comments that followed that offended many. :shrug:

estranged4life 01-16-2005 02:26 PM
Ya left off...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 77Rumours77
It was cool the fist 20 times now its just annoying!

Madonna! You could of done better than that! God only know the STD's she has now.. Poor poor Madonna! She now has Herpes, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, ect, ect, ect.. :laugh:
lip sync-itis, One hit-wonderdom and worse of all multiple-marriages-for-publicity-syndrome!!!

Serrart 01-16-2005 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
I just don't see the difference. Madonna hasn't had sexual boundaries long before being gay was 'in'. There was no surprise from me because she's been kissing girls for years.
Yes, but this time she's done it in TV without a logic reason, except: "Buy my album, even if it's awful because I'm cool", or "Come on guys this is for the voyeurs in you", or "see MTV audience what I do with your little hot sensation who's been using the "I'm a virgin" card for years?". :rolleyes:

Romy

77Rumours77 01-16-2005 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by estranged4life
lip sync-itis, One hit-wonderdom and worse of all multiple-marriages-for-publicity-syndrome!!!
:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:
I like madonna, But a lot of her stuff she has dont in the past decade has really just made me dislike her. But Sadly I would still pay to see her!

estranged4life 01-16-2005 02:41 PM
Not me...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 77Rumours77
:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:
I like madonna, But a lot of her stuff she has dont in the past decade has really just made me dislike her. But Sadly I would still pay to see her!
havent payed attention to Madonna since the mid-80's...She had her day in the sun, She should be content with it.

As for Brit-Kneed "Overblown 'entertainer' #1" Speared, I will be glad when she falls off this planet..."The sooner, the better as long as she is a whole lot deader."

Hey Brit-kneed, Either do a Hustler spread (Trust me, If her 'fame' start to wane she will be posing for a smut mag) or go drink some liquid Clorox okay?

ontheEdgeof17 01-16-2005 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GateandGarden
She is. But all I can say is that I talked to some gays and bisexuals on the internet who said it offended them. And I talked to some straight people who said it offended them because they are straight allies. Perhaps it was more so Britney's involvement and her comments that followed that offended many. :shrug:

So if Madonna kissed KD Lang, it would have been okay or if Ellen smooched on Defranco?

I'm just one to see performing as performing. Will and Grace doesn't offend me, but I can definately see them playing on sterotypes. Madonna and Britney kissing does not offend me. John Mayer has kissed guys on stage and no one makes an uproar about that. Madonna knew what she was doing....she knew the public would eat it up.....just like SnL, IMO. They know their stage antics would be ate up by us.

Johnny Stew 01-16-2005 03:46 PM
I guess the problem people had with the Madonna/Britney kiss (oh, and let's not forget that Christina kissed Mo, too. She HATES when people forget she did it too! :laugh: ) is that it didn't seem as if it was done for entertainment's sake or enlightenment's sake, but rather for the sake of being sensationalistic.

But, look at it this way... even though most TV and radio discussions of the kiss, leaned towards the lascivious angle, it still got people TALKING about a subject that people don't like to talk about.

Personally, I didn't have any problems with it. In fact, I was not the least bit shocked. :shrug:
Of all the things Madonna and her dancers have done on stage over the years in relation to homosexuality (the male dancers writhing on each other during "The Beast Within," or Mo, Donna and Niki simulating a bisexual orgy with the dancers during "Deeper & Deeper," etc.), her kissing Britney and Christina seemed tame.

I cannot wait for the day when the sight of same-gender kissing becomes passé to everyone. I'll be thrilled when it becomes so commonplace and so non-sensationalistic, that people couldn't care less who does it, or where and when.

That's the way it should be.

dissention 01-16-2005 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Stew
I guess the problem people had with the Madonna/Britney kiss (oh, and let's not forget that Christina kissed Mo, too. She HATES when people forget she did it too! :laugh: ) is that it didn't seem as if it was done for entertainment's sake or enlightenment's sake, but rather for the sake of being sensationalistic.
My problem with it was that it was such an obvious publicity stunt. I don't give a rats ass about it being "shocking" or anything like that because I wasn't shocked or offended. I just laughed at it because it was one of the worst PR stunts I've ever seen. And this was right around the time that Madonna was promoting her childrens book. I mean, c'mon. :lol:

amber 01-16-2005 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Stew
I cannot wait for the day when the sight of same-gender kissing becomes passé to everyone. I'll be thrilled when it becomes so commonplace and so non-sensationalistic, that people couldn't care less who does it, or where and when.

That's the way it should be.
Heck, i already feel that way. It should be a matter of, oh, only 50 to 100 years before all the rest of the country catches up... :rolleyes: :laugh:

amber 01-16-2005 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissention
My problem with it was that it was such an obvious publicity stunt. I don't give a rats ass about it being "shocking" or anything like that because I wasn't shocked or offended. I just laughed at it because it was one of the worst PR stunts I've ever seen. And this was right around the time that Madonna was promoting her childrens book. I mean, c'mon. :lol:
My problem with it is that i don't think any of them are hot!! :lol: :lol: JK.

Johnny Stew 01-16-2005 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissention
My problem with it was that it was such an obvious publicity stunt. I don't give a rats ass about it being "shocking" or anything like that because I wasn't shocked or offended. I just laughed at it because it was one of the worst PR stunts I've ever seen. And this was right around the time that Madonna was promoting her childrens book. I mean, c'mon. :lol:
Well, you're right. It did smack of "look at this KISS! Isn't it HOT?! Now buy our albums, PLEASE!"

In the past, as shocking as stuff that Madonna has done, was... it always seemed like there was a deeper meaning. She was trying to rouse people out of complacency, and open their eyes and minds to other cultures and ways of living.

The Mo/Britney/Christina kiss seemed somehow desperate and sad. But I wasn't the least bit offended or put off by it, no matter what their reasons for doing it.

estranged4life 01-16-2005 04:12 PM
The current status...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Stew
Well, you're right. It did smack of "look at this KISS! Isn't it HOT?! Now buy our albums, PLEASE!"
of this country proves if you want to make more $$$$ just jump on the proverbial tried-and-true "let's do an offensive publicity stunt for cash" bandwagon...Big f**ckin' Yawn for both Mu-dunna and Brit-Kneed Speared

Johnny Stew 01-16-2005 04:15 PM
I'm tellin' ya, Brian... when I release my first album, I'm going to go on TV and kiss every cute guy I see.

Oh, who am I kidding... I'm willing to do that even without an album to promote! ;) :laugh:

ontheEdgeof17 01-16-2005 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Stew
I'm tellin' ya, Brian... when I release my first album, I'm going to go on TV and kiss every cute guy I see.

Oh, who am I kidding... I'm willing to do that even without an album to promote! ;) :laugh:

If an artist you loved kissed someone on stage, there wouldn't be a problem with it. People just complain when they don't like the artist.

Johnny Stew 01-16-2005 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
If an artist you loved kissed someone on stage, there wouldn't be a problem with it. People just complain when they don't like the artist.
Personally, I want to see Chris Isaak and Michael Bublé make-out. :o :blob1:

sunmaiden 01-16-2005 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
If an artist you loved kissed someone on stage, there wouldn't be a problem with it. People just complain when they don't like the artist.

Yeah, sorry but I DO NOT like Britnet Spears, and thought that kiss was weird. I like Madonna, kudos to her, but not Britney. And that avatar is grossing me out! It was funny the first time I saw it, then very annoying the second...third...etc.

ontheEdgeof17 01-16-2005 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Stew
Personally, I want to see Chris Isaak and Michael Bublé make-out. :o :blob1:

John Mayer and Adam Levine was HOTT!

dissention 01-16-2005 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
John Mayer and Adam Levine was HOTT!
John Mayer's eyes freak me out. I always end up looking for track marks. :laugh:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 PM.
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved