It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
cbs5.com...

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."

---

I hope this hasn't been posted yet. What are your thoughts on this matter?



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
hahahah that is soooooo great. Is this a reliable source?!?! I guess its better then being hit with cluster bombs!



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Judging from reading around on the site, I'd say it's reliable as far as a media site can go.

When i read this too I thought something pretty much on the lines of "that's ridiculous!".

Brings non lethal combat to a new level, thats for sure...




posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Seems that this was used on San Francisco a while back. With great success, I might add. It is said that no one noticed except the local zoning commission, which reported an above average increase for applications for permits to build new gay bath houses. [Joke-
don't stone me, I couldn't help myself.]

I'm all better now.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I've heard about this before - It's not so surprising when you consider some of the other suggestions, '___' was (supposedly) to be sprayed over enemy lines.

Ask me I wouldn't share my '___', but then again I can't shoot for %£*t!

Wiki link on the 'bummer boy bomb' (I just invented that name
)

[edit on 11/6/2007 by Now_Then]

[edit on 11/6/2007 by Now_Then]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I wonder if they just bomb the 'enemy' or both sides. I mean it does give a whole new meaning to 'love thy enemy'


I'll stop. I promise. I just can't get past the idea that they spent money on this, and yet they don't want to acknowledge gays in the military.

I'm not near as afraid of the NWO as I was before this post.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I must look to see if there are no training instructions on how to 'handle' the new type of POWs.

And does this fall under hand to hand combat? Do you get a purple heart if you're injured during engaging the enemy? How do you explain this when you get home to the spouse?

I LOVE ATS!



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
..Do you get a purple heart if you're injured during engaging the enemy?..


Purple heart? I thought you'd be awarded the brown star



[edit on 11-6-2007 by citizen smith]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Hahahaha you guys are both horrible and hilarious at the same time!



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Drop it on Iraq & Iran. "may I be to humping you please?



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This is a hard thing to believe, how can a bomb only be made target a certain group of people a racialy discriminated bomb?

How can it target one side and not the other?

This is bringing the old said of make love no wars to the extreme.

BTW I think this was brought up before in ATS.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Marg, It's not meant to target gays, it's meant to turn everyone gay so they all drop their guns and have sex with each other instead of fighting.

And yes this has been posted here several times a long time ago.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith

Originally posted by NGC2736
..Do you get a purple heart if you're injured during engaging the enemy?..


Purple heart? I thought you'd be awarded the brown star



[edit on 11-6-2007 by citizen smith]


hahahahah thats so great... im sorry im just laughing my ass off right now.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
And yes this has been posted here several times a long time ago.


Yes I kind of remember the thread now, still what a silly thing to do.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
This does sound familiar.

I don't quite get how turning someone gay would make them not want to fight, but who cares, it's hilarious.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
It's not the first time I have heard of this. Imagine how demoralizing this would be to the enemy? If I remember, the effect would be only temporary, yet leave their army in tatters.

Darpa has lots of whacko ideas, some of them probably have turned out successful. Just do some research into things DARPA is trying to develop.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigern
This does sound familiar.

I don't quite get how turning someone gay would make them not want to fight, but who cares, it's hilarious.


Yeah, obviously the folks at the Pentagon have never met any evil queens. Good lord, they would be a-scratching each others eyes out. Not to mention fighting over uniform accessories.

It would be a blood bath!



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
"Mohammar"
"Hussain"
"Mohammar"
"Hussain"
"Yes, yes"
"This will show the US"
"Is your bomb ready?"
"Yes, it's ready to detonate!"
"Take that you Yankee dogs!"
"This is what Yankee aggression means!"



"You want a cigarette, Hussain?"



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigern
I don't quite get how turning someone gay would make them not want to fight, but who cares, it's hilarious.


It's not exactly ment to turn people gay.

It's ment to make sex more important than any thing else, it's just that you are likely to be surrounded by other blokes at the time - it's enough to bring tears to your eyes


If I had one bottle of this (hypothetical) stuff I would make a killing on e-bay.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
A chemical weapon is still a chemical weapon - even if it's considered non lethal.

LOL - I can't imagine what they were thinking. Airborne viagra?

We can be so "not right" sometimes.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join