Bah. The war we have with small organisms and/semi alive things like viruses is not subject to the whim and caprice of our wars with other humans.
Are you familiar with the term
biological warfare?
"Biological warfare (BW)also known as germ warfareis the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war."
"Biological weapons may be employed in various ways to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over the enemy,
either by threats or by actual deployments."
I do not think YOU understand. The essential fact of survival of these organisms is predicated on their not needing "helpful terrorists" to spread them around. They don't care. They do quite well on their own, thank you kindly.
It is true that certain weaponized concoctions do require them to be purposefully spread around in target areas to have an effect.
It is a ridiculous false flag alarm and an exercise in futility to raise such fears with ebola.
When you counter "Yeah but THEY COULD...."
...that's an example of what's called in logic an "irrefutable hypothesis"
..."Yeh, but there COULD be a God.."
"...Yeah, but there COULD be a big forest fire..."
and so forth.
People like arguing.
The silly part is that you both are correct, about different things, and arguing against each other anyhow.
These are two separate points and effects.
1) Virus don't need wickedness to spread, there exist killer microbes, and one day they'll come.
2) Government expands its power absurdly in response to crises (it doesn't take a false flag, any ol' flag will do, in this case CT for example has already done so preemptively).