Wenger'sBakedBaguettes
Member
Are you suggesting the end result (death) is different between conventional and chemical weapons? Are you trying to push for an exceptionalism here to feel good about killing done by the other side?
CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News
- Thread starter mackaveli
- Start date
- Status
BreezyLimbo
Banned
As I was responding to the other poster, I was answering his bewilderment that not alot said a peep about the dead in Mosul, atleast not compared to the dead in Syria.
And yes, I know what sarin gas is. Both resulted in dead people, just that some were "humanely" killed(fragmentation and explosion through airstrike) and some were murdered in a worse way(chemical attack). The end result is the same. Death.
I had no idea Russia bombed Raqqa and Mosul. /s
I think the fact they pulled their guys out says all that is needed.
If they wanted too, Putin could have hung up on trump and called in a media smear campaign in his media holdings essentially daring trump to go to defcon 2 publicly over this if he goes through with it. The fact that they just quietly pulled out their dudes and let it happen I think says they were willing to take a little bit of L here in order for everyone to save a little face.
No doubt it's horrific but I'm not sure getting blown half to bits is painless when it happened inadvertently to the 200 civilians in Syria and the rest in Iraq.
Not to mention the white phosphorous use by America in Iraq.
Where are the calls for airstrikes against US forces?
El_Tiguere
Member
I can see three scenarios :
- False flag from the Israel/Saudi Arabia/Qatar crew to get the US in the fight against Assad.
- Pre-coordinated attack known by US and Russia as they have both turned against Assad and are ready to get him out.
- Assad has lost his shit and did it for the hell of it (unless the attack accomplished a strategic mission against rebels still holding out).
You can lose your limbs through a bomb and die an even longer and more painful death??????????????????
It isn't "just" conventional weapon use what Russia and Assad did.
They killed everyone (for example in Aleppo), no matter if foe, friend or civilian. You lived there, you were the enemy.
ultratruman
Banned
Conventional weapons are not mainly used to kill, the vast majority of bullets and bombs are used to suppress the enemy, destroy defences and control territory.
Sarin has just one purpose, and is inherently indiscriminate and volatile. It also marks a slippery slope into more and more extreme forms of warfare.
FlutterPuffs
Member
Fucking hell lads. The big uproar is because there's a reason we banned the use of chemical weapons
And yes while both missile and chem ends with deaths the point of it is chem there's not only excruciating pain, also that there will be tons of collateral, more than the usage of conventional weaponry.
Saying it all ends with death is simplifying it too much.
Google about sarin gas.
And yes while both missile and chem ends with deaths the point of it is chem there's not only excruciating pain, also that there will be tons of collateral, more than the usage of conventional weaponry.
Saying it all ends with death is simplifying it too much.
Google about sarin gas.
Sounds like Fallujah.
With one gust of the wind a chemical weapon can kill another few hundred (or thousand) people.
Explosives are fucking heinous but at least the explosion doesn't last hours and spread over a large space slowly.
Realistic option 4: assad has little to no control over the military and command infrastructure anymore and generals are just running wild, or is intentionally letting them run wild and one stepped over the line too far. The latter seems likely, because it's essentially how Putin runs the Kremlin these days. There was a fascinating article in foreign affairs a while back that detailed the loose nature of the Kremlin with Putin not really ever giving direct orders but dropping verbal hints in convos and his guys basically trip over themselves trying to out do one another in guessing what he wanted. The article said this was what happened with the downed civilian passenger jet that got blew up over Ukraine. One of the lieutenants got too carried away, and boom.
jackissocool
Member
Anything to excuse US war crimes
FreedomFighter
Member
I mean, I didn't see Nicky Haley holding up pics of children dead in Mosul strike that killed ~200 civilians. But they apparently care very deeply for the kids who died in Syria few days ago. I know you're being sarcastic but I get it... it's not how civilians are killed, it's by whom.
I agree with this statement. Is the only thing we can count on to happen these days. Doesn't matter who is President.
FlutterPuffs
Member
Explain to me what this has to do with people condemning sarin gas attacks.
Irishmantis
Member
Well... I see this thread went from WW3 Hysteria to a philosophical debate on Sarin vs explosives.
I got to keep up.
I got to keep up.
No. Sarin gas is worse. Worse that even the people that went in to help the victims of the Tokyo attacks are still suffering from the injuries 20 years later.
You know how double tapping is forbidden, sarin works like that from itself. It affects both the initial victims and the people coming to help them.
I think the person's agreeing, saying that people are handwaving chemical attacks to justify US actions
FreedomFighter
Member
Are we seriously condemning chemical weapons attacks but then saying convention bombing attacks are "Ok"?
An explosion might provoke a painful death vs. Sarin will provoke a painful death.
Possibility vs. certitude. The Sarin gas is used with criminal intent in every damn instance while bombing can be debatable in some instances.
That saying, bombing of civilians should be condemned every time.
thenight11
Member
@Ap BREAKING Russian military says it will help Syria strengthen its air defenses after US strike.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-airdefenc-idUKKBN1791FK
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-airdefenc-idUKKBN1791FK
Well you got past that and now we're in the chomsky stage of the debate where we all draw Talley marks in the sand to try and decide who's the worst person in the world.
People here trying to handwave away chemical weapons as if they're equivalent to any other means of killing someone need to spend some fucking time on liveleak and then get back to me.
Also, read some history while you're at it. There's a reason why they were outlawed and considered beyond the pale after WW1. Jesus christ.
Obviously in an ideal world people would not die.
But if people have to die, most of the civilized world has decided that the quickest and most painless way is the best way.
You're being ridiculous. Do we need to walk you through why torture is bad?
Also, read some history while you're at it. There's a reason why they were outlawed and considered beyond the pale after WW1. Jesus christ.
Obviously in an ideal world people would not die.
But if people have to die, most of the civilized world has decided that the quickest and most painless way is the best way.
You're being ridiculous. Do we need to walk you through why torture is bad?
FlutterPuffs
Member
RumblingRosco
Member
I know this is a very complex situation, but man, this is not making me feel very good.
Bubba_Sparks
Member
Does this strike really provide an avenue for escalation for any of the parties involved? If Assad doesn't use any more chemical weapons then the Trump administration can claim the strike was a success.
Audioboxer
Member
Well, for technicalities one is illegal, the other isn't (unless used illegally). I don't believe you can legally use chemical weapons. Even in a defensive war/retaliation.
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/conference-chemical-weapons-convention-2016
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/553?OpenDocument
Again, verging into some areas I'm not 100% as smart as others, but the way you're framing your argument seems a bit off considering there is a difference globally between the use of chemical weapons and traditional bombs/weapons.
Or go read any of the library's worth of books out there on ww1
A Serious Man
Member
Please include sources people.
Do we seriously have Sarin gas defender in here??
Any use of chemical weapons, especially nerve agents, should get a strong military response. I can't see any of the big players getting a snot on over this. They will just shrug and carry on.
Assad might have pissed off Putin too many times and he is ready to try a different tack wrt to Syria. All he wants is Russian naval presence in the region, if he can get that with someone else he jettison Assad pretty quick. Iran won't as easily, but could probably be brought to the table.
Any use of chemical weapons, especially nerve agents, should get a strong military response. I can't see any of the big players getting a snot on over this. They will just shrug and carry on.
Assad might have pissed off Putin too many times and he is ready to try a different tack wrt to Syria. All he wants is Russian naval presence in the region, if he can get that with someone else he jettison Assad pretty quick. Iran won't as easily, but could probably be brought to the table.
Mr. Giggles
Member
No sauce no love amigo
Two of them, no less.
Yep. Two of them. "They're no different than bombs, people end up dead!"
I feel like these people are fucking teenagers who don't know anything at all.
Infuriating.
Chemical weapons is a Pandora's box humamity doesn't want to open. It's extremely effective and attractive to use from a military perspective.
I have no comment about your second allegation. I abhor all sorts of violence, and what's happening in Syria is being used by all sides to further their particular agendas.
Wenger'sBakedBaguettes
Member
What a load of shit. W. Aleppo was under govt control and wasn't bombed by them. SAA coordinated with invited militias when retaking E.Aleppo so no they barely bombed friends or civilians in areas under their control. The ones that bombed W.Aleppo constant shelling, which rarely made big headlines in western media, was the West's "moderate rebel" Salafi bros. Same rebels who in E.Aleppo starved locals, oppressed them, prevented them from escaping to safer areas and shoot and killed those who were fleeing. Furthermore most sources on SAF/RuAf action on E.Aleppo came from terrorist sources. Western MSM depended on AQ/ISIS/FSA fighters and sympathizers for news because no journalist could travel there due to safety as they'd get tortured, killed or beheaded by the West's moderate rebels. Terrorists wanting to establish a Sunni theocracy with the massacre of all minorities in Syria are hardly credible sources. That obviously doesn't mean E.Aleppo wasn't attacked by Syria/Russia. It was and civilian casualties were high from their actions too
thenight11
Member
neurosisxeno
Member
Assad has used chemical weapons before and gotten in trouble for it. It was in a region occupied by Syrian Rebels who Assad has been fighting for the last 3.5 years. Russia isn't that stupid.
AP Report:
jellies_two
Member
70 million in cruise missiles doesn't go far if this drone footage is accurate.
https://twitter.com/conflicts/status/850294919306633216
https://twitter.com/conflicts/status/850294919306633216
JuanLatino
Member
you mean solid evidence like in the iraq, vietnam war etc?
yeah i guess thats possible
it seems that they also moved some aircrafts onto the field.
Needs twitter account.
| Praxis |
Banned
It's telling that even in the darkest days of WW2 and during the bitter fight between countries like Germany and Russia, not a single chemical weapon was used.
Can't believe people are having to be educated on why the use of chemical weapons is so heinous.
Can't believe people are having to be educated on why the use of chemical weapons is so heinous.
TheContact
Member
So war with Syria seems inevitable but then does Russia also join in? Then what ww3?
I get why the strikes were necessary and I'm glad Trump is actually doing something about it but fuck this is scary
I get why the strikes were necessary and I'm glad Trump is actually doing something about it but fuck this is scary
neurosisxeno
Member
Most people don't pay attention to WW1, so they assume Chemical Weapons are the same as conventional weapons and it's just some arbitrary line we've drawn in the sand. It's up there with "how can nuclear weapons be bad when we killed more people with fire bombing in WW2?"
Wenger'sBakedBaguettes
Member
I don't think anyone is arguing or downplaying the effects of chemical weapons. Ultimately though one group of victims is being valued while the other one is devalued. You didn't see an international outrage over the high death toll from the western coalition in Iraq/Syria the past few months and even worse Yemen with regard to SA/UAE/US/UK (and other countries at a lesser level). In the end it's as you say, people further their own agenda(like now while there's still an investigation going on) which ultimately doesn't help those who are dead or the ppl related to them. Just like the mass family burial in Mosul no ones gonna give shit about the victims of this attack. The only difference is that killing done by the "bad side" from a western perspective gets condemned and that people are pointing out that the hypocrisy stinks. Not that conventional weapons are better or worse at killing than chemical weapons
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked