Joel Was Right
Member
I really hope this doesn't escalate - if a US plane gets shot down by a Russian surface-to-air station, and the pilot captured by Daesh, this is going to spiral out of control.
Which would be expected if you tell their BFF about it first. And even more expected if this whole thing is a pantomime.it seems that they also moved some aircrafts onto the field.
Are we seriously condemning chemical weapons attacks but then saying convention bombing attacks are "Ok"?
Do you find it hypocritical chemical and biological weapon use being banned by numerous international agreements for almost a century?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?
Congrats you now know what being Alex jones is likeI can't help but to wonder if this whole thing was premeditated by Russia and Trump inner-circle to create the illusion of conflict between Russia/Putin and Trump...
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.
I can't help but to wonder if this whole thing was premeditated by Russia and Trump inner-circle to create the illusion of conflict between Russia/Putin and Trump...
That's what happens when you have generations of people who have no clue what WW1 was like.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.
Not going to trawl through 43 pages, so......
Have the tweets from Trump denouncing any action against Syria in 2013 been posted?
Naturally.
Not going to trawl through 43 pages, so......
Have the tweets from Trump denouncing any action against Syria in 2013 been posted?
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
You know the answer to this.
Google it ffs
That's what happens when you have generations of people who have no clue what WW1 was like.
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
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.
I can't help but to wonder if this whole thing was premeditated by Russia and Trump inner-circle to create the illusion of conflict between Russia/Putin and Trump...
Why can't it be correctWTH??? That cant be correct.
Congrats you now know what being Alex jones is like
A horrific chemical weapons attack on civilians struck Khan Sheikhun on 4 April. Last night, in response, the US launched airstrikes on Shayrat airfield.
The US has informed the EU that these strikes were limited and seek to deter further chemical weapons atrocities.
President Juncker has been unequivocal in his condemnation of the use of chemical weapons.
The repeated use of such weapons must be answered. He understands efforts to deter further attacks. There is a clear distinction between airstrikes on military targets and the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
Efforts to stem the spiral of violence in Syria and work towards a lasting peace should be redoubled. Only a political transition can lead to such an outcome. President Juncker and the European commission as a whole stand ready to play their part in full.
Hillary Clinton called for the US to take out Syrian government-controlled airfields just hours before Donald Trump launched airstrikes against Bashar al-Assad's regime, PA reports.
Speaking in her first public interview since losing the US election in November last year, Clinton said Assad's aerial power had been the key component behind widespread civilian deaths since the start of the civil war in 2011.
President Trump authorised the launch of cruise missiles in the early hours of Friday morning on a Syrian airbase thought to be behind this week's chemical weapons attack.
Speaking to the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, Clinton said she believed the US had been wrong not to have previously launched such an offensive.
She said: ”Assad had an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of the civilian deaths, as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days.
”And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop Sarin gas on them."
Which chemical weapons did they use in Vietnam?So what does that make USA look like then given their use of chemical weapons in Vietnam or how they helped out Iraq with chemical weapons?
as if they really cares about the casualties of the syrian war -
Which chemical weapons did they use in Vietnam?
Which chemical weapons did they use in Vietnam?
He's referring to Agent Orange, I'd assume. It affected the health of a lot of people but that wasn't strictly the intention and to compare it to the chemical weapons used in WW1 and Syria its a bit of a stretch (as much as the US were negligent in caring about the long term effects of AO).Which chemical weapons did they use in Vietnam?
That's a bit different as it's a defoliant.Op article says no people targeting but this says 7 Syrian soldiers died
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5389043429001/?#sp=show-clips
Agent orange homie
I feel gutted for the people of Syria. Its bad enough you got fucking psychos on the ground in your own country. Worse when powerful nations use your country as a scale in a penis measuring competition.
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
So what does that make USA look like then given their use of chemical weapons in Vietnam or how they helped out Iraq with chemical weapons?
as if they really cares about the casualties of the syrian war -
OK, that's nice except agent Orange is not a chemical weapons. It's a defoliant that later was revealed to have some bad side effects. Complain about mass defoliant use if youd like, and nobody can argue, but if they had been dusting with round up, and that turned out to have a carcinogenic side effect, that wouldn't make Roundup a chemical weapons either. Sarin, mustard gas, etc are anti personnel chemical weapons banned for decades under international convention because they are used to kill and kill horribly. Agent Orange comparisons to that are disingenuous and embarrassing.Op article says no people targeting but this says 7 Syrian soldiers died
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5389043429001/?#sp=show-clips
Agent orange homie
Agent Orange was bad. So is DDT, coal slag, and on and on. They aren't chemical weapons.
WTH??? That cant be correct.
OK, that's nice except agent Orange is not a chemical weapons. It's a defoliant that later was revealed to have some bad side effects. Complain about mass defoliant use if youd like, and nobody can argue, but if they had been dusting with round up, and that turned out to have a carcinogenic side effect, that wouldn't make Roundup a chemical weapons either. Sarin, mustard gas, etc are anti personnel chemical weapons banned for decades under international convention because they are used to kill and kill horribly. Agent Orange comparisons to that are disingenuous and embarrassing.
He's referring to Agent Orange, I'd assume. It affected the health of a lot of people but that wasn't strictly the intention and to compare it to the chemical weapons used in WW1 and Syria its a bit of a stretch (as much as the US were negligent in caring about the long term effects of AO).
OK, that's nice except agent Orange is not a chemical weapons. It's a defoliant that later was revealed to have some bad side effects. Complain about mass defoliant use if youd like, and nobody can argue, but if they had been dusting with round up, and that turned out to have a carcinogenic side effect, that wouldn't make Roundup a chemical weapons either. Sarin, mustard gas, etc are anti personnel chemical weapons banned for decades under international convention because they are used to kill and kill horribly. Agent Orange comparisons to that are disingenuous and embarrassing.
Agent Orange was bad. So is DDT, coal slag, and on and on. They aren't chemical weapons.
Yea I agree. Different things, and the intention wasn't to decimate an entire people it was to clear out the trees which they hid in so well. But millions of people were affected by it. But I understand it's no where near the levels of chemical weapons
Welp.70 million in cruise missiles doesn't go far if this drone footage is accurate.
https://twitter.com/conflicts/status/850294919306633216
Agent orange. And more recently depleted uranium in Iraq.Which chemical weapons did they use in Vietnam?
You give him too much credit. He has no idea what the hell he's doing. He's being TOLD what to do.Trump likely ordered the strike literally with no regard to any consideration save his own ego.
Nobody thinks it's weird how Assad uses chemicals now, after the previous backlash, in a seemingly random attack, and the U.S bombs the fuck out of that ass just like that.
It all feels a bit.... planned. I don't ride conspiracy theories fyi.
Please stop with these disingenuous misuse of terms. Those are not chemical weapons by any accepted definition. Lest anyone accuse me of carrying water for the US, I am also not saying they are fine to use. See above on agent Orange, and depleted uranium is certainly not a chemical weapon.Welp.
Agent orange. And more recently depleted uranium in Iraq.