The United States is on the verge of using military force against Syria's dictator Bashar Al Assad because of his alleged use of poison gas, and that although poison gas is definitely a weapon of mass destruction, the term "weapon of mass destruction" is never used?

Tags: Al, Assad, Bashar, Obama, Syria, destruction, mass, of, weapon

Views: 818

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Fool me once!

I wonder what kind of WMD's they thought Sudam had if they aren't considering chemical weapons as WMDs?

EDIT: alternatively, the US government is full of shit.

What is it about chemical weapons that is so bad anyway? Does it matter if you die this way or that way? - a bullet to the abdomen or piece or metal to the gut/head could be just as slow and just as agonizing a death as a gas attack. Besides, this slaughter is going on for the last two and a half years and now we are supposed to be appalled and disgusted all of a sudden because of some chemicals. Now suddenly it's a 'humanitarian' crisis. Why wasn't this the case at the 50,000 death mark? Or the 80,000 death mark? 

That put into words pretty much what I was thinking, Logicallunatic.  Nicely said.

You're only looking at it from the perspective of the victim. Look at it from the point of view of the attacker. Gun, kill people one at a time. Poison gas bomb, kill hundreds or thousands at a time. 

You see it's the M in WMD that distinguishes poison gas from a gun.

Who gets to define the M in WMD ? Are Assad's rockets attacks any different to the chemical attacks - in regards to that M? Where is the line drawn? So far there have been say 100,000 deaths of which I would guess no more than 1 or 2% are down to chemicals. 

Government leader arrogance is the real WMD coupled with other factors that promote this behavior (religion, war profits, central bank loans, etc)

Yes, it does matter how you die. And yes chemical weapons cause much more suffering than bullets. This is why every country has vowed to never use them, even in warfare.
What is happening in Syria has been a humanitarian crisis for a long time. You only feel that you're "supposed" to be outraged now because western governments want to convince the public that intervening militarily is a good idea.
What are you complaining about anyway? At first you sounded like you didn't think it was a big deal then you complained that we didn't pay enough attention earlier on.

Toxic gas is bad but we love the smell of Napalm in the morning.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons/a/napalm.htm

@Christian F;

"And yes chemical weapons cause much more suffering than bullets."

Ever help a buddy hold his gut together for 45 minutes while he screams in pain as he dies?

Dying is an unpleasant act anytime you didn't choose it.

Chemical weapons are more dangerous than nukes, because of the vauge terminology. A weaponized virus can be considered a chemical weapon, though more often than not it's considered a biological weapon. Chemical weapons can have an extremely massive and unpredictable range, being blown by winds, carried by water, or spread through the bloodstreams of prey animals. They're much more catastrophic than nukes. Bullets only travel in a straight line, and only for a short distance.

If you think the US is rushing into another war, you haven't been following the news. Dragged into it is more like it.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service