Which is worse?

[JakeStarkey]

The anti-Semitic and anti-black haters here approve the gassing of children.

 

[chikenwing]

will the people killed by our cruise missiles have pleasant deaths?

Drowning ,burning alive, slowly crushed,lower part of body blown away by 50cal left to die in sun yep leaving this world sure can be painful,its scary how people rationalize,and make up some kind of death suffering scale to justify more killing.

We can't undo the past,but we can do something about tomorrow.

so killing a few hundred syrians with cruise missiles will eliminate future wars????[/

No not at all ,not my point at all.

If Iraq and Afghanistan were are such colossal fuck up as so many say,why would we even think about Syria?

To clarify ,hate crime laws as rules for war are absurd. And rationalizing kiling more because they did a better job at killing ,in a war, someone else s war is damn scary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Drowning ,burning alive, slowly crushed,lower part of body blown away by 50cal left to die in sun yep leaving this world sure can be painful,its scary how people rationalize,and make up some kind of death suffering scale to justify more killing.

We can't undo the past,but we can do something about tomorrow.

so killing a few hundred syrians with cruise missiles will eliminate future wars????[/

No not at all ,not my point at all.

If Iraq and Afghanistan were are such colossal fuck up as so many say,why would we even think about Syria?

To clarify ,hate crime laws as rules for war are absurd. And rationalizing kiling more because they did a better job at killing ,in a war, someone else s war is damn scary.

You have not thought this through.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The problem with chem weapons is they kill indiscriminately. If the wind shifts you might kill a shitload of civvies.

yeah, and if a missle misfires, a bomb is let out too early or too late-------war is hell, innocents die.

we will most likely prolong the killing in Syria by getting involved.

Apples and oranges. A missiles misfire is far less likely then a shift in the wind.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So firing missiles into syria is going to make it all right?! Lol.

 

[Plasmaball]

is using chemical weapons a hate crime? seems very similar.

no a more apt comparison would be speeding. Your ticket is higher the faster you go because it is more dangerous.

Your post lacks intelligence.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

is using chemical weapons a hate crime? seems very similar.

no a more apt comparison would be speeding. Your ticket is higher the faster you go because it is more dangerous.

Your post lacks intelligence.

Having your head roasted in a soup, pol pot, or gassed, assad, or a five year old shot in the head for crying, gulag camps jung il are ALL equally deplorable. Notice, we weren't involved in two of the three.

 

[Plasmaball]

is using chemical weapons a hate crime? seems very similar.

no a more apt comparison would be speeding. Your ticket is higher the faster you go because it is more dangerous.

Your post lacks intelligence.

Having your head roasted in a soup, pol pot, or gassed, assad, or a five year old shot in the head for crying, gulag camps jung il are ALL equally deplorable. Notice, we weren't involved in two of the three.

shrug.....really doesnt defeat my point. We as humans have different levels for murder.

 

[Darkwind]

The problem with chem weapons is they kill indiscriminately. If the wind shifts you might kill a shitload of civvies.

All of that is true. A mortar could be poorly aimed and hit a school instead of the rebels, or vise-verse.

What does that have to do with the notion that a dead person, or a dead child, is just as dead if they are blown to pieces or die of chemical burns?

Both cause horrible suffering and extreme pain before death occurs.

If we didn't have the morality to be horrified to the point of intervening over the past two years, what has changed that we are horrified now?

Does our government need distractions from Egypt, Benghazi, NSA, and Mexico?

It appears that the world is willing to just allow this to continue. Why aren't we?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

no a more apt comparison would be speeding. Your ticket is higher the faster you go because it is more dangerous.

Your post lacks intelligence.

Having your head roasted in a soup, pol pot, or gassed, assad, or a five year old shot in the head for crying, gulag camps jung il are ALL equally deplorable. Notice, we weren't involved in two of the three.

shrug.....really doesnt defeat my point. We as humans have different levels for murder.

Its just semantics and assigning degrees of relevance. All or equally horrid. But, all of a sudden, one is pushed to the top and we act...stupidly I might add.

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of the reactionary apologia matters now.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The problem with chem weapons is they kill indiscriminately. If the wind shifts you might kill a shitload of civvies.

All of that is true. A mortar could be poorly aimed and hit a school instead of the rebels, or vise-verse.

What does that have to do with the notion that a dead person, or a dead child, is just as dead if they are blown to pieces or die of chemical burns?

Both cause horrible suffering and extreme pain before death occurs.

If we didn't have the morality to be horrified to the point of intervening over the past two years, what has changed that we are horrified now?

Does our government need distractions from Egypt, Benghazi, NSA, and Mexico?

It appears that the world is willing to just allow this to continue. Why aren't we?

The Geneva convention outlaws a lot of ways to kill. Hollow points for example.
I know it seems weird to dictate how you can kill people but we do it in death penalty cases as well. At what point does it become cruel and unusual?
It's pretty obvious to me why chemical weapons fall into that category. You cant control them. Same with biological weapons. With conventional weapons you can pretty much expect them to hit what you're aiming at.

 

[Redfish]

is using chemical weapons a hate crime? seems very similar.

no a more apt comparison would be speeding. Your ticket is higher the faster you go because it is more dangerous.

Your post lacks intelligence.

So killing someone with poison gas is worse than killing someone by blowing them to bits with a bomb? Please explain.

my analogy to hate crime legislation is appropriate because it is based on the same illogical premises. That somehow one form of killing is worse than another, even though the victim is just as dead either way.

why do we care nothing for the 100,000 killed by bombs and bullets but are ready to go to war over 1400 killed by gas?

Why did we not step in when thousands were being killed by machetes in Sudan and Congo? Is murder OK in Africa but not in the mid east?

 

[Redfish]

The problem with chem weapons is they kill indiscriminately. If the wind shifts you might kill a shitload of civvies.

All of that is true. A mortar could be poorly aimed and hit a school instead of the rebels, or vise-verse.

What does that have to do with the notion that a dead person, or a dead child, is just as dead if they are blown to pieces or die of chemical burns?

Both cause horrible suffering and extreme pain before death occurs.

If we didn't have the morality to be horrified to the point of intervening over the past two years, what has changed that we are horrified now?

Does our government need distractions from Egypt, Benghazi, NSA, and Mexico?

It appears that the world is willing to just allow this to continue. Why aren't we?

The Geneva convention outlaws a lot of ways to kill. Hollow points for example.
I know it seems weird to dictate how you can kill people but we do it in death penalty cases as well. At what point does it become cruel and unusual?
It's pretty obvious to me why chemical weapons fall into that category. You cant control them. Same with biological weapons. With conventional weapons you can pretty much expect them to hit what you're aiming at.

War is not a boxing match, we are not the world's referee.

let me ask you, If some country sent 200 cruise missiles into the USA, would we consider that an act of war? The Japanese did not have boots on the ground in Pearl Harbor-was that not an act of war?

Face it, Obama wants to declare war on Syria, when Syria poses absolutely no threat to the USA. We are looking like Hitler and the third reich.

 

[Redfish]

The problem with chem weapons is they kill indiscriminately. If the wind shifts you might kill a shitload of civvies.

All of that is true. A mortar could be poorly aimed and hit a school instead of the rebels, or vise-verse.

What does that have to do with the notion that a dead person, or a dead child, is just as dead if they are blown to pieces or die of chemical burns?

Both cause horrible suffering and extreme pain before death occurs.

If we didn't have the morality to be horrified to the point of intervening over the past two years, what has changed that we are horrified now?

Does our government need distractions from Egypt, Benghazi, NSA, and Mexico?

It appears that the world is willing to just allow this to continue. Why aren't we?

The Geneva convention outlaws a lot of ways to kill. Hollow points for example.
I know it seems weird to dictate how you can kill people but we do it in death penalty cases as well. At what point does it become cruel and unusual?
It's pretty obvious to me why chemical weapons fall into that category. You cant control them. Same with biological weapons. With conventional weapons you can pretty much expect them to hit what you're aiming at.

hollow point bullets are not illegal. every one of my handguns is loaded with hollow points. I hope to never have to use one in self defense, but if I do it will be over with one or two rounds.

But back to topic. why is killing someone with poison gas worse than blowing them up with a bomb or dropping napalm on them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why? Because the treaty of 1925 outlawed poison gas as absolutely forbidden.

The redfishes of the world do not dictate to presidents who are uphold international law.

 

[Redfish]

get off my thread jake. I am not reading your posts. you are number 1 on my ignore list.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

All of that is true. A mortar could be poorly aimed and hit a school instead of the rebels, or vise-verse.

What does that have to do with the notion that a dead person, or a dead child, is just as dead if they are blown to pieces or die of chemical burns?

Both cause horrible suffering and extreme pain before death occurs.

If we didn't have the morality to be horrified to the point of intervening over the past two years, what has changed that we are horrified now?

Does our government need distractions from Egypt, Benghazi, NSA, and Mexico?

It appears that the world is willing to just allow this to continue. Why aren't we?

The Geneva convention outlaws a lot of ways to kill. Hollow points for example.
I know it seems weird to dictate how you can kill people but we do it in death penalty cases as well. At what point does it become cruel and unusual?
It's pretty obvious to me why chemical weapons fall into that category. You cant control them. Same with biological weapons. With conventional weapons you can pretty much expect them to hit what you're aiming at.

hollow point bullets are not illegal. every one of my handguns is loaded with hollow points. I hope to never have to use one in self defense, but if I do it will be over with one or two rounds.

But back to topic. why is killing someone with poison gas worse than blowing them up with a bomb or dropping napalm on them?

For use in military action they most certainly are illegal. I assumed since we've been talking about military action and I just mentioned the Geneva convention you would get that,but apparently you were unaware that hollow points are illegal to use in a military action.
Oh..and as far as I'm concerned they can continue to kill each other and the only reason I dont like the idea of them using chem weapons is they have a tendency to kill innocents.
If they were on the open battlefield they can gas each other till the cows come home as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Redfish]

The Geneva convention outlaws a lot of ways to kill. Hollow points for example.
I know it seems weird to dictate how you can kill people but we do it in death penalty cases as well. At what point does it become cruel and unusual?
It's pretty obvious to me why chemical weapons fall into that category. You cant control them. Same with biological weapons. With conventional weapons you can pretty much expect them to hit what you're aiming at.

hollow point bullets are not illegal. every one of my handguns is loaded with hollow points. I hope to never have to use one in self defense, but if I do it will be over with one or two rounds.

But back to topic. why is killing someone with poison gas worse than blowing them up with a bomb or dropping napalm on them?

For use in military action they most certainly are illegal. I assumed since we've been talking about military action and I just mentioned the Geneva convention you would get that,but apparently you were unaware that hollow points are illegal to use in a military action.
Oh..and as far as I'm concerned they can continue to kill each other and the only reason I dont like the idea of them using chem weapons is they have a tendency to kill innocents.
If they were on the open battlefield they can gas each other till the cows come home as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I am quite aware that hollow points are "illegal" for military use. But cluster bombs, napalm, and 50 cal machine guns are not. Neither are cruise missiles.

Would you rather be shot by a 38 cal hollow point or a 50 cal full metal jacket? either one will make a very big hole in you.

War by rules is idiotic. Should we only allow wars to be fought with kitchen knives?

this is foolish. War is about killing more of the enemy than he kills of you, thereby making him unwilling to continue the fight. How many lives did the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima save? possibly millions.