Which is worse?

[Spoonman]

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.

did Syria sign it? how about American Cyanamid when they fucked up Bhopal?

 

[Spoonman]

It makes no sense to me why killing with chemical weapons is worse. They're both awful.

And it makes less sense to me why a norm of not using chemical weapons has to be enforced by violating the norm of not attacking countries that haven't attacked your country.

so what you're saying is that we won't attack syria until they attack us. because anything else would be a double standard, right?

The criteria for attacking any other nation by the US doesn't have to wait for them to fire the first shot. If it is determined that they are an 'imminent threat' to the US, a preemptive strike is authorized.

yea, they seem like a real treat to our national security. amazing how the reasoning as to why we should attack keeps changing. they used gas. they killed their own citizens. they are a threat to our security. lets keep throwing reason against the wall and see if one sticks

 

[Spoonman]

I have been told that Redfish reads everything I post. Of course he does. :Lol:

Dead is dead, and when it is children, a line of morality and decency have been crossed forever.

The Syrian regime will be punished.

in that case maybe we should bomb china and india for all of the baby girls they kill

False derivative analogy.

oh I see. chinks and dot heads haven't made it up the PC ladder yet. their kids don't matter. amazing how you libs have a double standard for everything

 

[Redfish]

in that case maybe we should bomb china and india for all of the baby girls they kill

False derivative analogy.

oh I see. chinks and dot heads haven't made it up the PC ladder yet. their kids don't matter. amazing how you libs have a double standard for everything

very true. I wonder where the africans who were slaughtered in Sudan and Congo stand on the PC list.

doesn't the black POTUS care about black on black genocide?

 

[Redfish]

Back to topic.

I am still waiting for any of our left wingers to explain why being killed by poison gas is worse than being blown to bits by a bomb or having a 50 cal round go through your head.

waiting-----------------------------

 

[ba1614]

Killing someone with chemicals or killing someone with a bullet, knife, or bomb?

Somehow we have decided that killing has degrees of badness.

Reminds me of the hate-crime bullshit, i.e. its worse if I kill you because I don't like your color than if I kill you to steal your money.

Sorry, folks, but none of this passes a sanity test.

comments?

And how do chemicals violate a 100yr old rule when Napalm and Nukes don't?

 

[velvtacheeze]

Back to topic.

I am still waiting for any of our left wingers to explain why being killed by poison gas is worse than being blown to bits by a bomb or having a 50 cal round go through your head.

waiting-----------------------------

Keep waiting. I don't think any liberal posters understand the White House's logic so we can't be expected to defend it.

I think the norm of not attacking a country unless in self-defense is a more important international norm to uphold. The Iraq War failure taught us this lesson.

 

[Redfish]

Back to topic.

I am still waiting for any of our left wingers to explain why being killed by poison gas is worse than being blown to bits by a bomb or having a 50 cal round go through your head.

waiting-----------------------------

Keep waiting. I don't think any liberal posters understand the White House's logic so we can't be expected to defend it.

I think the norm of not attacking a country unless in self-defense is a more important international norm to uphold. The Iraq War failure taught us this lesson.

have you contacted your congressmen and senators and demanded that they vote NO?

 

[Old Rocks]

Killing someone with chemicals or killing someone with a bullet, knife, or bomb?

Somehow we have decided that killing has degrees of badness.

Reminds me of the hate-crime bullshit, i.e. its worse if I kill you because I don't like your color than if I kill you to steal your money.

Sorry, folks, but none of this passes a sanity test.

comments?

If this has to be explained to you, then you are hopeless. And have already failed the sanity test.

 

[Redfish]

Killing someone with chemicals or killing someone with a bullet, knife, or bomb?

Somehow we have decided that killing has degrees of badness.

Reminds me of the hate-crime bullshit, i.e. its worse if I kill you because I don't like your color than if I kill you to steal your money.

Sorry, folks, but none of this passes a sanity test.

comments?

If this has to be explained to you, then you are hopeless. And have already failed the sanity test.

An innocent person inhales poison gas----------he is dead

An innocent person is blown apart by a bomb--------he is dead

An innocent person is hacked to death by a machete--------he is dead

An innocent person gets a 50 cal bullet through his head--------he is dead

What makes one kind of dead worse than another?

What's hopeless is the liberal thought process, it defies logic.

 

[Redfish]

Face it people----------all wars are about killing your enemy before he kills you. poison gas is a very effective way to kill a lot of enemies quickly, so is a nuclear bomb, so is napalm.

Trying to legislate "humane" war is the height of human stupidity. And sending young americans to die in an attempt to enforce humane war is even more stupid.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Killing someone with chemicals or killing someone with a bullet, knife, or bomb?

Somehow we have decided that killing has degrees of badness.

Reminds me of the hate-crime bullshit, i.e. its worse if I kill you because I don't like your color than if I kill you to steal your money.

Sorry, folks, but none of this passes a sanity test.

comments?

And how do chemicals violate a 100yr old rule when Napalm and Nukes don't?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[FJO]

If there have been biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction 88 years ago, they would have been included in the Geneva Convention along side of chemical weapons.

After the indiscriminate abuse of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that made any deaths by chemical weapons look like a Sunday picnic, the Geneva Convention should have been reconvened and list nuclear weapons of mass destruction every bit as bad and cruel and despicable as chemical weapons.

Of course, by then the biggest dog in the fight was the dog that dropped the atomic bombs on innocent women and children, so the signatories of the Geneva Convention, to this present day, decided that Saddam Hussain, Adolph Hitler and Bashir al Assad are bad, but the one who killed more and more painfully - and for many years - than all three of these combined, you know, Harry Truman, is good.

They decided that the buck should stop right there.

Unless the Geneva Convention includes biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, all the huff and puff about chemical weapons of mass destruction is meaningless politically correct mindless babble.

 

[Spoonman]

False derivative analogy.

oh I see. chinks and dot heads haven't made it up the PC ladder yet. their kids don't matter. amazing how you libs have a double standard for everything

very true. I wonder where the africans who were slaughtered in Sudan and Congo stand on the PC list.

doesn't the black POTUS care about black on black genocide?

hey half a million Rwandans chopped up by machetes barely made the news

Why?

A - because it was black on black
B - because they used machetes, not deadly AR-15 assault style rifles.

 

[FJO]

John Kerry and Barack Obama should remember that a nation that closed its harbors to Jews who tried to escape from getting killed by chemical weapons and were sent back to fall victims of same, has no moral authority to yak about the immorality of chemical weapons of mass destruction, unless they want to earn the title of champion hypocrites.

 

[Freewill]

I have been told that Redfish reads everything I post. Of course he does. :Lol:

Dead is dead, and when it is children, a line of morality and decency have been crossed forever.

The Syrian regime will be punished.

How about in this case?

The Drone That Killed My Grandson

 

[Freewill]

They won't be punished. They'll go on killing on each other like savages if we do or do not launch an attack.

But we have to bomb the crap out of them, we are doing it for the children.

 

[Redfish]

They won't be punished. They'll go on killing on each other like savages if we do or do not launch an attack.

But we have to bomb the crap out of them, we are doing it for the children.

but you know, its moral to kill kids with cruise missiles in order to prevent kids from being killed by CW

 

[Redfish]

bumped because I am still waiting for one of the obama supporters to explain why killing a few people with gas should be reason to go to war when killing thousands with bullets and bombs is not.

 

[Katzndogz]

Over 100,000 have been killed in Syria's civil war. Assad didn't kill 100,000. We don't know how many he is responsible for and how many the al quaeda rebels have killed. Assad certainly didn't kill those we recently saw executed.

If the United States truly wants to go after those who used chemical weapons, why aren't we going after obama's al quaeda friends? Is it because they are killing Christians?