Is using chemical weapons really that bad?

[melthebell]

Chemical weaponry is despicable.it can be far more widely felt than any other weapon..apart from the atom bomb. Chemicals in the air can be blown anywhere,its indescriminate.Shame on anyone who uses such dirty tactics to gain control. It's akin to the mass gassings that happened in Germany..do we condone that as a means of gaining control ? I don't think any decent minded person could agree that what happened in Syria was "fair".

exactly, its slower and indescrimate in how and who it kills

[erebus]

I realise that its about Syria, but the Syrian government are and have been winning the war against the heart ripping out and eating, petrol igniting, slaughtering all considered non believers lot we, the DEMOCRATIC nations back. They are wiping them out, which does not bode well for the overthrow.

 

So why should the Syrian government, when the UN inspectors have arrived to check out the evidence the Russians presented them about a previous gas attack, suddenly resort to using such weapons? They have air superiority and ground superiority, but its difficult to fight in built up areas as Stalingrad and Berlin proved in WW2.

 

Who gains from this gas attack??? The Syrian Government or the rebels?

 

As for the US shouting how bad this is, what about the damage of depleted and other uranium weaponry used in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya? Agent Orange in Vietnam still creates many birth deformities as does uranium.

 

Might is right, sod the evidence, the analysis of the samples, as the UK led the fanatic drum beat for war. thought it was a very sick joke on us all, probably with the defence industry salivating and rubbing their hands in glee in the background.

[Obelix]

I read somewhere that it was first used against British troops as they advanced towards the German lines early one morning. They saw this big yellow cloud moving along the ground towards them but didnt know what it was but by the time they realized it they were surrounded by the stuff and many died a horrible choking death

 

Ieperite was the name given to sulphur mustard which was actually not that good at killing, although it was very good at incapacitating people and acting as an area denial weapon.

 

The first effective use of gas was the Germans as you say and they used chlorine which was the greenish yellow gas. The first use blew a seven mile wide hole in the British line, but the Germans failed to exploit it as they were understandably also rather worried about the effects of the gas. They never managed to succeed on that scale again, despite introducing more effective agents such as phosgene and then the mustard agents later on.

[melthebell]

when I was a lad, when I lived at darnall an old man lived up our street who talked funny (not funny literaly), sort if a rasp, can't quite remember now. he said that was from mustard gas during the war

[rollwithit]

Hi

 

I am not a historian, but if chemicals weapons had been used at Dresdan; wouldnt it have brought the second world war to an end sooner, and saved lives and buildings?

If we were on the losing side against an evil enemy, would it be ok to win the war, by any means?

I am not sure which party has right on their side in Syria, but an end to the war, by any means would save lives.

 

Doesn't matter how you do it, the ending is the same

Taking a life is wrong

You'd think humans would have evolved passed their natural instincts?

[daneha]

Doesn't matter how you do it, the ending is the same

Taking a life is wrong

You'd think humans would have evolved passed their natural instincts?

 

Why? and who says taking a life is wrong, it would surely be right to kill one person to save two people, or kill someone to save yourself or someone you love.

[catpus]

I realise that its about Syria, but the Syrian government are and have been winning the war against the heart ripping out and eating, petrol igniting, slaughtering all considered non believers lot we, the DEMOCRATIC nations back. They are wiping them out, which does not bode well for the overthrow.

 

So why should the Syrian government, when the UN inspectors have arrived to check out the evidence the Russians presented them about a previous gas attack, suddenly resort to using such weapons? They have air superiority and ground superiority, but its difficult to fight in built up areas as Stalingrad and Berlin proved in WW2.

 

Who gains from this gas attack??? The Syrian Government or the rebels?

 

As for the US shouting how bad this is, what about the damage of depleted and other uranium weaponry used in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya? Agent Orange in Vietnam still creates many birth deformities as does uranium.

 

Might is right, sod the evidence, the analysis of the samples, as the UK led the fanatic drum beat for war. thought it was a very sick joke on us all, probably with the defence industry salivating and rubbing their hands in glee in the background.

 

Excellent deductions as always..

Why would the Syrian army need to use gas when they were winning, to such a degree that Hague had to authorise extra arms and 'experts' to help the rebels.

 

Here's one for you - I wonder if they'll do a 'Stern Gang' on the UN inspectors for giving the 'wrong' result?

In March 2013, the Syrian government invited the United Nations to investigate possible chemical weapons use in the Khan al-Assal area of rural Aleppo. Military experts and officials said a chemical agent, most likely Sarin, was used in the attack which killed 26 people, including Government forces. (Of course Assad would gas his own Soldiers?)

Carla Del Ponte – one of the greatest experts on this from the United Nations – did an in-depth investigation on this a few weeks ago, and of course, the mainstream media tried their best to ignore it and to character-assassinate Del Ponte…because she said that it was the rebels and not the government who were using gas.

 

*U.N. human rights investigators gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent Sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

 

''The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has seen no evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law'' said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

 

"Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of Sarin gas, from the way the victims have reacted," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

 

"This was used on behalf of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.''*

 

Obama has warned any confirmed use of chemical weapons by Damascus would cross a "red line" which would prompt further action.

Less clear perhaps is whether a similar red line would apply to Syrian Opposition groups such as Al-Nusra the US and NATO allies.

Well, you would think so, but of course we know that the United States along with its NATO partners Britain and France are quite close to the main backers of the rebels....I’m speaking of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

 

However, the news management of the Syria story has been incredibly sophisticated in its management, the fact that Saudi and Qatar back the rebels didn't make the front pages of any newspapers in Britain or the United States – and will quietly disappear like Del Ponte’s case.... The big story, of course, will be Russia and the delivery of the S-300, Iran, China and South Korea?? We must remember to keep our eyes on the ball?

 

And wait for it...... Expect a devastating False Flag operation just to prove that the Syrians are now a threat to us. Remember we are also disposable expendable collateral, just like the innocent Syrian/Lybian/Iraq/Afghanistan people.... You WILL vote for WAR or suffer the consequences!

[JanetJ123]

There's something not right about the whole thing to me. I can't see the Syrian government as being so stupid. They would realise it would bring the wrath of the world and probably, not only defeat, but their own deaths. They will have seen the pictures of Sadam and Gaddafi and what became of them. Why would a side in any war do something that will ultimately mean defeat?

 

It may have been some rogue General operating without the orders of the government, if so should we, basically, kill those uninvolved, just because they're on the same side. If so we could take the opposite side and start killing the rebels, they've created enough atrocities.

 

In my opinion Cameron is glad that he lost the vote. He thought it something he had to do but is now relieved that he can wash his hands of the matter. He, now, can't really lose.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 16:37 ----------

 

Wise words from Putin..

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23911461

[Waldo]

I don't understand how Chemical weapons have been banned for almost 100 years; and to the US their use is a red-line; yet the US are good to use Atom bombs.

[daneha]

I don't understand how Chemical weapons have been banned for almost 100 years; and to the US their use is a red-line; yet the US are good to use Atom bombs.

 

They haven't been banned, in 1925 the Geneva Protocol prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare, but it didn't prohibit development or use on countries that were out side the Geneva Protocol, nor did it ban the use of chemical weapons in retaliation to chemical weapons being used against you.

 

All in all a useless bit of legislation.