Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Feuer Frei!]

New lows have been reached it seems.

Chemical weapons attacks have killed hundreds on the outskirts of Damascus, Syrian opposition activists say.
Rockets with toxic agents were launched at the suburbs of the Ghouta region early on Wednesday as part of a major bombardment on rebel forces, they say.

SOURCE

[Skybird]

Never really understood the outcry about chemical weapons here. Is burning crowds with white phosphorus or having them massacred by machine guns less heavy in blood toll? Or German outcry about drones: where is the difference about a missiles dropped on a target by a fighter, or a drone? Except that the latter saves own guys to put themselves at risk and denies the enemy to equal the score by having them shot, too.

War is war. It's always dirty. Massacre is massacre, it's always "low".

[Feuer Frei!]

So you are saying there is no distinction between using nerve gas or chemical weapons and machine gun bullets?

Apart from the fact that you can direct machine gun bullets and cannot direct the effects of nerve gas or chemical radiation, ie not discriminating and, like in this case, killing babies and children.

I think it says a lot, when a combatant choses to use cowardly methods to inflict losses upon the other.

In fact, what is the primary objective of the use of chemical warfare?

Certainly the answer is not indiscriminately killing off your enemy.

There are a raft of reasons why chemical warfare is frowned upon in the world.
A raft of reasons.

[Skybird]

I'm saying that a massacre not committed by chemicals but machetes or bullets is not any nicier.

In acts like here, bullets would be used without discriminating between civilian and combatant either. That's why we call such things not a battle, but a massacre.

So what i am pointing at is our hypocrisy when arranging ourselves with slaughtering done with bullets or machetes - but we yell when they use chemicals.

Some people in the West even want us actively supporting the so-called "rebels". But what if they have done this latest massacre, like they have done others before, like their counterparts in Assad's hordes? Not to mention that the majority of these "rebels" factions are ultra-fundamentalist and propose "values" that any civilised person would avoid at all cost to get associated with?

[Feuer Frei!]

The question of why the use of Chemical warfare, and let's stick with that one, because this is what allegedly happened here, is different than using a bomb has been asked many times.

Not many have answered it.

I think 2 words come to mind. Intimidation vs Eradication.

The use of chemical weapons is 2-fold.

Controversial and immoral.

Chemical weapons are classed as unconventional threats.

Stopping such activity is becoming increasingly more difficult with the continued development of chemical and biological weaponry by rogue parties and states.

Chemical bombs have the potential to reach far outside the impact zone, given the right weather conditions for example.

Compare that with the spray of a machine gun or even a nuclear bomb.

The use of weapons comes down to whether or not it is morally acceptable and ethically responsible. The destruction of human life is unacceptable – as should be the use of chemical and biological weapons.

[Skybird]

By your arguments you should be more concerned with the use of submunition bombs and cluster ammunition, as well as mines. These lay around for months and years after the fighting has been done. Chemical weapons that so far got used in wars have short living times only, the agents are gone after short time and are difficult to be brought to focused, amassed effect.

To me, the difference is made by targets selection (or no target selection):

The intended targeting of persons not supporting directly or indirectly the enemy and not participating in actual fighting and not being a member of the enemy force, or abusing them as human shields

versus

targeting enemy combatants, and non-combating but still supporting "helpers" and sympathizers, also mentioning here the victims falling to "collateral" damage where the victim is not targetted as the shot's objective but just unluckily happens to be in in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

The weapon does not make the moral difference. The intention of aim, the purposes of a war - these make the moral difference.

What makes a difference is to intentionally bombard and mass-kill civilian crowds as a tool to terrorize them for the purpose of terrorizing them, or blaming the other side. In Rwanda, the genocide was committed by machetes (delivered by the Chinese). Whether children and women and men, old and young, get mutilated my machetes and blood to death, get burned to deathn by white phosphorus, get mowed down by machine guns, or get ripped apart by cluster ammunition- is that method of doing the killing really the standard by which to assess the severity of the event?

[Feuer Frei!]

As far as i understand it, reading news articles and otrher subject matter, is that it's not the severity of the event that is being questioned, but the means by which the death toll has been reached.

[Wolferz]

Is it really being done by the accused parties?
The military industrial machine needs conflict in order to propagate itself.
What better way to proliferate weapons of war is there than by disseminating news of chemical weapons use in order to stir a populace toward military action and intervention?

We need a Department of Peace. Not a Department of defense, aka the War department.

[Jimbuna]

If irrefutable proof is obtained that Assad is responsible I'm wondering what if anything President Obama will do.

[August]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

If irrefutable proof is obtained that Assad is responsible I'm wondering what if anything President Obama will do.

I'm thinking little or nothing Jim.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

If irrefutable proof is obtained that Assad is responsible I'm wondering what if anything President Obama will do.

Jim, BO is golfing. Please leave a message.

[Skybird]

Israeli minister for strategic affairs, Juval Steinitz, is quoted in German news that the Mossad says the attack has been carried out by Assad's troops.

France indirectly has threatened French intervention even without green light from the UN.

The UN - does what it usually always does. Nobody is as competent in doing that as the UN.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

If irrefutable proof is obtained that Assad is responsible I'm wondering what if anything President Obama will do.

I'll guess go on vacation or golf.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Jim, BO is golfing. Please leave a message.

Just saw this. I see a trend here.

I saw on the news that France was calling for action. I say go for it. But, we've had our quota of Mideast fighting, so I say we sit this one out.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

So you are saying there is no distinction between using nerve gas or chemical weapons and machine gun bullets?

Apart from the fact that you can direct machine gun bullets and cannot direct the effects of nerve gas or chemical radiation, ie not discriminating and, like in this case, killing babies and children.

I think it says a lot, when a combatant choses to use cowardly methods to inflict losses upon the other.

In fact, what is the primary objective of the use of chemical warfare?

Certainly the answer is not indiscriminately killing off your enemy.

There are a raft of reasons why chemical warfare is frowned upon in the world.
A raft of reasons.

The whole fear of poison gas is an irrational fear from an earlier era.

I can understand how, in the trenches of WWI, you would wet yourself at the sight of a gas slowly drifting towards you, knowing that it would kill you.



But in this day and age, chemical weapons are not too hard to come by, especially when you can see things like this:

http://gizmodo.com/5847985/feuding-w...-of-a-wal+mart


truth is, small scale chemical weapon creation is easily doable in your home, its arguably easier to create chlorine gas in small scales than it is to create gun powder.

With a few trained chemists and a chemicals facility (ex. a fertilizer factory). Its not too difficult to create a wide variety of chemical weapons. it is probably easier to convert a chemical factory into a factory for chemical weapons than it is to convert a manufactory into artillery production.

The use of poison gas is just like the use of any other weapon with an area of effect, and should not be feared as the end of the world.