On September 12 2013 11:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote: @Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit.
Yep. Just realized how hypocritic the U.S really is. They used a ton of chemical weapons in the last 40 years.
That describes the hypocrisy of the supporters perfectly:
On September 12 2013 12:06 Warlock40 wrote: Interesting map. Looks like the rebels are doing well geographically, but from what I understand, the government holds the major population centres as well as natural resources, not to mention much of the coastline, right? Also, the opposition strongholds in the south seem to be cut off from those in the north. I wonder if they coordinate by crossing the border into Jordan and Iraq? Of perhaps the opposition groups in the south have little connection to those groups in the north?
He holds most of the airports as well it seems.
Forgive my ignorance, could someone explain how the Kurds shown on the map fit into this?
yet how many innoncent people have died due to bomb raids in war on terror? As far as I know, aerial strikes killed the most civilians.
Just because chemical weapons are nasty doesn't make bombing any better.
As a matter of fact, yes, yes it does. that's like saying, just because drawing and quartering someone after a 15th century witch trial is nasty, it doesn't make lethal injections after a modern court process any better. One is bad, the other is many, many, many times worse. These are not two evils you can just shrug at and say 'well, people die either way'. I'd prefer we didn't have a death penalty at all, but if someone floats taking us back to public torture executions, I'm not going to call people who advocate sticking with our current systems as hypocrites because they're also killing people.
The impersonal nature of air-control war disgusts me, personally, the arguments for it being primarily economical and diplomatic, rather than humanitarian and ethical. The worst is that we now use munitions to directly target enemy personnel, rather than materiel as we did originally. The ethical imperative if war must be fought is to cripple an enemy's ability to fight while inflicting the minimum of suffering on them.
In a sense this is what the current strategy of the west is- surgical strikes at training facilities, ammunition or machinery stocks, assassinations of key leadership. Unfortunately, the method is failing far too often and since the traditional doctrine of materiel denial just isn't working effectively against soldiers who basically only carry a rifle as specialist equipment, the powers that be have started shifting their emphasis more onto killing the instigators than denying them their tools. Since said people live amongst communities of (primarily) innocents, and are hard to identify as it is, we get 'collateral damage'. Far too much of it.
On September 12 2013 11:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote: @Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit.
Thank you, the more and more absurd comparisons of chemical weapons to ANY other form of dieing are really getting obnoxious.
On September 12 2013 17:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Here's Cheney actually talking some sense about Iraq back in 1994.Same could easily be said about Syria, Libya, Egypt etc....Obama are you listening??
yet how many innoncent people have died due to bomb raids in war on terror? As far as I know, aerial strikes killed the most civilians.
Just because chemical weapons are nasty doesn't make bombing any better.
As a matter of fact, yes, yes it does. that's like saying, just because drawing and quartering someone after a 15th century witch trial is nasty, it doesn't make lethal injections after a modern court process any better. One is bad, the other is many, many, many times worse. These are not two evils you can just shrug at and say 'well, people die either way'. I'd prefer we didn't have a death penalty at all, but if someone floats taking us back to public torture executions, I'm not going to call people who advocate sticking with our current systems as hypocrites because they're also killing people.
The impersonal nature of air-control war disgusts me, personally, the arguments for it being primarily economical and diplomatic, rather than humanitarian and ethical. The worst is that we now use munitions to directly target enemy personnel, rather than materiel as we did originally. The ethical imperative if war must be fought is to cripple an enemy's ability to fight while inflicting the minimum of suffering on them.
In a sense this is what the current strategy of the west is- surgical strikes at training facilities, ammunition or machinery stocks, assassinations of key leadership. Unfortunately, the method is failing far too often and since the traditional doctrine of materiel denial just isn't working effectively against soldiers who basically only carry a rifle as specialist equipment, the powers that be have started shifting their emphasis more onto killing the instigators than denying them their tools. Since said people live amongst communities of (primarily) innocents, and are hard to identify as it is, we get 'collateral damage'. Far too much of it.
I am not arguing for lethal injects vs chemical weapons. I am arguing for bombing that could kill civilians vs chemical weapons. I highly doubt the people in Serbia will feel a whole lot safer knowing that US is gonna bomb them And personally I just don't see why the US should take the higher moral ground by bombing and selling guns to any side of the conflicts as to condemn chemical weapon usage. This whole issue is a political one and any intervention will only make it worse.
On September 12 2013 17:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Here's Cheney actually talking some sense about Iraq back in 1994.Same could easily be said about Syria, Libya, Egypt etc....Obama are you listening??
On September 12 2013 17:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Here's Cheney actually talking some sense about Iraq back in 1994.Same could easily be said about Syria, Libya, Egypt etc....Obama are you listening??
On September 12 2013 11:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote: @Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit.
Thank you, the more and more absurd comparisons of chemical weapons to ANY other form of dieing are really getting obnoxious.
I really can't understand you guys. "inhumane method of killing other people"... I find it a stretch to compare it to lethal injections since that's a very controlled murder, but comparing it to say signature strikes is not a stretch at all.
While of course the preferred way of killing is to make it quick, in my opinion the action of taking life still outweighs the suffering the person endures in those last moments.
On September 12 2013 09:18 Uvantak wrote: Also, even tho i would really like US invading full scale Syria and kill two birds with a single rock (make Al Nusra and ISIS leave the country or at least put them to line and topple Assad's government) i know it is not gonna happen, US people are not educate enough to know what it is happening in Syria and how this could affect their future, and all western countries for that matter. But cruise missiles now and good training for the FSA and the later new SAA that will be formed when Assad falls, plus international aid form UN and other organizations and some educational efforts from western powers to condition Syrian population should be good enough to avoid extremists to take over Syria after this war is over.
Please explain why it is in America's best interest to invade.
On September 12 2013 09:23 xDaunt wrote:
On September 12 2013 09:18 Uvantak wrote: Also, even tho i would really like US invading full scale Syria and kill two birds with a single rock (make Al Nusra and ISIS leave the country or at least put them to line and topple Assad's government) i know it is not gonna happen, US people are not educate enough to know what it is happening in Syria and how this could affect their future, and all western countries for that matter. But cruise missiles now and good training for the FSA and the later new SAA that will be formed when Assad falls, plus international aid form UN and other organizations and some educational efforts from western powers to condition Syrian population should be good enough to avoid extremists to take over Syria after this war is over.
Please explain why it is in America's best interest to invade.
Let's say that the US does not invade at all and the war drags a year more and finally the FSA wins, by then Al Nusra and ISIS will have control of a big chunk of the country since they are the strongest FSA factions atm and they are the ones that we see behind almost of all the mass killings, minorities killings and beheadings "committed by the FSA", so when this war against Assad is over if these mass killings continue, it is very probable that the rest of the actual FSA will try to fight them ( i have seen a few interviews to FSA commanders and how they talk of Al Nusra being a pain in the ass and how their alliance it is just a matter of convenience, but if Al nusra tries to overtake a big part of the country they will fight them), and this will spire down into sectarian war, but since Al Nusra has Al Qaeda backing them and Al Qaeda has quite a bit of resources it may happen that Al Nusra could overtake the new formed Syrian government or at least get a big representation on it, and that it would mean that they can spread their extremists ideals further into the general population possibly dragging a small percentage of it into the known circlejerk of "we hate america, let's kill them for what they have done to us" and convincing another considerable percentage into "Fuck america" and the rest of the population would be all "america didn't help us when we asked them, why should we bother if they get killed by the extremists they create?". And plus with all the new political leaders that would try to push these new extremists ideals into the Syrian mainstream and it would give Al Qaeda more resources than they already have now, and possibly even stranded chemical weapons or the chemicals to make them from the ones that would have been left from Assad stranded warfare labs.
Now this is all built upon quite a bit of conjectures that need to be align for something like this to happen, but it has happened before in the past, in Afghanistan and the rising of Al Qaeda, which is a by product of the Americans leaving Afghanistan all by itself after the URSS invasion en the 80's instead of helping the population to rebuild their country, have you seen that picture of Ronald Reagan meeting with some talibans? well these where the good guys at the time that picture was taken, but they where left alone to fight muslims extremists and rebuild their country without external help, what happened? Well the rancor of being forgotten, lied and used to fight Russians is a powerful feeling and a considerable amount of the population started feeling the same way and they gave their backs to the "good" talibans that supported the US even when the US forgot them, and the population did so because the "good talibans" didn't have the capacity and resources to help the population and instead the population started asking for help/helping Al Qaeda to rebuild Afghanistan while impose their extremists views of the Qurán and giving a blanket to the anti western ideals that the population developed after being used by the US to fight the URSS.
That is broadly what happened in Afghanistan post URSS invasion, and that is my fear for Syria, that the country is left alone when the FSA and population asked for two years for external help, +100.000 people have died and those that are alive remember the ones that didn't helped them, the ones that could have avoided such bloodshed (Lybia's civilian war lasted 8 months where "only" ~25.000 people died), that is my fear, that those that are alive feel rancor towards those that could have helped and didn't do so, and for what i can see, read and find a considerable amount of people feel that way.
Srry but i don't have more time to keep writing, i need to be up tomorrow morning. But i'll do my best to answer tomorrow morning b4 going to college if you want to keep arguing about my view of things ^^
Also srry for any swapped word, for some reason my brain swaps words for others or writes them backwards and i have to check if i didn't mess up badly in the grammar and stuff, but sometimes i miss some.
Nice story, but you forgot one thing: they're going to hate us if we go in there as well. It's a lose-lose for the U.S. these days when it comes to foreign "relations." Really the only options for preserving U.S. interests in the Middle East are to either make the retarded terrorists keep killing each other in sectarian violence, or pray to God/Allah/Odin that they'll stop being fundamentalist barbarians. Everything else only further enrages the Middle East and Europe.
Ha yes, that is something i have said in previous posts, and actually it IS a situation lose-lose for the US if you take it that way, the truth is that this is not a fight "between terrorists" this is a war between Civilians with Al Qaeda and Arabic support and Syrian government supported by Russia/Iran/Hezbollah (or it used to be b4 CIA got involved), and the one that reigns the country after the war will have access to an enraged population in extreme poverty in need of immediate help and as you can guess this is the perfect place where Al Qaeda shines, where they help and then spread their political/Quran ideals recruiting more soldiers to their lines. Also it not entirely true that "they don't want us" that is propaganda spread by the US and EU politicians, the FSA and a considerable percentage of the population have been BEGGING for the US/NATO/UN to get involved and stop this crap YEARS ago, but as you said it is correct to said that it not ALL the population and as it happens that percentage are the non minorities nationalists (Sunnis), Al Nusra-ISIS supporters and Assad's supporters, almost all the others minorities are shit scared of Al Nusra/government troops and what will happen when they reach their towns. So this IS a lose lose scenario, but not so much, it can be avoided with the right moves like starting education/rebuild processes right after the war is over and send aid ASAP to the people in camps before Al Qaeda can, that will move the balance to US side. Also US at this point no act would be retarded, because of their allies in the middle east (Israel, Jordan, Iraq), no act could give Al Qaeda an stronghold which could destabilize Iraq and create problems in Israel and Jordan, the middle east it is not a FFA anymore, now days it is a controlled FAA where all the "west" side of the middle east is controlled by the US and the only radicals (guys who oppose US) left are terrorists extremists groups.
Thanks for the pic stealth it really shows how much of a tactical hell this war is.
On September 12 2013 11:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote: @Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit.
Thank you, the more and more absurd comparisons of chemical weapons to ANY other form of dieing are really getting obnoxious.
I really can't understand you guys. "inhumane method of killing other people"... I find it a stretch to compare it to lethal injections since that's a very controlled murder, but comparing it to say signature strikes is not a stretch at all.
While of course the preferred way of killing is to make it quick, in my opinion the action of taking life still outweighs the suffering the person endures in those last moments.
As far as I know the US denies doing signature strikes.
And even if they did, YES it is many many many times worse killing hundreds with nerve gas than dozens with a missile.
Air strikes, drone strikes, whatever method of killing might be immoral in their own way, yet they absolutely are more humane ways than using poison gas.
On September 12 2013 11:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote: @Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit.
Thank you, the more and more absurd comparisons of chemical weapons to ANY other form of dieing are really getting obnoxious.
I really can't understand you guys. "inhumane method of killing other people"... I find it a stretch to compare it to lethal injections since that's a very controlled murder, but comparing it to say signature strikes is not a stretch at all.
While of course the preferred way of killing is to make it quick, in my opinion the action of taking life still outweighs the suffering the person endures in those last moments.
As far as I know the US denies doing signature strikes.
And even if they did, YES it is many many many times worse killing hundreds with nerve gas than dozens with a missile.
Air strikes, drone strikes, whatever method of killing might be immoral in their own way, yet they absolutely are more humane ways than using poison gas.
Still, I don't think Assad is able to reach the kill counter of all drone strikes with his weapons...
*punishing* is not a verb that should be used in armed conflicts. If the chance is high that Assad will do this again, take the possibility out of his hands. One or the other way. But in order to really stop the killing in Syria, don't put weapons in the hands of jihadists. Stop supporting this civil war, which would already be over now if not for constant foreign aid for the rebels...
The announcement that a western military intervention would not be to enforce a regime change leads me to the conclusion they want this war to drag on and on and on. It will not save lifes, Syria will be a failed state afterwards like Afghanistan is already.
On September 12 2013 11:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote: @Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit.
Thank you, the more and more absurd comparisons of chemical weapons to ANY other form of dieing are really getting obnoxious.
I really can't understand you guys. "inhumane method of killing other people"... I find it a stretch to compare it to lethal injections since that's a very controlled murder, but comparing it to say signature strikes is not a stretch at all.
While of course the preferred way of killing is to make it quick, in my opinion the action of taking life still outweighs the suffering the person endures in those last moments.
As far as I know the US denies doing signature strikes.
And even if they did, YES it is many many many times worse killing hundreds with nerve gas than dozens with a missile.
Air strikes, drone strikes, whatever method of killing might be immoral in their own way, yet they absolutely are more humane ways than using poison gas.
Dozens? You have no idea.
The bomb might hit its target, and yes, the bad guys will mercifully evaporate. But the outskirts of the explosions are the problem. People getting hit with shrapnel and debris, and thus dying slowly and painfully and bloodily.
Syrian government currently holds very populated areas. We won't kill dozens, are you serious? Thousands and thousands will die, very painfully, if we decide to bomb Syria. People who were simply in the wrong place in the wrong time. And their families will have nothing to direct their hate towards except that country that has been air-bombing Islamic countries for dozens of years now, claiming its for their own fucking safety!!!!
I'm restraining myself from posting pictures of so many Iraqi civilian amputees and deceased victims who died from small shrapnel wounds. There is nothing humane about us bringing more weapons and war to Syria. The delusion that we'll somehow stabilize the country by bombing it is based entirely on fiction, not history.
FSA's Freed Belgian Hostage: FSA, NOT Syrian Govt, Behind Damascus Chemical Attack on August 21
Two Europeans who were abducted and held hostage for several months in Syria claim they overheard an exchange between their captors which proves that 'rebels' were behind the recent chemical attack.
In a number of interviews to European news outlets, the former hostages - Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quirico - said they overheard an English-language Skype conversation between their captors and other men which suggested it was 'rebel' forces, not the government, that used chemical weapons on Syria's civilian population in an August 21 attack near Damascus.
"It is a moral duty to say this. The government of Bashar al-Assad did not use sarin gas or other types of gas in the outskirts of Damascus," Piccinin said during an interview with Belgium's RTL radio station.
Piccinin stressed that while being held captive, he and fellow prisoner Quirico were secluded from the outside world and had no idea that chemical weapons were deployed. But the conversation which both men overheard suggested that the use of the weapons was a strategic move by the opposition, aimed at getting the West to intervene.
"In this conversation, they said that the gas attack on two neighborhoods of Damascus was launched by the 'rebels' as a provocation to lead the West to intervene militarily," Quirico told Italy's La Stampa. "We were unaware of everything that was going on during our detention in Syria, and therefore also with the gas attack in Damascus."
While stating that the rebels most likely exaggerated the accident's death toll, the Italian journalist stressed that he could not vouch whether "the conversation was based on real facts." However, he said that one of the three people in the alleged conversation identified himself as a Free Syrian Army general, La Stampa reported.
Based on what both men have learned, Peccinin told RTL that it would be "insane and suicidal for the West to support these people."
"It pains me to say it because I've been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012," Piccinin added.
"There was sometimes real violence...humiliation, bullying, mock executions...Domenico faced two mock executions, with a revolver," Piccinin told RTL.
Both men were kidnapped in Syria last April by a group of armed men in pickup trucks who were believed to be from Free Syrian Army.
According to Piccinin, the captors soon transferred them over to the Abu Ammar brigade, a rebel group "more bandit than Islamist."
"We were moved around a lot...it was not always the same group that held us, there were very violent groups, very anti-West and some anti-Christian," Piccinin said.
Both men tried to escape twice but their attempts were unsuccessful, prompting the 'rebel' group to punish them for their actions.
The Italian government announced on Sunday that both men had been freed after Rome intensified negotiations with the 'rebels' for the release of the prisoners ahead of an anticipated US strike on Syria.
Another 13 journalists are still believed to be missing in Syria, according to Reporters Without Borders.
Then I guess its just a matter if you believe him or not.
So following that logic, it wouldn't really matter if the US would strike back at Assad with conventional missiles or chemical weapons, since they are equally bad? You guys can't be serious.
On September 12 2013 20:45 Leporello wrote: Dozens? You have no idea.
Sure it sucks getting a leg blown off by a missile. Still nowhere near comparable dying from nerve gas.
On September 12 2013 20:42 schaf wrote: Still, I don't think Assad is able to reach the kill counter of all drone strikes with his weapons...
The C-Weapon attack killed an estimated 1400 people. That is half of the casualties of the entire drone strike program of the past decade. With a single attack. So, yes, he is able to reach that counter, easily. They are called WMDs for a reason.
On September 12 2013 20:58 zatic wrote: So following that logic, it wouldn't really matter if the US would strike back at Assad with conventional missiles or chemical weapons, since they are equally bad? You guys can't be serious.
On September 12 2013 20:42 schaf wrote: Still, I don't think Assad is able to reach the kill counter of all drone strikes with his weapons...
The C-Weapon attack killed an estimated 1400 people. That is half of the casualties of the entire drone strike program of the past decade. With a single attack. So, yes, he is able to reach that counter, easily. They are called WMDs for a reason.
There is so much wrong with this Pakistan comparison.
First - Pakistan isn't Syria, and the places in Pakistan we were striking may have not been in heavily populated areas. Syrian government currently holds populated areas. You hit a tall concrete building with a drone-strike, you can easily kill hundred.
But that's not what is REALLY dishonest about this comparison you're making.
Here are the numbers in total from the Pakistan air strikes, per the wiki-link you used:
360 strikes, 41 militants, 2446 civilians. Gotta love that famous pinpoint precision.
That's not dozens.
Or are you comparing one large-scale chemical attack to one single-solitary drone strike?!!!! Because do you not see how ridiculous that is? It's like comparing a bomb to a bullet.
It reminds me of the Hiroshima-Dresden comparison. We all know about the big bomb leveling the city, but we lest often hear about Dresden being completely leveled via the thousands and thousands of conventional bombs that were dropped on it. Weapons of mass destruction are bad, but mass destruction by incremental means adds up to the same fucking thing!
edit: and the bottom-line is there is absolutely zero logical or historical basis to argue that bombing Syria, even if it "only" kills dozens or hundreds (BULLSHIT), is going to somehow stabilize a country in the middle of a religious/political civil-war.
On September 12 2013 20:58 zatic wrote: The C-Weapon attack killed an estimated 1400 people.
the chemical weapon attack, whose perpetrator is still unknown claimed between 280 and 1700 lives.
It really doesn't matter who pulled the trigger. People here are saying that killing hundreds with nerve gas is no worse than killing a few with a missile which is insane.
EPT![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/syria/syria.png)
