On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:09:40 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)

On 4/9/17 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:09:40 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)


Chemical weapon, nonetheless.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)


Chemical weapon, nonetheless.

Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way.

On 4/9/17 1:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)


Chemical weapon, nonetheless.

Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way.


Oh, please...stop rationalizing, at least on Agent Orange. It was
chemical warfare, no different than other forms of chemical warfare.

On 4/9/2017 2:18 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 1:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead.
Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)


Chemical weapon, nonetheless.

Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way.


Oh, please...stop rationalizing, at least on Agent Orange. It was
chemical warfare, no different than other forms of chemical warfare.


Very different. Agent Orange was legal to use according to
international law. Nerve agents like Sarin is illegal. You can have
your personal opinion but it doesn't make it technically or legally correct.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:18:19 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 1:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)


Chemical weapon, nonetheless.

Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way.


Oh, please...stop rationalizing, at least on Agent Orange. It was
chemical warfare, no different than other forms of chemical warfare.

Harry, you're simply showing your ****ing ignorance. The goal of chemical warfare is to maim and
kill people. The goal of our Agent Orange use was to defoliate areas so they couldn't be used as
hiding grounds for the North Vietnamese Army and/or the Viet Cong.

How ****ing stupid are you?

On 4/9/2017 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:09:40 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)



Napalm is also technically a defoliant.

On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.

On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.