ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 14th April 2018, 02:32 AM   #41
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm relieved that it wasn't just the US acting alone, lends a bit of respectability to the affair. And makes it plausible that it wasn't just about Trump trying to distract the public from his personal legal problems.
Or his other, oh so many, flaws and evil doings!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 02:55 AM   #42
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,576
I'm kind of wondering what effect huge explosions within chemical weapons plants might have on an urban environment. When things like that occur by accident they're generally a potential disaster.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 03:40 AM   #43
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,549
The message is that chemical weapons are fine so long as those chemicals are high explosives or incendiaries.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:07 AM   #44
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 23,993
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
The message is that chemical weapons are fine so long as those chemicals are high explosives or incendiaries.
The subtle difference being that the sort of chemical weapon that Syria and Russia have used are illegal. Explosives (generally, but with exceptions) and incendiaries, are not.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:11 AM   #45
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,900
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
The message is that chemical weapons are fine so long as those chemicals are high explosives or incendiaries.
You might want to read up on quite how horrendous chemical weapons are and why they are illegal globally
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:20 AM   #46
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,549
Because blowing people's limbs off, blinding them, burning them, is so much kinder and more humane than poisoning them?

The main difference between the chemical weapons versus "conventional" weapons, is that chemical weapons don't damage property or infrastructure - once the chemicals have dispersed, the roads, bridges, buildings, and other facilities are still intact and don't need to be rebuilt. With either type of weapon you have to dispose of the dead bodies and carry away the injured - but with chemical weapons there's no need for all the expensive rebuilding work afterwards. Rightly or wrongly this makes the use of such weapons unacceptable to world powers at present.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:28 AM   #47
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 23,993
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Because blowing people's limbs off, blinding them, burning them, is so much kinder and more humane than poisoning them?.........
No. Because chemical weapons are illegal. I don't understand why this isn't clear.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:37 AM   #48
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,900
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Because blowing people's limbs off, blinding them, burning them, is so much kinder and more humane than poisoning them?

The main difference between the chemical weapons versus "conventional" weapons, is that chemical weapons don't damage property or infrastructure - once the chemicals have dispersed, the roads, bridges, buildings, and other facilities are still intact and don't need to be rebuilt. With either type of weapon you have to dispose of the dead bodies and carry away the injured - but with chemical weapons there's no need for all the expensive rebuilding work afterwards. Rightly or wrongly this makes the use of such weapons unacceptable to world powers at present.
One of the first recorded chemical weapons attacks was in WW1 1915 when the technology was at its infancy of lethality.

It was a form of chlorine

Over 5,000 died from having searing heat pains to their heads like fire and their lungs slowly contracting till they were basically strangled to death

Thousands of others were throthing at the mouth and were screwed for the rest of their lives because their lungs half worked.

It is 2018

I think it ain't got more pretty
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 05:52 AM   #49
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,763
This is what I read last night on CNN and it's still in their headline story...

Originally Posted by CNN
Trump indicated the strikes would continue until the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons ends. "We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents," he said.

A senior administration official said "what you've seen tonight is not the end of the US response. They have built a lot of flexibility into the plan to allow for further strikes based on what they've hit tonight."

However, Trump added the US "does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria." He has previously told his national security team he wants US troops to exit Syria within six months.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 06:23 AM   #50
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,565
"Mission Accomplished!"

Fool.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 06:24 AM   #51
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,070
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
"Mission Accomplished!"

Fool.
It is oddly prescient.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 06:38 AM   #52
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,071
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Because blowing people's limbs off, blinding them, burning them, is so much kinder and more humane than poisoning them?

The main difference between the chemical weapons versus "conventional" weapons, is that chemical weapons don't damage property or infrastructure - once the chemicals have dispersed, the roads, bridges, buildings, and other facilities are still intact and don't need to be rebuilt. With either type of weapon you have to dispose of the dead bodies and carry away the injured - but with chemical weapons there's no need for all the expensive rebuilding work afterwards. Rightly or wrongly this makes the use of such weapons unacceptable to world powers at present.
You, good sir could not be any more wrong.

Give a little look at the Geneva convention if you don't feel like pulling info out of your ass. You sound silly.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 07:13 AM   #53
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,070
So the US UK, an french governments snuffed out people's lives last night with no public deliberation. That sounds problematic.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 07:36 AM   #54
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
The message is that chemical weapons are fine so long as those chemicals are high explosives or incendiaries.
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Getting shot by a bullet (another weapon that is a chemical) also sounds extremely terrible.
It's conventional war vs almost scorched earth. Chemical and radiological weapons are far more indiscriminate and may linger in the environment. That's the difference.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 07:49 AM   #55
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,549
Obviously it depends on the target you want to attack.

No one would use chemical weapons in an attempt to destroy something like a runway or a bridge - for the very simple reason that such weapons would be totally ineffective for this task.

Let's say that the target is to kill, incapacitate, or otherwise put out of action an enemy army in a town; or to similarly kill, incapacitate or put out of action non military people in a town because you wish to stop them manufacturing arms or similar - or maybe you just want to kill them or drive them away so that your own people can move in and take over that town. One of these seems to have been the aim of the Syrian government in last weekend's (alleged) chemical attack.

Now we have accepted that the aim is to kill or otherwise incapacitate or remove people rather than buildings, machines or other infrastructure, we should try to explain why some forms of people-killing weapons are acceptable and others are not. Frankly, saying that it's "because such-an-such a convention says so" isn't a good enough reason for me. I want to know the reasoning behind that convention, the parties that suggested the convention, who signed up to it and why, which parties objected, who stands to gain from the convention. I am cynical enough to believe that if and when the USA or other superpower decides that they want to use the banned weapons, they will either get the conventions rewritten or scrapped, or simply ignore them.

Which countries have the greatest stockpiles of chemical weapons and the greatest means of production? Why do countries need these facilities at all if there is no situation under which the weapons would ever be used? No doubt they have some cover story - "research, investigating counter-measures", or other such excuses to justify the expense and risks involved in running these facilities.

Last edited by ceptimus; 14th April 2018 at 07:57 AM.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 07:59 AM   #56
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,070
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
It's conventional war vs almost scorched earth. Chemical and radiological weapons are far more indiscriminate and may linger in the environment. That's the difference.
Killing people discriminately is also really, really, bad.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 08:03 AM   #57
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,549
Things like destroyed buildings, roads, water supplies, sewers, electricity distribution systems, ... may also "linger in the environment" - probably for far longer than chemical weapons residue.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 08:12 AM   #58
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Killing people discriminately is also really, really, bad.
Depends on the context and chemical, radiological weapons don't discriminate.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 08:15 AM   #59
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Things like destroyed buildings, roads, water supplies, sewers, electricity distribution systems, ... may also "linger in the environment" - probably for far longer than chemical weapons residue.
And if that water was deliberately contaminated? What should we just open the door to chemical radiological, etc. weapons because shooting bullets is also deadly, albeit more accurate and quicker?
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 08:21 AM   #60
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,070
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
And if that water was deliberately contaminated? What should we just open the door to chemical radiological, etc. weapons because shooting bullets is also deadly, albeit more accurate and quicker?
I think ceptimus was closer to my position. It isn't that chemical weapons are okay, it is that distinguishing gives a false impression that conventional weapons are okay and makes it easier to use them.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 08:33 AM   #61
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
 
commandlinegamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mazes of Menace
Posts: 8,747
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Yes. What with the Skripals and now this, the mess that is Brexit is getting far less attention.
May is quite happy to listen to the "will of the people" when it comes to bombing the economy, not so much when laying waste elsewhere.
__________________
He bade me take any rug in the house.
commandlinegamer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 08:43 AM   #62
Wayward son
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Obviously it depends on the target you want to attack.

No one would use chemical weapons in an attempt to destroy something like a runway or a bridge - for the very simple reason that such weapons would be totally ineffective for this task.

Let's say that the target is to kill, incapacitate, or otherwise put out of action an enemy army in a town; or to similarly kill, incapacitate or put out of action non military people in a town because you wish to stop them manufacturing arms or similar - or maybe you just want to kill them or drive them away so that your own people can move in and take over that town. One of these seems to have been the aim of the Syrian government in last weekend's (alleged) chemical attack.
The aim of chemical attacks is as a psychological weapon. This has always been the case (with a couple exceptions such as when the Iraqis unleashed such a massive amount of it on their own citizens that could wipe out a whole town) and the reason why they were banned after WWI despite only making up a very small percentage of the death toll.

This is also why people - who do not understand - keep on saying that Assad couldn't be behind the chemical attack because there was nothing for him to gain from it. And they say that with each new attack even after the previous attacks have been shown to have been done by his regime. These attacks are about demoralizing the people resisting him and showing that not only are they in a hopeless situation but that he can do what ever he wants to them with impunity. Dropping chemical weapons makes people whither in fear and panic.

Last edited by Wayward son; 14th April 2018 at 08:45 AM.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 08:53 AM   #63
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,279
According to the OPCW, its mission in Syria will go ahead as planned.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:00 AM   #64
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,279
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
So the US UK, an french governments snuffed out people's lives last night with no public deliberation. That sounds problematic.
Well no; according to Syrian state media, which would have an incentive to exaggerate losses in this case for PR purposes, the total casualty count is three people injured in Homs.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:17 AM   #65
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
This is also why people - who do not understand - keep on saying that Assad couldn't be behind the chemical attack because there was nothing for him to gain from it. And they say that with each new attack even after the previous attacks have been shown to have been done by his regime. These attacks are about demoralizing the people resisting him and showing that not only are they in a hopeless situation but that he can do what ever he wants to them with impunity. Dropping chemical weapons makes people whither in fear and panic.
Also, they underestimate the inclination of Russia and Syria to rely on plausible deniability. They have a strong disinfo campaign branding their enemies as terrorists, taking a page out of "then the terrorists win" rhetoric so often done here, but I argue they go a step further when accuse those rebels, even the first responders and civilian population, of false flag attacks or staging massacres.
"Why would they do such a thing?" the answer is because so many people are ready to challenge the opposition narrative.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:18 AM   #66
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,455
Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
I don't quite get why there are only strikes when chemical weapons are used but not when Assad is slaughtering his people with everything else? It kind of sends the message that 'that was the wrong type of killing'.

Is there a deeper reason why there is only a response with chemical weapons? I really have a hard time believing that Trump cares for a second about the suffering of Syrian people. Is this about a fear of an unstable regime having chemical weapons and using this as an opportunity to destroy them so they don't fall into the wrong hands?
The hypocrisy shows. But the supposed reason is the world banned chemical warfare so countries need to act to maintain this worldwide ban.

It's bizarre that armed warfare is peachy keen.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:19 AM   #67
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,455
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
The point is the chemical weapons and making a statement by hitting them

The UK and France wouldn't be there if Trump was doing a Rambo
Just want to point out, NATO and countries other than three were not making such statement with Trumpy.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:24 AM   #68
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The hypocrisy shows. But the supposed reason is the world banned chemical warfare so countries need to act to maintain this worldwide ban.

It's bizarre that armed warfare is peachy keen.
Ya modern warfare looks weird, but I suppose it's for risk management. We support some of the rebel groups, help direct them against Assad, at the same time fend off other rebel groups and IS, then intervene at certain times, not so much to help the war effort but to enforce international law.

This morning Assad and friends spread around a video of him casually walking back to work with his briefcase, saying this won't deter the war effort; Well hampering the overall war effort wasn't exactly the primarily purpose of those strikes.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:39 AM   #69
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,198
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
So the US UK, an french governments snuffed out people's lives last night with no public deliberation. That sounds problematic.
The leadership and advisors of the US, UK and France are all members of the public. So there was "public deliberation".
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:43 AM   #70
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,198
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
This is also why people - who do not understand - keep on saying that Assad couldn't be behind the chemical attack because there was nothing for him to gain from it. And they say that with each new attack even after the previous attacks have been shown to have been done by his regime. These attacks are about demoralizing the people resisting him and showing that not only are they in a hopeless situation but that he can do what ever he wants to them with impunity. Dropping chemical weapons makes people whither in fear and panic.
Exactly...and some of those people have political reasons for not understanding.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:50 AM   #71
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,198
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The hypocrisy shows. But the supposed reason is the world banned chemical warfare so countries need to act to maintain this worldwide ban.

It's bizarre that armed warfare is peachy keen.
Are you saying it's hypocritical to ban weapons such as mustard gas, while not banning machine guns?
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 09:51 AM   #72
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,027
Honeymoon, officially over:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...s-hes-crapping
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 10:20 AM   #73
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,466
Originally Posted by William Parcher
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Getting shot by a bullet (another weapon that is a chemical) also sounds extremely terrible.
Bullets are made of metal and metal is a chemical. Bullets are chemical weapons.

From what I saw on RT... all 71 of the British, French, and US missiles struck the Russian surface-to-air interceptors they were shot at.
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 10:23 AM   #74
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,081
Out of all the WWI horrors, gas was the most horrible way to die, according to those on the front line. A gas attack was immortalised in poetry by Wilfred Owen. It is taught in schools. I still remember some of the lines, "Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! - An ecstasy of fumbling".
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 10:39 AM   #75
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,279
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
It's interesting to note that even in his anger, Jones speaks of Trump as having been successfully duped or conned, rather than someone who had been corrupt from the beginning and is only now showing it. Jones was ultimately betrayed to be sure, but of course definitely not wrong or naive to have trusted Trump in the first place.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 10:42 AM   #76
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,279
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
From what I saw on RT... all 71 of the British, French, and US missiles struck the Russian surface-to-air interceptors they were shot at.
The facilities were unfortunately destroyed anyway when a series of coincidental gas-main leaks and electrical fires caused them to explode several times.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 11:32 AM   #77
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,801
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
From what I saw on RT... all 71 of the British, French, and US missiles struck the Russian surface-to-air interceptors they were shot at.
All 71? Check again.

Was a good thread until page two.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 11:34 AM   #78
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,081
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Killing them conventionally isn't a great improvement. I think we can do better.
Indeed, put Putin, May, Assad, Macron and Trump in a ring and let them slog it out. Let the rest of us live in peace.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 11:57 AM   #79
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,198
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Indeed, put Putin, May, Assad, Macron and Trump in a ring and let them slog it out. Let the rest of us live in peace.
The rest of you will begin slogging it out in short order.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2018, 01:30 PM   #80
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,591
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Indeed, put Putin, May, Assad, Macron and Trump in a ring and let them slog it out. Let the rest of us live in peace.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.