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, 01:37 PM   #81
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,198
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
Are you saying it's hypocritical to ban weapons such as mustard gas, while not banning machine guns [massive bombing of residential buildings, schools, hospitals, water supplies, etc]?
ftfy... Yes.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
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, 01:39 PM   #82
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,198
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.
And some Trump spokesperson said there were no civilian casualties.

Dueling narratives.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
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, 02:19 PM   #83
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,397
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
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".
50 years later I still remember that line from school English lessons
__________________
"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, 02:29 PM   #84
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,100
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
ftfy... Yes.
How about non-massive bombing?
__________________
"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, 03:17 PM   #85
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 15,713
F.U.K.U.S. Strikes Syria - Who Won?
Childlike Empress 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, 03:27 PM   #86
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 66,198
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
How about non-massive bombing?
If you want to go to ideal world we might have a universal force that stopped all wars.

I was thinking perhaps the next step in the current world is a massive response to these bombings of civilians.
__________________
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really want to get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!" — Betty White
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, 03:28 PM   #87
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
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?
Can you imagine various regimes around the world thinking that they could start throwing chemical weapons around with no sanction?

An attack on a city with nerve agents or chlorine or mustard gas?

Not even Hitler used chemical weapons and he certainly had stocks.
Captain_Swoop 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, 03:33 PM   #88
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
The message is that chemical weapons are fine so long as those chemicals are high explosives or incendiaries.
Do yo ureally not know the difference in effect of an explosive and a gas or nerve agent ?

Our biggest nightmare in the 80s was a chemical or nerve agent attack.
We trained against it and were expecting it. Ships are sealed against it and are designed with systems to wash down the decks and upper works in case of contamination.

What do you think the effect would be on a city if chemical weapons are used freely?

Not doing anything against this would give the green light to every tin pot dictator to break out the chlorine or nerve agents.
Captain_Swoop 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, 03:39 PM   #89
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
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 have no idea do you?

In military use one of the main uses is area denial. Chemicals linger and contaminate.

After WW2 the German stockpiles of Chemical Weapons were brought to the UK for storage. They were put in to an old POW camp up on the Moors behind Barnard Castle. They weren't cleared out and disposed of until the late 80s. Storage had deteriorated over the decades and chemicals leaked. Even after an extensive clean up the land is still contaminated and fenced off.
Captain_Swoop 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 PM   #90
Ethan Thane Athen
Graduate Poster
 
Ethan Thane Athen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
So these experts wanted a war with Russia or ignore It?

What are they expert in again?
No they wanted a fully detailed and sustained plan / set of action not necessarily military action. They were just pointing out that a single strike like this is just noise and will have no impact...just like last time.
Ethan Thane Athen 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, 03:41 PM   #91
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
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
My Grandad was gassed on the Western Front. He was in the Horse Artillery.
He never fully recovered, it permanently effected his eyesight, lungs and heart.
Captain_Swoop 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, 03:50 PM   #92
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
No they wanted a fully detailed and sustained plan / set of action not necessarily military action. They were just pointing out that a single strike like this is just noise and will have no impact...just like last time.
Which seems reasonable because there's no evidence that chemical weapons were used...just like last time.
CaptainHowdy 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, 03:52 PM   #93
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
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.
Yes you would becvause they would contaminate the site and make using it very difficult if not impossible, that is their purpose.

Quote:
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.
If you launched a full military chemical attack such as the ones we trained against in the 80s the enemy wouldn't be able to occupy the town for a long time as it would be too contaminated.
A chemical attack is designed to deny an area to the enemy

Quote:
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.
It was expected that the Soviets would use widespread chemical attacks if a war started in Europe. It was their expressed doctrine and they trained for it. We trained to fight in a contaminated environment. That is one of the reasons that modern infantry fight from filtered, over pressure, air conditioned, sealed personnel carriers, even then they wear a full 'noddy suit' and respirator. Field HQs and Hospitals have provision to seal and filter the air supply It is the reason ships have a sealed 'citadel' and equipment to envelop the ship in a decontaminating spray.

On the old 'Leanders' that I served on, because they were steam turbine powered and needed a huge amount of air supply for the boilers the boiler room was outside the citadel. It was operated from a remote control room. Engine room crew that needed to go in there under NBC conditions had to wear the full 'noddy suit' and respirator.

You have no idea what chemical weapons entail or why they were developed or why the Soviets planned to use them
Captain_Swoop 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, 03:57 PM   #94
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
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.
An easy and cheap claim for the Russians to make as there is no possibility of flying any follow up recon to confirm the targets.

The Russians are saying that at the sites they decided to defend with AA they were 100 percent succesful with their intercept. Other sites that weren't defended were hit.

I don't find the claims credible but we can't gainsay them as we can't do the follow ups.
Captain_Swoop 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, 04:01 PM   #95
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
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".
Gas Gas Gas.
Open gas pack, Wipe down face, on with mask, up hood. Wipe down hands then on with gloves.
Inject Atropine.
Wait a few minutes and if you don't die carry on working as best you can in all the gear.
Captain_Swoop 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, 04:02 PM   #96
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,156
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
You have no idea what chemical weapons entail or why they were developed or why the Soviets planned to use them
Patronising and insulting. Classy.
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, 04:02 PM   #97
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,413
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post

But what if just one missile had gotten through? I mean, look at how much damage a single Tomahawk did at the Pentagon.
__________________
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, 04:04 PM   #98
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Patronising and insulting. Classy.
Just calling it as I see it.
Captain_Swoop 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, 04:11 PM   #99
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
But what if just one missile had gotten through? I mean, look at how much damage a single Tomahawk did at the Pentagon.

What are you on about? As you claimed already that you saw on RT that "all 71 missiles were intercepted", which likely had something to do with your perception ability, not with the broadcast, here's a table about the different claims on targets and successes. The "bad guys" claim 32 missiles "have gotten through".
Childlike Empress 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, 04:37 PM   #100
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,100
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Patronising and insulting. Classy.
The appropriate response to someone who claims the world powers banned chemical weapons because they leave structures intact.
__________________
"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, 07:06 PM   #101
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,139
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
An easy and cheap claim for the Russians to make as there is no possibility of flying any follow up recon to confirm the targets.

The Russians are saying that at the sites they decided to defend with AA they were 100 percent succesful with their intercept. Other sites that weren't defended were hit.

I don't find the claims credible but we can't gainsay them as we can't do the follow ups.
They each have 100s of satellites.

I think they can all work out what got through
__________________
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, 09:00 PM   #102
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,091
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Then your opinion can be disregarded. If you refuse to read a comprehensive selection of the facts on the use of the weapons you are not interested in facts,and I have no use for your opinion.
This not understanding or even not bothering to read the rules of warfare keeps popping up in various threads. Both re: what can be done , what can't be done and what allows some modifications of what can or cannot be done.

For example, if a force acting as a military chooses not to wear uniforms and specific rank insignia then they are violating the rules and can have many problems legally (like if captured they may be treated as spies) and thus executed. If any military functions are carried out in a city or village they are assaultable and bombable - though if possible civilians should be avoided/not harmed....
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
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, 09:04 PM   #103
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,883
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.
Most Incendiaries including napalm and white phosphorus are banned from use near civilian populations and may be banned under other treaties such as the chemical weapons ban (White Phosphorus) and bans against weapons that cause asphyxiation or severe ecological effects.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf 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, 09:15 PM   #104
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,091
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.
Give them each a hammer and a big screwdriver.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
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, 09:16 PM   #105
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,384
Yes, chemical weapons are worse.

Conventional weapons are bad and the US government shouldn't be using them.
BobTheCoward 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, 11:41 PM   #106
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,397
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
An easy and cheap claim for the Russians to make as there is no possibility of flying any follow up recon to confirm the targets.

The Russians are saying that at the sites they decided to defend with AA they were 100 percent succesful with their intercept. Other sites that weren't defended were hit.

I don't find the claims credible but we can't gainsay them as we can't do the follow ups.
Satellite imagery? We've seen the before/after photos in similar attacks.
__________________
"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 15th April 2018, 01:00 AM   #107
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 15,713
Here's a report from the ground at one of the airbases that were never targeted, interviewing a BUK commander who claims to have intercepted missiles never fired at them. A "Major Mohammed", of course.

Childlike Empress 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 15th April 2018, 04:58 AM   #108
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Can you imagine various regimes around the world thinking that they could start throwing chemical weapons around with no sanction?

An attack on a city with nerve agents or chlorine or mustard gas?

Not even Hitler used chemical weapons and he certainly had stocks.
... what the what?!
DreamingNaiad 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 15th April 2018, 06:11 AM   #109
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,384
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
My Grandad was gassed on the Western Front. He was in the Horse Artillery.
He never fully recovered, it permanently effected his eyesight, lungs and heart.
Many people also do not recover from being shot and killed.
BobTheCoward 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 15th April 2018, 06:12 AM   #110
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
They each have 100s of satellites.

I think they can all work out what got through
I bet they can't
Captain_Swoop 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 15th April 2018, 06:14 AM   #111
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Many people also do not recover from being shot and killed.
Yes we know, guns bad. No one is claiming that being killed by a gun isn't bad Give it a rest.
Captain_Swoop 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 15th April 2018, 06:17 AM   #112
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
... what the what?!
Germany had stocks of Nerve Agents and gas weapons as did Britain and the USA.

The fear of retaliation in kind stopped Germany from using chemical weapons.

All the troops in WW2 were issued with Gas Maks as were the civilian population in the UK.

Gas training was compulsory and you had to carry your gas mask at all times by law.

British and American forces in Europe had stocks of gas shells in store ready to issue and use on the battlefield if they were attacked.
Captain_Swoop 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 15th April 2018, 06:18 AM   #113
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,384
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Yes we know, guns bad. No one is claiming that being killed by a gun isn't bad Give it a rest.
Lot of people want to use bad guns to solve the bad chemical weapons. There are people who are differentiating.
BobTheCoward 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 15th April 2018, 06:21 AM   #114
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Germany had stocks of Nerve Agents and gas weapons as did Britain and the USA.

The fear of retaliation in kind stopped Germany from using chemical weapons.

All the troops in WW2 were issued with Gas Maks as were the civilian population in the UK.

Gas training was compulsory and you had to carry your gas mask at all times by law.

British and American forces in Europe had stocks of gas shells in store ready to issue and use on the battlefield if they were attacked.
I was more shocked that you don't consider gassing the Jews to be 'using chemical weapons'.
DreamingNaiad 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 15th April 2018, 07:12 AM   #115
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 7,226
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Bullets are made of metal and metal is a chemical. Bullets are chemical weapons.
Elementary.
Information Analyst 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 15th April 2018, 07:17 AM   #116
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 7,226
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.
More or less "problematic" than Assad and his cronies gassing Syrian citizens the week before?
Information Analyst 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 15th April 2018, 07:19 AM   #117
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,384
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
More or less "problematic" than Assad and his cronies gassing Syrian citizens the week before?
More.
BobTheCoward 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 15th April 2018, 07:32 AM   #118
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 7,226
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 US, France, and the UK fired 105 missiles, not 71. The Syrians/Russians claim that 71 were shot down; the US claims that none were shot down. Historically it has generally been the case that reality usually falls somewhere between two sides with conflicting claims of - respectively - kills or losses. That would suggest around two-thirds of the missiles getting through, not just a third of them.
Information Analyst 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 15th April 2018, 07:47 AM   #119
Zambo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 50
There are opposing views on whether it was planned or not that the detailed targets were given to the Russians in advance and that information was then passed to the Syrian government.
From previous engagements it is clear that the reason for secrecy is to stop what you want to destroy (or kill) from being moved and to avoid human shields from being moved in.
I saw as a defence of providing a warning that the equipment is "heavy" and could not be moved. That I doubt; the critical equipment, raw materials and documents are easily moved. The heavy items of fabricated vessels, process steelwork and delivery systems can easily either be salvaged or quickly refabricated offsite.
That we needed to warn Russia so that they could ensure that Russian and Iranian citizens were not at Syrian chemical weapons installations during the attack doesn't makes sense, if there were fatalities would these states admit their citizens were at these sensitive facilities.
Regardless of the above I'm pleased that the strike was purely symbolic and no escalation was provoked or intended.
Zambo 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 15th April 2018, 07:51 AM   #120
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,362
Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
I was more shocked that you don't consider gassing the Jews to be 'using chemical weapons'.
It wasn't using chemical weapons, it was using chemicals yes but not as a weapon in battle.

Such was the fear of using them that they weren't deployed at all, not even on the Eastern front where it could be argued they would have given the Germans the biggest advantage. They could have been completely different outcomes at both Leningrad and Stalingrad.
Captain_Swoop 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
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 09:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.