chemical weapons killing civilians > bomb & bullets killing civilians..... XD

[c2dholla619]

america has been killing hundreds of thousand of innocent civilian in the middle east, but if another countries does this using chemicals instead of bombs and bullets it has a different meaning. is it ok for america to kill innocents but if another does the same thing its global treason. i always thought the killing of innocents was wrong regardless, maybe im looking at it wrong. is there something im not understanding.

is chemical weapons killing civilians > bomb & bullets killing civilians?

[A Day to Remember]

I always considered America (my country btw) to be the biggest terrorist of them all lol, i know im gona catch a lot of shit for this.

[Prokne]

Most countries signed a treaty not to use chemical weapons after the first world war because they are worse than just being shot or bombed. Its not just us, but we are apparently the only ones that care about it this time.

[cmennare]

I believe the difference is in the matter of scale. A bullet can only kill a couple of people at most. A bomb can be dropped on a building or a city block and possibly take out everyone in the building or block depending on the size of the bomb. Currently there are no city-killer bombs being deployed anywhere. But a chemical weapon has the potential to wipe out thousands of people with no warning, just a shift in the wind. The same fear is there for bio agents as well.

[Aphrel]

chemical warfare kills more civillians and ruins the envoriment. and its a pretty inhumane way to die from toxic gases. ot at elast this is what i whould guess the reasoning is for the global dilike for chmical warfare.

[Foosha]

america has been killing hundreds of thousand of innocent civilian in the middle east, but if another countries does this using chemicals instead of bombs and bullets it has a different meaning. is it ok for america to kill innocents but if another does the same thing its global treason. i always thought the killing of innocents was wrong regardless, maybe im looking at it wrong. is there something im not understanding.

is chemical weapons killing civilians > bomb & bullets killing civilians?

The ignorance in this entire statement just astounds me. Let's see how fun it would be to have your skin chemically burned while your lungs fill with blood and your brain hemorrhages

And it's not "hundreds of thousands", more like millions, or should be! AM I RIGHT? BOOYAAAA. USA, USA, USA, USA

[Gheld]

The ignorance in this entire statement just astounds me. Let's see how fun it would be to have your skin chemically burned while your lungs fill with blood and your brain hemorrhages

And it's not "hundreds of thousands", more like millions, or should be! AM I RIGHT? BOOYAAAA. USA, USA, USA, USA

And bullets and bombs just make you lose hit points. They don't cause any pain.

[Heathy]

Yeah guns usually kill quite fast where as chemical weapons are more of a moral crippler.

also when you shoot a gun or bomb a place its pretty instant, sure you do get the odd person who manages to slowly bleed to death, but at least you can triage that, where as chemical weapons tend to fuck civilians up just as much as the intended target.

its all a load of bullshit ppl killing each other over petty shit its all just as bad really but chemical weapons just take it one step further.

[Themius]

All this anti-usa sentiment is old, tired, and annoying.

For instance why do we keep getting shit over hirosima and nagaski but japan and germany no longer get shit for well... their widespread atrocities leading to tens of millions of deaths in a very short time? Oh yes we're the bad ones for bombing hiroshima and nagasaki but never mind nanking, holocaust, and the genocides committed by the other countries.

[Darkrulerxxx]

america has been killing hundreds of thousand of innocent civilian in the middle east, but if another countries does this using chemicals instead of bombs and bullets it has a different meaning. is it ok for america to kill innocents but if another does the same thing its global treason. i always thought the killing of innocents was wrong regardless, maybe im looking at it wrong. is there something im not understanding.

is chemical weapons killing civilians > bomb & bullets killing civilians?

oh how your statement is so full of nation bashing crap.

America isn't the only country that has killed civilians unintentionally. Principles my friend, officially, we as a country don't support the killing of civilians. Unofficially, as with all countries, the militarized organizations understand that there can be, and most likely will be, unintended casualties due to the fact of armed conflict. Sure we've seen videos from all sides from many countries of negligent people targeting wrong people as terrorists, and they were held accountable, but that doesn't change the fact that in wars (such as world wars and the notion of Total War) civilians will die.

[Lumocolor]

Most countries signed a treaty not to use chemical weapons after the first world war because they are worse than just being shot or bombed. Its not just us, but we are apparently the only ones that care about it this time.

I'm no treaty expert but did Syria sign said treaty (i doubt it) and if they didn't should they be held accountable for something they never agreed to??

And also the US signed that treaty and supplied chem weapons to saddam hussein for years to use in the Iran-Iraq war without getting any grief for doing so.

[Olo]

And also the US signed that treaty and supplied chem weapons to saddam hussein for years to use in the Iran-Iraq war without getting any grief for doing so.

Probably because that never happened.

[Lumocolor]

Probably because that never happened.

WoW really??? I know calling people names on here isn't allowed, but read some history books man...lol.

[Olo]

WoW really??? I know calling people names on here isn't allowed, but read some history books man...lol.

The world* ignored their use. The US didn't supply them.

[Foosha]

I'm no treaty expert but did Syria sign said treaty (i doubt it) and if they didn't should they be held accountable for something they never agreed to??

Just because they haven't signed a treaty doesn't mean it's unethical, immoral, and dangerous to the rest of the world.

Hell, let them dump toxic waste in the water, pollute the atmosphere, commit genocide etc etc.

[zhero]

being a victim to chemical weapons is an agonizing and painful way to die.

[Lumocolor]

The world* ignored their use. The US didn't supply them.

Right, the US wasn't saddam husseins biggest supporter through the 70's and 80's.

"extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Iraqi Kurds. At the time of the conflict, the U.N. Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war," and U.S. intelligence officials both knew of Iraqi chemical weapons use and provided Iraq with satellite imagery to guide strikes against Iranian troop concentrations."

If he didn't get them directly from the US government, he was sure helped in dropping them in the right spots by the US government.

[Harry Botter]

All this anti-usa sentiment is old, tired, and annoying.

For instance why do we keep getting shit over hirosima and nagaski but japan and germany no longer get shit for well... their widespread atrocities leading to tens of millions of deaths in a very short time? Oh yes we're the bad ones for bombing hiroshima and nagasaki but never mind nanking, holocaust, and the genocides committed by the other countries.

For the first time. I agree 100% with what you posted. You nailed my feelings on this thread perfectly.

[prwraith]

All this anti-usa sentiment is old, tired, and annoying.

For instance why do we keep getting shit over hirosima and nagaski but japan and germany no longer get shit for well... their widespread atrocities leading to tens of millions of deaths in a very short time? Oh yes we're the bad ones for bombing hiroshima and nagasaki but never mind nanking, holocaust, and the genocides committed by the other countries.

Careful bringing historical facts into this illogical thread of USA bashing

[c2dholla619]

The ignorance in this entire statement just astounds me. Let's see how fun it would be to have your skin chemically burned while your lungs fill with blood and your brain hemorrhages

And it's not "hundreds of thousands", more like millions, or should be! AM I RIGHT? BOOYAAAA. USA, USA, USA, USA

death of innocents is still death of innocents regardless of how its done.