by Simon 135 Replies latest social current
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "huge difference" between chemical weapons and weapons that just happen to inflict chemical burns...
Is it like the difference between ad hominem and an attempt to jerk someone to their senses with a well placed jibe?
C'mon, help me out here, wilt ya???
Anyone.. anyone... anyone... Bueller...
I've been watching a very well done series on a cable channel here on World War I. It's quite comprehensive and very interesting. I can't help but see certain parallels from 100 years ago to today. The stunning level of incompetent world leaders who think and plan in terms of wars fought 50 years ago. Worse is they ignore a growing radicalism. Their way of "dealing" with the radical, and angry, elements of the early 20th century was to brutally squash them, behaving, in terms of human rights, far worse than those radicals ever did.
I can't help but look to the near future and be scared at what's to come. The weapons available today are more fearsome than anything imagined 100 years ago. Even more disturbing is the knowledge that the leaders of the major countries today are just as incompetent, just as interested in their own private agendas without an understanding or care of its larger impact.
I'm very concerned history is repeating itself.
Anyone.. anyone... anyone... Bueller...
Okay, so why do I see myself as that kid who's asleep and drooling right now?
Chris
I use chemical weapons around the house. I tell you that Easy-Off oven cleaner is a killer!
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "huge difference"between chemical weapons and weapons that just happen to inflict chemical burns...
Let me try and explain Ross - I apologize in advance if I sound condescending. Water is a chemical - so one could argue a water cannon is a chemical weapon. Chemical Weapons are "normally understood" to be Weapons Capable of mass destruction. So a weapon that had say sarin gas in the warhead would be a WMD -Chemical Weapon. A weapon that just happens to inflict chemical burns could be say a phosphorous grenade - still deadly but not capable of mass destruction. That is how I would explain it. In the end they both cause death
So a depleted Uranium Shell is not a chemical weapon - but if filled with Sarin Gas or VX nerve gas then it would be a chemical weapon.
lol...I can hear Ross scrambling through the pages of 'The XJW's Dictionary Of Semantic Deviations - 2nd Edition / Version ? / Version / Edition'
HS
hillary
I have to admit that you have infinately more patience that I.
LOL... I DO? I must point that out to the next person I rip a new asshole on... LOL
My tendency is to have a fairly simplistic methodology toward these discussion boards that divide a persons argument into one worthy of discussion, or one worthy of at best ad hominem.
Someone might posit the argument that 'all Muslims should be nuked', an argument that I have read in some form or the other on numerous occasions on this Board. This argument is unworthy of serious discussion and warrants, when I can be bothered, only ad hominem, scorn and ridicule.
Oh, I quite agree. It doesn't pay to pander to deliberate ignorance. But it is fun to lampoon and ridicule it.
What is truly amazing, actually more depressing than amazing, is the amount of people who actually expect their ridiculous points of view to even merit serious consideration.
People expressing an opinion that shows profound ignorance about the subject are normally to ignorant about the subject to knw how much they don;t know.
One thing I have learnt about learning stuff is the more you learn the more you realise you still need to learn more.
If you know, say, ten things about evolution, then you will be really unaware of how vast the subject is and might assume one's competence. If you can write a 1,500 word essay on one of a number of topics about evolution which will contain dozens of facts, without having to do too much in the way of research other than looking up refrences for stuff you already know, you will be far more aware of the breadth of the subject and the vast possibilities for igorance about it.
Same applies to geo-politics.
Ross
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "huge difference" between chemical weapons and weapons that just happen to inflict chemical burns...
Is it like the difference between ad hominem and an attempt to jerk someone to their senses with a well placed jibe?
LOL...
stillajwexelder
I'd say a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon if the damaging effect of the weapon is due to the direct action of chemicals. You can have a chemical weapon that is not a WoMD.
Thing is, most people see accidentally blowing civilians up as bad, but burning them to death as worse. This is why napalm, WP and flame throwers are seen as morally ambivalent even though they are not WoMD. I suppose it is like rape, and rape by a member of your family. The same thing is happening. The 'agent' that DOES the damaging action makes the action worse.
Stilla:So is napalm a chemical weapon, even when it has a small area of impact? Surely it's not a WoMD, but it certainly includes chemical agents that prolong suffering?
I don't understand why a chemical weapon should have to be deemed a WoMD to acknowledge it's chemical activity.
HS:
There's more backbiting and bickering on this thread than an 8th grade sleepover. What kind of hysteria did you go into when you discovered your first pimple?
Israel did not violate international law by using WP as a smokescreen and incendiary device against military targets in open areas.
Where in the BBC report does it actually state and prove that Israel violated the Geneva Convention by targeting civilians in civilian areas using WP as a chemical weapon.
