Syria

[MotownClic]

I haven't got time to read the whole thread, but the biggest thing seems to be the use of chemical weapons. Can anyone tell me why there is so much more revulsion to this, than towards the good old fashioned dropping bombs and killing folks like the way we do.

[Ad Lib]

I haven't got time to read the whole thread, but the biggest thing seems to be the use of chemical weapons. Can anyone tell me why there is so much more revulsion to this, than towards the good old fashioned dropping bombs and killing folks like the way we do.

It's the nature of the damage they do. Chemical and biological weapons are particularly indiscriminate, work as much by inflicting pain as destroying people, and their use is a war crime because they and their typical usage are seen as particularly pernicious.

[Enigma]

Debate live on BBC2.

[vikingTON]

It's the nature of the damage they do. Chemical and biological weapons are particularly indiscriminate, work as much by inflicting pain as destroying people, and their use is a war crime because they and their typical usage are seen as particularly pernicious.

As opposed to the mass firebombing of cities such as Dresden and Tokyo, which did not constitute "indiscriminate" or "pernicious" action? Or the US military's reduction of the Iraqi city of Fallujah to a pile of softball-sized rubble, within the last decade?

In reality-land, chemical and biological weapons were outlawed to de facto legitimise the effortlessly more destructive and indiscriminate conventional weapons possessed by major states. Should we sanction them because of this inconsistency: of course not. But the idea that major powers with a track record of murdering hundreds of thousands can seize a moral high ground over them is utterly ludicrous.

[Broken Algorithms]

As opposed to the mass firebombing of cities such as Dresden and Tokyo, which did not constitute "indiscriminate" or "pernicious" action? Or the US military's reduction of the Iraqi city of Fallujah to a pile of softball-sized rubble, within the last decade?

In reality-land, chemical and biological weapons were outlawed to de facto legitimise the effortlessly more destructive and indiscriminate conventional weapons possessed by major states. Should we sanction them because of this inconsistency: of course not. But the idea that major powers with a track record of murdering hundreds of thousands can seize a moral high ground over them is utterly ludicrous.

Also remember the drone strikes in Pakistan which have become renowned for killing civilians.

[renton]

As opposed to the mass firebombing of cities such as Dresden and Tokyo, which did not constitute "indiscriminate" or "pernicious" action? Or the US military's reduction of the Iraqi city of Fallujah to a pile of softball-sized rubble, within the last decade?

In reality-land, chemical and biological weapons were outlawed to de facto legitimise the effortlessly more destructive and indiscriminate conventional weapons possessed by major states. Should we sanction them because of this inconsistency: of course not. But the idea that major powers with a track record of murdering hundreds of thousands can seize a moral high ground over them is utterly ludicrous.

It's a question of scale, Tokyo, Dresden, even Fallujah required a vast amount more effort to carry out than any NBC action today. Chemical weapons are indsicriminate, persistent and relatively cheap, if we are calculating in terms of effort per bodycount. To reiterate something I said earlier, while the allied (and German) strategic bombing campaigns represented watr cirmes in their own right, the combined might of the UK and US arsenals, after 5 years of total war were able, at considerable cost to themselves, able to reduce several cities to rubble. Hiroshima was one bomber and one bomb. That's the point: Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons can achieve a scale of damage far beyond conventional arsenals (and that was WW2 arsenals, today's relative paucity in conventional arsenals bring the destructive potential of NBC wepaons into sharper relief) and their widepsread use threatens the human race.

That doesn't mean we should legitimise the use of conventional weaponry, or even turn a blind eye to their usage. Simply that NBC weapons are far more destructive and if proliferated in their use, far more of a threat to everyone than conventional weaponry.

[dorlomin]

In reality-land, chemical and biological weapons were outlawed to de facto legitimise the effortlessly more destructive and indiscriminate conventional weapons possessed by major states.

What conventional explosive is more lethal per kilogram than a kilogram of VX?

As for biological, anyone who thinks biological weapons are less dangerous than conventional is a fud.

[The OP]

Does revulsion for chemical weapons not stem from their use in World War 1, and were they not outlawed in 1925, at a time when larger states were using them on smaller states?

That doesn't seem to support that they are outlawed to 'de facto legitimise the effortlessly more destructive and indiscriminate conventional weapons possessed by major states.'

[Tryfield]

The "highly likely to be Assad regime to blame" bothers me.

Surely it should be 100% to blame, with backed up evidence, before a blow gets struck. For blows shall be struck after the BBC's crap reporting overnight.

After all, Iraq definately had WMD, didn't they?

[renton]

What conventional explosive is more lethal per kilogram than a kilogram of VX?

As for biological, anyone who thinks biological weapons are less dangerous than conventional is a fud.

Or less indiscriminate for that matter.

[Reynard]

Israel has undoubtedly used chemical weapons, and the US assisted Saddam Hussein in gassing the Kurds.

Personally, I'd like to see Israel invaded by NATO, controlled by the UN and it's Government incarcerated. Internationally sponsored "regime change".

Why's that? Do you think it isn't treating enough wounded civilians from Syria? People who have been told they will be killed for accepting help from "the enemy"?

[Sergeant Wilson]

I haven't got time to read the whole thread, but the biggest thing seems to be the use of chemical weapons. Can anyone tell me why there is so much more revulsion to this, than towards the good old fashioned dropping bombs and killing folks like the way we do.

Aye, we should ask the Syrians which they'd prefer.

[T_S_A_R]

interesting legal advice from the attorney general.

it is legal to go to war if it saves lives.

how exactly will the government prove that going to war will prevent hypothetical future deaths? my interpretation is that if david cameron imagines the uk not going to war with syria and the imaginary people in his imaginary syria die then we are good to go.

he should perhaps consider the real people who are still dieing in iraq due to war criminal blair and give it a rest.

Wednesday 28 August: 98 killed

Baghdad: 80 killed in 18 bomb explosions.
Latifiya: 7 family members by gunfire.
Mosul: 9 by IEDs.
Baiji: 1 policeman by IED.
Qayyara: 1 by gunfire.

August casualties so far: 823 civilians killed.

[vikingTON]

What conventional explosive is more lethal per kilogram than a kilogram of VX?

What does that have to do with anything? Dropping thousands of tons worth of incendiaries on civilian targets is quite clearly a war-crime, regardless of the power of the device per kilogram.

[T_S_A_R]

What does that have to do with anything? Dropping thousands of tons worth of incendiaries on civilian targets is quite clearly a war-crime, regardless of the power of the device per kilogram.

but if you make it millions of tons you might get a nobel peace prize.

[dorlomin]

What does that have to do with anything?.

In reality-land, chemical and biological weapons were outlawed to de facto legitimise the effortlessly more destructive and indiscriminate conventional weapons possessed by major states.

[jagfox]

Caught a bit of the Syria/Chemical Weapons debate on BBC News. Can't say I am convinced with Cambo's plan any a few days further on.

Obviously waiting for the UN report but all that will confirm that there was a release of chemical weapons which noone is arguing.

It will hardly prove who set the release though.

Both sides have bat shit crazies who would have actioned it.

So I am still struggling to see how our proposed response will do any iota of good for your average Syrian?

[die hard doonhamer]

Motion for British military intervention defeated in the commons. I'm surprised by that, but not unhappy.

[Tom McB]

anti-semitic bbc? lol. here is some other proof israel has been using chemical weapons for a long time

http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/belgian-doctor-israel-using-chemical-weapons-31715.html

There's no proof there, not scientific proof. Grow up.

[jagfox]

There's no proof there, not scientific proof. Grow up.

He's been banned.