Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 448
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So they didn't really use chemicals directly onto Palestinians as was made out.

They used shells with a very small amount, not to kill but to expose targets. Big difference really.

And I'd rather not read about anything to do with the Israel/ Palestine war from the anti semitic BBC site thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure the German army would have fired ten that many bullets in half a day in Normandy.

And Normandy was almost a side show in terms of numbers (not impact). Bagration a couple of weeks later had nearly 3 million men engaged, about 500 000 of them Germany. The Germans had about 10 000 active on the day in the Normandy region on D Day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullets might have been "cheap" but what about the material used to make them? doesn't come out of thin air.

If memory serves me right, i'm sure the Nazi used to tie people together on top of a bridge, shoot one dead which in turn kills the other as he drags him under water to drown.

Anyways, this is taking it off topic. I still don't believe we should get involved. its not our place, I used this example asked this question before and nobody answered it.

During the troubles in N.Ireland when the British army had been known to kill british citizens, would we have tolerated foreign intervention from say the US?**

Would we feck.

We have no buisness getting involved, we've done enough damage in the middle east. let the Arabs sort this one out. at the very most we should be helping with a UN peacekeeping force.

**yes i'm well aware the IRA had also been killing people before anyone goes on a rant about that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the troubles in N.Ireland when the British army had been known to kill british citizens, would we have tolerated foreign intervention from say the US?**

Would we feck.

We have no buisness getting involved, we've done enough damage in the middle east. let the Arabs sort this one out. at the very most we should be helping with a UN peacekeeping force.

**yes i'm well aware the IRA had also been killing people before anyone goes on a rant about that

Well, no, and neither would, eg, Russia have tolerated it over Chechnya, but neither Russia then or the UK during the troubles are Syria in 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullets might have been "cheap" but what about the material used to make them? doesn't come out of thin air.

 

If memory serves me right, i'm sure the Nazi used to tie people together on top of a bridge, shoot one dead which in turn kills the other as he drags him under water to drown.

 

Anyways, this is taking it off topic. I still don't believe we should get involved. its not our place, I used this example asked this question before and nobody answered it.

 

During the troubles in N.Ireland when the British army had been known to kill british citizens, would we have tolerated foreign intervention from say the US?**

 

Would we feck.

 

We have no buisness getting involved, we've done enough damage in the middle east. let the Arabs sort this one out. at the very most we should be helping with a UN peacekeeping force.

 

**yes i'm well aware the IRA had also been killing people before anyone goes on a rant about that

Not with chemical weapons though, enrico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we attack syrias chemical weapons stock without setting off chemical weapons and killing people,,,with chemicals.

Weapons are generally stored in dispersed bunkers to prevent accidental release and increase security. On the whole anyone close to the weapons is highly likely to be a part of the forces guarding them. Also so far as I know it the SOP is to hit stores with thermobaric weapons or HE\thermobaric combinations to burn out the chemical\biological agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they didn't really use chemicals directly onto Palestinians as was made out.

They used shells with a very small amount, not to kill but to expose targets. Big difference really.

And I'd rather not read about anything to do with the Israel/ Palestine war from the anti semitic BBC site thanks.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know Assad was educated in the UK and his wife is British.

I think Cameron should wait until the UN report is complete before bombing the shite out of someone.

I can guarantee there will be more civillian casualties through UK/US intervention than death through chemical weapons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, as I thought, when you asked for 'proof' you didnt actually want any.  

Some guy saying something isn't proof lol.

Ok I'll give you proof that Israel have never used chemical weapons.

'Motherwell man has today said that Israel have never used chemical weapons.'

That proof enough for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...