Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Syrian Gov't Confirmed to be Behind Attacks

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 9:24:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just a question:

Why should we believe either the U.N. or Assad? They both have extremely vested interests in making sure that one side of the story gets out.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 10:27:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 9:24:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Just a question:

Why should we believe either the U.N. or Assad? They both have extremely vested interests in making sure that one side of the story gets out.

truer words have never been spoken
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 12:13:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2013 11:23:40 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
> 1,000 people dead in chemical attacks

> 100,000 dead in the Syrian war.


Why do we treat Chemical weapons like they're proletariat Hitler?

Because there are no accurate figures on whether the casualties are actually civilians or combatants - all of them throw civilians and combatants in the same group. There is no way to tell if conventional weapons are being used to kill actual non-combatant, unarmed civilians. However, with chemical weapons (whose scope of destruction cannot be limited), we KNOW that they don't care about killing civilians, and we know that casualties due to the use of chemical weapons were almost exclusively unarmed civilians.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 2:21:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 9:24:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Just a question:

Why should we believe either the U.N. or Assad? They both have extremely vested interests in making sure that one side of the story gets out.

lol, the UN does not have a pro-american bias at all, in fact I would argue they are very anti american.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 2:45:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2013 2:21:26 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:24:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Just a question:

Why should we believe either the U.N. or Assad? They both have extremely vested interests in making sure that one side of the story gets out.

lol, the UN does not have a pro-american bias at all, in fact I would argue they are very anti american.

that's not the point
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 3:48:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2013 3:27:47 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't understand what the big deal is...

We didn't care when we let them kill each other for 2+ years with conventional weapons...

Conventional weapons are used to destroy military installations/targets, chemical weapons are purely meant for taking life, and are weapons of genocide. Plus they are banned by the international community. The Syrian government even has taken shots at the US claiming we are making a historic retreat from world politics.

http://www.nationalreview.com...
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 3:53:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2013 3:48:56 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/20/2013 3:27:47 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't understand what the big deal is...

We didn't care when we let them kill each other for 2+ years with conventional weapons...

Conventional weapons are used to destroy military installations/targets, chemical weapons are purely meant for taking life, and are weapons of genocide. Plus they are banned by the international community. The Syrian government even has taken shots at the US claiming we are making a historic retreat from world politics.

http://www.nationalreview.com...

actually you can't say they are banned, because countries don't control other countries. with the Geneva rules of warfare and other stuff related to international stuff, countries only have to agree to follow a "rule" made.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 4:06:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2013 2:21:26 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:24:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Just a question:

Why should we believe either the U.N. or Assad? They both have extremely vested interests in making sure that one side of the story gets out.

lol, the UN does not have a pro-american bias at all, in fact I would argue they are very anti american.

Some of the countries in the UN, maybe. The UN in general, most definitely not.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2013 7:50:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2013 11:23:40 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
> 1,000 people dead in chemical attacks

> 100,000 dead in the Syrian war.


Why do we treat Chemical weapons like they're proletariat Hitler?

I agree. War is war.

And civil war is just that. I'm not for interfering in sovereign countries. And before you tell me how many people have died and how we should DO SOMETHING remember that the U.S. is shamelessly arming these rebels and prolonging this war, leading to more deaths. This isn't about death count. This isn't about "weapons of mass destruction". This is about political influence.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 2:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2013 11:23:40 AM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
> 1,000 people dead in chemical attacks

> 100,000 dead in the Syrian war.


Why do we treat Chemical weapons like they're proletariat Hitler?

Because I would argue a death by chemically-induced seizures and suffocation is infinitely worse than bleeding out.

Stack on the fear of the sudden realization you're subject to a nerve agent, and then you'd definitely wish you were shot instead.
turn down for h'what