Poison Gas is the new issue

[mundame]

The news this morning Monday 4/9 is about Israel hitting a Syrian airbase and killing a bunch of ......Iranians. I thought it might be about the latest Assad poison gas attack on his rebels, which Trump has been tweeting about ---- right after announcing he wanted to pull the U.S. out of Syria.

I read up on it: Israel may have used the poison gas upset to cover its attack politically, which was more likely the latest in a series against Iran arming Hezbollah and indeed "entrenching" itself in Syria on bases from which to launch attacks against Israel. Officially, Israel says it won't allow this: and it isn't allowing it, as much as it can detect.

All the same, poison gas is the new warfare theme. The Putin attack on London (two of them, in fact, including the radiation poisoning of Litvinenko in 2006) and now the new Assad gas attacks: supported by Russia, which does seem to be interested in normalizing the use of poison chemicals for warfare.

Will it bring the U.S. back into the Syrian war? How to stop Putin encouraging the use of poison gas in his proxy wars?

The history of poison gas is that it was tried out (by the Krauts) in WWI and it worked, especially mustard gas, but there was a lot of blowback problems. It was not used in WWII: that was the last thing negotiated by Nevile Henderson, the British ambassador to Germany, right before he left with his staff on a train after the Sept. 1, 1930 invasion of Poland. I just read that yesterday, in Henderson's memoir.

The best use of gas is not as a weapon of maneuver -- too much problems with wind. It's an anti-civilian strategic weapon, as Assad is using it. And as Hussein used it. Best dropped from the air or trucked in. You can simply kill the enemy people all out, problem solved. Which, after all, is the point of war. The morale issue is considerable, worse than with explosions.

We have (temporarily) agreed worldwide not to use nuclear weapons, or biological weapons. We did have an agreement not to use chemical weapons, but Putin is abrogating that and supporting the use of them by his client states. What to do? Should we let these weapons be normalized?

[Elessar]

I am completely against chemical and biological indiscriminate use of this stuff.

Sure, it might kill or affect the combatants, but they also affect non-combatants
and innocent people in occupied areas.

They are weapons of terror, meant to demoralize and subjugate the population as
far as I am concerned.

[LongTermGuy]

The news Just reported (FOX)...It could of been "anybody" making the strike (against Assad) (taking advantage of the situation)....Use of Gas is terrorism .

*The world is watching and the the Response (to the use of Gas) should be devastating to Assad.

https://conservativebase.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/04/Syrian-child-killed.jpg
http://www.rojakpot.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Ghouta-chemical-attack-02.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The news Just reported (FOX)...It could of been "anybody" making the strike (against Assad) (taking advantage of the situation)....Use of Gas is terrorism .

*The world is watching and the the Response (to the use of Gas) should be devastating to Assad.

https://conservativebase.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/04/Syrian-child-killed.jpg
http://www.rojakpot.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Ghouta-chemical-attack-02.jpg

It would be prudent and most wise to have verified, and well proven evidence of the true culprit if and when such weapons are used and not take the media or certain biased government/groups word for it. And that definitely includes our own damn government, regardless of TRUMP BEING THE PRESIDENT-- AS ITS DAMN SURE NOT IMPOSSIBLE for our own military(Pentagon) to fake evidence to get to be able to take the course they prefer.
I go back to the damn glaring and obvious reality that Assad using such weapons gain ALMOST NOTHING FOR HIM AND BENEFITS A MILLION TIMES OVER THE ENEMY THAT OPPOSES HIM!
Thus comes the question why would he stupidly keep uniting the world against him?
I think these are staged attacks by the groups/entities that they benefit the most and it damn sure is not Assad .
Common sense sees that and to my knowledge no irrefutable evidence has ever been gathered that pinpoints the true culprit.
Could be that this is to sway Trump not the pull out of Syria--as the timing suggests that too.--Tyr

[LongTermGuy]

"Soon........."

https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/01/26/104242297-GettyImages-632235946.530x298.jpg?v=1485447561
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/gettyimages-1031212572-e1460182206230.jpg?quality=65&strip=all

[Gunny]

Poison gas is not a new issue. In recent years, both Saddam Hussein and Assad have used it in the ME. We turned a blind aeye to Saddam using it on Iran just as Russia has Syria. We didn't get offended with Saddam until he used it on the Kurds.

Chemical weapons have been around in modern warfare since WWI. The Germans first used chlorine. They switched to mustard gass because the chlorine would not dissipate on European battlefields and lingered for weeks. If you walked into a low-lying are you might not walk out. Chlorine would just burn out your lungs and fry you. Mustard gas would cause the mucous membranes to blister (including and especially the lungs). The blisters would pop and you would drown.

They ARE anti-personnel weapons but not designed as anti-civilian weapons. They just kill civilians too when used indiscriminately. As Assad is using them. He doesn't care who he kills.

The Germans indeed used chemical weapons in WWII. They used first exhaust (carbon monoxide), then chlorine, and finally a chemical called Xyklon B to exterminate Jews, the last being most efficient and humane. "Human" being a relative term. German troops' morale was shot after any time using the first two methods of extermination. The Xyklon B ensured the Jews suffered little so the Nazi's didn't have to listen to them scream.

The Germans just did not use chemical weapons in combat.

We used chemical weapons in Vietnam. Agent Orange, NAPALM (which we also used in Korea), and White Phosphorous (designed as a signal flare) were all chemical weapons.

NAPALM was the final product of the jellied gasoline we used in flame throwers in WWII and Korea.

The Russians used chemicals on the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan. So there's nothing new going on here accept the Russians apparent willingness to just blatantly use them and damn the consequences.

[Drummond]

Poison gas is not a new issue. In recent years, both Saddam Hussein and Assad have used it in the ME. We turned a blind aeye to Saddam using it on Iran just as Russia has Syria. We didn't get offended with Saddam until he used it on the Kurds.

Chemical weapons have been around in modern warfare since WWI. The Germans first used chlorine. They switched to mustard gass because the chlorine would not dissipate on European battlefields and lingered for weeks. If you walked into a low-lying are you might not walk out. Chlorine would just burn out your lungs and fry you. Mustard gas would cause the mucous membranes to blister (including and especially the lungs). The blisters would pop and you would drown.

They ARE anti-personnel weapons but not designed as anti-civilian weapons. They just kill civilians too when used indiscriminately. As Assad is using them. He doesn't care who he kills.

The Germans indeed used chemical weapons in WWII. They used first exhaust (carbon monoxide), then chlorine, and finally a chemical called Xyklon B to exterminate Jews, the last being most efficient and humane. "Human" being a relative term. German troops' morale was shot after any time using the first two methods of extermination. The Xyklon B ensured the Jews suffered little so the Nazi's didn't have to listen to them scream.

The Germans just did not use chemical weapons in combat.

We used chemical weapons in Vietnam. Agent Orange, NAPALM (which we also used in Korea), and White Phosphorous (designed as a signal flare) were all chemical weapons.

NAPALM was the final product of the jellied gasoline we used in flame throwers in WWII and Korea.

The Russians used chemicals on the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan. So there's nothing new going on here accept the Russians apparent willingness to just blatantly use them and damn the consequences.

Stating the obvious .. it'll only be the least decent Governmental power which will use, or countenance, use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Saddam's use of one against the Kurds.

Hitler's use of chemical poisoning to commit a programme of genocide against Jews.

Most recently ... Assad's Syria, with Russian complicity ... and ... Russia on its own, albeit on a small scale.

Russia gives me the clear impression of being, currently, THE 'apologist' nation finding ways to facilitate acceptance of chemical weapon use on civilians. They want the world to look the other way when they launch assassinations on UK soil. They want the world to be blind to a regime that'd use chemical weapons on civilians, if they are allied to that regime.

It's quite a recurring pattern.

Russia's clear contempt for civilian basic human rights is highly evident. It marks their country out as one needing to make great strides to qualify even as a civilised power in the world.

[mundame]

Poison gas is not a new issue. In recent years, both Saddam Hussein and Assad have used it in the ME. We turned a blind aeye to Saddam using it on Iran just as Russia has Syria. We didn't get offended with Saddam until he used it on the Kurds.

Chemical weapons have been around in modern warfare since WWI. The Germans first used chlorine. They switched to mustard gass because the chlorine would not dissipate on European battlefields and lingered for weeks. If you walked into a low-lying are you might not walk out. Chlorine would just burn out your lungs and fry you. Mustard gas would cause the mucous membranes to blister (including and especially the lungs). The blisters would pop and you would drown.

They ARE anti-personnel weapons but not designed as anti-civilian weapons. They just kill civilians too when used indiscriminately. As Assad is using them. He doesn't care who he kills.

The Germans indeed used chemical weapons in WWII. They used first exhaust (carbon monoxide), then chlorine, and finally a chemical called Xyklon B to exterminate Jews, the last being most efficient and humane. "Human" being a relative term. German troops' morale was shot after any time using the first two methods of extermination. The Xyklon B ensured the Jews suffered little so the Nazi's didn't have to listen to them scream.

The Germans just did not use chemical weapons in combat.

We used chemical weapons in Vietnam. Agent Orange, NAPALM (which we also used in Korea), and White Phosphorous (designed as a signal flare) were all chemical weapons.

NAPALM was the final product of the jellied gasoline we used in flame throwers in WWII and Korea.

The Russians used chemicals on the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan. So there's nothing new going on here accept the Russians apparent willingness to just blatantly use them and damn the consequences.


Well, Gunny, if you are going to be right every moment, I don't see how we can have a conversation!

[Kidding.] :rolleyes:

You are right, that the Germans certainly did use chemical weapons, carbon monoxide first and Xyklon B later (I hadn't read about chlorine but I believe you) against the Jews in concentration camps. The carbon monoxide had such weird effects that it was bad for morale.

I guess napalm was a chemical weapon.....I'm not sure I'd call Agent Orange exactly that, as it was meant as a jungle killer, not really for people. Flamethrowers were a German WWI invention, as I bet you know, and they are a peculiarly horrible weapon, as is napalm. But I'm not sure I'd call them exactly a chemical weapon. I'm thinking more of a weapon that kills lots of people at once from a distance, chemicals or bioweapons.

Chemical weapons weren't used against troops in WWII, and really they are not very useful in a war of maneuver. If troops are entrenched or locked into a position, they could be shelled or bombed with chemical poisons. Still, since Auschwitz their use has mostly been against civilians, who can be efficiently killed out in large numbers where they live.

I think the discrimination between fighting troops and civilians is an artificial distinction that isn't useful now and never was: there is a reason cities used to all be walled. The idea that armies used to fight in the fields and leave the civilians alone is not true -- they did until one side won, after which the winners pillaged and killed and enslaved everyone they could find. As a rule, it's not the soldiers that are the problem: it's the whole enemy, like the Gaza Palestinians constantly saying they want to exterminate every Jew in Israel.

Whole populations now want to kill each other out (overpopulation pressure, I would guess) and that will bring nuclear weapons into use -- the ultimate anti-population weapon. So far.

But Putin is getting awfully frisky with his support for and use of poisons as weapons. Like nuclear non-proliferation, the longer we can keep that kind of weapon out of general use, the better.

[Gunny]

Stating the obvious .. it'll only be the least decent Governmental power which will use, or countenance, use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Saddam's use of one against the Kurds.

Hitler's use of chemical poisoning to commit a programme of genocide against Jews.

Most recently ... Assad's Syria, with Russian complicity ... and ... Russia on its own, albeit on a small scale.

Russia gives me the clear impression of being, currently, THE 'apologist' nation finding ways to facilitate acceptance of chemical weapon use on civilians. They want the world to look the other way when they launch assassinations on UK soil. They want the world to be blind to a regime that'd use chemical weapons on civilians, if they are allied to that regime.

It's quite a recurring pattern.

Russia's clear contempt for civilian basic human rights is highly evident. It marks their country out as one needing to make great strides to qualify even as a civilised power in the world.I think they're saying screw us because we won't do anything. And we most likely won't. Lobbing a cruise missile is NOT doing anything more than tossing the obligatory "response".

I believe Assad is behind using it. I don't know that Putin is behind it or not. I think he doesn't care and maybe can't resolve the guilt by association issue in his head. Either way, he is not condemning it and still backing Assad.

Remains to be seen what Erdogan does. If he's going to associate Turkey with that BS or not. He seems to be cozying up to Syria and Russia IMO just to kill Kurds, but he has condemned the use of chemicals on civilians.

It also remains to be seen what the West does. Back to Putin not giving a crap, I think he's gambling Syria is not worth and east vs West war what with all the Neville Chamberlain's we have nowadays.

I also consider a unilateral military response by the US pointless unless we are going to take Syria completely by force. That means possible war with Russia and most assuredly Iran.

[pete311]

Last week Trump says he wants out of Syria in 6 months. Not to mention that he blasted Obama for telegraphing is out. He does the same. Then a few days later he plans to retaliate for the gas attack. Dude doesn't know what he wants. flip flop flip flop

[Gunny]

Last week Trump says he wants out of Syria in 6 months. Not to mention that he blasted Obama for telegraphing is out. He does the same. Then a few days later he plans to retaliate for the gas attack. Dude doesn't know what he wants. flip flop flip flopI already commented on that stupid comment when some leftwingnut rag brought it up. You tell your enemies what you want them to know. And the leftwingnut MSM to ensure the enemy knows it. "Telegraphing" you are removing your token presence is a big, fat ZERO on the leftwingnut "we wish we were smart enough to gotcha" list. It's saying you're not doing what we came here for (go after ISIS) so we're leaving. Pretty simple.

Granted, Trump doesn't know you're just a holdover lefty from the Kerry flip-flop days who stole the phrase and have accused every Republican since of flip-flopping, but I do. Maybe that's EXACTLY what he wants you, and Putin, to think? It's still not telling you a damned thing.

[Drummond]

Last week Trump says he wants out of Syria in 6 months. Not to mention that he blasted Obama for telegraphing is out. He does the same. Then a few days later he plans to retaliate for the gas attack. Dude doesn't know what he wants. flip flop flip flop

What killed the dinosaurs was their inability to adapt to new conditions.

A President who failed to meet the challenges of new situations should expect much the same fate.

Happily, Pete .... Conservative thinkers are grounded in reality. We adapt to it, as it evolves.

GW Bush did exactly that. When he first began as President, he didn't want any great 'adventurism' overseas. Then ... 9/11 happened. He adapted quickly, and what defined his Presidency, certainly in the world's eyes, was his staunch anti-terrorist decisions as applied outside US borders.

Donald Trump has just adapted to the reality of a humanitarian monstrosity in Syria. Of course he has. He's a decent leader, who'll do what reality demands.

Ah, how the Left hate him for it. Eh, Pete ... ?

[Gunny]

What killed the dinosaurs was their inability to adapt to new conditions.

A President who failed to meet the challenges of new situations should expect much the same fate.

Happily, Pete .... Conservative thinkers are grounded in reality. We adapt to it, as it evolves.

GW Bush did exactly that. When he first began as President, he didn't want any great 'adventurism' overseas. Then ... 9/11 happened. He adapted quickly, and what defined his Presidency, certainly in the world's eyes, was his staunch anti-terrorist decisions as applied outside US borders.

Donald Trump has just adapted to the reality of a humanitarian monstrosity in Syria. Of course he has. He's a decent leader, who'll do what reality demands.

Ah, how the Left hate him for it. Eh, Pete ... ?If it's not on the Loony Left list of reasons to impeach him, it probably will be soon.

[pete311]

What killed the dinosaurs was their inability to adapt to new conditions.

A President who failed to meet the challenges of new situations should expect much the same fate.

Happily, Pete .... Conservative thinkers are grounded in reality. We adapt to it, as it evolves.

GW Bush did exactly that. When he first began as President, he didn't want any great 'adventurism' overseas. Then ... 9/11 happened. He adapted quickly, and what defined his Presidency, certainly in the world's eyes, was his staunch anti-terrorist decisions as applied outside US borders.

Donald Trump has just adapted to the reality of a humanitarian monstrosity in Syria. Of course he has. He's a decent leader, who'll do what reality demands.

Ah, how the Left hate him for it. Eh, Pete ... ?

I thought you guys were america first and didn't want to be the world's police? You guys flip flop just as much.

[Gunny]

I thought you guys were america first and didn't want to be the world's police? You guys flip flop just as much."I thought" was your first mistake, numbnuts.

Drummond is a Brit :slap:

You don't even know who you're talking to.

[Drummond]

"I thought" was your first mistake, numbnuts.

Drummond is a Brit :slap:

You don't even know who you're talking to.

No worries. Those on the Left can't be expected to be fully in touch with the world's realities .... they believe what they want to ... :laugh2:

[Gunny]

No worries. Those on the Left can't be expected to be fully in touch with the world's realities .... they believe what they want to ... :laugh2:Obvious to me is Pete knows nothing on the topic so he just wants to take some partisan political shots using the same, worn-out cliche's the left has been :deadhorse:for decades.

I DO think Trump should do less taking and let whatever he decides be a surprise. Talking shit outside of a basketball court or karate competition has never been a favored tactic of mine. Just do it. They can read the after-action report I'm sure the leftwingnut MSM will acquire and provide them.

I also stick to the idea that any response should not unilateral on the US's part. If this is a NATO action, then NATO needs to do more than nod approvingly. We don't have the only Air Force in the world, nor even the closest.

Matter of fact (DO picture the "genius" lightbulb going off :laugh:) I think more than appropriate that NATO member TURKEY deliver any military response. How's THAT for early morning, evil genius? :)

[jimnyc]

I thought you guys were america first and didn't want to be the world's police? You guys flip flop just as much.

Do you pay attention to who you are replying to? Or are you as ignorant about members as you are....

Drummond is not American, although I'd take him any day of the week. He's a Brit.

[jimnyc]

"I thought" was your first mistake, numbnuts.

Drummond is a Brit :slap:

You don't even know who you're talking to.


Ahhhh, shit, I should have read further, now I'm just a repeating fool. :(

[Drummond]

Do you pay attention to who you are replying to? Or are you as ignorant about members as you are....

Drummond is not American, although I'd take him any day of the week. He's a Brit.:beer::beer::salute:

[High_Plains_Drifter]

We need more people like Drummond in America, and less ass clowns like little pete.

[Drummond]

We need more people like Drummond in America, and less ass clowns like little pete.:beer::beer::salute:

Too kind !

... though I'd suggest that it's the UK who need more people like me ... ! This place (the UK !) has Lefties crawling out of the woodwork ...

[Drummond]

Getting nearer to the point of the thread ... who'd be surprised by this evening's development ?

Anyone at all ?

Any Lefties out there, wanting to declare it 'fake news' .. ?

No ?

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/russia-vetoes-u-s-bid-for-probe-into-syria-chemical-attacks-1.5990782


Russia on Tuesday vetoed a U.S.-drafted UN Security Council resolution that would have created a new inquiry to ascertain blame for chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

Twelve council members voted in favor, while Bolivia joined Russia in voting no, and China abstained. A resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes by Russia, China, France, Britain or the United States to pass.

"This resolution is the bare minimum that the council can do to respond to the attack," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the council before the vote, referring to reports of a deadly poison gas attack in Syria's Douma.

The United States and other Western powers consider taking military action over Saturday's attack.

Haley also accused Russia on Tuesday of repeatedly shielding President Bashar Assad instead of working for Security Council unity.

I'm struggling to see how our resident Russian folk would find any way of credibly explaining this away as a reputable stance. By all means, folks, give it a try.

I'm sure you'll fail, though.

Russia is happy to be the instigator of a chemical attack on civilians in foreign lands. It's equally content to help empower allies of itself to do likewise, and to do its best for them to see to it that they remain unanswerable for their crimes .. and it does all this without any trace of human conscience intervening.

Russia is a danger to world security, and unashamedly so. Though Russia always seeks to excuse or evade, to claim nonsense about that, the truth is obvious for anyone to see (certainly in the West, anyway). This is surely beyond question.

Translation: THIS STINKS.