Chemical weapons used by Syria

[Dr Kynes]

See, when you want to engage your readership, the insult has to be funny but it can't be the opener. Also, the opener can't be completely BS. It's best to keep the BS and the insult together, between halfway in and 3 quarters of the way in. The novel has to be the opener, you get people's attention with new info. That's why your post was almost good. You got it started with a good pic, which actually gave you enough momentum to keep the attention through the bullshit, but then you went with new info again only to finish weak. There was enough good content that you could have pulled it off. You have to finish strong though.

There is nothing like insulting someone and still keeping them interested in what you have to say.

sadly, it's not BS, islam IS based upon a declared intention of world domination, and the elimination of all non-moslem thought.
islamic fundamentalism is replete with examples, but you wish only to create an elaborate apologia for islam's excesses, while simultaneously declaring other religious fundamentalism (christian, jewish, etc) to be oppressive, racist, apartheid, or theocratic.

and no, ALL Moslems are not perpetrators of the fundmentalist violence, but, as demonstrated in numerous polls throughout the islamic world, they largely support the IDEA and IDEALS of jihad, even when they deplore the tactics most commonly used.
only a small minority of moslems reject the idea of jihad (the violent kind, not the nonsense internal struggle bullshit which is just their attempt to sound like Zen Masters), but even that minority firmly believes that eventually islam will become the One World Faith.
it is a core tenet of their religion, just as it is among christians and $cientologists

 

[abandonconflict]

If you insult Islam, sentient or not, you die.

Muslims have the most pedophiles per capita of any group.

 

[abandonconflict]

sadly, it's not BS, islam IS based upon a declared intention of world domination

Opening statements like these are the number one cause of TLDR.





*edit*
Since this is what you and Doer are really pushing, stop repeating it over and over and just assume it. If you really want to convince people of this shit, you have to think beyond it to the other crap further in your slippery slope and push that "...since we all know Islam is a war cult...". Well that is the idea you are to convey, not in such obvious words though.

Don't be afraid to be a hateful bigot if that is what you are, you just may strike a chord with such sentiments. If you're afraid to be such an ass, you won't engage the people who feel the same as you. You won't persuade the rational people like myself either way but at least we'll be kinda butt hurt.

 

[Doer]

I watched that speech last night, how can any politician stand there and say anything about children and saving them. America doesn't have a very good track record of saving people. How many children did our bombs kill in Iraq? Afghanistan? How about all the women and children that died when we bombed Japan. He claims a majority of humanity has declared chemical weapons off limits, yet has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons out of any country and acts like America doesn't still employ white phosphuros as a chemical weapon.

Take his transcript and read it while thinking about what our country has done to other countries and see if you can spot the disgusting hypocrisy.

It is disgusting. It is hypocrisy. But, most important. It is. This is high skill double=think by Politicians Lawyers and big Chiefs. What is or is not a Chemical Weapon is define by Convention, Treaty, NATO norms, etc.

And technically we are not talking about chemical weapons. per se, iac. It is WMDs. That is the subject. And nerve gas is not Willie Pete.

The main point here, is that, though recently admitted to the security Council, and since, 1997 that said Council has banned the production of these particular WMDs, Syria refused to sign.

In fact, they have produced something in the order of 100,000 tons of binary Sarin, quite unlawfully, signatory to the Convention, or not.

So, is that OK to you? We have been destroying our stockpiles as have the Russian and others, under mutual inspections.

Meanwhile Syria has produced all that horror, and now has this large stockpile. Is that OK, to you? It will take 40 years to destroy all that.

Next you will be saying Tear Gas is a WMD.

 

[Bombur]

Don't be a re-gurg. If you insult Islam, sentient or not, you die. Failure of a magnitude not often seen. And this is RIU.

Do you know how ignorant you sound? Allah is Islam. Tell them God needs a good talking to. Good ahead, they really know what to do with Satan's sarcasm. You make me laugh, but not in a good way.

I sound ignorant because I know a religion can not, of itself, do anything? Stfu. If islam is inherently evil, so are all religions, so why do you focus solely on Islam? Do people not kill in the name of Christianity or Judaism? Doesnt an absolute fundamental belief of those religions also beget violence?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Opening statements like these are the number one cause of TLDR.





*edit*
Since this is what you and Doer are really pushing, stop repeating it over and over and just assume it. If you really want to convince people of this shit, you have to think beyond it to the other crap further in your slippery slope and push that "...since we all know Islam is a war cult...". Well that is the idea you are to convey, not in such obvious words though.

Don't be afraid to be a hateful bigot if that is what you are, you just may strike a chord with such sentiments. If you're afraid to be such an ass, you won't engage the people who feel the same as you. You won't persuade the rational people like myself either way but at least we'll be kinda butt hurt.

the unavoidable fact that islam was born in violence, raised with violence and has matured into even more violence is the part you keep denying.

when you repeatedly dodge that simple, inescapable fact, you make it appear as though you do not understand it or do not believe it.

if you are aware of this fact, then stop dodging it, and it will not have to be repeated.

further, as the Past master of repeating a childish syllogism disguised as a question over and over, despite it having been answered repeatedly, you have no credibility on that issue.

lest we forget:

Medieval serfdom was voluntary, just like your shitty job.

Serfs were not chattel, like you so hope to mislead. They were not property and could leave the fief if they wanted, and many did decide to become serfs elsewhere. It was voluntary.

Serfs were not chattel, nor were they property. They could leave their lord's estate, and many did so, to become serfs elsewhere or to serve in a king's army.

It was voluntary.

Kynes.
Serfs were not chattel.
By definition.
Therefore...
wait for it...
It was voluntary.

You're an idiot Kynes. You're so stuck in a false dichotomy, that when presented with new information which renders your views stupid, you decry deceiver.

Serfs were not chattel, therefore it was voluntary.

That is a completely true statement, yet you can not reconcile this with what you believe voluntary to mean. Surely there exists societal factors which goad people to accept serfdom, therefore according to you, it can not be voluntary. It is not deception when I make a point, knowing full well that you will disagree because of what you think a word means. In this case, voluntary.

So why is it that the serfs volunteered their service to the lords?

The answer is simple Kynes, it is because the only difference between the serfs and lords, was property. The lords had property and the serfs did not. The lords owned the land which sustained them all. This is a sufficient goad to coerce a man into voluntary serfdom.

Again Kynes, serfs were not chattel. I have to be a broken record with you, because you're stupid.

They relied upon the land for survival. The land was property, the serfs were not. Serfs, by definition are not chattel. In fact, in most feudal societies, they even had some rights. They were bound to the landlord only by debt.

Except that a serf could "buy freedom" by paying off the debt.

All you are doing is repeating incessantly that serfs were property.

However, serfs were not chattel, by definition.

Serfs are not chattel. By definition. Look it up for yourself. That is what the word fucking means.

Now I'm moving on.

Since, by definition, serfs are not chattel, why then did serfs historically have a life they did not wish to have?

There are two ways to look at this as far as I see.

1) They were not really serfs but became chattel slaves and the system of feudalism continued to operate on the notion that they were serfs. Their lords had all become greedy and tyrannical and exercised unhindered tyranny over these people. They were called serfs, but they were chattel.

2) They did volunteer. Their choices in life were so limited that they chose to be peons and thus were indeed serfs, voluntarily bound. Stay here and fucking work or your family will starve.

If they are not chattel, then serfdom is voluntary.

You're just butthurt because voluntaryism is a fancy word for feudalism.

UB calls you a klan member and you never cry about it.

You're the one who insists that serfs are chattel.

If serfs were chattel, then the US founding fathers were feudalists.

A serf is a type of slave.

It's voluntary though.

Kind of like wage slavery.

Kinda like this:

Serfs were not chattel, therefore serfdom was voluntary.

Voluntaryism is feudalism.

nuff said.

 

[abandonconflict]

Serfs were not chattel. Voluntaryism and feudalism are identical.

 

[Harrekin]

I sound ignorant because I know a religion can not, of itself, do anything? Stfu. If islam is inherently evil, so are all religions, so why do you focus solely on Islam? Do people not kill in the name of Christianity or Judaism? Doesnt an absolute fundamental belief of those religions also beget violence?

Nope, Jesus said smoke pot and sing songs.

Jews are still waiting.

How many Jews or Christians blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace with an explosive vest?

How many fly planes into buildings?

How many behead enemy soldiers on video with batshit crazy writing all over it and lots of "Durka Durka, Mohammed, Jihad"!.

Apples and hand grenades dude...

 

[abandonconflict]

Nope, Jesus said smoke pot and sing songs.

Libertarian Jesus?

 

[Harrekin]

Libertarian Jesus?

No, the actual historic figure Jesus.

(Not saying he had super powers, but there was a dude named Jesus who preached shit...which ironically is completely ignored and in some cases the opposite is done by the modern Church)

 

[BDOGKush]

It is disgusting. It is hypocrisy. But, most important. It is. This is high skill double=think by Politicians Lawyers and big Chiefs. What is or is not a Chemical Weapon is define by Convention, Treaty, NATO norms, etc.

And technically we are not talking about chemical weapons. per se, iac. It is WMDs. That is the subject. And nerve gas is not Willie Pete.

The main point here, is that, though recently admitted to the security Council, and since, 1997 that said Council has banned the production of these particular WMDs, Syria refused to sign.

In fact, they have produced something in the order of 100,000 tons of binary Sarin, quite unlawfully, signatory to the Convention, or not.

So, is that OK to you? We have been destroying our stockpiles as have the Russian and others, under mutual inspections.

Meanwhile Syria has produced all that horror, and now has this large stockpile. Is that OK, to you? It will take 40 years to destroy all that.

Next you will be saying Tear Gas is a WMD.

Actually I could say Tear Gas is a WMD and I'd be 100% correct by America's own definition of what a WMD is. But I never said anything about WMDs, I was pointing out how America truly has no business trying to act morally superior to any country. All you address about my post is that I said white phosphorus, you have nothing to say about how America goes in and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and then tries to act like they're the world's moral compass? Attacking Syria would be nothing more than posturing and has the risk of dragging our country into another drawn out, bloody war. Apparently America is fine with Syrian civilians dying by artillery and air strikes but the minute chemical weapons are used, its crossing the line and who would have more to gain from a chemical attack, Assad or the Rebels? The answer is the Rebels who have already been proven to have produced and used chemical weapons in Syria already, there is video evidence of them testing it on rabbits as well as recorded phone calls of them asking for the chemicals they need to make it.

Since you want to try to take a pointless jab at me with your little WMD comment, here is some much needed reading for you, by our own laws, America uses WMDs daily:

Definition of WMD:
(1) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and

Definition of "destructive device" under section 921:
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

Title 18 USC 2332a
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2332a.htm

Title 18 USC 921- Definitions

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

 

[Dr Kynes]

Actually I could say Tear Gas is a WMD and I'd be 100% correct by America's own definition of what a WMD is. But I never said anything about WMDs, I was pointing out how America truly has no business trying to act morally superior to any country. All you address about my post is that I said white phosphorus, you have nothing to say about how America goes in and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and then tries to act like they're the world's moral compass? Attacking Syria would be nothing more than posturing and has the risk of dragging our country into another drawn out, bloody war. Apparently America is fine with Syrian civilians dying by artillery and air strikes but the minute chemical weapons are used, its crossing the line and who would have more to gain from a chemical attack, Assad or the Rebels? The answer is the Rebels who have already been proven to have produced and used chemical weapons in Syria already, there is video evidence of them testing it on rabbits as well as recorded phone calls of them asking for the chemicals they need to make it.

Since you want to try to take a pointless jab at me with your little WMD comment, here is some much needed reading for you, by our own laws, America uses WMDs daily:

Definition of WMD:
(1) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and

Definition of "destructive device" under section 921:
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

Title 18 USC 2332a
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2332a.htm

Title 18 USC 921- Definitions

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

tear gas is STILL not a WMD, no matter how hard you try and stretch the definition, it just does not fit within the letter of the law, even nif you assume it meets the criteria of definition 2 A-D

and as it is not intended to cause ANY bodily harm, the entire premise if founded on a faulty assumption.

 

[ginwilly]

tear gas is STILL not a WMD, no matter how hard you try and stretch the definition, it just does not fit within the letter of the law, even nif you assume it meets the criteria of definition 2 A-D

and as it is not intended to cause ANY bodily harm, the entire premise if founded on a faulty assumption.

While I agree with you, I think tear gas was on the banned chemical weapons list from the treaty signed in the 20's that Obama references.

 

[Dr Kynes]

While I agree with you, I think tear gas was on the banned chemical weapons list from the treaty signed in the 20's that Obama references.

old school "tear gas" was ammonium chloride gas, which causes considerable harm, and often death, only in miniscule doses will ammonium chloride act as a discomfort agent.

 

[ginjawarrior]

old school "tear gas" was ammonium chloride gas, which causes considerable harm, and often death, only in miniscule doses will ammonium chloride act as a discomfort agent.

Cs gas is on the list of chemical weapons however there is clause for law enforcement use

[h=2]Riot control agents[/h]
Riot control agents (RCAs) such as CS were the topic of long and heated debates during the CWC negotiations. At issue were their inclusion in the treaty and the restrictions that would be imposed upon their use.In the end, a compromise was reached under which States Parties are to declare to the OPCW the RCAs they possess for law enforcement purposes. Though use is allowed for these purposes, it is prohibited as a method of warfare.Furthermore, if a State Party considers that an RCA has been used against it as a method of warfare, it has the right to request assistance from the OPCW. Such a request will trigger an investigation of alleged use (IAU) by the Organisation, after which a decision will be made by the Executive Council regarding the provision of further assistance.

http://www.opcw.org/protection/types-of-chemical-agent/riot-control-agents/

 

[Dr Kynes]

Cs gas is on the list of chemical weapons however there is clause for law enforcement use


http://www.opcw.org/protection/types-of-chemical-agent/riot-control-agents/[/FONT][/COLOR]

CS tear gas was invented in 1928, but it wasnt developed as a "weapon" until the 1950's.

it is NOT the "tear gas" banned in the first gas warfare accords.

 

[abandonconflict]

I watched that speech last night, how can any politician stand there and say anything about children and saving them. America doesn't have a very good track record of saving people. How many children did our bombs kill in Iraq? Afghanistan? How about all the women and children that died when we bombed Japan. He claims a majority of humanity has declared chemical weapons off limits, yet has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons out of any country and acts like America doesn't still employ white phosphuros as a chemical weapon.

Take his transcript and read it while thinking about what our country has done to other countries and see if you can spot the disgusting hypocrisy.

 

[Doer]

I sound ignorant because I know a religion can not, of itself, do anything? Stfu. If islam is inherently evil, so are all religions, so why do you focus solely on Islam? Do people not kill in the name of Christianity or Judaism? Doesnt an absolute fundamental belief of those religions also beget violence?

Islam is the one religion where the Clerics will put out public death sentences on Infidels and then send death squads to do it. It was Fathwah that took our Ambassador in Libya.

I AM NOT FOCUSING ON A RELIGION YOU IDIOT

Is

 

[Doer]

I sound ignorant because I know a religion can not, of itself, do anything? Stfu. If islam is inherently evil, so are all religions, so why do you focus solely on Islam? Do people not kill in the name of Christianity or Judaism? Doesnt an absolute fundamental belief of those religions also beget violence?

It is the most ignorant of all this. Relgions are forces unto themselves. You are so off the point, to think a relgion does nothing by itself???>?!!!

Are you daft? A religion forever paints the mind of infants. The very fact of life you miss. Relgions have done it all. We have it because we need it.

Humans need it. No doubt. There have been 1000s of these religions that did not spark into War Cults. We Need the War Cults obviously because of the Social Contract.

Defend with us or we kill you now.

 

[Rob Roy]

Islam is the one religion where the Clerics will put out public death sentences on Infidels and then send death squads to do it. It was Fathwah that took our Ambassador in Libya.

I AM NOT FOCUSING ON A RELIGION YOU IDIOT

Is

Nope, viewed in a wider perspective, "government" is another religion that puts out public death sentences...it happens all the time. It's called war.