Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I've seen this kind of thing and I've always wondered why it is that the weapon used to kill people is such a big factor in the outrage level. Like with this chemical weapon attack in Syria. By one of the more conservative estimates I can find (http://www.iamsyria.org/death-tolls.html) around 207,000 civilians including around 24,000 children have been killed so far in the Syrian Civil war; with 94% of those casualties attributed to action by the "Syrian-Iranian=Russian alliance."

So now we had a chemical weapons attack and the death toll is at 72 civilians including 20 children and all of a sudden it REALLY matters? So, hundreds of thousands can be killed with other weapons and the world as a practical matter yawns but if 72 are killed with a chemical weapons then all of a sudden it's a outrage?

Yes I know it induces suffering but something tells me that an awful lot of people over there have suffered after being wounded but not immediately killed by other types of weapons. I'm sure there have been plenty of slow, painful deaths from bacterial wound infections and such.

Um, because military weapons are meant to kill opposing millitarys? Not entire towns of civilians.

Why do we follow rules of engagement?
Why do we follow the Geneva convention?
Why do we agree to nuclear non-proliferation?
Why is there a chemical weapons convention?

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/

Lots of time you can't see it, lots of time it does cause more pain and suffering that other weapons, it can kill indiscriminately, lots of time it can cause lingering effects that can lead to birth defects 10 to 20 to 30 years later. All killing is pretty heinous, and as Sherman said war is hell, but even Dante had different levels of hell. I don't think it's that hard to conceive that chemical weapons have a different level.

Its Syria, I dont care but if more of it happens OVER THERE.

I still dont care......if this happened in 194 other countries I didnt see a thing, I care more about what LeBron James has to say about Rob Quist not paying taxes and being a deadbeat.

I dont get where you think there is outrage? Dont say other countries either because they dont matter.

ASUG8 wrote:Why do we follow rules of engagement?
Why do we follow the Geneva convention?
Why do we agree to nuclear non-proliferation?
Why is there a chemical weapons convention?

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/

Because we want it to look good on the outside.

I dont know why we do follow any of this, nobody else does.

JohnStOnge wrote:I've seen this kind of thing and I've always wondered why it is that the weapon used to kill people is such a big factor in the outrage level. Like with this chemical weapon attack in Syria. By one of the more conservative estimates I can find (http://www.iamsyria.org/death-tolls.html) around 207,000 civilians including around 24,000 children have been killed so far in the Syrian Civil war; with 94% of those casualties attributed to action by the "Syrian-Iranian=Russian alliance."

So now we had a chemical weapons attack and the death toll is at 72 civilians including 20 children and all of a sudden it REALLY matters? So, hundreds of thousands can be killed with other weapons and the world as a practical matter yawns but if 72 are killed with a chemical weapons then all of a sudden it's a outrage?

Yes I know it induces suffering but something tells me that an awful lot of people over there have suffered after being wounded but not immediately killed by other types of weapons. I'm sure there have been plenty of slow, painful deaths from bacterial wound infections and such.

Why stop at that question..?
Once you open that box (why does the weapon ^ matter)
all the larger existential questions come into play

I'm not saying I disagree with where you're going
But... it gets ugly fast once you kick THAT door open

andy7171 wrote:Um, because military weapons are meant to kill opposing millitarys? Not entire towns of civilians.

But reports are that the Russians and Syrians have been targeting civilians for years.

JohnStOnge wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Um, because military weapons are meant to kill opposing millitarys? Not entire towns of civilians.

But reports are that the Russians and Syrians have been targeting civilians for years.

I live in America. And I find it really hard to care what other countries on the other side of the world do. But chemical weapons kill babies and innocent people and I start to begin to.

JohnStOnge wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Um, because military weapons are meant to kill opposing millitarys? Not entire towns of civilians.

But reports are that the Russians and Syrians have been targeting civilians for years.

IMO the difference is other larger scale weapons are mostly used to destroy hard targets. Chemical weapons are used exclusively to kill people. They have no impact on machinery, buildings, bunkers, etc...

Why cant they use drones like we do and avoid innocent civilian and children casualties?

Put aside 15 minutes and just watch a continuous raw feed of one of the children that died from this attack as they heaved for breath and shook uncontrollably. Just do that and get back to us. Nerve agents are nasty stuff.

kalm wrote:Why cant they use drones like we do and avoid innocent civilian and children casualties?

Well played sir, well played.

93henfan wrote:Put aside 15 minutes and just watch a continuous raw feed of one of the children that died from this attack as they heaved for breath and shook uncontrollably. Just do that and get back to us. Nerve agents are nasty stuff.

I get that but I just dont care I dont have one grain of empathy for anyone not a legal American citizen.

I would literally push the button myself and then go fishing and not think about it. Nothing.

I'm no more or less outraged about the use of chemical weapons than I am by the idea that it is our responsibility alone to deal with it

Its none of our business, why do Democrats always want us in a war?

kalm wrote:Why cant they use drones like we do and avoid innocent civilian and children casualties?

Well, the key difference is they want to kill the innocent civilians and the children. They're the primary, and possibly only targets at times. Genocide works that way.

CID1990 wrote:I'm no more or less outraged about the use of chemical weapons than I am by the idea that it is our responsibility alone to deal with it

X 1000.

People outraged about Sean Spicer's comments about Hitler not using chemical weapons.

Just a guess, but I'm going to say nerve gas inhalation is a more agonizing way to go than actual carbon monoxide or cyanide gas, which just blocks hemoglobin and will make you pass out before you die.

Pwns wrote:People outraged about Sean Spicer's comments about Hitler not using chemical weapons.

Just a guess, but I'm going to say nerve gas inhalation is a more agonizing way to go than actual carbon monoxide or cyanide gas, which just blocks hemoglobin and will make you pass out before you die.

Super. But don't bring it up in a press conference. Or even reference Hitler. People that reference or compare Hitler with regards to contemporary political matters almost always get the history wrong. Just don't do it.

So...if you kill 500,000 people with conventional weapons that's OK because most of those deaths were ostensibly relatively painless but if you kill 70 people with nerve gas that's not OK?

BTW, I think it's safe to say that if you unleash on people and kill hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons in an environment like Syria you've got an awful lot of deaths among people who were initially wounded but then eventually died as a result of bacterial infection. That is not a pleasant way to go.