Susan Rice Lied Regarding Chem Weapons in Syria

anatta said:
it's not banned because chlorine is dual use .Look what Kerry said about is when weaponized:
Click to expand...
I know that. And there is no value or purpose in destroying stocks of Chlorine since it is readily available and can be easily purchased in large amounts.

what do you mean "nobody cares?" -you showed coverage. If Assad used chlorine gas tomorrow would it be a "distraction"?
It's ridiculous to say one poison gas is a distraction,but another is a war crime
Click to expand...
Yes it is a distraction because no one was ever going to ban chlorine or destroy chlorine stocks.

I said nobody cares because nobody cared to make it an issue (until now perhaps and that is just as a political point). Who was talking about it outside stories in the press? Did they bring it up in debates? Did you see politicians listing it as a priority point to be addressed? You thought the press had buried it, they hadn't, but they didn't need to. It was just an atrocity in Syria to go along with so many others atrocities.

It doesn't address the main issue. Killing civilians is bad. It is bad if you kill them with Sarin, it is bad if you kill them with barrel bombs, it is bad if you kill them with Chlorine. The reality is we don't care enough about them killing civilians to do anything about, and maybe we couldn't even if we tried, we might only make it worse. We conveniently use the excuse of XXXX type of weapon to make it an issue but it is just politics not compassion or genuine care.
 
Element-22-Cat said:
I know that. And there is no value or purpose in destroying stocks of Chlorine since it is readily available and can be easily purchased in large amounts.

Yes it is a distraction because no one was ever going to ban chlorine or destroy chlorine stocks.

I said nobody cares because nobody cared to make it an issue (until now perhaps and that is just as a political point). Who was talking about it outside stories in the press? Did they bring it up in debates? Did you see politicians listing it as a priority point to be addressed? You thought the press had buried it, they hadn't, but they didn't need to. It was just an atrocity in Syria to go along with so many others atrocities.

It doesn't address the main issue. Killing civilians is bad. It is bad if you kill them with Sarin, it is bad if you kill them with barrel bombs, it is bad if you kill them with Chlorine. The reality is we don't care enough about them killing civilians to do anything about, and maybe we couldn't even if we tried, we might only make it worse. For. We conveniently use the excuse of XXXX type of weapon to make it an issue but it is just politics not compassion or genuine care.
Click to expand...
the whole poison gas thing went under the radar..
One thing that is not reported is "rebels"do not stand apart from civilians, so it's impossible to conduct a war without killing civilians..and how do we know if it's"collateral damage" or purposeful targeting?

It is genuine care -I mean pic of babies elicits an emotional response .

But it's the inability to separate out the emotion from the bigger pic that "war is hell"
that leads to a double standard
 
anatta said:
the whole poison gas thing went under the radar..
One thing that is not reported is "rebels"do not stand apart from civilians, so it's impossible to conduct a war without killing civilians..and how do we know if it's"collateral damage" or purposeful targeting?

It is genuine care -I mean pic of babies elicits an emotional response .

But it's the inability to separate out the emotion from the bigger pic that "war is hell"
that leads to a double standard
Click to expand...
It's not so much that it is under the radar, it's that there are so many other things on the radar that they all blend in together. Like you said "war is hell" and the details get lost.

I think it is both. I think they target areas they know rebels are in and don't care if there are civilians there. They hit the whole place and don't give a shit about the collateral damage. You have to remember they don't have to the capability to do a whole bunch of highly targeted strikes on specific rebel locations, it's mostly brute force and ignorance. You are going to get a lot of civilian deaths/injuries even if they aren't trying to target them.

Yes you care in that aspect, so do I, so do most people, hell I think it bothers Trump too. But you know the old saying about sympathy, you can find it between shit and syphilis.

It is a double standard, and it is disgusting to use it to try to score political points.
 
Element-22-Cat said:
It can be front page anything... but... it is a distraction. Nobody cares that he used Chlorine gas on his civilians. And it's not a part of the banned chemicals in the non-proliferation agreement Syria signed. So it is a distraction from the current situation which is the strike against Syria. That wasn't done because of Chlorine.
Click to expand...

Of course not. The attack was launched because Trump is in bed with the Russians, he's in collusion with them and he demonstrated that by destroying a couple of dozen Russian Jets in Syrian hangers. Susan Rice did not lie...because the democrats and their cohorts "care" so much about innocent children and women, one can tell as much because they wish to bestow constitutional rights on all potential terrorists they are allowing to come into our nation as sleepers...while denying 4th amendment rights to their evil political foes who are in league with the Russians, REPUBLICANS...it does not matter that they are using US GOVERNMENT AGENCIES against AMERICAN CITIZENS the democrats are proud members of a NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT and its their duty and right to use any means necessary to make up for centuries of US abuse to the rest of the world due its insistence of promoting democracy as an imperial product. There is nothing that resembles a NAZI 5th Column whatsoever within the democrat party.


That about sum it up SPORT? :awesome: We can also tell (by your Avatar) that you are not an immature child and a "sock" troll, you are a great mind because you know so much more than everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Element-22-Cat said:
I know that. And there is no value or purpose in destroying stocks of Chlorine since it is readily available and can be easily purchased in large amounts.

Yes it is a distraction because no one was ever going to ban chlorine or destroy chlorine stocks.

I said nobody cares because nobody cared to make it an issue (until now perhaps and that is just as a political point). Who was talking about it outside stories in the press? Did they bring it up in debates? Did you see politicians listing it as a priority point to be addressed? You thought the press had buried it, they hadn't, but they didn't need to. It was just an atrocity in Syria to go along with so many others atrocities.

It doesn't address the main issue. Killing civilians is bad. It is bad if you kill them with Sarin, it is bad if you kill them with barrel bombs, it is bad if you kill them with Chlorine. The reality is we don't care enough about them killing civilians to do anything about, and maybe we couldn't even if we tried, we might only make it worse. We conveniently use the excuse of XXXX type of weapon to make it an issue but it is just politics not compassion or genuine care.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Element-22-Cat said:
I know that. And there is no value or purpose in destroying stocks of Chlorine since it is readily available and can be easily purchased in large amounts.

Yes it is a distraction because no one was ever going to ban chlorine or destroy chlorine stocks.

I said nobody cares because nobody cared to make it an issue (until now perhaps and that is just as a political point). Who was talking about it outside stories in the press? Did they bring it up in debates? Did you see politicians listing it as a priority point to be addressed? You thought the press had buried it, they hadn't, but they didn't need to. It was just an atrocity in Syria to go along with so many others atrocities.

It doesn't address the main issue. Killing civilians is bad. It is bad if you kill them with Sarin, it is bad if you kill them with barrel bombs, it is bad if you kill them with Chlorine. The reality is we don't care enough about them killing civilians to do anything about, and maybe we couldn't even if we tried, we might only make it worse. We conveniently use the excuse of XXXX type of weapon to make it an issue but it is just politics not compassion or genuine care.
Click to expand...

This.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top