PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on April 17, 2018, 11:27:58 AM
-
Chances are it could happen again. A second administration official noted that "we have seen a consistent pattern of the Syrian regime resorting to the use of chemical weapons." The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, told the Security Council on Friday that the US assesses that Assad "has used chemical weapons in the Syrian war at least 50 times."
Nevermind that the assertion of at least 50 times cannot be substantiated.
What's the (legal) difference between a government using Chlorine gas vs a (government) police force using Tear Gas? Is it only the fatality rate?
-
What's the (legal) difference between a government using Chlorine gas vs a (government) police force using Tear Gas? Is it only the fatality rate?
That's a pretty big damn difference, even if you don't count the agony factor. Tear gas is uncomfortable, pepper spray it worse; Chlorine gas is a whole new level.
-
One is toxic, and will KILL you. The others will not.
-
I guess not wanting psychotic, muslim nations using poison gas to kill masses of people is racist now.
-
Nevermind that the assertion of at least 50 times cannot be substantiated.
So you have classified access to government intelligence data now. Care to tell us more?
What's the (legal) difference between a government using Chlorine gas vs a (government) police force using Tear Gas? Is it only the fatality rate?
You know, your stupidity is astounding. Do you even know the difference between tear gas and chlorine gas?
BTW, to educate you:
Humans can smell chlorine gas at ranges from 0.1–0.3 ppm. According to a review from 2010: "At 1–3 ppm, there is mild mucus membrane irritation that can usually be tolerated for about an hour. At 5–15 ppm, there is moderate mucus membrane irritation. At 30 ppm and beyond, there is immediate chest pain, shortness of breath, and cough. At approximately 40–60 ppm, a toxic pneumonitis and/or acute pulmonary edema can develop.... Concentrations of about 400 ppm and beyond are generally fatal over 30 minutes, and at 1,000 ppm and above, fatality ensues within only a few minutes."
-
Nevermind that the assertion of at least 50 times cannot be substantiated.
What's the (legal) difference between a government using Chlorine gas vs a (government) police force using Tear Gas? Is it only the fatality rate?
are you fucking serious?
-
are you fucking serious?
Yes.
I think he is...
-
I believe chlorine gas deaths in WWI were second only to mustard gas deaths. It’s a horrible way to go.
-
I believe chlorine gas deaths in WWI were second only to mustard gas deaths. It’s a horrible way to go.
Not to count the sub deaths in WWI, and WWII due to chlorine gas from the Batts.
-
Is it only the fatality rate?
Yes it is. Tear Gas makes an area very unpleasant to be in. I've been in tear gas, believe me, you want nothing more than to get out of it. Your eyes water, your nose runs nearly constantly and your skin has a strong burning feeling. You move out of the gas and over 15 minutes the symptoms improve. Deaths that occur from tear gas are almost all related to being hit by the canister (usually in the head) or trampled by the stampede of people trying to run away. Someone with breathing difficulties who does not move out of the gas may have enough breathing distress to die from it, but people with these kinds of breathing difficulties typically have problems in day to day life.
I've had experience with chlorine gas too. On a submarine, our batteries were huge lead-acid batteries. When I say huge, some of them were 8' tall and 2'x2' wide. There were over a hundred on board and they ran off sulfuric acid. If sea water mixes with the acid, it produces chlorine gas, which is toxic and will kill you in a horrible way - we held drills on what to do if this occurred, including how to deal with casualties. Also a few years back a chemical storage company about a mile from my house caught fire, I could hear the 55 gallon drums of chemicals exploding, then echoed on the time delay feed on the news. When they said "chlorine gas" is when we left home. For someone to intentionally release chlorine gas on a civilian population is indicative of an intention to kill and has been mutually agreed as an unacceptable form of warfare.
That is the difference - one is an irritant. The other is intended to be lethal.
Between this and all the other posts, I trust that you understand the difference now?
-
For someone to intentionally release chlorine gas on a civilian population is indicative of an intention to kill and has been mutually agreed as an unacceptable form of warfare.
Of all the other responses, this is the only one-liner that attempts to answer the question asked. My question is not related to lethality (although I used that suggestion to get the question going) or the practical differences between the two. My question is what makes one lawful and the other unlawful.
So you have classified access to government intelligence data now. Care to tell us more?
If there exists such a thing as classified data on use of Chemical Weapons in Syria then it was released by Ambassador Haley, not by me. Furthermore, if I had access to such classified data, I would not be outing it here nor anywhere else.
Which brings me to my liar, liar pants on fire finger pointing at Amb Haley. She would have Original Classification Authority and if such classified data exists, then certainly she would have both need-to-know and the clearance and legal authority to decide to whom to release such information. This is now the first we (the public) are hearing about "at least 50 times". Is she guilty of using hyperbole or of releasing classified data?
-
My question is what makes one lawful and the other unlawful.
International agreement.
-
International agreement.
Basic Human Intelligence, which muslim and fascist leaders often fail to have...
-
Bans on the use of poison weapons date back to the Romans, they've always been repugnant. Warfare was mostly free of them until the use of gas weapons in WWI. Now of course their use engenders red lines and other nonsense, but it is still repugnant in the extreme.
Jaybird is trying to say that the widespread use of tear gas by security forces is just another form of chemical warfare. While he is a priori correct (force being applied through the dispersal of a chemical agent) there are some profound differences. The effect of chemical weapons (widespread death of civilians) can be accomplished by non chemical means, though said means are more expensive and perhaps expose forces to greater danger. The affect of lacrimating agents cannot be duplicated with non chemical means. Moreover, the use of lacrimating agents is far more benign than bullets of any stripe, or any other means of using force on throngs of civilians. Ask the Israelis about that, I'm certain they don't want to kill Gazan civilians, but they've limited recourse.
-
I guess Jaybird's 'source' on his rant never bothered to consider Human Rights Watch, who documented 86 chemical attacks and the 34 that were confirmed.
Never mind that the psycho Farrakhan and the mass murderer Assad are pretty much brothers in their hatreds.
The best thing for the world would be for both of these cancers to be eradicated, along with their buddy Putin.
-
Be careful what you wish for. What comes after Putin? It isn't terribly clear, and his loss could lead to a power vacuum that could destabilize Russia, a bad thing to happen to the world's second biggest nuclear power.