Less profit for BAE innit?

Same reason fags are ok but cannabis isnt. and Alcohol is ok but cocaine isnt and its ok to harm people with cars but not axes.

So its ok to kill kids in the Yemen with bombs bought from us but an atrocity to kill kids in Syria because we didnt make any money from it.

Then when civilians flee the chemicals, and British, French, American and Russian bombs the Germans are vilified by some on this very forum for giving them refuge, and Brits in general don’t want them because they’re “terrorists”. Flee in terror and you are automatically a terrorist.

And just who started all this? That’s right, Blair and his Christian mate Bush.

absolutely spot on with the current situation but a lot of this goes even further back to the meddling antics of Henry Kissinger

neither is better than the other TBH…but then it doesnt take a genius to work that one out unless you’re a trigger happy despot dictator in charge of some tinpot/proxy/western bully regime
one causes a more painful and lingering death for the world to see and its not just in Syria that this has happened…the Israeli’s have used white phosphorus shells on the Palestinians, Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, the Americans have i’m pretty sure used depleted uranium…and lets not forget their use of napalm (while it may not be a chemical weapon the visual impact is similar to all other chemical warfare attacks) in Vietnam

its plausible to say that while a chemical strike may hit its intended target the spread of the chemical is designed to cause more damage/death/suffering to a wider area…but this is no better than missile strikes that miss their intended targets and instead hit homes/heavily populated residential areas, schools and hospitals…of which there have been many instances of in recent years

There is of course the potential for bombs to primarily disrupt infrastructure and remove your enemy’s ability to fight/prepare to fight, whereas chemical weapons can only kill people.

I’m not sure there’s a massive difference in practice. But theoretically I think it applies.

I think it’s more relevant to ask why I (or for that matter a freedom fighter/terrorist depending on your viewpoint) am not allowed to use violence for my personal reasons, but a “nation” is.

Whilst any form of munitions is considered deadly, the main differentiation is there long lasting ability to remain volatile/ harmful.

Normally it’s described that a bullet or bomb to simplify things once fired/dropped has reached it’s intended target that it is one time deal (clearly not the case with old munitions still being discovered)

But with Nuclear, Chemical and Biological agents and land mines, the reason they are banned is that they can still be harmful for decades after the event or longer.

Clearly thought the boundaries are very grey, when you talk about depleted uranium shells, which are used to combat armour plating on tanks, APCs and the like, the uranium shell hits the outside of the vehicle and literally “squirts” the uranium into the vehicle, not a nice place to be, their use is often placed as one of the reasons for Gulf War Syndrome

In ‘fair’ and ‘traditional’ warfare ‘Conventional’ munitions can/should primarily be used to knock our strategic Military targets (runways/ammo stores/supply lines/etc) and legitimate military targets.
The war in Syria is totally different, as it is effectively Guerrilla warfare – street-to-street fighting in built up areas.
It is impossible to knock out a legitimate military target without collateral damage when it is parked in a school yard/hospital car park etc.
Civilians will end up getting killed, either as collateral damage or due to being used as human shields.

Chemical weapons do not harm strategic targets (runways/ammo stores) they only kill people.

The situation is Syria has descended into utter chaos – the Assad regime can act with total impunity as Russia/China will back them whatever, and are now even making up comical lies to try and defend Assad.
The principle opposition (ISIS) are not bound by any conventions and use horror tactics to scare people into doing what they want.

I think the use of Chemical weapons this week just shows that Assad can do what he likes, as any efforts to try and stop him are basically an attack on Russia.

The images of dead kids lying in the street won’t change anything all the time Putin/Xi are backing the regime – trouble is it will be difficult from Putin to climb down from this position without massive loss of face.

https://www.icrc.org/en/document/weapons

To echo free agents very well put point, a recent video released by the Iraqi are force clearly show IS fighter manoeuvring through the streets with women and children in tow as shields. That place has gone to hell in a hand basket and will continue to deteriorate further. Dying through conventional munitions is bad enough, but chemical weapons, those poor people. 🙁

its plausible to say that while a chemical strike may hit its intended target the spread of the chemical is designed to cause more damage/death/suffering to a wider area…but this is no better than missile strikes that miss their intended targets and instead hit homes/heavily populated residential areas, schools and hospitals…of which there have been many instances of in recent years

This is bollocks, at least one system makes an attempt to discern between targets.

As I said earlier, Iraq didn’t look like Grozny during the American occupation. Baghdad, never once, looked this bad – Grozny looked like every other example of apocalyptic levels of destruction the Russians get involved with – Stalingrad, Aleppo etc.

There was a reason for that, the Americans didn’t need to use katyusha barrages, barrel bombs and chemical weapons to dislodge entrenched targets. There’s been a move to even smaller munitions since as well, eg Brimstone.

the Israeli’s have used white phosphorus shells on the Palestinians, Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, the Americans have i’m pretty sure used depleted uranium…and lets not forget their use of napalm (while it may not be a chemical weapon the visual impact is similar to all other chemical warfare attacks) in Vietnam

The yanks did use a proper chemical weapon in Vietnam, Agent Orange – a herbicide which due to improper manufacturing (I think) – caused huge amounts of birth defects. I’m surprised you didn’t use that as an example instead of Napalm – anyway, have you seen the Americans using napalm recently?

DU seems to have had a lot more research done into it’s long term health effects – since I last read up on it in 2008. Perhaps a munition to be banned for all occasions but Russian tanks charging into Europe? Another thing with DU, is that it’s an easy target to blame – I remember getting in contact with a researcher from Liverpool back in 08 who had a professional interest in the topic. Iraq, especially Southern Iraq around Basrah, has been contaminated with so much shit it makes China look positively clean. Leaking ship wrecks, industrial chemicals, old fertilisers, mustard gas, dioxins….

And just who started all this? That’s right, Blair and his Christian mate Bush.

Really feel the need to correct this as well, 100,000 dead kurds before the Gulf war, 100,000 dead during the 1991 uprisings, likely a million dead during the Iran-Iraq war, the latter wasn’t far off racking up as many casualties as the Vietnam war.

Yeah, Bush and Blair made thing so much worse…it was a bastion of civility before.

Although if you go further back, the British empire – somewhere and at some point in time, can probably be blamed.

kinda wish i didn’t give the war fantasist a platform! 😆