Skip to main content

View Diary: U.N. investigators found 'clear and convincing' evidence of Aug. 21 chemical attack (327 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where world leaders act like they care (5+ / 0-)

    that the war crimes happened, possibly. Rather than acting as if chemical weapons are the ultimate in horrible badness while possessing nuclear weapons that are far worse than chemical weapons. And ignoring the fact that right next door Israel has nuclear weapons.

    Do people actually care about war crimes? I've heard numerous people here say they do and then pretend like these other sort of war crimes aren't really a big deal. It's either "in the past" or it just wasn't the right kind of weapons being used or the people weren't civiliany enough. Or something, who knows.

    That said, I don't know why an indiscriminate slaughter of people by hand would be worse than a larger one done using chemical weapons, so I can't fully agree with the commenter you were replying to. It seems like killing 2000 people with sarin is much worse than the massacre described.

    •  Look forward, not back. That's pragmatism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, Laconic Lib

      you can believe in.

      Right up until war crimes look like they might be a good excuse to blow a few Arabs to bits.

      "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

      by JesseCW on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 12:42:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The fact that they're actually complicit (0+ / 0-)

      in the war crimes(how does arming the combatants not count?)  they may be trading a bit softly on this issue.

      You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

      by Johnny Q on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 12:49:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The reason why killing with chemical weapons (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell

      is worse is that for the same time, effort, and cost, the use of conventional weapons wouldn't kill nearly as many people.

      It's not that killing 2000 with chemical weapons is worse than killing 2000 with bombs and guns. It's that, with the equivalent expenditure using guns and bombs, fewer would die. Hence, there is validity to classifying "weapons of mass destruction."

      To be sure, emotionally it seems more horrifying to die by sarin poisoning than by gunshot, but that's secondary.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 01:21:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the difference between WMD (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and killing by other means. I was addressing the comment above the parent comment who said that a massacre of some 169 people was the worst war crime committed by Syria.

      •  It's also the fact that... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        CW is far more portable.

        After all, one can't exactly set up a Vulcan cannon in Times Square without being noticed...but can most certainly smuggle a container of sarin, or even a 155mm artillery shell loaded with the stuff, into any number of locations.

        The prime motivator behind the "breakthrough" was, in my opinion, the information provided by German intelligence which indicated that Assad no longer held either command authority or physical control of his CW stocks.

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 03:12:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You want Barack Obama to start talking about... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      war crimes committed by the Syrian government.

      Uh huh.

      Sure you do.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 01:35:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I want him to prosecute ware crimes (5+ / 0-)

        committed by the previous administration, to start with. I don't see him talking about the collective punishment the Palestinians face. I don't see him talking about the people the US tortured. I don't see him talking about WMD when it's our allies who are part of the problem. He really wants to stop nuclear weapons until it's Israel and India then he doesn't speak up.

        If he's going to talk about war crimes then he needs to talk about war crimes and not this selective crap that he's been doing. Maybe he could make a public apology for our treatment of Native Americans instead of sneaking it through congress and not even saying anything about it.

        He has spoken out at length on the crimes taking place in Syria, which is good. I'm saying he needs to do more and speak out where ever there are these crimes and not just when it's conveniently an enemy of the US like Syria or Libya.

        •  Wow, how humanitarian. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bear83, askew

          There is an ongoing civil war in Syria killing thousands of people a month, but what really matters is prosecuting Bush officials, Palestine, and every other pet issue you want to change the subject to.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 02:07:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where did I say to change the subject? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, Johnny Q

            What are you even talking about. Let me quote my comment:

            I'm saying he needs to do more and speak out where ever there are these crimes and not just when it's conveniently an enemy of the US like Syria or Libya.
            If you took a second and didn't treat everyone like an enemy on this site then maybe you wouldn't say that I said the exact opposite of what you said I wanted.

            Are speaking out about the ongoing massacres in the Congo? Is the president? No. If I mention that am I changing the subject? No, because the subject is war crimes. You can pretend that Syria is it's own special place but it's happening all over the world.

            If you don't support prosecuting people for committing war crimes then you aren't actually opposed to war crimes. If that's a "pet issue" in your eyes then fine.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site