Babelfish wrote:Using white phosphorous is legal, for illumination purposes (in flares).
So what was the IDF trying to "illuminate" in on the morning of January 15, 2009 when they struck the UN headquarters in Gaza with white phosphorus shells?
Moderator: Forum Administrators
Babelfish wrote:Using white phosphorous is legal, for illumination purposes (in flares).
Ludwig Whitby wrote:And I would also like someone to explain to me how the Americans can claim to be against chemical weapons, while at the same time using white phosphorus and ignoring the fact that Israel has been using white phosphorus.
meidei wrote:USA also has the death penalty, that doesn't make it right for Kim Jung Un to publicly execute hundreds of North Koreans.
азъбукывѣдѣ wrote:
meidei wrote:The hypocrisy doesn't make it more (or less) acceptable than it already is.
IpseDixit wrote:Nothing else could better encapsulate my opinion. Why did we get so upset by the use of chemical weapons only? Why not being outraged by the whole situation?
IpseDixit wrote:Moreover (and this is something I've already asked on this forum):
Why did we intervene in Lybia almost straight away (we didn't really wait for chemical weapons to be used) whereas we're considering the idea of intervening in Syria after 2 years and only if the alleged use of chemical weapons is confirmed?
linguoboy wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
linguoboy wrote:Moreover (and this is something I've already asked on this forum):
Libya was politically isolated. Gaddafi was one of the most notorious dictators still in power and the regime was a proven sponsor of terror abroad which had claimed the life of EU and US citizens. Instability in Libya was unlikely to spread to countries the rest of the world had much interest in. (Touch luck, Mali.)
Syria, by contrast, is part of a complex web of allegiances and rivalries, including two nuclear-armed powers (Russia and Israel) and one aspirant to the club. Assad is not a hate figure; in fact, it's safe to say he has no real profile abroad. The ethnic mix in Syria is complex and spills across borders, leading to tremendous potential for regional instability. It's a more complex situation by at least an order of magnitude.
meidei wrote:Because killing people doesn't really get a scale of evilness? It's just flat-out wrong?
IpseDixit wrote:linguoboy wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
I'm open to other options tooit's just that I'm not seeing them.
linguoboy wrote:IpseDixit wrote:linguoboy wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
I'm open to other options tooit's just that I'm not seeing them.
The other options are, of course, (a) to be upset by both and (b) to be upset by neither.
linguoboy wrote:I think your problem stems from equating "seriously considering military action" with "being upset". That's not a reasonable way to approach the politicisation of this conflict.
meidei wrote:Okay then. How does your belief work? Which killer is better?
Ludwig Whitby wrote:People generally don't kill for freedom. They kill for their own freedom. Assad's people are also fighting for freedom.
Freedom is such a vague and ambiguous term that I really dislike using it in discussions such as this.
IpseDixit wrote:Why did we intervene in Lybia almost straight away (we didn't really wait for chemical weapons to be used) whereas we're considering the idea of intervening in Syria after 2 years and only if the alleged use of chemical weapons is confirmed?
If the rebels are really fighting* for freedom, they are infinitely better than those Syrians fighting* for Assad's dictatorship.
And is it legal using it for genocide?Babelfish wrote:Using white phosphorous is legal, for illumination purposes (in flares)
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest