Al Qaeda threatens chemical attack on Tel Aviv

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
I've made repeated arguments as to why WMD is a misleading, politically motivated grouping. All you can seem to do is semantics.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" are also misleading and politically motivated. So?

If you are unjust, people will hate you.

They often hate us anyway - a lot because there are differences of opinion on what is just and unjust. For instance, I don't think it just that some guy gets to beat up his wife for not wearing a hijab just because he lives in Iran.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Who at all said Israel would use nukes?

panag

[Agathon]

And you are worrying about something panag said?

[GePap]

Yup.

[lord of the mark]

Do people here really think the hysteria over nerve gas was started by rightwing or pro-US sources?

Excuuuse me.

Im just too old.


I remember sometime in the late '60s, as a kid, managing to get a glimpse of a 60 minutes segment (imagine a YOUNG Mike Wallace) on nerve gas (my parents apt was so set up i could see the TV from down the hall without them knowing) I had VERY BAD nightmares that evening. Of course 60 minutes and company were not focusing on Iraq, or Libya or whereever - they were raising a fuss about the US nerve gas arsenal.


Of course with the US a party to the chemical weapons treaty, and having spent fortunes destroying old chemical weapons stocks, its not surprising the politics have changed, and those whose ideological predecessesors once trumpeted the horrors of nerve gas now minimize them.

[Sirotnikov]

I'm worried about his words as well.


I can calm you down though, and promise that there is little chance that Israel would respond with nukes to such a threat by Al-Qaeda.

No doubt, they will recieve much more attention by Israeli special forces, in such a case, but nothing else.

[Sandman]

The words "liberal" and "conservative" are also misleading and politically motivated. So?

Thankfully, people don't use the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' as an excuse to invade countries or a justification for mindbogglingly disproportionate retaliation.

They often hate us anyway - a lot because there are differences of opinion on what is just and unjust. For instance, I don't think it just that some guy gets to beat up his wife for not wearing a hijab just because he lives in Iran.

They'd hate you more. A lot more.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Do people here really think the hysteria over nerve gas was started by rightwing or pro-US sources?

....

Of course with the US a party to the chemical weapons treaty, and having spent fortunes destroying old chemical weapons stocks, its not surprising the politics have changed, and those whose ideological predecessesors once trumpeted the horrors of nerve gas now minimize them.

I really don't get this post. I don;t see Mike Wallace playing down the threats of Nerve Gas. I am, and I can assure you I put together no news reports in the 1960's. Calling Nerve gas a doomsday weapon back then was as innaccurate as it would be calling it a doomsday weapon today.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Thankfully, people don't use the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' as an excuse to invade countries or a justification for mindbogglingly disproportionate retaliation.

OK, how about "Godless"?

They'd hate you more. A lot more.

If we what? Take away that guy's right to do that?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



I really don't get this post. I don;t see Mike Wallace playing down the threats of Nerve Gas. I am, and I can assure you I put together no news reports in the 1960's. Calling Nerve gas a doomsday weapon back then was as innaccurate as it would be calling it a doomsday weapon today.

I know of no one on the left (in this context, those who were skeptical of American power) who played them down then. I suppose you would have been the single outstanding individual. Maybe.

Now i know this isnt a substantive argument - others here are making those arguments. Its a response to the notion that the villification of nerve gas is somehow a plot of Americans, neoconservatives, or others to justify intervention in the Arab world, or to villify Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.

[GePap]

Who was talking about "villifying" chemical weapons? Maybe CharlesBHoff, but honestly, don;t listen to him.

The simple point is that chemical agents are not in any on the same order of magnitude as nuclear weapons.

I would say israel is lucky that the legal framework limiting nuclear weapons is so much more lax than that banning Chemical weapons and that the uS actually wants to enforce the Chemical weapons conventions but is lax when it comes to much more powerful nukes in the hands of friends.

[Kuciwalker]

Because nukes are actually less likely to be used, due to their more serious consequences.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Ah, you've convinced me now.

Do you even understand the causes of WWI? Let me tell you, the situation in the Mideast isn't comparable at all. It's a completely random connection.

WW1 was caused by several factors chief among them was nationalism and the type of bravado you display. The leaders of Europe had no idea what they where getting themselves into. Most of them thought the war would be quickly won. They sent their troops off with a flourish of parades and fancy speeches. As usual all sides thought they were fighting the good fight. As usual soldiers paid the price for the big talk of people who thought war was an acceptable form of diplomacy. I see many similarities between the world just before WW1 and now. The first being the general acceptance of war as a solution to problems.

[Pax]

Of course, you won't believe until we are even more entangled in the Middle East. You won't agree until even more peoples lives have been ruined. Of course it will be acceptable to you far away from the front line.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Because nukes are actually less likely to be used, due to their more serious consequences.

Bollocks.

Becuase it is far more expensive to get nukes, so if you have them, obviously you have some amount of power that makes it very hard to then enforce the law-while the same is not true for chemical weapons.