Hakik wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:24 pm
PlusCaChange wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:33 pm
The difference is in the term 'weapon'. The most common meaning of weapon is "an instrument of attack or defense in combat". Killing people completely under your control in gas chambers is horrific but it's not combat.
Actually, the Nazis did use chemical weapons against the Soviet Union in Crimea. But that still doesn't change anything.
There's no use trying to grasp at straws here. That's a simple case of incompetence at a news conference with an alarming lack of knowledge of history, presented by someone who has no business giving speeches on behalf of the most powerful country in the world.
According to some sources, the two reasons Hitler didn't use chemical weapons while fighting the Allies were his fear that they would retaliate with bigger chemical attacks and the incident he had with mustard gas during WWI.
He did however use tons of chemicals and doubled his production of chemical weapons when he heard how much the British had stockpiled.
lemmiwinx wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:17 am
Are you saying if the people being burned alive didn't inhale it's not a chemical attack?
Well, yes... in fact, if they did inhale it's not a chemical attack. That's mixing up incendiary attacks with chemical warfare. Think about it - if someone inhales fallout from a nuclear explosion, does that mean it was a chemical attack? No. It's a totally different thing. If a bomb knocks someone off a cliff, does that mean the bomb was meant to have the guy fall to his death? No. With or without the fumes, incendiary attacks burn - the chief and intended method of killing is the fire.
During Vietnam, napalm sucked all the air out of tunnels and suffocated everyone inside, but that doesn't really change the fact that we were planning on the fire being the thing that killed them.