• Sean Spicer just said that "Even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons"

  • Discuss current events / serious things here. Needless flaming / idiocy are grounds for banning.
Discuss current events / serious things here. Needless flaming / idiocy are grounds for banning.
 #5243  by lemmiwinx
 Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:17 am
almostapathetic wrote:
Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:10 am
lemmiwinx wrote:
Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:24 am
Just a thought but could flame throwers be considered chemical weapons? US used them against the Japanese in WWII. After all its flaming chemicals sprayed on opposing forces in war.
That's an accelerant, not meant to be inhaled or absorbed through the skin or poisoned.

Flame thrower < Napalm
Are you saying if the people being burned alive didn't inhale it's not a chemical attack?
 #5245  by almostapathetic
 Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:26 am
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?
Then the same could be said for any bomb or explosive. There will be breaths taken in the process. Heat, fire, smoke, etc will be inhaled in the process.


What about sinking a ship or sub? The intention is destroying the vessel and killing the crew to take them out of the combat. Killing by drowning.

drown (verb) die through submersion in and inhalation of water.
 #45253  by HolidayFriday
 Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:10 pm
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.
 #46697  by lemmiwinx
 Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:11 am
HolidayFriday wrote:
Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:10 pm
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.
Still and all I fail to see the moral difference between burning people alive with napalm and using sarin gas.
 #46881  by HolidayFriday
 Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:01 am
lemmiwinx wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:11 am
HolidayFriday wrote:
Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:10 pm
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.
Still and all I fail to see the moral difference between burning people alive with napalm and using sarin gas.
Well, the moral difference? That's true - It's about the same.