Bombing in Syria in Response to Chemical Attack

Ahhhhhh. So here we have the very last tactic of the argument loser. The straw man.

Being prepared to criticise Israeli foreign policy and/or politics doesn't equate to a hatred of Israel or Israelis. Please don't make comments like that as if we're a bunch of idiots who are ever going to buy that utter nonsense.

I think it means you support the idea of Jews having their own homeland, that’s cool, but if you believe that Jews are guaranteed it via Aryan empire equivalent and Palestinian people don’t deserve their own land, that’s not cool. Or something like that. Only @garamet knows. I agreed with the philosophy part.

Im sorry, I'd never "self hate" you. What facts were presented by you, I saw just your opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning israeli foreign and domestic policy, where did I say that? Also, you never answered my question, do you have a solution, or just more criticism?

You pretended there were no land grabs up thread and you claimed that Palestinians collectively wanted there to be no Israel and wanted Jews dead, when in fact 76% of every day Palestinians want a two state solution. Links were provided to support these facts.

You claim my post is all opinion. Well, the sentence I just posted shows it isn't. On top of that it is not opinion that Israel has carried out questionable acts and human rights abuses. It is fact. It is not opinion that Israel's position as a chief US ally is advantageous to it. It's fact. It is not opinion to recognise that Israel doesn't speak for all Jews and vice versa. That's fact. It is not opinion to recognise that wrongdoing on one side doesn't legitimise and justify all wrongdoing by the other. That's an obvious fact. It is not opinion to recognise that western policy for decades has been to turn a blind eye to and/or legitimise the questionable actions of ally nations while railing against opponents for many of the same kinds of actions. That's fact.

Finally, it is not opinion, but fact, that you tried to imply several times over that any critic of Israel was either an anti-semite or full on anti-Israeli. It's up thread all in your own words.

No solutions, just more criticism, got it. I admit, I overreacted. My bad.

That is actually a decent question. Both sides of the issue are in a rather nasty war with each other where both have done some pretty awful things.

If I were to have free reign to do anything I would say take over Israel from a neutral party. Provide for the protection of all holy sites. Establish fair land owning practices. Police up terrorists on both sides and make them criminals. Ensure the Jews and Palestinians had a place in the country starting at present conditions and make sure everywhere is getting food and attention and then let capitalism decide who owns land by removing the racist land owning scheme presently employed.

You are going to have terrorism and gang fighting to deal with, but you make that a police matter and remove the war. I see no reason for any theocracy and it would seem that when employed any state becomes an oppressive one. Jews want a home in is real that is great. Buy it fairly and stop killing people for it. I do not consider a divine mandate valid unless the deity issuing it wishes to come down and make it so. However, I have no problem in protecting sacred Hebrew lands and having the Jewish people establish temples and monuments for their culture in Israel, but I do not see any reason for them to be the only ones there as two other major world religions share history and presence there.

Don't be a retard.

This line of argument is utterly hypocritical. Territorial conquest has been outlawed in international relations since before World War II. So much so that it is necessary for Israel to pretend that that's not what it has done.

But if international treaties are not binding, then what's the problem with Assad using chemical weapons?

Why sign them in the first place? And why not withdraw if you don't feel like following them? How is it okay to pretend you follow them when you manifestly don't?

When did Israel use chemical weapons? The only thing I've ever heard Israel using is tear gas which no one considers a chemical weapon.

Why should we care either way? According to you if it's in their national interest, it's fine.

Dumb comment is dumb, as usual.

Did you actually read what your entry said you idiot?

Tear gas is ONLY considered a chemical weapon when used in warfare. It is not considered a chemical weapon when used as a riot control (law enforcement) tool.

So ironically, it is a chemical weapon when used against soldiers. But not when used against civilians.

IIRC, the Israelis have used tear gas against civilians. Thus not considered a chemical weapon. Not a war crime.

Seems ass backwards if you asked me but then I didn't write the Wikipedia entry that you referenced.

No. It doesn't say any of those things.

From the Wikipedia entry on tear gas that YOU referenced

Use of tear gas in warfare (as with all other chemical weapons) is prohibited by various international treaties[NB 2] that most states have signed. Police and private self-defense use is not banned in the same manner. Armed forces can legally use tear gas for drills (practicing with gas masks) and for riot control. First used in 1914, xylyl bromide was a popular tearing agent since it was easily prepared.

The US Chemical Warfare Service developed tear gas grenades for use in riot control in 1919.[16]

Riot control[edit]
Certain lachrymatory agents are often used by police to force compliance, most notably tear gas

Reply to that dickhead (no offense intended though I'll grant it's probably taken, NOITIGIPT)

(1) I am not Sean.

(2) Israel's use of tear gas was neither in drills nor as riot control.

(3) A chemical weapon is still a chemical weapon even in situations where its use is not a war crime.

I read every source I post, and unlike you, I understand what I post.

Can you show me anywhere in which tear gas is said to NOT be a chemical weapon?

I will concede that in the Wikipedia entry it does say tear gas is a chemical weapon.

But it does say specifically that armed forces are allowed to use tear gas for riot control. Presumably against civilians.

Thus despite the definitions, I think you would agree that tear gas is NOT what most people think of when they think of "chemical weapons".

It is like arguing that Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium shells are chemical weapons because they cause cancer.

You're fighting against an argument I am not making.

Tear gas is a chemical weapon. That's an indisputable fact.

It is nothing at all like arguing that Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium shells are chemical weapons. That argument is ludicrous.

You would be surprised how often the argument about Agent Orange and DU shells pop up. Especially with people from Europe.

Hell I've seen people start threads in other forums arguing that depleted uranium shells are technically nuclear weapons!!!

Probably something to do with the million or so people in Vietnam with disabilities and/or cancer as a result.
But again, just claim it was the national interest and then you don't have to give a fuck.

The effects of a weapon DECADES after the fact do not make it a chemical weapon or WMD of any kind.

I'm still will never buy the idea that tear gas is a "chemical weapon". If its perfectly okay for the Seattle police department to use it then it isn't a chemical weapon. To me a chemical weapon must cause death or at least permanent injuries shortly after exposure. If not then almost anything can fit the definition of a "chemical weapon".

Pepper spray. Mace. Hell the wasp spray they're handing out to school teachers at the El Dorado middle school to fire at school shooters.

Meanwhile...

You realize that you're not the one that gets to decide what is and what is not a chemical weapon, right?

Literally no one is all that concerned with "your" definition of chemical weapons.

I mean, you've never had the privilege of ripping off an MCU/2P in a room full of CS, or had NBC training, never participated in chemical attack drills, never been issued atropine and 2-Pam-Chloride autoinjectors "just in case", never TAUGHT NBC defense and protection classes to uniformed service members. In short, your opinion in matters such as these is less than worthless, you Armchair Private.

I have been sprayed in the face with tear gas though.

That I can believe.

Which is in stark contrast to this tweet of his:

If Trump risks World War III with Russia, will that dissuade any of the critics who thinks he's in their pocket?

No, of course not. This is America!