Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   The last time chlorine was weaponized was World War I after all sides realized just how terrible a weapon it truly was. Naturally, it's reappeared in Syria, where the civil rules of war don't apply   (slate.com) divider line 76
    More: Scary, World War I, laws of war, chlorine, Chemical Weapons Convention, car bomb, University of Leeds, water purification  
•       •       •

4418 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Apr 2014 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-24 07:51:05 AM  
Spray the area down with liquid sodium afterwards and the ICJ will downgrade charges from war crimes to simple assalt.
 
2014-04-24 07:54:00 AM  
Actually, it really wasn't all that effective or terrible once it was recognized as being used as a weapon.  In fact, of all the lethal gases, it's the easiest to protect against.
 
2014-04-24 07:55:27 AM  

ZAZ: Spray the area down with liquid sodium afterwards and the ICJ will downgrade charges from war crimes to simple assalt.


Heh.   Have BarNaCLe Bill the Sailor do it.
 
2014-04-24 07:59:22 AM  
My brother hit me in the face with chlorine tab a few times.  He even used a sling once.  I expect better fact checking from Slate.
 
2014-04-24 08:04:42 AM  

staplermofo: My brother hit me in the face with chlorine tab a few times.  He even used a sling once.  I expect better fact checking from Slate.


Probably too busy after having inhaled the "sneezing power".
 
2014-04-24 08:05:20 AM  
Quite whining, piss on a hanky, and move on.
 
2014-04-24 08:46:33 AM  
Can't we count on Russia for anything anymore? It's almost like they don't care.
 
2014-04-24 08:46:36 AM  
Ha ha ha, meatbags.

Wait, chlorine?

*rusts up*
 
2014-04-24 08:47:06 AM  
Syrians.
Real civilization over there.

Praise farking allah.
savages.
 
2014-04-24 08:56:17 AM  
What's so civil about war anyway?
 
2014-04-24 08:57:12 AM  
Time to decimate the Syrian air force and level Bashar's homes to show we were serious IMHO.
 
2014-04-24 08:57:46 AM  

Destructor: Can't we count on Russia for anything anymore? It's almost like they don't care.


They never call. They never write. Just too big to fail.
 
2014-04-24 08:59:08 AM  

Unoriginal_Username: What's so civil about war anyway?


Well they get those quaint little uniforms. And years from now, they can open strip malls and frozen yogurt stands and sell souvenirs about it.
 
2014-04-24 09:02:44 AM  

dittybopper: Actually, it really wasn't all that effective or terrible once it was recognized as being used as a weapon.  In fact, of all the lethal gases, it's the easiest to protect against.


Piss on a sock and breath through it.
 
2014-04-24 09:03:47 AM  

bluenovaman: Time to decimate the Syrian air force and level Bashar's homes to show we were serious IMHO.


Why?  It's none of our business.  Let them kill one another, and the world's a better place.
 
2014-04-24 09:04:56 AM  
Civil rules of war??  It's war.  It is not civil.
 
2014-04-24 09:06:16 AM  
War. War never changes.
 
2014-04-24 09:06:22 AM  
Appart from the piles of chlorine canisters in Australia we stocked against the planned invasion of Japan.
 
2014-04-24 09:07:24 AM  

bluenovaman: Time to decimate the Syrian air force and level Bashar's homes to show we were serious IMHO.


Before or after you figure out who deployed the chemical weapon? As with the first time, the government is winning the conflict, there's no motivation for them to risk drawing in a third party but a great deal of motivation for the rebels to do so.
 
2014-04-24 09:11:22 AM  

bluenovaman: Time to decimate the Syrian air force and level Bashar's homes to show we were serious IMHO.


Thing is, the Rebels aren't exactly angels either. Almost all sides of this conflict are bad, there is no upside to sticking our dicks into this hornets nest.
 
2014-04-24 09:12:16 AM  
Its the middle east. there is nothing 'civil' about those savages.
 
2014-04-24 09:14:48 AM  

BitwiseShift: Destructor: Can't we count on Russia for anything anymore? It's almost like they don't care.

They never call. They never write. Just too big to fail.


You know, you lose weight and then you put back on weight, and then you, you know, you call them a bunch of times and you try and email, and then they move or they change their email, but that's just love.
 
2014-04-24 09:16:29 AM  

zimbomba63: bluenovaman: Time to decimate the Syrian air force and level Bashar's homes to show we were serious IMHO.

Why?  It's none of our business.  Let them kill one another, and the world's a better place.


Fair enough, I think chemical weapons are the worst kind of weapons. But I can see the wisdom in non-interference.
 
2014-04-24 09:19:48 AM  

dittybopper: Actually, it really wasn't all that effective or terrible once it was recognized as being used as a weapon.  In fact, of all the lethal gases, it's the easiest to protect against.


Yes, but it isn't civilised like napalm or firebombing or nuclear weapons or land mines.
 
2014-04-24 09:23:24 AM  

Joe Blowme: BitwiseShift: Destructor: Can't we count on Russia for anything anymore? It's almost like they don't care.

They never call. They never write. Just too big to fail.

You know, you lose weight and then you put back on weight, and then you, you know, you call them a bunch of times and you try and email, and then they move or they change their email, but that's just love.


Maybe we should make the first move and cross that red line. Lets send them a fruit basket. Last I heard, they were living in Crimea... Just need to look up that address...
 
2014-04-24 09:23:43 AM  
It makes you realize just how dangerous pools are and why so many people die in them. Not only do they contain the world's most deadly chemical, dihydrogen monoxide, but chlorine AND acid. They really should be illegal
 
2014-04-24 09:24:39 AM  
www.ambrosiasw.com
 
2014-04-24 09:25:50 AM  

HaywoodJablonski: It makes you realize just how dangerous pools are and why so many people die in them. Not only do they contain the world's most deadly chemical, dihydrogen monoxide, but chlorine AND acid. They really should be illegal


No one NEEDs an assault pool.
 
2014-04-24 09:25:57 AM  
First to cross it!
 
2014-04-24 09:31:32 AM  
I came for the assault pools.
 
2014-04-24 09:32:06 AM  

bluenovaman: zimbomba63: bluenovaman: Time to decimate the Syrian air force and level Bashar's homes to show we were serious IMHO.

Why?  It's none of our business.  Let them kill one another, and the world's a better place.

Fair enough, I think chemical weapons are the worst kind of weapons. But I can see the wisdom in non-interference.


Yeah, they're bad, but, both sides have racked up their scores with good old weapons of the explodey type, and the chemical weapons are a mere sideshow.  Outsiders get to express their moral outrage (except the Russians, who shrug), and then, feel very civilized.  Actually, I think famine is the worst weapon.
 
2014-04-24 09:32:27 AM  

Unoriginal_Username: What's so civil about war anyway?


Civil wars are usually the most vicious of modern wars. Something like how siblings fight worse than fights between strangers.  Maybe because the stakes are higher.  Lose to a foreign power and you're occupied, but have your culture (or most of it anyway).  Lose in a civil war and your "side" of the culture is likely to be ruthlessly purged.
 
2014-04-24 09:34:45 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: dittybopper: Actually, it really wasn't all that effective or terrible once it was recognized as being used as a weapon.  In fact, of all the lethal gases, it's the easiest to protect against.

Yes, but it isn't civilised like napalm or firebombing or nuclear weapons or land mines.


See, I never really got that distinction.  Killing is killing, really.

It's like the ban on bullets designed to expand:  They are often *REQUIRED* for use in hunting game because they result in quicker, more "humane" kills, but they are banned for use in warfare, because they are somehow "inhumane" when used against people.

Go figure.

It doesn't really matter, from a practical standpoint, if you are killed or permanently mutilated/disfigured/whatever by a bullet, artillery shell, napalm, chemical weapons, land mines, or whatever.  The end result is often the same, only the specific symptoms differ.
 
2014-04-24 09:35:23 AM  

LaurenAguilera: I came for the assault pools.


I came *IN* the assault pools.
 
2014-04-24 09:45:23 AM  

HaywoodJablonski: It makes you realize just how dangerous pools are and why so many people die in them. Not only do they contain the world's most deadly chemical, dihydrogen monoxide, but chlorine AND acid. They really should be illegal


your sarcasm indicates you've never worked at a swimming pool

chlorine into water = good
water into chlorine = trip to the hospital
 
2014-04-24 09:46:23 AM  

dittybopper: LaurenAguilera: I came for the assault pools.

I came *IN* the assault pools.


I mean, I *came* for the assault pools.
 
2014-04-24 09:48:04 AM  
Repeat from Tuesday?
 
2014-04-24 09:49:13 AM  

Destructor: Can't we count on Russia for anything anymore? It's almost like they don't care.


It was Dubya, not Obama, that signed that agreement to ensure Syria's chemical weapons are destroyed. Only Republicans were ever stupid enough to trust Putin, like when Dick Cheney gave them that stupid "reset button."

/we are at war with Oceania
//we have always been at war with Oceania
 
2014-04-24 09:49:43 AM  

bikerbob59: Civil rules of war??  It's war.  It is not civil.


Basically this.  The war will be as barbarous as possible in the hope of demoralizing the enemy.  The only reason it looked the way it did in WW2 is because it was between multiple developed powers with standing armies, and even then it was ridiculously awful.  We were pretty "civil" about firebombing the shiat out of Japan (which was actually worse for damage and loss of life than the nukes, which of course we ALSO did).

If you don't want to go in and FIGHT them to make them stop, let them have their awful war.  Screeching your impotent disapproval all the time doesn't help anyone, and this is the shape war takes in that part of the world.  Sorry.
 
2014-04-24 10:03:43 AM  

robertmeerdahl: HaywoodJablonski: It makes you realize just how dangerous pools are and why so many people die in them. Not only do they contain the world's most deadly chemical, dihydrogen monoxide, but chlorine AND acid. They really should be illegal

your sarcasm indicates you've never worked at a swimming pool

chlorine into water = good
water into chlorine = trip to the hospital


I was a pool lifeguard for 2 summers. Does that count?
 
2014-04-24 10:08:49 AM  

Tatterdemalian: It was Dubya, not Obama, that signed that agreement to ensure Syria's chemical weapons are destroyed. Only Republicans were ever stupid enough to trust Putin, like when Dick Cheney gave them that stupid "reset button."


This is news to me, wikipedia, and google.
 
2014-04-24 10:14:45 AM  

dittybopper: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: dittybopper: Actually, it really wasn't all that effective or terrible once it was recognized as being used as a weapon.  In fact, of all the lethal gases, it's the easiest to protect against.

Yes, but it isn't civilised like napalm or firebombing or nuclear weapons or land mines.

See, I never really got that distinction.  Killing is killing, really.

It's like the ban on bullets designed to expand:  They are often *REQUIRED* for use in hunting game because they result in quicker, more "humane" kills, but they are banned for use in warfare, because they are somehow "inhumane" when used against people.

Go figure.

It doesn't really matter, from a practical standpoint, if you are killed or permanently mutilated/disfigured/whatever by a bullet, artillery shell, napalm, chemical weapons, land mines, or whatever.  The end result is often the same, only the specific symptoms differ.

 The symptoms do matter tho.
Its easier to remove a whole bullet than a bullet shard, in the event that the victim wasn't humanely killed. Napalm and gas can be difficult to contain and don't work against a hardened military target.  As with landmines the victims are often civilians caught in the middle with no medics ready to save them, no training to avoid threats, and no protective equipment.The rules of war are rooted in the feudal era ideal that wars should be contained to the combatants and that valuable property, like the serfs who live in the area, shouldn't be destroyed as part of that conflict. 
Some of the choices seem arbitrary, but its not like there's much of a point in doing +1 damage to someone that's already been shot.
 
2014-04-24 10:21:04 AM  
barry WILL NOT tolerate them crossing another red line! This is the 3rd time they've crossed the red line and if they cross it again, they will get another red line that they'd better not cross.
obama will not let innocent women and children be slaughtered, again. Some MRE's are on the way.
 
2014-04-24 10:29:50 AM  

Super_pope: The war will be as barbarous as possible in the hope of demoralizing the enemy.


Like with Captain Phillips?

the original one.
Not the one I live near.
 
2014-04-24 10:33:10 AM  
I kinda hate the concept of rules of war.

Always seemed a little crazy to me to say, "THAT is horrible killing.  Please stop doing that and kill in a more civilized manner."
 
2014-04-24 10:42:46 AM  

syberpud: Unoriginal_Username: What's so civil about war anyway?

Civil wars are usually the most vicious of modern wars. Something like how siblings fight worse than fights between strangers.  Maybe because the stakes are higher.  Lose to a foreign power and you're occupied, but have your culture (or most of it anyway).  Lose in a civil war and your "side" of the culture is likely to be ruthlessly purged.


As someone living in the South, not much has been purged...
 
2014-04-24 10:43:00 AM  

way south: there's much of a point in doing +1 damage to someone that's already been shot.


Other than for the entertainment value, that is.
 
2014-04-24 10:45:57 AM  

ToastmasterGeneral: I kinda hate the concept of rules of war.

Always seemed a little crazy to me to say, "THAT is horrible killing.  Please stop doing that and kill in a more civilized manner."


In one way, having "civilized" rules for war make war more likely.  Because we know it probably won't get too far out of hand.

I say we should make war as brutal and cruel as we possibly can.

That way, we'll think twice about the necessity of it.  It won't stop us from going to war when absolutely necessary, but it will make us more circumspect.
 
2014-04-24 10:49:17 AM  

Destructor: Tatterdemalian: It was Dubya, not Obama, that signed that agreement to ensure Syria's chemical weapons are destroyed. Only Republicans were ever stupid enough to trust Putin, like when Dick Cheney gave them that stupid "reset button."

This is news to me, wikipedia, and google.


Here, you dropped this:

/we are at war with Oceania
//we have always been at war with Oceania


And just in case you are so utterly clueless and uneducated that you don't get the reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
 
2014-04-24 10:51:38 AM  

vudukungfu: Super_pope: The war will be as barbarous as possible in the hope of demoralizing the enemy.

Like with Captain Phillips?

the original one.
Not the one I live near.


vudukungfu: Super_pope: The war will be as barbarous as possible in the hope of demoralizing the enemy.

Like with Captain Phillips?

the original one.
Not the one I live near.


I guess?  I don't really get why that particularly sprung to mind, but sure.

Its a TERRIBLY stupid response because unless you wipe out the enemy totally (which nobody ever does even though they usually intend to) it makes it farking IMPOSSIBLE for the two groups to ever reintegrate, and they'll often end up having to coexist warily and looking for any opportunity, not even a good one, to go back to murdering each other horribly.

Even if it works in the short term, which it doesn't always, you're trading small victories now for no piece in the next say... 3 generations.  Yayyyyy looking over your shoulder!
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report