The Stupidity Of Chemical Weapons As Justification To Attack Syria

A very good article from Herschel Smith over at Captain's Journal.

My take on this entire mess of chemical weapons used by Assad on his own people: I do not buy it, not for one second. Assad forces have been rolling back the rebels on at a steady rate. The last few months have seen the rebels lose ground at an almost alarming rate. There is NOTHING to be gained by Assad to do this, nothing. Assad is a nasty, treacherous snake that has used every means of violence to remain in power as did his father, Bashar Hafez al-Assad. As horrible as Syria has become, there is NOTHING  new here from the horrors of the Muslim world. How long ago was it the rebels capturing a base with chemical weapons and do you think they do not have them? We are already in a proxy war and this is about to become much, much worse. I find it quite 'colorful' that progressive, regressive liberals and the anti-war folks are all of a sudden all right with  attacking Syria when they refused to back the Bush administration(whom I had issues with) over Iraq.That's OK, Obama knows best for us, baaahhh. But wait, this is different the sheeple bleated. Look how many died, so many children and it was chemical weapons. It does not matter who used them(the rebels who are not anyone's friends or allies, can you say Al-Qaeda?), we must respond as soon as possible. Did you think for one second that Obama is playing this to be seen as the 'voice of reason', spit! Chemical weapons are a card that as mentioned, Hitler did not even use as he could have and it was the Germans who invented Sarin. Hitler made up for it with the Holocaust. The rebels are desperate and they know the use of such a weapon might be enough to draw us into another nest of vipers and mambas. I say let the Muslims kill each other off and if it spills out of 'control' then maybe we use some tactical nukes and really, finally make our point to the world that Islam is evil. Israel deserves to have it's back watched over by us in this mess and not by leading from behind when push comes to shove. PatriotUSA

Steer in: WRSA


The Stupidity Of Chemical Weapons As Justification To Attack Syria

BY Herschel Smith

So let’s deal with objections right up front.  If chemical weapons aren’t adequate justification to attack Syria, then they weren’t justification to attack Iraq either.  Right.  And I didn’t agree with or support Operation Iraqi Freedom Phase I, while I did support OIF II and OIF III because I watched as 80-100 jihadists per month crossed the Syrian and Jordanian borders to fight us inside of Iraq, and because leaving would have had catastrophic consequences once the eggs were broken.  Briefly said, once there we had to stay and finish the job, however horrible it was.

But the horror of chemical weapons is being trotted out as justification for degrading Syrian capability to make those weapons, or deliver those weapons, or something.  It isn’t clear.  How that horror is different from what preceded it, I wonder?  Bashar Hafez al-Assad and his father before him were and are brutal dictators who rule by the use of fear.  Torture, beheadings, imprisonment of political opponents, assassinations and all manner of horror has been perpetrated on the Syrian people for many years. And even now, anti-regime terrorists in Syria (our would-be allies) are actively working their horror (via Mike Vanderboegh).
Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.
According to media reports, the attack was carried out because the passengers who were from three different villages in Ras al-Ain, supported anti-terrorist Kurdish groups which were formed recently to defend Kurdish population against anti-Syria terrorists. Bodies of a mother and her 40-days infant were also seen among the dead, which were recognized by their relatives.
So what about chemical weapons?  Michael Fumento gives us the straight scoop in a different context, i.e., the chlorine attacks in Fallujah, Iraq, in the spring of 2007.
Insurgents launched three more chlorine truck attacks in Al Anbar province on March 17, killing two and sickening an additional 350. Is this a disturbing new trend? No. Had those trucks been filled with high explosives, each could have killed around 100 people. Instead, combined, they killed two. Probably all those sickened will recover with little or no lasting damage, as opposed to losing limbs and eyes. Chemicals have never lived up to their reputation as weapons.

That’s why even though the Germans invented Sarin gas, which is vastly more deadly than chlorine, they decided not to use it. Hitler didn’t forego its use because he was a nice guy. Rather, his generals convinced him that high explosives are far more effective in causing deaths, not to mention that all the poison gas in the world can’t destroy material objects. That said, gas is a good terror weapon because most people have a more innate terror of being gassed than of being blown up or shot. But that’s primarily or exclusively because gas is such a rare threat. The more the terrorists use chlorine, the less the terror effect will be.
I remember this vividly since my son was deployed in Fallujah in 2007.  When the Marines finished taking over the industrial area of Fallujah from al Qaeda in the summer of 2007, they found many thousands of gallons of chlorine, all unused – unused because it was completely, tactically ineffective.  And I am on the record concurring with Michael’s assessment here and here.

If your desire is tactical effectiveness, you use conventional ordnance.  In other words, as horrible as it sounds, you blow people and things up.  And it is horrible, just as horrible as killing far fewer of them with chemical weapons.  And it is just as horrible as your supposed allies in Syria shooting and/or burning infants to death. I have my own views of the administration’s case (or lack thereof) for any strategic value in Syria, but whatever else one may believe about the situation, the use of chemical weapons as justification for military action is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Source is here

Tags: Syria, Chemical Weapons, WMD, Islam, Al-Qaeda, Middle East, Obama's Waterloo? To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

3 Comments - Share Yours!:

Zenster said...

American intervention in Syria would be one of the few things imaginable that could possibly match the incredible stupidity of America not intervening over Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

As I have been saying for many years now; Sitting idly by and allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons will go down in history as this new century's most catastrophic military blunder.

Likewise, preventing our most dire Muslim enemies in Syria from slaughtering each other on the largest possible scale is something that only a bumbling, incompetent moron like 0bama could possibly see an upside to.

PatriotUSA said...

We should have nuked them all a long time ago. I do not care if it offends the global dumbass community.

Obama's waterloo may well yet be one horrendous disaster that unleashes the dogs of real war upon this planet for the third time on a global scale. What the sheeples do not realize is that Islam has been at war with every infidel for the last 1400 plus years.

Nuke 'em till they glow still works for me even if I have to go with them.

Anonymous said...

What about the DU weapons used by the American military which (I spoke to a medical professional about this just two days ago) have resulted in all sorts of birth defects etc?

And where's the moral outrage at the way Cops are treated - and always have been - in Egypt by the MUSLIM Brotherhood?

Let's draw up a list of the heads of the MUSLIM Brotherhood and drop a few missles on their nappers, eh?