03 September 2013

I Worship This Man


12 comments:

SnoopyTheGoon said...

like

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Ditto

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Your threshold of worship is pretty low. Tell me again, why isn't napalm considered a weapon of mass destruction? Or automatic rifles and machine guns? Or 500-pound bombs dropped in sticks? Nukes I can understand. But not gas which dissipates quickly in the air.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Oh, I guess that point (and it is not my post, so I am butting in) of the picture is not that. But since you have asked: the chemical weapons are not weapons for real war. Rather for killing lots of civilians. Soldiers are the best protected, civilians the least, and the was the gas spreads is calculated to hit mainly civilians, especially as Assad does in the built-up areas.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

But you are right about one thing: Assad killed more than 100,000 people without recourse to gassing, and it really doesn't matter what tools he used. He needs killing.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Really? Why was I trained (along with every other draftee in 1967) to use a gas mask and issued one to carry at all times, even in Vietnam?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

But this is precisely what I said - soldiers are much better trained and protected against chemical weaponry. By the way, Russians, at least in my time, were literally obsessed about chemical war. Soldiers in the Red Army were equipped by better masks and by protective clothing as well, which is vitally important, since gas like VX is lethal when touching your skin anywhere. Which protection is not given to civilians usually.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I agree with you Snoopy.


BTW: The phrase about someone who needs killing is traditionaly a very popular one in southern Appalachia, which usually has the highest murder rate per numbers of people in the US.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Who knows: maybe they do things right in southern Appalachia?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Hardly, that honor goes to Detroit, followed closely Chicago.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I'm going to step back from my earlier assertion that Baby Assad needs to die. I still don't see any evidence, other than the assertion of several notoriously lying pols, that Assad did the sarin deal. And, even if he did, I still don't see why gas is more heinous than machine guns. The Nazis didn't resort to gas (except in their "showers") and they killed lot of civilians with machine guns. But also, I'm coming around to the idea that killing Assad will only end up promoting al Queda. No Assad, no buffer in Syria, and the region explodes. Not to mention making his wife a widow.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

But I thought we were in agreement that the gassing was only a good pretext for Obama. The point always was that Baby Assad is a mass murderer, whether he used gas or not.

As for Jihadis: the West didn't want to help the relatively secular anti-Assad alliance to start with and is now guilty of Jihadis taking over. Saudis don't have any compunctions with helping jihadis.