ok, so mass murder by gas = moral obscenity (warning: graphic photo w/link to more)

[magical thyme]

mass murder by "surgical strike" = solution.

Really?



http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Herold_PrecisionBombing.htm

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Murder by drone is apparently OK, too.

[sharp_stick]

2. At least have the class to put

a warning on that picture.

[sabrina 1]

4. That little girl was actually one of the 'lucky' victims of our 'humanitarian intervention'

She survived. The man carrying her was her grandfather. Of course she is an Iraqi child so other than the independent reporters who risked their lives over there to bring the actual news of our 'sanitary war with no victims' to the public, no one seemed to care what happened to her afterwards. It's more than likely that she either ended up having to join millions of her fellow citizens and leave her country or that she didn't survive another of our 'humanitarian bombs'.

[Gemini Cat]

22. Why? This is what we did to the people of Iraq.

War isn't pretty.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. Reality is ugly

that is what was done in OUR name.

You only have to look at a picture, imagine having to the look the young woman in the face today and explain why we blew her legs to shreds.

[RC]

3. I have never understood how killing people by putting holes in them or tearing them

into several pieces was OK, but killing them intact was not

[grilled onions]

5. Sadly World wide Poverty Kills and The Youngest and Oldest Get "Hit" The Worst

By spending all the money on bullets and machinery there is a lot less money and a lot less concern for medicines that could keep our societies children alive. It is one of the silent wars that neither side(no matter which war) seems to give a damn about.

[Bonobo]

6. The US used White Phosphorus in Fallujah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq

[barbtries]

10. yep they did.

we did.

[mikeysnot]

25. and depleted uranium.

[Little Star]

34. USA, USA. It's ok when we do it, dontcha know.

[NuclearDem]

7. Man, what country would condone the use of chemical weapons?

Especially in the Middle East. I mean, it would take giant cajones to be angry at Syria if that country had supported the use of those kinds of weapons before, especially mustard gas.

[bowens43]

8. Dead by chemical weapon , dead by drone , one is better than the other????

[barbtries]

9. right.

how can it be okay for the US to take out whole wedding parties of innocents - where is the moral high ground. i'm not seeing it. NO MORE WAR!!!!!!!!!

[Robb]

11. Ask anyone who's been around death a lot.

1) The dead don't care why they died.

2) Some ways of dying are worse than others.

[Snake Plissken]

12. Carpet bombing with depleted uranium shells is much more human

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/02/14/america%E2%80%99s-legacy-of-mutagenic-war/

[PDJane]

13. Mostly, I suspect, because it's not our side doing the murdering with our weapons.

[Arctic Dave]

14. Or clusterbombs.

They kill people after the initial strike then any gas does.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-cluster-bomb-cover_x.htm


But they US doesn't give rats behind about that international treaty to ban them.

[avaistheone1]

15. k&r

[iamthebandfanman]

16. Alright,

what is the solution then ? (beyond our intervention and/or them continuing to gas children)

[Civilization2]

28. How about stop interfering in local politics in other lands?

You do realize that the CIA, and other "clandestine" agency political manipulations emanate from America on a disturbingly regular bases,. and "our" spook outfits often back dictators and depose democratically elected leaders in favor of more corporate minded ones? If we would simply not fight/cause wars, for corporations and banksters, and instead work at social uplift, the world would be a much better place.

[JEB]

17. Pentagon Reverses Position and Admits U.S. Troops Used White Phosphorus Against Iraqis in Fallujah

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/88453-pentagon-reverses-position-and-admits-us-troops-used-white-phosphorus-against-iraqis-in-fallujah&usg=__2Pq-sjB59ra2VrIx4eifg6LvlAE=&h=360&w=450&sz=55&hl=en&start=12&sig2=R1M0Qw9f63Ax2VDl3tShQg&zoom=1&tbnid=KAUbWnOILHttrM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=127&ei=0NMcUtDdH5DhiwKVroHoCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwhite%2Bphosphorus%2BFallujah%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US fficial%26channel%3Ds%26hl%3Den-US%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CEQQrQMwCw

[PDJane]

18. But that's different; those are American war crimes.

[JEB]

19. Oh thank goodness,

otherwise we would be expecting incoming missiles to punish us.

[riverbendviewgal]

20. Murder by Machetes is okay, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

Out of a population of 7.3 million people–84% of whom were Hutu, 15% Tutsi and 1% Twa–the official figures published by the Rwandan government estimated the number of victims of the genocide to be 1,174,000 in 100 days (10,000 murdered every day, 400 every hour, 7 every minute). It is estimated that about 300,000 Tutsi survived the genocide. Thousands of widows, many of whom were subjected to rape, are now HIV-positive. There were about 400,000 orphans and nearly 85,000 of them were forced to become heads of families.[58]


and what did the USA do?

There were no U.S. troops officially in Rwanda at the onset of the genocide. A National Security Archive report points out five ways in which decisions made by the U.S. government contributed to the slow U.S. and worldwide response to the genocide:

The U.S. lobbied the U.N. for a total withdrawal of U.N. (UNAMIR) forces in Rwanda in April 1994;
Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not authorize officials to use the term "genocide" until May 21, and even then, U.S. officials waited another three weeks before using the term in public;
Bureaucratic infighting slowed the U.S. response to the genocide in general;
The U.S. refused to jam extremist radio broadcasts inciting the killing, citing costs and concern with international law;
U.S. officials knew exactly who was leading the genocide, and actually spoke with those leaders to urge an end to the violence but did not follow up with concrete action.[87]
Intelligence reports indicate that President Clinton and his cabinet were aware before the height of the massacre that a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" was planned.[112]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

23. I see Rwanda as different than Syria

No, I don't have any data to back this up, it's just the way I feel.

I personally think that we could've stopped the Rwanda genocide with about 500 soldiers and very few shots fired. A few serious people with guns representing the biggest military ever dreamed of would have stopped most of the killing in very short order, in my opinion.

With Syria, I image the goals would be to remove Assad from power and to secure his chemical weapons stocks. Killing Assad would almost certainly involve killing others, likely some innocents. Securing his chemical weapons stockpiles would involve US soldiers on the ground, or at least I can't think of a way to accomplish this without people on the ground. And if we go to war with Syria, my guess is we're also going to war with Iran. I don't think we can just show up and be a presence in the area and hope that takes care of things.

[heaven05]

24. THEY WERE BLACK!!!!!!

Not important people or important to geo-strategic planning unless some tungsten or something 'precious' is found in great quantities.. Real life ain't pretty.

[riverbendviewgal]

30. I have to agree with you.

and we know where the chemical weapons came from that syria has.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/51279/a-cia-hand-in-an-american-coup

and didn't Syria conveniently torture those 9/11 terrorists collected in Afghanistan for the US government.


.this is all a matter of what industry makes the most money...War is profit.

[Xithras]

21. Syria chemical death toll: 355. US drone strike death toll: 780 innocent civilians in Pakistan alone

And yet one is an international moral outrage, while the other is business as usual.

[City Lights]

27. It's disturbing. nt

[jeff47]

29. Because Assad won't use chemical weapons again if nothing happens from this attack. (nt)

[SomethingFishy]

31. Funny how the 100,000 dead Syrians in the last 2 years from conventional weapons didn't merit

any of this outrage either.

I also find it suspicious that no one seems to be to worried about where the weapons came from.

[JoeyT]

32. Well yeah.

We don't get any mileage out of drumming up concern for people we killed, but we REALLY want to go after Assad for whatever reason, so the people killed by chemical weapons are useful to us.

You'll notice the people screaming about horrible war crimes have a huge overlap with the people that insist it's totally cool to not only refuse to prosecute war crimes done in our name, but to actively cover for those war crimes.

355 dead Syrians > ten times that many dead Americans and hundreds of thousands to better than a million dead Iraqis

[markpkessinger]

33. But . . . but . . . "gas is different"

I'm sure the folks in the photos -- the ones who survived that is -- would agree!