Friday, 13 April 2018

Why Are Only Chemcial Weapons A Red Line?

Given the choice, how would you prefer to be killed? Whether you are blown to bits by a shell or choked to death by a chemical weapon, the end result is the same so why is the use of chemical weapons a red line but murder by bombs and bullets not?
The death toll in Syria is approximately 500,000 and the overwhelming majority of them have been caused by conventional weapons, a fraction killed by chemical weapons but why are our leaders only now concerned because 50 have been killed by a chemical bomb when we seemingly seemed okay with the other 499,950 who were torn apart by powerful explosives.
To make killing civilians with chemicals a 'red line' and the thing that triggers intervention implies that murdering innocents with chemicals is somehow worse than using bombs and bullets but the consequence of both remains the same, death or serious injury.
Some people may point to the suffering involved in death by chemical weapons but do you suffer any less if parts of your body are ripped away by a shell or missile?
The truth is that the fa miles of those killed don't care how their relatives died, they just know that they died and they won't feel any better about it knowing that if they had died by a bomb filled with chlorine the West will jump up and down and call it a red line crossed but if they had died by a bomb filled with explosives the West will consider it admissible and on the right side of their red line.

3 comments:

Keep Life Simple said...

I find myself agreeing with you bout this:

"The death toll in Syria is approximately 500,000 and the overwhelming majority of them have been caused by conventional weapons, a fraction killed by chemical weapons but why are our leaders only now concerned because 50 have been killed by a chemical bomb when we seemingly seemed okay with the other 499,950 who were torn apart by powerful explosives."

what i find kinda ironic is that when looking at the causes of death in America you focus on cause 107 (data from CDC.gov):
- a long list of "natural causes"
- Johns Hopkins claims 250,000 die from medical errors. Other reports claim up to 440,000
- 56,000 poisoned
- 42,000 drug overdose
- 37,000 auto accidents
- 33,000 falls
- 33,000 alcohol induced
- 19,000 hanging/strangulation
- 13,000 homicide with a gun ranks as 107th on the list of death causes (America National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 65, No. 5, June 30, 2016)
- 7,500 obesity
- 3,500 drowning

Falling on a bruise said...

And your answer on the post topic pondering why deaths by chemical attacks in Syria is a red line but death by conventional weapons there isn't?

Keep Life Simple said...

sure it is. i opened by agreeing with you.

the most common argument i hear for banning chemical, nuclear weapons is an analogy to criminals that kill cops.

a bad guy that will kill a cop not only has no respect for life, he/she has no fear of retribution, and that makes them more of a threat than your average murderer. Likewise, a dictator that will use chemical or nuclear weapons has no respect for human kind, and no fear of retribution which makes them more of a threat than your average dictator.