Dihydrogen oxide has been implicated in more deaths throughout history than any other chemical substance, of both humans and animals.
It is high time we added this deadly substance to the list of banned chemical weapons, and call for its immediate eradication from our planet.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s an interesting loophole. [/quote]
Yes, it is, isn’t it.
He had at least as much “right” to gas his own people as we did at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco.
You do, do you?
Is chlorine gas listed in schedule 1, schedule 2 or schedule 3? On which page of the CWC?
Not moral, not ethical, and not a very nice thing to do, but yes, just like abortion, entirely legal.
[/quote]
I don’t think so:
"The inspectors, from a joint OPCW/United Nations fact-finding team, were travelling to the central province of Hama to investigate allegations of illegal chlorine attacks by government forces when their convoy came under attack.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/17/us-syria-crisis-chlorine-idUSKBN0ES24W20140617
If the inspectors are investigating allegations of ‘illegal chlorine attacks’, then the attacks were not legal.
It may have been the case in 1925 but the OPCW and UN are calling the attacks illegal.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Dihydrogen oxide has been implicated in more deaths throughout history than any other chemical substance, of both humans and animals.
It is high time we added this deadly substance to the list of banned chemical weapons, and call for its immediate eradication from our planet.[/quote]
Well if you are planning to drown puppies then perhaps.
If you are saying anything can be used as a weapon, I agree. You can blow up a dam and kill thousands of people in one fell swoop.
If we did ban dihydrogen oxide from Syria and effectively removed any access to it, it would bring the country to it’s knees quite quickly.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Chlorine gas is not a banned agent for use as a chemical weapon? Are you serious?
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/4582-chemical-weapons
It’s is not banned for use as an industrial agent, but it most certainly is banned for use against people. Assad used the banned method.
[/quote]
This is the full text of the CWC, which your link contained. Please find the page and paragraph on which “chlorine gas” or “Cl2” appears, as I seem to be unable to do so.[/quote]
You’re referring to the a link with in a link. That’s not the link I posted. The link I posted included Chlorine as a chemical.[/quote]
Dude.
Really?
There are three instances of the word “chlorine” on the link you posted. Here they are:
1: [quote]* Chemicals that affect the blood: herygem, cynanide, cynaogen chlorine.[/quote]
This is actually a misprint of cyanogen chloride, which is a legitimate blood agent, is an oxidation of cyanide and chlorine, and is not synonymous with chlorine gas. If you bother to look at the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE CWC, you will find it listed (and spelled correctly) in schedule 3, CAS registry number 506-77-4.
2 and 3: [quote]1915- Germans attack the French with chlorine gas at Ypres, France. This was the first effective use of chemical warfare in WWI.
1915 - British use chlorine gas against the Germans at the Battle of Loos. This was the first chemical weapons attack by the British.[/quote]
Uh huh. Two bullet points, briefly mentioning chlorine gas as used by two belligerents in the First World War. As part of a timeline of the use of chemical weapons.
As we’ve mentioned, chlorine gas was banned, along with tear gas, as a weapon in international conflicts, by the Geneva Protocol in 1925.
This has what, exactly, to do with chlorine gas being banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 2013, which “prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons”?
The answer is “nothing”, because chlorine gas was never banned, nor even mentioned, by this convention.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
How many dead bodies do you need to convince you that using chlorine gas is a chemical attack in violation of the CWC?
[/quote]
As I just proved to you, I wrote this four days ago:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
As for chlorine bombs, this has been addressed by at least three separate posters, including me, over the course of this discussion. That you are trying to use Assad’s probable use of chlorine gas as a one-line argument against my detailed posts on the rationality and relative beneficence of the chemical weapons deal is evidence only that you are biased or uninformed. Chlorine gas is a common industrial (and, indeed, domestic) agent and is not itself banned under the CWC to which Syria was compelled to accede in September 2013. Its impact on this debate is imperceptible, except insofar as Syria’s having acceded to the CWC, which does ban chlorine’s use as a weapon, makes it much easier for the OPCW to investigate and deal with the allegations. Everything I’ve written here has been in the pages of international news publications for months now.
[/quote]
I repeat myself in the hope that you absorb what’s being written to you: I have just proved that I wrote this four days ago:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Its impact on this debate is imperceptible, except insofar as Syria’s having acceded to the CWC, which does ban chlorine’s use as a weapon, makes it much easier for the OPCW to investigate and deal with the allegations.
[/quote]
…the point being that you are wasting even your own time. You asked, “How many dead bodies do you need to convince you that using chlorine gas is a chemical attack in violation of the CWC?” The necessary implication of this sentence is that I do not acknowledge that the use of chlorine gas is a chemical attack in violation of the CWC. And yet you asked this question literally less than an hour after I showed you a four-day-old post wherein I wrote that the use of chlorine gas as a weapon is banned under the CWC.
You did this because you are not reading the arguments that are being put forth by those of us who have taken the time to participate in this debate. I understand that you misread it just now, which is obviously just a human mistake and not something to be criticized, but you should know, at this stage, just what the arguments of your opponents are. If you think that maybe we are simply denying that chlorine was used, or that chlorine can be used to kill people, then you have not done us the courtesy of reading the posts that we have written to you.
And, of course, that’s what they call a “deal-breaker.”[/quote]
And what I had listed as my argument, as plain as I can put it has not even been addressed.
I am already convinced that Syria used chlorine as a chemical weapon. I know it wasn’t on the original list which the OPCW has admitted was a mistake.
As for the larger discussion at hand, I listed why this whole ‘red line’ debacle was a failure.
You have not addressed a single solitary point.
You admit that the chlorine gas attack was by definition a chemical attack. It’s the point I have been making and you agree with that point, so why are you yelling?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Chlorine gas is not a banned agent for use as a chemical weapon? Are you serious?
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/4582-chemical-weapons
It’s is not banned for use as an industrial agent, but it most certainly is banned for use against people. Assad used the banned method.
[/quote]
This is the full text of the CWC, which your link contained. Please find the page and paragraph on which “chlorine gas” or “Cl2” appears, as I seem to be unable to do so.[/quote]
You’re referring to the a link with in a link. That’s not the link I posted. The link I posted included Chlorine as a chemical.[/quote]
Dude.
Really?
There are three instances of the word “chlorine” on the link you posted. Here they are:
1: [quote]* Chemicals that affect the blood: herygem, cynanide, cynaogen chlorine.[/quote]
This is actually a misprint of cyanogen chloride, which is a legitimate blood agent, is an oxidation of cyanide and chlorine, and is not synonymous with chlorine gas. If you bother to look at the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE CWC, you will find it listed (and spelled correctly) in schedule 3, CAS registry number 506-77-4.
2 and 3: [quote]1915- Germans attack the French with chlorine gas at Ypres, France. This was the first effective use of chemical warfare in WWI.
1915 - British use chlorine gas against the Germans at the Battle of Loos. This was the first chemical weapons attack by the British.[/quote]
Uh huh. Two bullet points, briefly mentioning chlorine gas as used by two belligerents in the First World War. As part of a timeline of the use of chemical weapons.
As we’ve mentioned, chlorine gas was banned, along with tear gas, as a weapon in international conflicts, by the Geneva Protocol in 1925.
This has what, exactly, to do with chlorine gas being banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 2013, which “prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons”?
The answer is “nothing”, because chlorine gas was never banned, nor even mentioned, by this convention.[/quote]
From the link:
"Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) chemicals are divided into three groups, defining their purpose and treatment:
Schedule One are those typically used in weapons such as sarin and mustard gas and tabun;
Schedule Two include those that can be used in weapons such as amiton and BZ;
Schedule Three chemicals include the least toxic substances that can be used for research and the production of medicine, dyes, textiles, etc."
"* Chemicals that blister: sulphur mustard, lewisite, nitrogen mustard, mustard-leweisite, phosgene-oxime.
Chemicals that affect the nerves: VX, Sarin, Soman, tabun, novichole agents.
Chemicals that cause choking: cholrine, phosgene, diphosgene, chloropicrin.
Chemicals that affect the blood: herygem, cynanide, cynaogen chlorine.
Chemicals for riot control: tear agent 2 (SN gas), tear agent 0 (CS gas), psychedelic agent 3 (BZ)"
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Dihydrogen oxide has been implicated in more deaths throughout history than any other chemical substance, of both humans and animals.
It is high time we added this deadly substance to the list of banned chemical weapons, and call for its immediate eradication from our planet.[/quote]
Not to mention it’s the number one greenhouse gas!
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Chlorine gas is not a banned agent for use as a chemical weapon? Are you serious?
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/4582-chemical-weapons
It’s is not banned for use as an industrial agent, but it most certainly is banned for use against people. Assad used the banned method.
[/quote]
This is the full text of the CWC, which your link contained. Please find the page and paragraph on which “chlorine gas” or “Cl2” appears, as I seem to be unable to do so.[/quote]
You’re referring to the a link with in a link. That’s not the link I posted. The link I posted included Chlorine as a chemical.[/quote]
Dude.
Really?
There are three instances of the word “chlorine” on the link you posted. Here they are:
1: [quote]* Chemicals that affect the blood: herygem, cynanide, cynaogen chlorine.[/quote]
This is actually a misprint of cyanogen chloride, which is a legitimate blood agent, is an oxidation of cyanide and chlorine, and is not synonymous with chlorine gas. If you bother to look at the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE CWC, you will find it listed (and spelled correctly) in schedule 3, CAS registry number 506-77-4.
2 and 3: [quote]1915- Germans attack the French with chlorine gas at Ypres, France. This was the first effective use of chemical warfare in WWI.
1915 - British use chlorine gas against the Germans at the Battle of Loos. This was the first chemical weapons attack by the British.[/quote]
Uh huh. Two bullet points, briefly mentioning chlorine gas as used by two belligerents in the First World War. As part of a timeline of the use of chemical weapons.
As we’ve mentioned, chlorine gas was banned, along with tear gas, as a weapon in international conflicts, by the Geneva Protocol in 1925.
This has what, exactly, to do with chlorine gas being banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 2013, which “prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons”?
The answer is “nothing”, because chlorine gas was never banned, nor even mentioned, by this convention.[/quote]
Indeed. Pat, had you read a word of the actual CWC before this thread, or bothered to do so even now? Several hundreds tons of mustard sulfur blister agent, several hundreds of tons of sarin nerve agent, and several tens of tons of VX nerve agent - approximately 2,000,000 lbs of schedule 1 military grade chemical weapons - were relinquished by the Assad regime. All of the aforementioned chemicals are exponentially more deadly than the improvised chlorine gas devices dependent on crude barrel bombs as their delivery mechanism - ranging on the order of several hundred to several thousand times more lethal.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
How many dead bodies do you need to convince you that using chlorine gas is a chemical attack in violation of the CWC?
[/quote]
As I just proved to you, I wrote this four days ago:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
As for chlorine bombs, this has been addressed by at least three separate posters, including me, over the course of this discussion. That you are trying to use Assad’s probable use of chlorine gas as a one-line argument against my detailed posts on the rationality and relative beneficence of the chemical weapons deal is evidence only that you are biased or uninformed. Chlorine gas is a common industrial (and, indeed, domestic) agent and is not itself banned under the CWC to which Syria was compelled to accede in September 2013. Its impact on this debate is imperceptible, except insofar as Syria’s having acceded to the CWC, which does ban chlorine’s use as a weapon, makes it much easier for the OPCW to investigate and deal with the allegations. Everything I’ve written here has been in the pages of international news publications for months now.
[/quote]
I repeat myself in the hope that you absorb what’s being written to you: I have just proved that I wrote this four days ago:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Its impact on this debate is imperceptible, except insofar as Syria’s having acceded to the CWC, which does ban chlorine’s use as a weapon, makes it much easier for the OPCW to investigate and deal with the allegations.
[/quote]
…the point being that you are wasting even your own time. You asked, “How many dead bodies do you need to convince you that using chlorine gas is a chemical attack in violation of the CWC?” The necessary implication of this sentence is that I do not acknowledge that the use of chlorine gas is a chemical attack in violation of the CWC. And yet you asked this question literally less than an hour after I showed you a four-day-old post wherein I wrote that the use of chlorine gas as a weapon is banned under the CWC.
You did this because you are not reading the arguments that are being put forth by those of us who have taken the time to participate in this debate. I understand that you misread it just now, which is obviously just a human mistake and not something to be criticized, but you should know, at this stage, just what the arguments of your opponents are. If you think that maybe we are simply denying that chlorine was used, or that chlorine can be used to kill people, then you have not done us the courtesy of reading the posts that we have written to you.
And, of course, that’s what they call a “deal-breaker.”[/quote]
Okay let’s go over some points:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Indeed. Pat, had you read a word of the actual CWC before this thread, or bothered to do so even now? Several hundreds tons of mustard sulfur blister agent, several hundreds of tons of sarin nerve agent, and several tens of tons of VX nerve agent - approximately 2,000,000 lbs of schedule 1 military grade chemical weapons - were relinquished by the Assad regime. All of the aforementioned chemicals are exponentially more deadly than the improvised chlorine gas devices dependent on crude barrel bombs as their delivery mechanism - ranging on the order of several hundred to several thousand times more lethal.[/quote]
None of which I disagree with. Does the fact that chlorine gas is not as deadly mean it was not a chemical attack?
Despite the fact that Assad gave up a large amount of chemical weapons, he still used a chemical as a weapon, 5 times. This constitutes a chemical weapons attack, does it not? Do you disagree?
[quote]pat wrote:
From the link:
"Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) chemicals are divided into three groups, defining their purpose and treatment:
Schedule One are those typically used in weapons such as sarin and mustard gas and tabun;
Schedule Two include those that can be used in weapons such as amiton and BZ;
Schedule Three chemicals include the least toxic substances that can be used for research and the production of medicine, dyes, textiles, etc."
"* Chemicals that blister: sulphur mustard, lewisite, nitrogen mustard, mustard-leweisite, phosgene-oxime.
Chemicals that affect the nerves: VX, Sarin, Soman, tabun, novichole agents.
Chemicals that cause choking: cholrine, phosgene, diphosgene, chloropicrin.
Chemicals that affect the blood: herygem, cynanide, cynaogen chlorine.
Chemicals for riot control: tear agent 2 (SN gas), tear agent 0 (CS gas), psychedelic agent 3 (BZ)"[/quote]
Yeah, I know. I’ve read that page more carefully than you might suspect.
You do understand that it is the Chemical Weapons Convention (www.cwc.gov) itself, and not Reuters news service, and not the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (which sponsors reachingcriticalwill.org), that actually gets to define what is legal and illegal under the terms of the CWC, right?
In any, case, let’s look at the link you posted. Not sure what “cholrine” is, but it is listed along with phosgene and chloropicrin, which are schedule 3 chemicals: “the least toxic substances that can be used for research and the production of medicine, dyes, textiles, etc.” Note, though, that chlorine, or chlorine gas, is never specifically mentioned by name anywhere in the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE CWC, which is available as a PDF file right on the link you posted:
It’s an interesting read.
Here’s more (I have edited, for brevity and relevance. I recommend you refer to the original text for a complete understanding):
[i]For the purposes of this Convention:
“Chemical Weapons” means: Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes.
“Toxic Chemical” means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.
“Precursor” means:
Any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals and precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
“Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention” means:
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.[/i]
So anything can be a “toxic chemical”, and therefore a “chemical weapon” as long as it causes “death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”. Can you think of a chemical that is not toxic in sufficient quantity?
To avoid the ridiculousness of attempting to ban evil sodium chloride and dihydrogen oxide as legitimately toxic chemicals under these definitions, the CWC wisely listed all of the chemicals it considers dangerous enough to look for.
Chlorine gas, a “toxic chemical” is not in the list.
Bleach and ammonia, which are “precursors” of chlorine gas, are not on the list.
Although acetone (nail polish remover) is on the list. Funny, that.
And even if chlorine gas, or tear gas, or mustard gas, or nerve gas, DID make the list, use of it is not prohibited under the CWC long as you “only” use it for “law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.”
If you are a brutal dictator presiding over a militarised police state, anything you do to quell dissent, including gassing a civilian population, is by definition “law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes”.
Again, not moral, not ethical, but entirely legal.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Chlorine gas is not a banned agent for use as a chemical weapon? Are you serious?
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/4582-chemical-weapons
It’s is not banned for use as an industrial agent, but it most certainly is banned for use against people. Assad used the banned method.
[/quote]
This is the full text of the CWC, which your link contained. Please find the page and paragraph on which “chlorine gas” or “Cl2” appears, as I seem to be unable to do so.[/quote]
You’re referring to the a link with in a link. That’s not the link I posted. The link I posted included Chlorine as a chemical.[/quote]
Dude.
Really?
There are three instances of the word “chlorine” on the link you posted. Here they are:
1: [quote]* Chemicals that affect the blood: herygem, cynanide, cynaogen chlorine.[/quote]
This is actually a misprint of cyanogen chloride, which is a legitimate blood agent, is an oxidation of cyanide and chlorine, and is not synonymous with chlorine gas. If you bother to look at the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE CWC, you will find it listed (and spelled correctly) in schedule 3, CAS registry number 506-77-4.
2 and 3: [quote]1915- Germans attack the French with chlorine gas at Ypres, France. This was the first effective use of chemical warfare in WWI.
1915 - British use chlorine gas against the Germans at the Battle of Loos. This was the first chemical weapons attack by the British.[/quote]
Uh huh. Two bullet points, briefly mentioning chlorine gas as used by two belligerents in the First World War. As part of a timeline of the use of chemical weapons.
As we’ve mentioned, chlorine gas was banned, along with tear gas, as a weapon in international conflicts, by the Geneva Protocol in 1925.
This has what, exactly, to do with chlorine gas being banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 2013, which “prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons”?
The answer is “nothing”, because chlorine gas was never banned, nor even mentioned, by this convention.[/quote]
From the link:
"Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) chemicals are divided into three groups, defining their purpose and treatment:
Schedule One are those typically used in weapons such as sarin and mustard gas and tabun;
Schedule Two include those that can be used in weapons such as amiton and BZ;
Schedule Three chemicals include the least toxic substances that can be used for research and the production of medicine, dyes, textiles, etc."
"* Chemicals that blister: sulphur mustard, lewisite, nitrogen mustard, mustard-leweisite, phosgene-oxime.
Chemicals that affect the nerves: VX, Sarin, Soman, tabun, novichole agents.
Chemicals that cause choking: cholrine, phosgene, diphosgene, chloropicrin.
Chemicals that affect the blood: herygem, cynanide, cynaogen chlorine.
Chemicals for riot control: tear agent 2 (SN gas), tear agent 0 (CS gas), psychedelic agent 3 (BZ)"[/quote]
Yeah, I know. I’ve read that page more carefully than you might suspect.
You do understand that it is the Chemical Weapons Convention (www.cwc.gov) itself, and not Reuters news service, and not the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (which sponsors reachingcriticalwill.org), that actually gets to define what is legal and illegal under the terms of the CWC, right?
In any, case, let’s look at the link you posted. Not sure what “cholrine” is, but it is listed along with phosgene and chloropicrin, which are schedule 3 chemicals: “the least toxic substances that can be used for research and the production of medicine, dyes, textiles, etc.” Note, though, that chlorine, or chlorine gas, is never specifically mentioned by name anywhere in the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE CWC, which is available as a PDF file right on the link you posted:
It’s an interesting read.
Here’s more (I have edited, for brevity and relevance. I recommend you refer to the original text for a complete understanding):
[i]For the purposes of this Convention:
“Chemical Weapons” means: Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes.
“Toxic Chemical” means: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.
“Precursor” means: Any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals and precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
“Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention” means:
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.[/i]
So anything can be a “toxic chemical”, and therefore a “chemical weapon” as long as it causes “death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”. Can you think of a chemical that is not toxic in sufficient quantity?
To avoid the ridiculousness of attempting to ban evil sodium chloride and dihydrogen oxide as legitimately toxic chemicals under these definitions, the CWC wisely listed all of the chemicals it considers dangerous enough to look for. Chlorine gas is not one of them. Although acetone (nail polish remover) is. Funny, that.
And even if chlorine gas, or tear gas, or mustard gas, or nerve gas, DID make the list, use of it is not prohibited under the CWC long as you “only” use it for “law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.”
If you are a brutal dictator presiding over a militarised police state, anything you do to quell dissent, including gassing a civilian population, is by definition “law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes”.
Again, not moral, not ethical, but entirely legal.
[/quote]
And didn’t Assad do exactly this with chlorine?
"“Chemical Weapons” means: Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes.
“Toxic Chemical” means: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. "
It doesn’t ban their possession of or peaceful use of it and it wasn’t declared as a weapon, but using it as a weapon is illegal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/23/us-syria-crisis-chlorine-idUSBREA4M08V20140523
“Chlorine is likely to be lethal than sarin but its use as a weapon is still illegal under a global chemical weapons convention that Syria signed.”
[quote]pat wrote:
Okay let’s go over some points:
No, in accordance with their accession to the CWC. Which does not ban chlorine gas. It is not clear whether there were Syrian stockpiles of chlorine gas in such quantity as to warrant disclosure, or even if disclosure can be forced under the terms of the CWC, but, either way, chlorine gas is not banned under the CWC, so the attacks could not have been prevented. Re-read that: The murder of a few people with crude chlorine gas bombs half the world away cannot be prevented. Chlorine gas exists in large quantities all over the world, is easily available for purchase, and is easy to manufacture. The use of chlorine gas to kill a few Syrian civilians does not, in any possible universe, constitute an American foreign policy failure, and it most certainly does not stand as evidence that the Syrian chemical weapons deal was mishandled. You are chasing your own tail.
Much more importantly, none of the points you keep bulletting constitute an argument on the topic at hand. Your argument, insofar as it can be called that, was countered many times, by a handful of respondents, over the course of the past week. You have not responded to the substance of any the these negative arguments, you have not even hinted that you intend to refute the positive arguments that have been put to you, and you have repeatedly shown that you do not have the first inkling of a clue as to what the rest of us are saying. This on top of all the fabrication and make-believe.
Respond to the points that have been offered to you in refutation of your position in this thread. Otherwise, there is little more to be said. I will certainly not re-write a response to a point that I’ve already addressed and re-addressed more than once.
Edited
[quote]pat wrote:
And didn’t Assad do exactly this with chlorine?
"“Chemical Weapons” means: Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes.
“Toxic Chemical” means: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. "
It doesn’t ban their possession of or peaceful use of it and it wasn’t declared as a weapon, but using it as a weapon is illegal.[/quote]
Oh, boy.
“…except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention”
Domestic law enforcement is one of those purposes not prohibited under the Convention.
Gassing dissidents falls under the definition of “domestic law enforcement”.
[quote]
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/23/us-syria-crisis-chlorine-idUSBREA4M08V20140523
“Chlorine is likely to be lethal than sarin but its use as a weapon is still illegal under a global chemical weapons convention that Syria signed.”[/quote]
Reuters reporters are not arbiters of the legality of chemicals under international law. The reporter, Dominic Evans, has twice (in this article and in the previous one you linked) called the chlorine gas attacks “illegal”, a violation of “a global chemical weapons convention”, by which I assume he means the CWC.
But again, chlorine gas is not specifically banned by the Convention, so I wonder if, like you, Dominic has not bothered to read the original text.
He also mentions that “Syria did not declare chlorine as part of its stockpile”, but of course it was under no obligation to do so.
EDIT: “Chlorine is likely to be lethal than sarin”. Reuters reporters need to learn how to compose a phrase in English before they may be taken seriously.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Okay let’s go over some points:
No, in accordance with their accession to the CWC. Which does not ban chlorine gas. It is not clear whether there were Syrian stockpiles of chlorine gas in such quantity as to warrant disclosure, or even if disclosure can be forced under the terms of the CWC, but, either way, chlorine gas is not banned under the CWC, so the attacks could not have been prevented. Re-read that: The murder of a few people with crude chlorine gas bombs half the world away cannot be prevented. Chlorine gas exists in large quantities all over the world, is easily available for purchase, and is easy to manufacture. The use of chlorine gas to kill a few Syrian civilians does not, in any possible universe, constitute an American foreign policy failure, and it most certainly does not stand as evidence that the Syrian chemical weapons deal was mishandled. You are chasing your own tail.
Much more importantly, none of the points you keep bulletting constitute an argument on the topic at hand. Your argument, insofar as it can be called that, was countered many times, by a handful of respondents, over the course of the past week. You have not responded to the substance of any the these negative arguments, you have not even hinted that you intend to refute the positive arguments that have been put to you, and you have repeatedly shown that you do not have the first inkling of a clue as to what the rest of us are saying. This on top of all the fabrication and make-believe.
Respond to the points that have been offered to you in refutation of your position in this thread. Otherwise, there is little more to be said. I will certainly not re-write a response to a point that I’ve already addressed and re-addressed more than once.
Edited[/quote]
I didn’t say chlorine gas was included on the list did I? I said Syria provided a comprehensive list of chemical weapons, did they, or did they not?
I never said, intimated, or hinted that chlorine gas was included, did I?
Show me where I said ‘chlorine gas was included in the Russian agreement with Syria on chemical weapons.’
So your answer is ‘No’ Syria did not provide a comprehensive list of chemical weapons in accordance with the Russian agreement?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Okay let’s go over some points:
No, in accordance with their accession to the CWC. Which does not ban chlorine gas. It is not clear whether there were Syrian stockpiles of chlorine gas in such quantity as to warrant disclosure, or even if disclosure can be forced under the terms of the CWC, but, either way, chlorine gas is not banned under the CWC, so the attacks could not have been prevented. Re-read that: The murder of a few people with crude chlorine gas bombs half the world away cannot be prevented. Chlorine gas exists in large quantities all over the world, is easily available for purchase, and is easy to manufacture. The use of chlorine gas to kill a few Syrian civilians does not, in any possible universe, constitute an American foreign policy failure, and it most certainly does not stand as evidence that the Syrian chemical weapons deal was mishandled. You are chasing your own tail.
Much more importantly, none of the points you keep bulletting constitute an argument on the topic at hand. Your argument, insofar as it can be called that, was countered many times, by a handful of respondents, over the course of the past week. You have not responded to the substance of any the these negative arguments, you have not even hinted that you intend to refute the positive arguments that have been put to you, and you have repeatedly shown that you do not have the first inkling of a clue as to what the rest of us are saying. This on top of all the fabrication and make-believe.
Respond to the points that have been offered to you in refutation of your position in this thread. Otherwise, there is little more to be said. I will certainly not re-write a response to a point that I’ve already addressed and re-addressed more than once.
Edited[/quote]
I didn’t say chlorine gas was included on the list did I? I said Syria provided a comprehensive list of chemical weapons, did they, or did they not?
I never said, intimated, or hinted that chlorine gas was included, did I?
Show me where I said ‘chlorine gas was included in the Russian agreement with Syria on chemical weapons.’
So your answer is ‘No’ Syria did not provide a comprehensive list of chemical weapons in accordance with the Russian agreement?[/quote]
“No” as in, “your description was imprecise and thus not meaningful.” What is a “comprehensive list of chemical weapons”? What is a “chemical weapon”? As the last few pages evidence, these are complex terms. The Syrians acceded to the CWC. Subsequent action was a function of accordance with the CWC. Specificity is paramount.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? [/quote]
Who’d have thought one little red line could cause such an expenditure of energy?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And didn’t Assad do exactly this with chlorine?
"“Chemical Weapons” means: Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes.
“Toxic Chemical” means: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. "
It doesn’t ban their possession of or peaceful use of it and it wasn’t declared as a weapon, but using it as a weapon is illegal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/23/us-syria-crisis-chlorine-idUSBREA4M08V20140523
“Chlorine is likely to be lethal than sarin but its use as a weapon is still illegal under a global chemical weapons convention that Syria signed.”[/quote]
Oh, boy.
“…except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention”
Domestic law enforcement is one of those purposes not prohibited under the Convention.
Gassing dissidents falls under the definition of “domestic law enforcement”.
Reuters reporters are not arbiters of the legality of chemicals under international law. The reporter, Dominic Evans, has twice (in this article and in the previous one you linked) called the chlorine gas attacks “illegal”, a violation of “a global chemical weapons convention”, by which I assume he means the CWC.
But again, chlorine gas is not specifically banned by the Convention, so I wonder if, like you, Dominic has not bothered to read the original text.
He also mentions that “Syria did not declare chlorine as part of its stockpile”, but of course it was under no obligation to do so.
[/quote]
It doesn’t list it specifically as a chemical weapon, but it prohibits the use of any chemical as a weapon against people.
“A high-stakes U.S.-Russian plan for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons is in jeopardy on several fronts, with the regime in Damascus facing growing allegations that it violated the agreement by attacking rebels and civilians with chlorine gas.”
“As part of the deal, Syria signed onto the Chemical Weapons Convention, which allows countries to have chlorine, but forbids using it as a weapon. So if the regime used chlorine gas in attacks since the agreement, that would be a violation.”
“Chlorine is not listed as a chemical Syria is expected to give up under the Security Council resolution. But its use as a weapon of war is prohibited under the 1925 Chemical Weapons Convention, of which Syria is a signatory.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/state-dep-t-suggests-chlorine-gas-attack-syria-would-violate-deal
“[The CWC] prohibits the use of any toxic chemical, including chlorine, with the intent to kill or incapacitate people,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said at a daily briefing, noting that Syria joining the CWC was “part of what was agreed to in September.”
“According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which oversees the CWC, â??a toxic or precursor chemical [such as chlorine or hydrogen cyanide] may be defined as a chemical weapon depending on its intended purpose.”
“Put simply, a toxic or precursor chemical is defined as a chemical weapon unless it has been developed, produced, stockpiled or used for purposes not prohibited by the Convention,” it says.
So even though chlorine was not one of the agents declared by the Assad regime for surrender and destruction, if itâ??s determined that the regime has used it as a weapon that would violate the CWC â?? and therefore indirectly also violate the deal negotiated in Geneva between Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov."
“Experts said if it is proven that Syria used chlorine as a weapon, Damascus would be in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention which it signed last September.”
"The U.S. State Department, which is examining the allegations, said on Tuesday that if the Syrian government used chlorine with the intent to kill or harm this would violate the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which it joined as part of last September’s Geneva agreement to give up its chemical weapons.
“The use of any toxic chemical with the intent to cause death or harm is a clear violation of the convention,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki."
“Syriaâ??s apparent use of chlorine gas as a weapon â?? not to mention targeting of civilians â?? is a plain violation of international law,” said Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch.
Everybody from the State department, the Russians, the OPCW says if proven true, then it was a violation of the agreement and international law.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Okay let’s go over some points:
No, in accordance with their accession to the CWC. Which does not ban chlorine gas. It is not clear whether there were Syrian stockpiles of chlorine gas in such quantity as to warrant disclosure, or even if disclosure can be forced under the terms of the CWC, but, either way, chlorine gas is not banned under the CWC, so the attacks could not have been prevented. Re-read that: The murder of a few people with crude chlorine gas bombs half the world away cannot be prevented. Chlorine gas exists in large quantities all over the world, is easily available for purchase, and is easy to manufacture. The use of chlorine gas to kill a few Syrian civilians does not, in any possible universe, constitute an American foreign policy failure, and it most certainly does not stand as evidence that the Syrian chemical weapons deal was mishandled. You are chasing your own tail.
Much more importantly, none of the points you keep bulletting constitute an argument on the topic at hand. Your argument, insofar as it can be called that, was countered many times, by a handful of respondents, over the course of the past week. You have not responded to the substance of any the these negative arguments, you have not even hinted that you intend to refute the positive arguments that have been put to you, and you have repeatedly shown that you do not have the first inkling of a clue as to what the rest of us are saying. This on top of all the fabrication and make-believe.
Respond to the points that have been offered to you in refutation of your position in this thread. Otherwise, there is little more to be said. I will certainly not re-write a response to a point that I’ve already addressed and re-addressed more than once.
Edited[/quote]
I didn’t say chlorine gas was included on the list did I? I said Syria provided a comprehensive list of chemical weapons, did they, or did they not?
I never said, intimated, or hinted that chlorine gas was included, did I?
Show me where I said ‘chlorine gas was included in the Russian agreement with Syria on chemical weapons.’
So your answer is ‘No’ Syria did not provide a comprehensive list of chemical weapons in accordance with the Russian agreement?[/quote]
“No” as in, “your description was imprecise and thus not meaningful.” What is a “comprehensive list of chemical weapons”? What is a “chemical weapon”? As the last few pages evidence, these are complex terms. The Syrians acceded to the CWC. Subsequent action was a function of accordance with the CWC. Specificity is paramount.[/quote]
It was a pretty simple question, you’re the one assuming chlorine gas was apart of the list. I never said it was. I only said it’s use against people constitutes a chemical attack.
Did the Syrian provide a comprehensive list of chemical weapons as defined by the CWC, or not?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Chlorine gas is not a banned agent for use as a chemical weapon? Are you serious?
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/4582-chemical-weapons
It’s is not banned for use as an industrial agent, but it most certainly is banned for use against people. Assad used the banned method.
[/quote]
This is the full text of the CWC, which your link contained. Please find the page and paragraph on which “chlorine gas” or “Cl2” appears, as I seem to be unable to do so.[/quote]
You’re referring to the a link with in a link. That’s not the link I posted. The link I posted included Chlorine as a chemical.[/quote]
Dude.
Really?
There are three instances of the word “chlorine” on the link you posted. Here they are:
1: [quote]* Chemicals that affect the blood: herygem, cynanide, cynaogen chlorine.[/quote]
This is actually a misprint of cyanogen chloride, which is a legitimate blood agent, is an oxidation of cyanide and chlorine, and is not synonymous with chlorine gas. If you bother to look at the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE CWC, you will find it listed (and spelled correctly) in schedule 3, CAS registry number 506-77-4.
2 and 3: [quote]1915- Germans attack the French with chlorine gas at Ypres, France. This was the first effective use of chemical warfare in WWI.
1915 - British use chlorine gas against the Germans at the Battle of Loos. This was the first chemical weapons attack by the British.[/quote]
Uh huh. Two bullet points, briefly mentioning chlorine gas as used by two belligerents in the First World War. As part of a timeline of the use of chemical weapons.
As we’ve mentioned, chlorine gas was banned, along with tear gas, as a weapon in international conflicts, by the Geneva Protocol in 1925.
This has what, exactly, to do with chlorine gas being banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 2013, which “prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons”?
The answer is “nothing”, because chlorine gas was never banned, nor even mentioned, by this convention.[/quote]
Indeed. Pat, had you read a word of the actual CWC before this thread, or bothered to do so even now? Several hundreds tons of mustard sulfur blister agent, several hundreds of tons of sarin nerve agent, and several tens of tons of VX nerve agent - approximately 2,000,000 lbs of schedule 1 military grade chemical weapons - were relinquished by the Assad regime. All of the aforementioned chemicals are exponentially more deadly than the improvised chlorine gas devices dependent on crude barrel bombs as their delivery mechanism - ranging on the order of several hundred to several thousand times more lethal.[/quote]
And I disputed that where? You are accusing me of saying things I did not say.
Did Syria use chlorine gas to poison people or not? I am not debating the efficacy of chlorine vs. other toxins. Merely establishing that Syria used chlorine gas as a chemical weapon which would constitute a violation of the agreement they signed and international law. Did they, or did they not use chlorine gas as a chemical weapon? It’s a really simple question.
