[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We have nothing to fear from ISIS regarding the chlorine gas because, after all, you can buy chlorine gas online, manufacture it easily and it isn’t banned under the CWC. They can have all they want I guess.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure they’re planning on putting all that chlorine to good use chlorinating that big swimming pool at the Baghdad Embassy once they occupy it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We have nothing to fear from ISIS regarding the chlorine gas because, after all, you can buy chlorine gas online, manufacture it easily and it isn’t banned under the CWC. They can have all they want I guess.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure they’re planning on putting all that chlorine to good use chlorinating that big swimming pool at the Baghdad Embassy once they occupy it.[/quote]
Sure, sounds like a great idea. Gets pretty hot and dirty in the desert.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We have nothing to fear from ISIS regarding the chlorine gas because, after all, you can buy chlorine gas online, manufacture it easily and it isn’t banned under the CWC. They can have all they want I guess.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure they’re planning on putting all that chlorine to good use chlorinating that big swimming pool at the Baghdad Embassy once they occupy it.[/quote]
Swimming in pools is an “abomination” because the “kuffir” swim in it and pee in it.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-97528.html
Another poster points out that “naughty” Muslims also pee in it.
Ok, SexMachine, you have the rep of being one of the most anti-Obama persons on here. Why do you agree that the whole Syria situation was a win for the US when it left Assad in command? I’d figure you’d want him out, just like we kicked Qaddafi out (which I’m not sure was a good thing, but it’s comparing dictators to dictators, bombing campaigns to chemical weapons agreements, I guess). And what are some other Obama foreign policy disasters so we can finally move past this one topic that I partly agree with.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We have nothing to fear from ISIS regarding the chlorine gas because, after all, you can buy chlorine gas online, manufacture it easily and it isn’t banned under the CWC. They can have all they want I guess.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure they’re planning on putting all that chlorine to good use chlorinating that big swimming pool at the Baghdad Embassy once they occupy it.[/quote]
Swimming in pools is an “abomination” because the “kuffir” swim in it and pee in it.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-97528.html
Another poster points out that “naughty” Muslims also pee in it.[/quote]
Hence the need for 400 tons of chlorine.
Kaffir pee needs a lot of purifying.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ok, SexMachine, you have the rep of being one of the most anti-Obama persons on here. Why do you agree that the whole Syria situation was a win for the US when it left Assad in command?
[/quote]
We’re not discussing “the whole Syria situation,” we’re discussing a narrow set of events relating to the Ghouta chemical attack, the US response and the outcome. Any serious observer could only see the outcome as a foreign policy success. I’m not going to take some asinine position just because I don’t like Obama. Get back to me during Elizabeth Warren’s/Hillary’s first term and maybe I’ll give it a go.
[quote]
I’d figure you’d want him out, just like we kicked Qaddafi out (which I’m not sure was a good thing, but it’s comparing dictators to dictators, bombing campaigns to chemical weapons agreements, I guess). And what are some other Obama foreign policy disasters so we can finally move past this one topic that I partly agree with.[/quote]
Yes I do want Assad gone. Which is part of the reason I credit this is a success - it harmed his regime. Regarding Gaddafi, that was a major foreign policy blunder of Obama and I said so from the start.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We have nothing to fear from ISIS regarding the chlorine gas because, after all, you can buy chlorine gas online, manufacture it easily and it isn’t banned under the CWC. They can have all they want I guess.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure they’re planning on putting all that chlorine to good use chlorinating that big swimming pool at the Baghdad Embassy once they occupy it.[/quote]
Swimming in pools is an “abomination” because the “kuffir” swim in it and pee in it.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-97528.html
Another poster points out that “naughty” Muslims also pee in it.[/quote]
Hence the need for 400 tons of chlorine.
Kaffir pee needs a lot of purifying.
[/quote]
That’s not enough. As one poster asks “would you use a bucket of water with one drop of wee in it to do wudu or ghusl?”
I don’t know what the fuck wudu or ghusl is but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to do it with a bucket of water with pee in it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t know what the fuck wudu or ghusl is but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to do it with a bucket of water with pee in it.
[/quote]
Wudu is ritual ablution: a Muslim washes his hands and forearms, face, mouth and nose, wets his scalp and washes his feet before he’s allowed to pray or touch the Qur’an.
Ghusl is a full-body wash. It’s required after sex or ejaculation, in addition to wudu.
Normally, the rule is that as long as the three qualities of the water (colour, taste, and smell) are unchanged, the water is suitably pure for washing. But if pee is involved, there are differing opinions. All the schools of jurisprudence agree that even a small amount of pee renders water undrinkable, but some will grudgingly allow washing with it so long as it is looks, smells and tastes like water.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wudu is ritual ablution: a Muslim washes his hands and forearms, face, mouth and nose, wets his scalp and washes his feet before he’s allowed to pray or touch the Qur’an.
[/quote]
Yeah I assumed one of them was probably ritual ablution. I assume they got it from Jewish hand washing rituals. Jesus castigates the Pharisees for hand washing rituals in Mark 5:1-12. From what I understand, Jesus’s position on Jewish law is akin to that of the Karaites - he believed in written law but not oral law. But regardless of what he said(Matthew 5:17), the Gentiles and Hellenised Jews who followed him observed neither.
Presumably adopted from the mikveh.
I’ll keep that in mind.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Jesus castigates the Pharisees for hand washing rituals in Mark 5:1-12.
[/quote]
I think you mean Mark 7:1-5. Mark 5:1-12 was about casting demons out of the man into the pigs.
I certainly hope Jesus washed his hands after that. Sounds like dirty work.
And Mark 7:15 addresses, in a roundabout way, the pee concern: “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”
So if you pee on your hands, by all means wash them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think you mean Mark 7:1-5.
[/quote]
Yeah my mistake. I meant Mark 7:1-5.
Yep.
Thinking about Mark 5:1-12 for a moment…
Why would “Legion” (the name of the demons residing in the man in the tomb) ask to be sent into a herd of two thousand pigs? And what happened to them once all the pigs drowned? Do demons evaporate when their hosts die? I don’t think so.
Maybe that was the plan: trick Jesus into sending them into the pigs, cause pigs to go crazy and drowned themselves, be released from piggy flesh to become free to inhabit other humans —> PROFIT.
…or else the man was suffering from schizoid delusions and the mass drowning of the herd of pigs was just a coincidence.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…or else the man was suffering from schizoid delusions and the mass drowning of the herd of pigs was just a coincidence.[/quote]
Maybe his name really was legion and he was just suffering from Tourette syndrome.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…or else the man was suffering from schizoid delusions and the mass drowning of the herd of pigs was just a coincidence.[/quote]
Maybe his name really was legion and he was just suffering from Tourette syndrome.[/quote]
And the pigs got tired of listening to him yell, so they committed mass suicide.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Jesus castigates the Pharisees for hand washing rituals in Mark 5:1-12.
[/quote]
I think you mean Mark 7:1-5. Mark 5:1-12 was about casting demons out of the man into the pigs.
I certainly hope Jesus washed his hands after that. Sounds like dirty work.
And Mark 7:15 addresses, in a roundabout way, the pee concern: “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”
So if you pee on your hands, by all means wash them.[/quote]
Genghis Khan’s Yasa says “Do not urinate into water or ashes” But they used pee for cleansing wounds. Not too sure how they would have used all that chlorine.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Perhaps you’re the one who used the straw man arguments if you don’t even agree with your own points.
[/quote]
Except that these aren’t my points. Or, the ones that are stupid aren’t. Let’s take this one:
[quote]
Assad continued to use chemical weapons against his own people, you don’t seem to think it matters because it was a crude weapon.[/quote]
I “don’t seem to think it matters” because it doesn’t have any bearing on the debate that we are having, and I have explained my reasoning on this matter more times than I care to recall at the moment. The debate that I took up when I entered this thread turned on the answer to this question: Was the Syrian chemical weapon question mishandled, or was it not? I spent a lot of time talking about cost-benefit ratios and rational decision-making given the available choices at each particular step of the way. Nobody who disagreed with me–you very much included–seemed to want to talk about why (because they couldn’t). And that’s the paradigm I’m going to continue to use until you think you have come up with a better way to evaluate the handling of a diplomatic affair than the evaluation of the individual decisions of which it was constructed. Give me a better method and I’ll apply it. Good luck.
Now, whether or not some extremely common industrial and domestic chemicals were stuffed into crude bombs and used to ineffectively kill a few people in Syria has got nothing to do with the decision-making process under consideration and does not in any possible universe constitute an American foreign policy failure. American foreign policy is weighed in large things–like 2,000,000 pounds of Sarin and Mustard gas having been shipped out of a war-torn jihadist haven.
Even more importantly, one cannot have failed–I mean logically cannot have failed–when one could not have prevented the alleged failure from having happened. You can buy chlorine gas online. You can manufacture it easily. I have its main ingredient on my skin literally right now. It isn’t banned under the CWC–for good reason. It is very common. American president’s haven’t failed by virtue of the fact that somebody stuffed some fucking chlorine and HCl into a barrel.
It’s unfortunate that I feel the need to explicitly note this, but I do: I am not defending Assad. I am not saying that chlorine gas is awesome. I am not saying that I enjoy hearing about dead kids. If anybody picked anything like that up from what I’ve just written, don’t bother responding, because I’ll huff chlorine gas before I ever again respond to such trash.
Edited[/quote]
You can buy chlorine gas online, if you have a license. They don’t sell it to just anybody. Go ahead and try. You never got to the page asking for your license number.
Seriously.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
But he can continue to gas his people with chlorine gas because you can buy chlorine gas online, manufacture it easily and one could not have prevented the fact that somebody stuffed some fucking chlorine into a barrel? So he can use all the chemical weapons he wants because it isn’t banned under the CWC? What if he manufactures and uses 2,000,000 pounds of chlorine gas? That’d be ok then?[/quote]
Would it be better if he used pepper spray and tear gas instead? Would that make it seem more law-enforcementy and less war-crimey?
Would it be better if, instead of dropping canisters of liquified chlorine gas on civilians, his helicopters just dropped barrels of scrap metal with a TNT core? That wouldn’t violate any Chemical Weapons Conventions.
By the way, as I mentioned earlier, Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate, took over a chemical plant near Aleppo in August of last year. This plant was the ONLY factory in Syria capable of manufacturing chlorine gas in any quantity. They also made off with 400 tons-- that’s 800,000 pounds-- of chlorine gas.
Jabhat al-Nusra, as you probably know, are now the Syrian chapter of the Caliphate Formerly Known as ISIS.
So that’s okay, right? Because they don’t like those Eye-Rainians.[/quote]
This idea that dropping chlorine gas on people did not violate any laws or conventions is asinine. You’ve got everybody from the OPCW, to the state department, to even the Russians and everybody in between saying it violated the agreement and was an illegal act.
I posted many sources illustrating this. Even your own post from the Geneva convention stated ‘Any chemical’ used to harm persons, animals etc. Under the definition of ‘Chemical Weapons’
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
So let me get this straight? Assad using chlorine gas in large quantities to kill people is no big deal? It didn’t violate any agreements? It doesn’t matter? Is that what you are claiming? [/quote]
All they have done is make excuses for Assad.
[/quote]
Who is making excuses for Assad?
Nobody here is advocating for, or praising, or excusing murder of any kind. This should be obvious to the point of banality.
The arguments that are being made are clear and correct and have not been refuted, or even addressed.[/quote]
The ‘argument’ is far from clear. I don’t know what the hell you are ‘arguing’ for or against. All you are doing is yelling and whining and jumping up and down like a 2 year old, during which you list some facts which may or may not have a point depending on what you are trying to prove. What is it you are trying to prove? Can you state your point concisely, without ad hominems, so I can figure out what the hell your so pissed off about?
I tried to clarify these points, but you refused.
I made that bulleted list to see where we agree or disagree. You went on some asinine tangent about how chlorine gas wasn’t part of the agreement. I never said it was, but you had to make a point about something I never said.
So indulge me, what is your point, sans the wall of words and insults.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Yes, because they are allied with Hezbollah and Iran. They are also enemies with Israel.
[/quote]
So you are in favour of toppling Assad?
So you are in favour of Assad staying in power? Which is it? You’ve just given two mutually exclusive answers in the same paragraph.
[/quote]
At this point, I am for Assad staying in power. I will take the terrorist I know vs. the ones I don’t. Before the opposition was overrun with terrorists, I was for taking out Assad. Now the opposition is IS and al qaeda and I don’t wish to grant them the power of state.