Why Does Using Chemical Weapons Make it Worse?

Hey Everyone,

I just don't get it.

Here we have a conflict in Syria that has been about as brutal as anything we have had in history, for the people in Syria it must be a very traumatizing affair. People are leaving the country in troves and the people that are staying are the TRUE patriots (for God and country and all).

Why didn't we do anything before 100k people have been murdered?

We did nothing after that either.

Now that a few hundred people have been murdered by gas (we assume), at least someone is threatening action, I just hope they take the right action, because it is already 100k people and Millions of families too late.

I know it doesn’t make much sense sometimes however most of the world agreed that certain weapons should never be used. Maybe it is because if you let one get away with it we are worried that it will be repeated and if it became common practice then how long till we have to face it ourselves. That is just my guess a possible reason out of many.

I think they want to draw the line here and now because they know that in the future chemical weapons would be a viable solution to future rogue governments one could posit. '
With governments like China, Saudi Arabia and the like in existence and people slowly becoming more intelligent to their plans, combine that with the ability to make such weapons and the historical context of humans being able to do such things..

reply to post by yourmaker


I understand the fear of the threat.

Just why do we draw the line there?

Does that mean there is no line regarding to sending an army to murder protestors?

reply to post by Grimpachi


I understand that explanation, if we ALLOW it to happen it will he more common.

Perhaps you might want to do some research.

Perhaps there is a valid reason that China and Russia are blocking the U.N. (and it's not that they are just plain ole heartlessly evil.)

It is not what it seems, ie "Evil dictator killing his own people!"

Consider this: the whole thing started when, allegedly, the Syrian Army fired on protesters. But, did that actually happen? And even if it actually did happen, how many people were killed? According to the (lying scumbag) media, it did happen, and dozens were killed. All of a sudden our (lying scumbag) leaders start the ball rolling on "Assad has lost his legitimacy! He needs to step down!" (though how they think they have any "legitimacy" to question anyone elses really cracks me up.)

Now, look what *just* happened in Egypt. The military fired on protesters, and killed HUNDREDS. And yet, nothing...No one is calling for anyone there to step down. The military is now leading because of a coup that none of these same (lying scumbag) leaders will even admit is a coup.

So, just those two things alone, what does that tell you?

Things are not what they seem, our leaders, the media, and the U.N. are despicable and completely untrustworthy, and "we" are on the wrong side in this one.

If you're curious, do some research on what happened in Libya. More lies there, and because of those lies, China and Russia are not allowing Syria to become Libya part 2.

edit to add:

Sorry, I didn't really address the question, "What makes it worse?"

Well, of course they don't care about these few hundred people gassed (we see how much they cared about the 500,000 children they starved to death in Iraq, to name just one recent hypocrisy) we all know that. It is simply the only excuse they have left to get the regime change they've been gunning for for 2 years now. And since that's the *only* card they have to play, does anyone really think that Assad would give it to them?!

No.

In case you're interested:

"NATO Using Al Qaeda “Rat Lines” to Flood Syria With Foreign Terrorists"
By Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, October 26, 2012

www.globalresearch.ca...

Clearly, the US military and the US government were both well aware of the heavy Al Qaeda presence in Cyrenaica since as early as 2007. When violence flared up in 2011, it was clear to many geopolitical analysts that it was the result of Al Qaeda, not “pro-democracy protesters.” The US government, its allies, and a complicit Western press, willfully lied to the public, misrepresented its case to the United Nations and intervened in Libya on behalf of international terrorists, overthrowing a sovereign government, and granting an entire nation as a base of operations for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

A similar scenario is now playing out in Syria, where the West, despite acknowledging the existence of Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya, is using these militants, and the exact same networks used to send fighters to Iraq, to flood into and overrun Syria. This, after these very same Libyan militants were implicated in an attack that left a US ambassador dead on September 11, 2012.