• Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should chemical weapons be legalized?

    I'm not sure what to make of the chemical weapons ban. On one hand, it's like gun control, and we all know what the Bible says about gun control. But on the other hand, the chemical weapons ban is the main talking point for Operation Syrian Freedom, and any reason to blow up Arabs has to be a good one.

    And then there's this article, I really don't know what to make of it:

    Originally posted by ?
    4 Reasons why chemical weapons should be legalized

    Of all the excuses to bomb Syria, there's only one of them that makes any kind of sense (until someone gives me some bomb-industry stocks). That excuse is that we need to enforce the international understanding that chemical weapons are barbaric, inhumane, unfair, and uniquely horrifying.

    I call BS.

    1. It's barbaric to give an advantage to barbarians. That's what any ban on a technology does.

    Technologies aren't barbaric. Barbarians are barbaric.

    Barbarians - or according to the polite terms of our time, "non-state groups" - terrorists, criminal gangs, general mobs of acid-chucking, boy raping, school-bombing bastards -ahem - diverse cultures - have almost all the advantages. They're tough mentally and physically, they're fanatical, they get to ignore the rules, and to win all they have to do is destroy.

    What chance does civilization have? Our scrawny, spoiled, wishy-washy, regulated, productivity-distracted asses have only one advantage - technology.

    So while terrorists, criminals, and the general forces of disorder are like a big, brawny ogre strutting around the boxing ring, we're a pencil-necked geek who not only has to survive, but also finish his homework. Our only chance is to outsmart the ogre. And the chemical weapons ban is like a referee who wants us to "fight fair" which is a fancy way of saying "have a contest of brute force, not brains".

    2. "Fight fair" means "fight long and hard" - which is barbaric and inhumane

    It's worth looking at where "fight fair" comes from. Rationally, "fight fair" should only mean one thing - spare the innocent.

    So where do we get weird rules like "no hitting below the belt" or "no gas"? Both guilty and innocent get hurt by a nut-punch, so why the rule?

    It turns out "fight fair" actually means "fight in a way that's entertaining to watch". Which comes down to "fight for a long time". Where nut-punches are legal, fights tend to end after a blurry second or two. Not much use to fight promoters.

    In our case the fight promoters are people who profit from long, drawn-out wars. That means military-related industries, and the media. Two hugely powerful forces with a vested interest in keeping our wars long and indecisive. History teaches us that the longer a war goes on, the more barbaric and inhumane it gets.

    3. Chemical weapons cause less fatalities than normal weapons - far, far less if you count tear gas, which the chemical weapons ban does

    Of the dizzying array of different weapons systems we use in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's easy to forget the one that is always missing - tear gas. It's like they always forget to bring it to the fight. Did it slip between the couch cushions?

    No, we don't use tear gas because of the chemical weapons ban - not that it actually bans tear gas, but because it's feared that using tear gas in battle would lead to a slippery slope where other chemical weapons are used also.

    So let's imagine how the Iraq and Afghan wars would have gone if we had tear gas. In both wars insurgents can shelter among civilians - a huge advantage. The options available were to use firepower anyway, killing innocents, or to go in and fight without support, resulting in dead troops, dead innocents, and lots of bastards getting away to hurt more innocents. Or you could just let them get away. Now imagine if the troops called in an artillery or air strike to drop cluster-munitions of tear gas over the whole area. Now either the bastards run, meaning they have to drop their weapons or get shot, or they get incapacitated with everyone else. Then the troops, with gas masks, go in and sort out the good, bad and ugly. Don't worry about the kids, we already gave them free child-sized gas masks, and we already fired a certain color of flare, which everybody knows means to put your mask on (the bush-telegram is very effective.)

    Now let's say that using tear gas ends up leading to other chemical weapons being used. Now instead of shooting and bombing people (as many as 30% of people incapacitated are now dead) chemical weapons are used (3% of the incapacitated are killed - as it was in ww1.) So imagine if the Russia-Georgia war of 2008 (~1100 killed, ~10,000 wounded, about 10% of incapacitated dead) had been fought entirely with chemical weapons. I'm not good at math, or counting, or hygiene, but I'm willing to guesstimate ~300 dead. That's 700 lives saved by barbaric, inhumane chemical weapons.

    4. If chemical weapons are uniquely terrifying, that's another argument for them

    The idea of being killed by something you can't see, hear, or smell has a certain psychological edge. That's good. The whole point of any weapon is to terrorize enemies into submission. Most of the time this means making your enemy watch his buddies bleeding out or being ripped to pieces until he just can't watch one more. But if your weapon is has a unique horrific that's far beyond its actual killing power, it might make him surrender without all of that.

    All wars end, or or prevented, by someone being horrified into submission. Uniquely horrifying weapons simply speed up the process.
    In conclusion

    Chemical weapons are a weapon that stops barbarism, with less death than the alternatives. The ideal war isn't one that's fair and fun to watch. The ideal war is one that never happened. One way to prevent a war from happening is to have the barbarians outgunned and out-horrified, due to their being outsmarted by civilized people.
    Last edited by Jeb Stuart Thurmond; 12-19-2018, 02:28 PM.
    Disagree? By failing to register and debate me, you prove that liberals are factless frauds who only persuade through intimidation. To prove otherwise, debate me!
    Got Questions? See Frequently Asked Questions, or use Forum Search, tag system, or our guides on Geography, History, Science, Comparative Religion, Civics, and Current Events.
    Did I use a new word you've never heard? Definitions here. | Vote! Everything you need to vote here!

  • #2
    Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

    I think the issue is pretty simple. If God did not want us to have Chemical Weapons(tm), He would not of given them to us. Anyways, they only use them on heathens, joos and mooslimes. It is not like they are really people. Rudolf Hoess coined the phrase 'Cooking with Gas' and it has stuck.
    Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
    Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
    Numbers 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
    Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
    Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    Matthew 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.


    • #3
      Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

      Our congregation's militia has often ruminated over the possibility of obtaining something we could as a defense weapon of mass destruction. Sarin gas has been mentioned. It seems that it isn't all that hard to make and it has the additional benefit of being closely related to Sevin, which is very efficatious at killing bugs on the tomato plants.

      For a while, we thought anthrax would be the answer. That was back when Bill Clinton was the President and we heard on the news that some men down in McAllen had a plan to make up some anthrax and shoot Bill with a cactus thorn dipped in the stuff and shot out of a Bic lighter. It was in all the newspapers and on TV for days. The FBI and the CIA and the ATF and the BLM and near to everybody was parading around looking grim and wearing space suits as they looked through the trailer park for clues. We figured that anthrax was pretty easy to make, too.

      It turned out that the men in question were several alcoholic retired men who lived in the trailer park on their social security and had no idea that they even had a plan to [possibly incriminating info deleted - Jeb] using a Bic lighter as the murder weapon. It was all so... so last week.

      Anyway, we haven't spent much time discussing anthrax lately, or even Sarin.

      We mostly bemoan the lack of progress in obtaining modern artillery and heavy machine guns. No one can deny that these are crucial for self defense, if the need was to arise.

      Chemical weapons should be made easier to obtain, but I believe that something should be done about the artillery and the machine guns first.

      God Bless!
      Last edited by Jeb Stuart Thurmond; 09-24-2013, 11:35 PM. Reason: possibly incriminating info deleted
      God judgeth the righteous, And God is angry with the wicked every day- Psalm 7:11


      • #4
        Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

        I cannot wait until Sarah Palin becomes our president and we are legally allowed to own ICBMs. Then we can start killing unbelievers all over the world from our own back yard. I am also certain it would stop annoying brats from violating my precious lawn.
        5 Reasons why GOD HATES WOMEN!
        To most "Christians" The Bible is like a license agreement. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree". All those "Christians" will burn in Hell!
        James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."


        • #5
          Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

          Every law around the world and every treaty needs to take into account American Exceptionalism. It's barbaric for Syria to own and use chemical weapons, but Uncle Sam should be allowed to own and use whatever weapons are needed to spread liberty and the Word of God because we are the only nation on Earth that can be trusted to use them right!

          When Senator Santorum is president, mark my words, there is going to be a global housecleaning!
          Posted via Prayer

          1 Timothy 2:13-15 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
          Bearing my husband's heirs and being SAVED!

          Blogging for CHRIST!
          Witnessing for GOD on YouTube!
          All a-Twitter for Salvation!
          Bringing Jesus to MySpace!
          On FIRE for the Lord on Facebook!
          My Ladies of Landover profile!


          • #6
            Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

            I don't care what your opinion on chemical weapons is. The fact of the matter is that the second amendment gives all Americans the right to have them. It does not give Syrians that right so we should bomb the devil out of the next little brown guy who so much as holds up a bottle of hairspray.
            Leviticus 13:40 And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean.


            • #7
              Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

              If it's one thing I can't stand it's some sanctimonious lieberal nitpicking about what constitutes a WMD. So I can own a 10 round magazine for my AR15, but it becomes a WMD as soon as I insert a 20 round magazine? And what about full auto - that little puppy can squeeze off a round as fast as I can pull the trigger, so what's the difference?

              When it comes to Syria, that little community organizer Obama comes completely unprepared for making strategic decisions. Obama should be arming the rebels and Al Qaeda with gas to get this thing over with quicker. Let the mooselimbs fight it out amongst themselves over whether the 12th Imam is coming back or not. The sooner this is settled the sooner the price of oil will drop below $100 a barrel.

              For shear entertainment value I've always enjoyed water cannons - whether it's quelling rioting negras or putting down G8 summit protesters, it has it all over Dancing with the Stars. The dot heads have the right idea here - fire fecal coliform polluted Ganges river water and within a short time they will all be contracting acute gastrointestinal disease, cholera, dysentery, hepatitis-A, and typhoid.

              Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
              brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
              ...and get off my lawn


              • #8
                Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

                The Constitution does not limit the types of arms people are allowed to bear, nor does it allow the government to set limits on the types of arms allowed, it actually says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not in any way, the idea that we can carry a AR-15 but not an MC-1 bomb loaded with sarin is not just impossible to defend logically, but also completely opposite to what the Founders intended.
                Leviticus 26:15-16
                And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.


                • #9
                  Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

                  The best of both worlds= Bomb Arabs + legalize The LORD's nerve gas.


                  • #10
                    Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

                    Liberals are always trying to disarm the American public - nothing new in that!

                    The question you have to ask yourself is: if some nut breaks into your house and has chemical weapons, how are you going to defend yourself unless you also have chemical weapons? I mean what are you going to do, use a gun? Hah!

                    Not only should chemical weapons be legal, but I see nothing wrong with concealed carry. I bet if you're in a movie theater or a classroom and some Islamic terrorist suddenly jumps up and yells "Allah Obama Akbar" and reaches for a chemical grenade, he's sure gonna get the surprise of his life when five or 10 True Christians whip out their nerve gas rocket launchers and hit back! I'd just love to see the look on that Mudslime's face when that happens!

                    This is the only way to fight terrorism - an eye for an eye! I'll bet Jesus would never go for that liberal touchy-feely homo-sissy "turn the other cheek" crap. If Jesus had owned a car, you can be sure he would have had an NRA bumper sticker on it!

                    ...and next week we're gonna learn how to
                    fire a Sarin-gas warhead from a Predator drone
                    Praise Jesus!
                    Brother Fred
                    CEO, The Uranus Corporation
                    Put your faith in Uranus!



                    • #11
                      Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

                      I still think that some regulation could be appropriate, to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of atheists and agnostics.

                      Using blister agents on children will prevent them from enjoying sex.
                      The Only Real Climate Change Will be Hell!


                      • #12
                        Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

                        The whole point of any weapon is to kill, incapacitate and scare the enemy to submission, so chemical weapons are not very different from conventional weapons.

                        One exception thought, the gay bomb. Weapons should be lethal on their own, not by tempting enemies into sinning more than they already do.

                        Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
                        Leviticus 18:22

                        sigpicCorporal Punishment Advisor, U.S. Department of Family Values
                        Cyber-bullying Instructor, Christian Commission on Human Rights
                        Apple CEO is gay - Important DFV security considerations
                        Higgs field theory disproved - Universe is a cotton field
                        Viagra forces man to have his penis amputated


                        • #13
                          Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

                          I believe that only good and strong Christian leaders should be allowed Chemical Weapons, and that they should be able to drop themselves on Satanic Arab homoqueers any time they like untill they repent and accept the LORD and Jesus.


                          • #14
                            Re: Should chemical weapons should be legalized?

                            Originally posted by lukasekman View Post
                            The whole point of any weapon is to kill, incapacitate and scare the enemy to submission, so chemical weapons are not very different from conventional weapons.

                            One exception thought, the gay bomb. Weapons should be lethal on their own, not by tempting enemies into sinning more than they already do.

                            Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
                            Leviticus 18:22
                            Anyone with a gay bomb should be attacked immediately. Those things are dangerous. I heard they were being used in Syria.
                            Leviticus 13:40 And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean.