President Obama says the chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of Syrians was an “attack on human dignity.” Why is it worse to die from chemical weapons than by, say, a drone?
Necrobigots
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
7 Comments. Leave new
It’s a very poignant and interesting conversation to have…is there a substantive difference? We didn’t have a problem with Iraq using chemical weapons against the Iranians or the Kurds….it just seems a convenient excuse to finally do something…even though we can’t actually do anything constructive
For the record, it is not exactly accurate to say that “the Iraqis gassed their Kurds.” Well, they did gas them, but it wasn’t on purpose. The Kurds lived in a border town and the Iraqis were attempting to hit Iranian targets with projectiles that fell short. This in no way makes it okay, nor would gassing Iranians instead be okay, but American criticism should be tempered by the fact that (a) it wasn’t on purpose and (b) and we sold them the chemical weapons in question and (c) we supported them in their attack on Iran.
C’mon, Ted! What are Muslims doing drinking alcohol? LOL
It’s my heaven, not theirs. Besides, if you are allowed to fornicate with 72 virgins, surely you should be able to have a glass of wine.
Haven’t you read your Quran, Jack? It’s a virgin bar…those are virgin drinks (nevermind that the reference to ‘virgins’ mainly just meant ‘young women’)
Maybe you can devote an entire piece to the myriad, horrific, genetic monsters that are, and will be, created by our depleted uranium, the gift that keeps on giving, which will be reminding future history of the true nature of the American Empire … for millennia to come.
That great hero Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, responsible for such noted military successes as Gallipoli and the British mining of Norwegian waters, seems to have had nothing against the use of poison gas, not merely on Bolsheviks (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/01/winston-churchills-shocking-use-of-chemical-weapons/) or «uncivilised tribes» (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Churchill%27s_1919_War_Office_Memorandum), but also on German forces in WW II (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501b_Weber.html). Once again, we learn that the morality of a given action has less to do with the nature of the action itself, than on who did it – or more pertinently in this case, who can be blamed for it….
Henri