[–] Naught405 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago  (edited ago)

jus in bello requires "discrimination" and "proportionality"

Discrimination governs legitimate targets

Proportionality governs level of force

An ideal attack destroys only its target which is a legitimate part of the opponents military apparatus. An illegitimate attack does not take appropriate stock of discrimination and proportionality. There is always collateral damage in the real world, but every effort should be made to minimize it (given the level of technology and conflict.)

Gas weapons lack discrimination by their nature. Additionally they are only and specifically useful as anti personnel weapons (which isn't illegal but is extremely limiting as far as "useful reasons to have some" go)

When a military figure says 'indiscriminate' or 'disproportionate' attack this is what they are referring to (although the common language meaning is close enough for public relations most of the time.)

[–] BAAC 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Good answer. Thanks.

[–] TerdWilson 5 points 24 points (+29|-5) ago 

gas can form clouds and move to areas where its not suppose to be. The chemicals used are heavier than air and can fill in areas. Some of them you simply cannot detect sarin for example.

[–] selpai 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Says the country that used white phosphorus bombs in Afghanistan.

[–] LordOfTheRope 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

cough cough Depleted uranium.

[–] midnightblue1335 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Willy Pete saves lives. Not the same.

[–] bman0321 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Willy Pete and high explosives. It's called shake and bake, and it's glorious!

[–] 9-11 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

That is only bad in residential areas.

[–] voltronsdicks 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Why is it unacceptable to use gas against people but not bombs or missiles?

It's not. All is fair in love and war.

[–] unclejimbo 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

All's fair if you win, that is. If you lose a war in modern times there will be war crime charges regardless of how it was fought.

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

If you love someone, suffocate them in nerve gas!

[–] Jigawhojogaboo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Well white people are too good at war so they had to make some handicaps.

[–] SChalice 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Sarin has a carbon chain and as such can be detected in the infrared spectrum


[–] [deleted] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 


[–] DeltaBravoTango 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Which is why many countries don't use land mines or cluster bombs anymore.

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That's why we celebrate DISMEMBRANCE day!

[–] Maroonsaint 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Who cares

[–] Ialwayssaythis 2 points 20 points (+22|-2) ago 

Gas is not nearly as profitable for the arms companies as bombs and missiles. It is simply not sporting.

[–] Shilly_Mc_Shillface 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

tut tut.

[–] SparkS 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 


[–] gladly 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Probably true.

[–] SChalice 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 


[–] Ialwayssaythis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well said!

[–] YoHomie 2 points 15 points (+17|-2) ago 

My sister-in-law uses gas on my family all the time whenever we visit that pig. The cunt should back off the Taco Bell.

[–] Butelczynski 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That's methane- you can plug her ass to BBQ and grill away.

[–] 12491801 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago 

Coz there is no law banning bombs and missiles.


[–] TerdWilson 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

it was because of how inhumane and destructive it was in WW1

Some bullets I think are illegal to use tho...expanding ones.

[–] 12492296 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

And biological weapons, blinding weapons, torture, flamethrowers, poisoned bullets, dirty bombs, etc.

[–] robabo 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Your right some bullets are illegal in war, but domestic police use them all the time. Also gas is used domestically, but illegal in warfare. Early reports described chlorine asphyxiation as the cause of the resents death, of the rebels human shield. My opinion is that the shield fodder was herded into sellers for "protection" then chlorine from the water treatment plant was brought in and dumped into the sellers. Who ever wants this war is willing to kill for it.

[–] KEKjudo 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago 

Is Voat now Reddit? Quoting international law is a funny way to argue morality.

[–] Chempergrill 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Check his account age.

These /r/gundeals migrants may be the coolest wave of new users yet, but we still have to beat the Reddit out of them a bit.

[–] SupermanReborn 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Agreed. Its simply a means of starting a war. Reddit style of because "tangent reason that's not answering the question but PC enough for everyone to accept" is annoying and stupid.

[–] ConservativeDev 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The question wasn't about morality, at least in the way I read it.

[–] TerdWilson 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

yeah well.... laws kinda matter

[–] lexsird 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

I find it hypocritical that we use chemical weapons on our own people, our own citizens, in our own country and nothing is said about it.

I'm talking about Waco and how we gassed those women and children to death, then set fire to it to cover up our crimes. That's what Bill did, can you imagine what his cunt wife would do? I digress.

[–] Inquisitioner 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I thought we had specifically planned the fire to kill them all. We used gas?

[–] lexsird 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

They used the tanks to pump the building full of gas. They said the bodies contorted from the muscles yanking them in different direction. Women and children, they huddled in the most protected space in the building and they knocked holes in the place and gassed them. The entire chain of command all the way to Bill Clinton should have faced a firing squad. I've gave up on justice coming from government in this country when that happened. Now I just look for justice to come to government. It all needs to fucking burn.

[–] Ulfghar 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They used tear gas that was known to cause fires. Not to mention they fired at people trying to escape the fire

[–] mynewaccountagain 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Because Israel hates Arabs.

[–] turtlesareNotevil 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

I have no idea. Dead is dead. Another question is how does dropping bombs on people help them fight a government that bombed them?

[–] Scribbleballs 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is what I don’t get. Let’s say they gas a thousand people, then the army that is supposed to be “defending” them kills two thousand trying to oust the gasser. “Casualties of war” and “we’re on the right side of history” is the next thing. What a racket.

[–] TerdWilson 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Is there even a death toll yet?

[–] Chempergrill 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Another question is how does dropping bombs on people help them fight a government that bombed them?

Another question is who cares? Its fine to want them dead for fun.

load more comments ▼ (43 remaining)