Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
docyabut2

Horrible weapons, should never be used again

29 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

docyabut2

 Gas weapons were was always used in killing many people and children  in Germany , Iraq many  ect.ect. Nuclear weapons  of  American or any countries should never be used . Why don't they just get back to a war in just a solider fighting a solider, over the good rights of men and lands to bring peace to the great countries of the world of which all man should do ^_^   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jamesjr191

Because the "Bad Guys" never play fair.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, jamesjr191 said:

Because the "Bad Guys" never play fair.

Russians should not get into Serbia supporting their gas weapons,  if they want to be a great country.   

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
25 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

 Gas weapons were was always used in killing many people and children in Germany ,

I think this statement needs an explanation, what exactly you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, docyabut2 said:

Russians should not get into Serbia supporting their gas weapons,  if they want to be a great country.   

they think they already are, the greatest. not all but 70% for sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orphalesion

How about we add standard bombs to that? Read some first-hand witness accounts from civilians during any given bombing raid or occurrence of shelling (such as during the siege of of Sarajevo, or what's been happening in Syria for the past several years) Nobody ****ing deserves that.

But I gotta say I don't agree with this:

52 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Why don't they just get back to a war in just a solider fighting a solider, over the good rights of men and lands to bring peace to the great countries of the world of which all man should do ^_^   

Because the way you write it here makes it seem like a bit of a romanticism of older warfare. it was still hell and often there were people involved that didn't want to be there. And even older warfare was rough on the civilian population. After days of fighting some soldiers can be very messed up (consider they didn't know much about the psychological effects yet and provided no help or support in that direction) and when the city finally fell... well Troy was a fictional account, but it stands to reason that it's a standard depiction of what went down then.
There is no "good" war, imho, just wars that are justifiable evils when compared to to the evils they are meant to stop/overthrow.

17 minutes ago, toast said:

I think this statement needs an explanation, what exactly you are talking about?

Cyclon B? I assume at least, because the various armies didn't fight with gas weapons in Europe. The horror they Civilians were put through everywhere from London, over Hamburg to St.Petersburg/Leningrad was still bad enough, though and in many places there were rumors circulating about gas weapons, possibly fueled by people succumbing to monoxide poisoning and by propaganda.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
6 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Cyclon B? I assume at least, because the various armies didn't fight with gas weapons in Europe. The horror they Civilians were put through everywhere from London, over Hamburg to St.Petersburg/Leningrad was still bad enough, though and in many places there were rumors circulating about gas weapons, possibly fueled by people succumbing to monoxide poisoning and by propaganda.

However, the statement was quite stupid and absurd as well. And, Cyclon B wasnt created and used as a chemical weapon, even if the nazis used it for their appalling mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orphalesion
1 minute ago, toast said:

However, the statement was quite stupid and absurd as well. And, Cyclon B wasnt created and used as a chemical weapon, even if the nazis used it for their appalling mission.

Do you mean the OPs statement or mine?

if the former, yeah it was very misleading and could conjure up the wrong ideas, when it was really the German government itself that was killing German and Eastern European civilians using poison gas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
Just now, Orphalesion said:

How about we add standard bombs to that? Read some first-hand witness accounts from civilians during any given bombing raid or occurrence of shelling (such as during the siege of of Sarajevo, or what's been happening in Syria for the past several years) Nobody ****ing deserves that.

But I gotta say I don't agree with this:

Because the way you write it here makes it seem like a bit of a romanticism of older warfare. it was still hell and often there were people involved that didn't want to be there. And even older warfare was rough on the civilian population. After days of fighting some soldiers can be very messed up (consider they didn't know much about the psychological effects yet and provided no help or support in that direction) and when the city finally fell... well Troy was a fictional account, but it stands to reason that it's a standard depiction of what went down then.
There is no "good" war, imho, just wars that are justifiable evils when compared to to the evils they are meant to stop/overthrow.

Cyclon B? I assume at least, because the various armies didn't fight with gas weapons in Europe. The horror they Civilians were put through everywhere from London, over Hamburg to St.Petersburg/Leningrad was still bad enough, though and in many places there were rumors circulating about gas weapons, possibly fueled by people succumbing to monoxide poisoning and by propaganda.

 

there was no chemical weapons used there, afaik. only the blockade, which turns out now, as documents being declassified,  was not  really done by nazis but by soviets themselves.  just think about it, Leningrad was under siege for about 3 years, during those times food for civilians were brought only by way of water in the  summer, in the winter  ice trucking was the only way for civilians to get food,(ladoga lake)  that was the only way that Germans did not block, or so  they were told, yet city was making weapons, and those weapons left the city with no issues, same way supplies, and materials for those weapons came in,  not the way food came in, so did Germans only blocked food for civilians from coming in, and let weapons out?  b.s. soviet leaders did that. and blamed Germany, in most cases regular German army (not ss units, but regular grey uniform army)  was less cruel to civilians than soviet nkvd. 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
Posted (edited)

History is horrible on gas weapons and should all be stopped to make the world better :rolleyes: and  all countries get together, and America is starting it.! 

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

Do you mean the OPs statement or mine?

The OP`s statement, of course. Sorry for confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
33 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

History is horrible on gas weapons and should all be stopped to make the world better :rolleyes: and  all countries get together, and America is starting it.! 

Trump used tear gas against civilians during his inauguration 2017. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
52 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Horrible, yes, but no person/kid has been killed by poison gas in Germany since 1945 so what exactly is your point on Germany here?

Quote

Horrible, yes, but no person/kid has been killed by chemical weapons used by Germany forces since 1918 so what exactly is your point on Germany here?

Quote

Why don't they just get back to a war in just a solider fighting a solider, over the good rights of men and lands to bring peace to the great countries of the world of which all man should do

So you say that killing each other is acceptable and honourable as long as the action belongs to "a great country" and "all men should do so"? Sieg Heil!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Trump used tear gas against civilians during his inauguration 2017. 

oh yes, plenty of tears, snowflakes were crying him rivers

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

You know, dead is dead.  Getting burnt alive with a flame thrower or napalm, buried alive with a bulldozer,  blown to bits with a predator drone, or shot with a rifle all kinda suck.  I always thought it was silly of us to think that any weapon is more horrible than another.  

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

You know, dead is dead.  Getting burnt alive with a flame thrower or napalm, buried alive with a bulldozer,  blown to bits with a predator drone, or shot with a rifle all kinda suck.  I always thought it was silly of us to think that any weapon is more horrible than another.  

That's bad and all but honestly, one hit kills aren't terrible. A dirty bomb however, that's horrible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

That's bad and all but honestly, one hit kills aren't terrible. A dirty bomb however, that's horrible. 

Not everyone dies from one hit kills with any weapons.  Some linger for hours, days or weeks.  Gut shot with a rifle, crushed under debris for a few days,  90% body burned but still on life support, etc.  War is not clean or pleasant by any means.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
Posted (edited)

It really sucks but the purpose of war is to win. To destroy your enemy to the point where they won't be able to attack you again for a long time. It's not nice, it's not pretty, nor is it fair. If it was it would always end in a draw. War can be an instrument of peace or evil. The character of the key players is what decides what weapons are used and how they are deployed. The use of chemical weapons illustrates this. The fact that Trump and a few allies launched missiles against Assad is laudable but was ultimately a waste of money and time as they accomplished very little. In fact, both times missiles were launched in retaliation for using chemical weapons against Assad's regime he was forewarned and very little damage to to his chemical manufacturing infrastructure was done. Here's the latest report on on the latest strikes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-intelligence-trump-syria-strike-failed-2018-4?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If any Damage had been done the Israeli's would have been the first to celebrate it. They hate Syria with a passion. 

You be the judge,

Hank

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
23 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Trump used tear gas against civilians during his inauguration 2017. 

Please explain what you mean by that. Antifa committed scores of crimes on Inauguration Day. There were acts of arson and vandalism, and there also were acts of assault. Some police used tear gas against violent people who threatened others, so your post was inaccurate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
22 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Please explain what you mean by that. Antifa committed scores of crimes on Inauguration Day. There were acts of arson and vandalism, and there also were acts of assault. Some police used tear gas against violent people who threatened others, so your post was inaccurate.

well it was meant as a little bit of fun cause i know what a super republican aztec is. having said that... if you wanted to draw a comparison between Syria and Trump's inauguration violence then 

Assad could also argue that tear gassed is banned in warfare so America is committing a war crime. by using it on protestors. of course the example is far fetched but still technically relevant. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/14/tear-gas-is-a-chemical-weapon-banned-in-war-but-ferguson-police-shoot-it-at-protesters/?utm_term=.91bb87f334bf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

well it was meant as a little bit of fun cause i know what a super republican aztec is. having said that... if you wanted to draw a comparison between Syria and Trump's inauguration violence then 

Assad could also argue that tear gassed is banned in warfare so America is committing a war crime. by using it on protestors. of course the example is far fetched but still technically relevant. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/14/tear-gas-is-a-chemical-weapon-banned-in-war-but-ferguson-police-shoot-it-at-protesters/?utm_term=.91bb87f334bf

Waco comes to mind too. I won't argue that such things aren't replete with double standard and hypocrisy. I think that we should just stay out of sovereign states' business. Not much good comes from interference.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

What's the deal with CS gas?  Every year, we had to go through the gas chamber so that we could spend the rest of the day discharging mucus.  Good times.

The deal with war is that it isn't peace.  The purpose is to destroy your enemy as quickly as possible and make it distasteful to him from trying it again.  In war, anything goes.  Only the victor will determine what were crimes or not.  Many times the victor will ignore their own atrocities and condemn the same from the vanquished.  Banning certain kinds of weapons usually happens by consensus on the battlefield.  As long as both sides don't cross the line then things are fine and the ban lasts only as long as both sides don't violate it.  You can't legislate war.  Don't try.  There is no fair play in war.  You hit when they aren't looking.  You kick them when they are down.  You use every dirty trick in the book you can.  You want it to end as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Man as ever is mankind's own worse enemy ...

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.