From reading a few of his earlier posts it seemed like to me he was justifying chemical weapons because of the use of conventional weapons.
But conventional weapons are not going to go away, at least not til the inhabitants of this planet decide to just nuke it back to the stoneage.
Trying to say the use chemical weapons is no worse than the use of conventional weapons isn't valid. So lets just validate nukes now too.
Unless you are trying to say chemical weapons were not used in this incident and the powers to be just embellished it so they could invade.
I don't think the treaties that were made after WW1 over the use of chemical weapons and there ban were agreed to for no reason.
hey sixthumbs i'll play xant defense force with you right quick. i'm pretty sure something similar to "what does a dead man care about his method of death?" is germane here.
besides, chemical weapons are not prohibited by international treaty solely because the death itself is horrifying, painful, brutal, or anything else like that. a larger part of it is the environmental impact. bit difficult to obtain proper statistics, but Agent Orange use in Vietnam (hurrrr its JUST a defoliant and its fiiiiine, how else we gonna get fire-lanes set up in the jungle??) has promoted a large increase in birth defects, cancers, miscarriage, et cetera. even if not using something thats gonna have an impact that far down the road, bio-chem weapons aren't exactly "precision"
of course, not that strikes termed "precision strikes" are very precise either but that probably has much more to do with shit-tier intel sourced from unvetted local tribal fucksticks.
your comment about nukes is silly; even compared to Sarin or hyper-botulism or whatever in Christ's name humans have cooked up that ain't straight up Captain Trips nuclear exchange is pretty much the worst thing for the whole world that can happen.
anyway HEY IS ___ ALLOWED TO GAS PEOPLE? WHOS GONNA STOP HIM? ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO *NOTHING*? is not important frankly
