EVIL WORDS

[Svengoolie 3]

So you admit that your original post where you used a quote from Churchill out of context is not a valid argument.

And if you are seriously telling us all that you are dumb enough to believe that having a non-lethal incapacitating agent dropped on you is the good option compared to a high explosive shell then there really is no hope for you. Believe me I'll take exposure to CS gas every time over being present when someone drops a thousand pound bomb on you.

No I don't.  His argument that the weapons we're so horrifying in effect they wild force the enemy to sure der completely wipes out anything else he said about them not being so bad.

[Alex]

No he is saying if he has to use force, he would rather use non-lethal force, poison gases that would not kill people rather than killing him.

And you may not realise that you admitted your argument was wrong the second you brought up using stuff out of context but you did. Just because you can't figure that out or understand it doesn't change that. You said using something out of context isn't an argument. You used something out of context, ergo by your own rules you have no argument. Simple. Especially since what I used was actually putting everything in the context you had left out.

I can also give you at least one real-world situation where the use of such weapons was good, and I am willing to bet that without any research time I can come up with plenty more.

Lets see, use of tear gas to disable terrorists/hostile militaries/kidnappers to allow special forces to rescue hostages would be one. Churchill's use of it during WW2 to pacify Arab tribes when the pro-German government in what is now Iran wanted to supply the Axis with oil. By using it there he minimised casualties not only in that theatre of conflict but in the wider war by preventing essential supplies reaching the Axis (and lack of oil was a major problem for them). I could go on with plenty of other examples. Indeed the part of his quote you used I think might even have been in regards to this exact conflict. I have a vague memory of that, but I'd have to check it to be sure. I could type more but I am on my lunch break right now.

Either way I would say it was a damn good use of poison gas. Of course because it doesn't fit with your narritive of how you want the world to be.

But then again, since you never bother to check your 'facts' (as evidenced by the number of times you need to be corrected) why should I put in the effort?

Since this thread is about evil words, let me give you one quote that does match that, and point out the problem with trying to take the moral stance.

Also,  I've  got a little list...

You better make sure you are whiter than white before trying to take the moral high ground, and after all you are the guy who has told us on so many occasions about the people he'd like to kill. If you are going to post that stuff up and then complain about someone else using weapons that do not kill someone, well the word for that is hypocrite.

[316zombie]

and i'll add to alex's comments. my bestie is alive because his unit was gassed in kuwait. my" other husband's" daughter's best friend is dead because her unit was bombed in afganistan .
  if YOU were in either place, sven, which fate would YOU choose? and please correct your speech to text , half of what you think you said is nonsense. you read like you're either drunker than a lord or on something VERY nasty. and last but not least, do your research FIRST. THEN post. you've been a biotch since you got here, grow the hell up before everyone on this board shuns you completely. if you want to tangle with the big boys on an unmoderated forum, i say again that i'll give you a link to the roundup. they'll eat you alive, unlike the actual GOOD  christians here, like indy, AND the agnostics,atheists and pagans. you want to be a dick, do it somewhere else. PLEASE. 

[Svengoolie 3]

and i'll add to alex's comments. my bestie is alive because his unit was gassed in kuwait. my" other husband's" daughter's best friend is dead because her unit was bombed in afganistan .
  if YOU were in either place, sven, which fate would YOU choose? and please correct your speech to text , half of what you think you said is nonsense. you read like you're either drunker than a lord or on something VERY nasty. and last but not least, do your research FIRST. THEN post. you've been a biotch since you got here, grow the hell up before everyone on this board shuns you completely. if you want to tangle with the big boys on an unmoderated forum, i say again that i'll give you a link to the roundup. they'll eat you alive, unlike the actual GOOD  christians here, like indy, AND the agnostics,atheists and pagans. you want to be a dick, do it somewhere else. PLEASE. 

Arf! Arf! Arf!

[Allhallowsday]

Arf! Arf! Arf!

The title of this thread...

[Svengoolie 3]

If poison gas weapons are not regarded as perhaps the most heinous form of warfare and nearly universally loathed and feared,  explain why when the west wanted to generate anti russian sentiments towards their invasion of afghanistan they spread lies claiming the Soviets we're using poison gas on afghan rebels?

Why was Saddam Hussein globally reviled over reports he used poison gas on the Kurds?

Why,  after nearly a decade in which hundreds of thousands of Syrians we're killed by bullets,  bombs,  artillery,  tanks,  planets and other conventional modes of warfare and all the world did was complain about refugees fleeing Syria when a few score at more civillians were  killed by poison gas weapons everybody lost their minds? Something like over a quarter million Syrians are killed by normal weapons and he world doesn't care.  A few dozen are killed by poison gas and Syria becomes a parish state.

Face it,  no one on earth is more despised than those that use poison gas,  it's just something the average human generally finds horrific and vile. The evidence shows that the quickest way to generate hate towards a state is to claim they used poison gas weapons. That's been dine time and time again. Hell,  not long ago there was an attempt to smear america by claiming that we used nerve gas in Vietnam in "operation tailwind" that was rapidly discredited.

[Alex]

If poison gas weapons are not regarded as perhaps the most heinous form of warfare and nearly universally loathed and feared,  explain why when the west wanted to generate anti russian sentiments towards their invasion of afghanistan they spread lies claiming the Soviets we're using poison gas on afghan rebels?

Why was Saddam Hussein globally reviled over reports he used poison gas on the Kurds?

Why,  after nearly a decade in which hundreds of thousands of Syrians we're killed by bullets,  bombs,  artillery,  tanks,  planets and other conventional modes of warfare and all the world did was complain about refugees fleeing Syria when a few score at more civillians were  killed by poison gas weapons everybody lost their minds? Something like over a quarter million Syrians are killed by normal weapons and he world doesn't care.  A few dozen are killed by poison gas and Syria becomes a parish state.

Face it,  no one on earth is more despised than those that use poison gas,  it's just something the average human generally finds horrific and vile. The evidence shows that the quickest way to generate hate towards a state is to claim they used poison gas weapons. That's been dine time and time again. Hell,  not long ago there was an attempt to smear america by claiming that we used nerve gas in Vietnam in "operation tailwind" that was rapidly discredited.

Do you not understand the huge difference between using chemical weapons that KILL people and ones that just temporarily INCAPACITATE people. Because you really come off as being incapable of realising the huge gulf between these two different things. For a man who claims to be eligible to join Mensa I find that curious. Ever been exposed to tear gas? I have on more occasions that I can count as is everyone else in my job. Indeed may I just point out that everyone in NATO gets exposed regularly to this form of poison gas. Most people will tell you it is the most unpleasant physical experience they have ever gone through. Ever been exposed to being bombed? Most people aren't able to tell you what that experience is like simply because you don't survive that. Tear gas is what you would call a poison gas. It is used by police forces all over the world and yet I think you'll find that is accepted and not

nearly universally loathed and feared

. Other governments do not impose sanctions or invade because this poison gas is used.

But then I can hardly expect someone with an intellect that can't tell the difference between something like CS gas and Mustard gas to really be able to understand any of this. Hell even with a built-in spell check on this site, you can barely make a coherent post.

I also think you'll find the biological weapons are more reviled than chemical ones. Even regimes that use poison gases will hold off from using them.

So I guess you are completely wrong about poison gases being so loathed (and the current term for them is chemical weapons).

Oh and if you've ever used a fly spray or a pepper spray then you've used these weapons yourself. I don't see any worldwide outcries about women preventing themselves from being raped using them.

[316zombie]

and i'll add to alex's comments. my bestie is alive because his unit was gassed in kuwait. my" other husband's" daughter's best friend is dead because her unit was bombed in afganistan .
  if YOU were in either place, sven, which fate would YOU choose? and please correct your speech to text , half of what you think you said is nonsense. you read like you're either drunker than a lord or on something VERY nasty. and last but not least, do your research FIRST. THEN post. you've been a biotch since you got here, grow the hell up before everyone on this board shuns you completely. if you want to tangle with the big boys on an unmoderated forum, i say again that i'll give you a link to the roundup. they'll eat you alive, unlike the actual GOOD  christians here, like indy, AND the agnostics,atheists and pagans. you want to be a dick, do it somewhere else. PLEASE. 

Arf! Arf! Arf!

   


answer the question, child. or STFU while you still have a place here.

[frank]

To get back to (almost) the beginning of this thread:

Götterdämmerung is originally the German translation of Ragnarök, basically relating to the end of the gods, and subsequently the earth, in Norse mythology.
Technically, no wars needed for that.

[Svengoolie 3]

If poison gas weapons are not regarded as perhaps the most heinous form of warfare and nearly universally loathed and feared,  explain why when the west wanted to generate anti russian sentiments towards their invasion of afghanistan they spread lies claiming the Soviets we're using poison gas on afghan rebels?

Why was Saddam Hussein globally reviled over reports he used poison gas on the Kurds?

Why,  after nearly a decade in which hundreds of thousands of Syrians we're killed by bullets,  bombs,  artillery,  tanks,  planets and other conventional modes of warfare and all the world did was complain about refugees fleeing Syria when a few score at more civillians were  killed by poison gas weapons everybody lost their minds? Something like over a quarter million Syrians are killed by normal weapons and he world doesn't care.  A few dozen are killed by poison gas and Syria becomes a parish state.

Face it,  no one on earth is more despised than those that use poison gas,  it's just something the average human generally finds horrific and vile. The evidence shows that the quickest way to generate hate towards a state is to claim they used poison gas weapons. That's been dine time and time again. Hell,  not long ago there was an attempt to smear america by claiming that we used nerve gas in Vietnam in "operation tailwind" that was rapidly discredited.

Do you not understand the huge difference between using chemical weapons that KILL people and ones that just temporarily INCAPACITATE people. Because you really come off as being incapable of realising the huge gulf between these two different things. For a man who claims to be eligible to join Mensa I find that curious. Ever been exposed to tear gas? I have on more occasions that I can count as is everyone else in my job. Indeed may I just point out that everyone in NATO gets exposed regularly to this form of poison gas. Most people will tell you it is the most unpleasant physical experience they have ever gone through. Ever been exposed to being bombed? Most people aren't able to tell you what that experience is like simply because you don't survive that. Tear gas is what you would call a poison gas. It is used by police forces all over the world and yet I think you'll find that is accepted and not

nearly universally loathed and feared

. Other governments do not impose sanctions or invade because this poison gas is used.

But then I can hardly expect someone with an intellect that can't tell the difference between something like CS gas and Mustard gas to really be able to understand any of this. Hell even with a built-in spell check on this site, you can barely make a coherent post.

I also think you'll find the biological weapons are more reviled than chemical ones. Even regimes that use poison gases will hold off from using them.

So I guess you are completely wrong about poison gases being so loathed (and the current term for them is chemical weapons).

Oh and if you've ever used a fly spray or a pepper spray then you've used these weapons yourself. I don't see any worldwide outcries about women preventing themselves from being raped using them.

You..... just.... compared.... Pepperspray.... to... Poisonous.... Gas..... Weapons..... Like... Chlorine.... Sarin.... Mustard gas...???



AAAUUUUGGGGH!!!!!!!  THE STUPIDITY!!!!!  IT HURTS!!!!! AAAAAAGGGGG!!!! THE PAIN!   SUCH AGONIZING IDIOCY!!! !!

[Alex]

If poison gas weapons are not regarded as perhaps the most heinous form of warfare and nearly universally loathed and feared,  explain why when the west wanted to generate anti russian sentiments towards their invasion of afghanistan they spread lies claiming the Soviets we're using poison gas on afghan rebels?

Why was Saddam Hussein globally reviled over reports he used poison gas on the Kurds?

Why,  after nearly a decade in which hundreds of thousands of Syrians we're killed by bullets,  bombs,  artillery,  tanks,  planets and other conventional modes of warfare and all the world did was complain about refugees fleeing Syria when a few score at more civillians were  killed by poison gas weapons everybody lost their minds? Something like over a quarter million Syrians are killed by normal weapons and he world doesn't care.  A few dozen are killed by poison gas and Syria becomes a parish state.

Face it,  no one on earth is more despised than those that use poison gas,  it's just something the average human generally finds horrific and vile. The evidence shows that the quickest way to generate hate towards a state is to claim they used poison gas weapons. That's been dine time and time again. Hell,  not long ago there was an attempt to smear america by claiming that we used nerve gas in Vietnam in "operation tailwind" that was rapidly discredited.

Do you not understand the huge difference between using chemical weapons that KILL people and ones that just temporarily INCAPACITATE people. Because you really come off as being incapable of realising the huge gulf between these two different things. For a man who claims to be eligible to join Mensa I find that curious. Ever been exposed to tear gas? I have on more occasions that I can count as is everyone else in my job. Indeed may I just point out that everyone in NATO gets exposed regularly to this form of poison gas. Most people will tell you it is the most unpleasant physical experience they have ever gone through. Ever been exposed to being bombed? Most people aren't able to tell you what that experience is like simply because you don't survive that. Tear gas is what you would call a poison gas. It is used by police forces all over the world and yet I think you'll find that is accepted and not

nearly universally loathed and feared

. Other governments do not impose sanctions or invade because this poison gas is used.

But then I can hardly expect someone with an intellect that can't tell the difference between something like CS gas and Mustard gas to really be able to understand any of this. Hell even with a built-in spell check on this site, you can barely make a coherent post.

I also think you'll find the biological weapons are more reviled than chemical ones. Even regimes that use poison gases will hold off from using them.

So I guess you are completely wrong about poison gases being so loathed (and the current term for them is chemical weapons).

Oh and if you've ever used a fly spray or a pepper spray then you've used these weapons yourself. I don't see any worldwide outcries about women preventing themselves from being raped using them.

You..... just.... compared.... Pepperspray.... to... Poisonous.... Gas..... Weapons..... Like... Chlorine.... Sarin.... Mustard gas...???



AAAUUUUGGGGH!!!!!!!  THE STUPIDITY!!!!!  IT HURTS!!!!! AAAAAAGGGGG!!!! THE PAIN!   SUCH AGONIZING IDIOCY!!! !!

Yes, your idiocy does hurt that much. I am glad you finally see that. And yes, believe it or not Pepper spray is a poisonous gas weapon just like those other things. The only difference is the strength. Which brings us back to Churchill. The stuff he was talking about using was along the lines of Pepper Spray, not Chlorine, not Sarin, not Mustard gas.

Are we getting through your incredibly thick skull yet?

[Rev. Powell]

Aimed at all parties: enough with the personal insults. How ironic, in a thread about evil words. 

Rule #1:  Common Courtesy
Please be polite when posting... Flame wars are useless, so rude and insulting behavior is not tolerated.

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,113524.0.html

[316zombie]

then put a stop to the bait threads, please. AND the religious bashing. 

[Svengoolie 3]

Aimed at all parties: enough with the personal insults. How ironic, in a thread about evil words. 

Rule #1:  Common Courtesy
Please be polite when posting... Flame wars are useless, so rude and insulting behavior is not tolerated.

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,113524.0.html

So could people please not do really offensive things like compare pepersoray to poison gas? That's insulting to any firm of intelligence.

[Alex]

Aimed at all parties: enough with the personal insults. How ironic, in a thread about evil words.  

Rule #1:  Common Courtesy
Please be polite when posting... Flame wars are useless, so rude and insulting behavior is not tolerated.

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,113524.0.html

So could people please not do really offensive things like compare pepersoray to poison gas? That's insulting to any firm of intelligence.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but this is actually what you have been doing this entire debate. Comparing something comparatively harmless to something deadly. I deliberately decided to use your own style of comparison there. They are both chemical weapons. If you were hit by a concentrated enough dose of pepper spray you might be surprised on just how much damage it will do to you. Notwithstanding this however, in the same way, a common cold is a virus and yet much less deadly to us than say the Ebola virus. Churchill was talking about using non-lethal agents, something you've been at such great pains to declare such a terrible thing, pepper spray is similiarly a non-lethal chemical weapon, and thus by your own statement earlier,

Alex,  there is no context  that makes using poison gas in warfare or anywhere else alright.

Exposure causes a burning sensation and tearing of the eyes to the extent that the subject cannot keep his or her eyes open, and a burning irritation of the mucous membranes of the nose, mouth and throat, resulting in profuse coughing, nasal mucus discharge

The effects of... are far more severe, including temporary blindness which lasts from 15–30 minutes, a burning sensation of the skin which lasts from 45 to 60 minutes, upper body spasms which force a person to bend forward and uncontrollable coughing... causes blistering, mutagenic effects, carcinogenic effects, sensitization, cardiovascular and pulmonary toxicity, neurotoxicity, as well as possible human fatalities. There is a risk in using this product on a large and varied population

One of the quotes above is on the effects of pepper spray, the other is on a different type of chemical weapon. Can you tell which one is which? You might not recognise it as such a weapon, but that's the thing about science. It is right wither you care to believe in it or not.

So other than you find it offensive, can you actually post up a logical counter argument? One that uses facts rather than just your personal opinion?

Just in case you didn't work it out, the second quote is the one on Pepper Spray.

And just one final quote to finish on. Bear in mind that this is only deaths from police use, not from other people who have used it additionally.

the Los Angeles Times reported at least 61 deaths associated with police use of pepper spray since 1990 in the USA