Who commit the Worst War Crime of ALL - Page 6




 
--
 
December 30th, 2005  
sunb!
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Gunpowder is made of chemicals, does that make every round ever fired by a firearm a chemical weapon?
Depends on your approach on the question, Damien. I say no, it is not a chemical weapon. See Bulldoggs reply to my post for further info.
December 30th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Yeah, uh your fecal matter is created through chemical processes, every time you use the restroom are you creating a chemical weapon?

This is stupid.

We all know what chemical weapons are, there isn't any ambiguity there. Sarin, Mustard Gas, and VX are all chemical weapons. White Phosporus, Gunpowder, and poop are not.
January 3rd, 2006  
AlexKall
 
Hitler and Stalins acts
--
January 3rd, 2006  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Nazis have that one all locked up.

Whether you look at it form numbers, or intent, or crazy sh*t (their science experiments) it doesn't matter. Nazis sweep all catagories.
Very true. I've heard some bad stuff.
January 6th, 2006  
Dean
 
 
OK, once again, my 2 cents worth...

A chemical weapon is one that kills when the body reacts to a chemical in such a way that it impedes the functioning of the human body. For example, nerve gas impedes the functioning of the central nervous system, leading to death by respiratory and heart failure. Mustard gas kills by causing intense irritation of the lungs, damaging them so much that they are unable to work, suffocating the victim. They are also area dispersal weapons in that they can be spread over an area and can remain lethal for a long period of time. But the method of killing remains the same. It is the chemical itself that kills.

A gun is not a chemical weapon. The chemical reaction drives a projectile and it is the projectile that kills, not the chemical reaction. Likewise with bombs, the explosion is caused by a chemical reaction, but it is not the reaction that kills, but rather shrapnel or the shock wave. In addition guns, bombs and white phosporous they are not area weapons, and can be very precisely controlled. In each of these cases, it is the projectile, the shock wave or heat that kills, thus none of them are chemical weapons.

Now, I may be headed off on a tangent here, but, now I'm going to get on a pulpit for a few minutes. This is, I believe, one of the most interesting discussions going on at the moment on this site. However, it is being badly affected by a number of people who are making statements that are frivolous and without merit. There is a case for those who say that the US is guilty of crimes against humanity in Iraq, but those alleged crimes have NOTHING to do with the weapons used, how they were used, or who the targets were. Before you decide to take a position, please ensure that you know the following:
1. What a war crime is,
2. What a crime against humanity is,
3. Have enough of a grasp of history that you can understand the posts of others before you start talking about other, less important incidents.

War crimes and crimes against humanity are subjects that I believe should be discussed at length and well understood by everybody, as only then can we begin to avoid them. But when people start saying that a soldier is guilty of a war crime simply because he or she has used their rifle, all you are doing is trivializing a hugely important subject.

Thank you, I will now get off my pulpit and go away.

Dean.
January 14th, 2006  
JulesLee
 
 
Id have to say the Japanese during and before WW2 when they took over most of asia..

many cruel tests.. like running a human over a car and test how much he will live or drop chemicals down a person's (insert whatever you want here) and see them dying slowly and painfully and opening a person up and getting live organs out to see and test while the person dies of extreme pain....
January 22nd, 2006  
LeEnfield
 
 
I think the title could go to Nobel, you invented much of the explosives used in munitions during WW1. He made so much money out of the war he introduced the Nobel Peace Award.
January 22nd, 2006  
Dean
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield 2
I think the title could go to Nobel, you invented much of the explosives used in munitions during WW1. He made so much money out of the war he introduced the Nobel Peace Award.
Actually that is not quite true. Nobel invented dynamite, which was needed as the only explosive in common use up to that time was nitoglygerine. As you probably know, nitro is very highly unstable and can explode if shaken. At that time explosives were in common use on construction sites, and remember that this was one of the golden ages of construction. The use of nitro in construction caused many deaths, and Nobel thought that by inventing a stable explosive, he could save lives. He became very embittered when his invention was used as a weapon, and it was out of this bitterness that he left the legacy of the Nobel prizes. AFAIK, he did not do any more work on explosives afterwards.

Dean.
January 29th, 2006  
LeEnfield
 
 
Rome during the time of the Roman Empire....
February 1st, 2006  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Yeah, uh your fecal matter is created through chemical processes, every time you use the restroom are you creating a chemical weapon?
After going into the restroom soon after my eldest son had used it, I think you can