Yes, it was. Doesn't matter who you are, or who they are, it's not right. The people defending the use of chemical weapons because "they were attacked" haven't considered history or precedent.
In 2002, a 15-year-old kid ALLEGEDLY - it was never proven - tossed a grenade over a wall and killed an Army medic in Afghanistan. So, the kid was locked away and tortured in gitmo as a "war criminal" (for killing a medic) for 10 years.
Where does the direct use of chemical weapons fall on the "sent to gitmo" scale?
There's a video on that thread showing one being dropped on a couple of soldiers... Who then proceed to almost instantly have seizures.
Looks like sarin to me but I'm no CBRN expert.
Can anyone accurately translate what's being said?
Yes, it was. Doesn't matter who you are, or who they are, it's not right. The people defending the use of chemical weapons because "they were attacked" haven't considered history or precedent.
In 2002, a 15-year-old kid ALLEGEDLY - it was never proven - tossed a grenade over a wall and killed an Army medic in Afghanistan. So, the kid was locked away and tortured in gitmo as a "war criminal" (for killing a medic) for 10 years.
Where does the direct use of chemical weapons fall on the "sent to gitmo" scale?