Come on Steve, if Trump actually used one you know what the reaction would be a rightly so

There's been a lot of noise about Syria, just not always in the MSM.
Yes the MSM tends to pick up more when chemicals are expected, but there is still plenty of outrage around about the conventional weapons. The White Helmets do a good job of keeping the misery and impact of the conflict visible.

Chemical will always attract more coverage as they kill more people in a single attack than conventional weapons do.
You won't find an incident where a single plane causes anything like these amounts of casualties with 'conventional' weapons, and that is the difference.

They are utterly indiscriminate by design, they cannot be contained or controlled. With conventional weapons there is a least the pretence of being able to 'limit' the effects on civilians, or certain groups of civilians.

Clearly Assad is really fussed who he kills, or by what means, but using a weapon that negates what little precautions these people can take to protect themselves is worse.
None of it should be happening, AT ALL, but even in something as terrible as this there are still lines and levels of escalation.

Its like comparing a red card for handball on the line to Muscat's assault on Bellamy. Neither should happen within the laws of the game but one is clearly worse. (This is intended to be a lighthearted end to a lengthy post and not a genuine comparison in case that isn't clear. Obvs there is no actual comparison).

Posted By: megson, Apr 11, 15:12:23