Methodists

We do not get the hysteria attached to chemical weapons. Killing is right or it's wrong; the method should make no difference. How many Syrians are dead of explosive-powered projectiles as opposed to gas attacks? Yet someone lets out the gas and shitfits are thrown.

Gas was once considered a humane way of killing those the state disliked, right here in the State of California. Why the change in attitude? (Ironic news flash: Weapons that use explosives are just as "chemical" as any poison gas.) We'd as soon go quickly in a gas attack as be fatally wounded by a projectile or collapsing building & suffer for hrs. before the sweet relief of non-existence. SO WHAT'S THE BIG FUCKING DEAL? Why is sarin or whatever such a "red line?" Was there no red line when the body count hit 60,000?

Gas all the hypocrites, from the Prez on down.

There was a time when such determinations appeared to hold geopolitical significance. The Obama administration repeatedly called the use of chemical weapons a “red line.” But that line has now been crossed repeatedly, with little consequence. And that’s led U.S. intelligence officials to confront another question: How massive would the chemical strike have to be in order to prompt America and its allies to intervene in Syria in a major way?

“As long as they keep body count at a certain level, we won’t do anything,” an American intelligence official admits.

No better than Assad, any of them.