Forces loyal to President Assad have been accused of using chemical weapons against civilians and opposition forces
This has been condemned by David Cameron and Barack Obama as a heinous crime that we have a moral duty to punish by launching military strikes against targets in Syria
But is it?
Dead is dead !
What difference does it make how people are killed?
Is there a ‘good’ – morally defensible – way to kill innocent civilians?
American drone missiles are . . . killing innocent civilians in Pakistan – ‘collateral damage’ in the ‘war against terrorism’
Cameron and Obama seem O.K. with that
So why get all morally indignant over the possible employment of chemical weapons in Syria ?
If that is so morally wrong – a crime against humanity – what was . . .
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The use of Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam
The use of phosphorous bombs in Korea, the Falklands War, Iraq - http://tinyurl.com/2d99w47
The turning of a blind eye/colluding when Sadam Hussein used chemical weapons against his enemies because those enemies were also the enemies of the USA - http://tinyurl.com/nkx4tgc
It is a bit ‘rich’, the leaders of nations with the history of the UK and USA, lecturing anyone on the right and wrong way to kill people!
A naive person like myself might be forgiven for thinking that the use of chemical weapons is only morally wrong when nations other than the USA and the UK use them !