I don't, do you think its okay to fund terrorist that you are fighting at the same time?
he wants to answer No but he just cant
Some are claiming it might not have been a chemical weapon but an "industrial intoxicant"... Either way with "rebels" sorry, I mean jihadists caught with sarin in turkey they might have had to change it up as not to seem too obvious...
thermobaric rounds or air burst rounds will cause asphyxiation, that's if you survive the initial explosion...
Not just them, our guys are fighting these jihadist mofos around the world and when you look at Australia's KIAs, we've lost people from our top tier units, whose numbers to begin with, hover in only the hundreds... It takes an average of 3 years and $2million to train a trooper up to a beret qualified operator...
I think it is pretty crazy that we arm anyone involved in a civil war.
yepp, they sure did.*
you're SOOOOOO special.
wow, even sharing privileged thuper thpecial authie intelligenthe on the interwebz.
never said he was, dipshit. you reading compensation has failed you.
you're thooooo thpecial.
my apologies for not humoring your stupid questions.
Don't try this at home. Seriously. These are what ya call, Experts. This is very serious. And if you need Mosanto and the USA to be the Devil.....whatever....these are experts.
Don't try this at home. Seriously. These are what ya call, Experts. This is very serious. And if you need Mosanto and the USA to be the Devil.....whatever....these are experts.
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule74
Rule 74. Chemical Weapons
Rule 74. The use of chemical weapons is prohibited.
Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
International armed conflicts
The use of chemical weapons is prohibited in international armed conflicts in a series of treaties, including the Hague Declaration concerning Asphyxiating Gases, the Geneva Gas Protocol, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Statute of the International Criminal Court.[1] At present, only 13 States are not party to either the Geneva Gas Protocol or the Chemical Weapons Convention.[2] Of these, at least three have made statements to the effect that the use of chemical weapons is unlawful, or have indicated that they do not possess or use them or that they are committed to their elimination.[3] The prohibition is also contained in a number of other instruments.[4]
Main article: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
The convention is administered by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which acts as the legal platform for specification of the CWC provisions (the Conference of State Parties is mandated to change the CWC, pass regulations on implementation of CWC requirements etc.). The organisations furthermore conducts inspections at military and industrial plants to ensure compliance of member states.
Key points of the Convention
Member states
- Prohibition of production and use of chemical weapons
- Destruction (or monitored conversion to other functions) of chemical weapons production facilities
- Destruction of all chemical weapons (including chemical weapons abandoned outside the state parties territory)
- Assistance between State Parties and the OPCW in the case of use of chemical weapons
- An OPCW inspection regime for the production of chemicals which might be converted to chemical weapons
- International cooperation in the peaceful use of chemistry in relevant areas
Participation in the Chemical Weapons Convention Signed and ratified
Acceded
Signed but not ratified
Non-signatory
Main article: List of parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention
Almost all countries in the world have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. Currently 189 of the 196 states recognized by the United Nations are party to the CWC.[SUP][1][/SUP] Of the seven states that are not, two have signed but not yet ratified the treaty (Burma and Israel) and five states have not signed the treaty (Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria).
You are a barrel of laughs, stop reading all that think progress garbage, it only serves to highlight your "limited means"
I was deployed to a warzone, what's your excuse... Marriage?
So you're saying you support terrorists? Thought so...
And I corrected you, Mohammed Badie is the MB president...
I'm special enough to know KFC does not equal "racial resentment" as one bigoted member put it... it's a nickname for KSM...
Al Qaeda militants flee Iraq jail in violent mass break-out
lol, the war monger has PTSD.
and morsi was the muslim brotherhood candidate who became president until the egyptian military, who had been infiltrated for decades by morsi's muslim brotherhood allies, ousted him then slaughtered thousands of his supporters.
Oh, why would they do that? I thought they would be going to Ohio, to vote.
The opinion is firming up over here. There is a telephone intercept of someone higher up chewing out some Minister or Commander about it, they say.
Is that what you deduced from my post? LOL cool story bro... What's up with "thuper thpecial"? did your teefs grow buck again?
Obviously Egypt and Libya wasn't enough for your elected terrorist in chief - look what popped up after NATO's campaign ended after the fall of Gaddafi;
So Obama providing material support to terrorists is a source of amusement for you? It wouldn't surprise me one bit to learn the following picture is taped up next to fins sister;
they had a hankering for some "freedom fries" on the way to vote in ohio...
With over 43K posts under his belt I think we all know that Buck is always upset...
