221
Russia accused of using chemical gas attacks against Ukrainian soldiers
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
221 points (98.3% liked)
News
23296 readers
1213 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The Geneva convention doesn't apply to your own citizens, just to war. The US made sure they had that exception in hand
When they formally banned tear gasses (including this specific one) in 1993, since the Geneva convention only had a loose definition, the US again reserved an exception for domestic use.
So yes. The US has promised they wouldn't use tear gas against any other country because that's inhumane and too horrible, regardless of the reason for war. But it's fine if they use it on protestors. That's totally fine, they shouldn't have gotten too rowdy.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/us/military-tear-gas-protesters-trnd/index.html
Ok, I’m not a bootlicker at all, but I definitely want to clear things up here. CS is banned for use in wartime between nations because deploying it runs the very real risk of escalation, especially if the belligerents both have access to not only CS but VX nerve agents. In the fog of war a unit hit with CS might hop on the radio and squawk out that they’re being gassed. The individuals within the unit aren’t going to know what they’re being gassed with, they’re just screaming “GAS GAS GAS!” and hurriedly donning MOPP suits. If you think your troops just got gassed with Vx, you very well might decide to utilize your own Vx reserves, which would then cause the other belligerent to break out their Vx reserves, and next thing you know you’ve got another Ypres on your hands.
This is basically what happened during WW1 by the way. The Allies were actually the first to use chemical weapons, and they used tear-inducing irritants. Proliferation happened, so it went from tear gas in 1914, to chlorine and phosgene in 1915, to mustard gas in 1917. Additionally, usage of gas became a standard part of a pre-attack artillery barrage.
Do I think cops should be using CS against peaceful demonstrations? No, of course not. I also recognize that CS gas is not really “inhumane and too horrible” in the grand scheme of things, and it’s ban from military use has nothing to do with its actual effects on people and everything to do with the horrifying potential for escalation its use creates. Don’t hit me with “well you’ve never experienced CS either, I’ve qualled annually in the CS chamber, doing jumping jacks and push-ups to keep me from holding my breath while an NBC weirdo lights up a CS candle and jerks it under his MOPP suit. I’ve also been tear gassed by cops during peaceful protests.
Well I didn't know that. Good information.
You’re welcome. The cops do enough shit for us to hate them for, we don’t need to mistakenly spread stuff that can get debunked and be used to undermine our real grievances.