The article betrays an ignorance of what constitutes a chemical attack and international law.
Depleted uranium, white phosphorus, and tear gas (seriously?) are all legal materials and can be used in battle, and the cases mentioned are at most a grey area, if not completely fine. Even Napalm is technically legal to be used in battle, though not against civilians. Sarin nerve gas is 100% illegal, on the other hand. It is in a category of chemical weapons which have been banned in battle, and the production and stockpiling of it was banned in the 90s, so it is illegal for a country to even possess it. There is no comparison between the use of those substances and what Syria is accused of under international law.
Also, nuclear weapons are not classified as chemical weapons, so as horrible as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they have no place on a list of 'chemical weapons attacks.' Napalm is also considered conventional, not chemical.
It should be 'the 3-4 chemical materials uses the US doesn't want you to know about.' Those specific incidents are horrible and reflect horribly on the US, but the article has such a blatant agenda and gets more than half of its supposed chemical attacks wrong that it cannot be taken seriously.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
