Having destroyed the ancient archaeological sites of Hatra and Nimrud, DAESH(ISIS) are now descendin - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/08/isis-attacks-khorsabad_n_6826042.html"][QUOTE]BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's government is investigating reports that the ancient archaeological site of Khorsabad in northern Iraq is the latest to be attacked by the Islamic State militant group.Adel Shirshab, the country's tourism and antiquities minister, told The Associated Press there are concerns the militants will remove artifacts and damage the site, located 15 kilometers (9 miles) northeast of Mosul. Saeed Mamuzini, a Kurdish official from Mosul, told the AP that the militants had already begun demolishing the Khorsabad site on Sunday, citing multiple witnesses. On Friday, the group razed 3,000-year old Nimrod and on Saturday, they bulldozed 2,000-year old Hatra — both UNESCO world heritage sites. The move was described by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon as a "war crime." Khorsabad was constructed as a new capital of Assyria by King Sargon II shortly after he came to power in 721 B.C. and abandoned after his death in 705 B.C. It features a 24-meter thick wall with a stone foundation and seven gates. Since it was a single-era capital, few objects linked to Sargon II himself were found. However, the site is renowned for shedding light on Assyrian art and architecture. The sculptured stone slabs that once lined the palace walls are now displayed in museums in Baghdad, Paris, London and Chicago.[/QUOTE] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6826042.html[/URL]

savages

As much as some people will hate it, maybe it's time we turned to chemical weapons? They could be dropped on historical sites and not damage them (or not much at least).

At least some of the stuff they dug up is far away from the dig site.

[QUOTE=ksenior;47281900]As much as some people will hate it, maybe it's time we turned to chemical weapons? They could be dropped on historical sites and not damage them (or not much at least).[/QUOTE] i'm not sure you really understand the effects of chemical weapons

That's correct, a biological weapon would be far better in this case. [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-downs.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=VIOLATION_SNG;47281941]i'm not sure you really understand the effects of chemical weapons[/QUOTE] No, like, it's totally cool, we'll just drop mustard gas or something.

i hope ashurbanipal returns from the dead with an undead army of assyrians to rampage against and devour daesh

[QUOTE=ksenior;47281900]As much as some people will hate it, maybe it's time we turned to chemical weapons? They could be dropped on historical sites and not damage them (or not much at least).[/QUOTE] The thing is, even with the ISIS, you have to draw the line between effectiveness and humanity when it comes to things like biological weapons. [editline]8th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47282054]i hope ashurbanipal returns from the dead with an undead army of assyrians to rampage against and devour daesh[/QUOTE] [img]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=203731&dateline=1421822107[/img]

[QUOTE=VIOLATION_SNG;47281941]i'm not sure you really understand the effects of chemical weapons[/QUOTE] I'm well aware of what Sarin does to the human body. It's not much worse than napalm or WP.

In a lot of ways, chemical weapons are better for the region you use them in (excluding Agent Orange and mustard gas, obviously). Modern chemical weapons don't linger in the environment like the old ones did, they don't damage structures, and you don't end up going "scorched earth" like you do with traditional carpet bombing and, to a lesser extent, surgical strikes. They're obviously outlawed for a reason; they're horribly nasty things, but they're scarily effective and leave little trace of their use. Honestly, it's getting to the point where we really need to consider doing something seriously about ISIS. Whether that's chemical weapons, conventional strikes, or military force in the region isn't for us to decide, but we risk losing things far more important than them if we remain inactive. ISIS threatens the overall stability of the Middle East, and unless we want a much larger war than we have seen previously, they need to be removed as soon as possible.

This is fucking terrible, it's like the stuff the christians did to the scandinavian pagans, destroyed their sites of worship, their sacred items, everything related to our own religions. I thought we had gone past "Hey I don't like this place because it was built by people who worshiped a different god than ours let's bulldoze it!! :downs:" [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47282054]i hope ashurbanipal returns from the dead with an undead army of assyrians to rampage against and devour daesh[/QUOTE] This would make an awesome movie, undead assyrians vs. savage terrorists I wonder what it's title would be and what genre.

This shit just pisses me off. They think they're the Joker from the dark knight or something. Look how edgy they are!

[QUOTE=ksenior;47281900]As much as some people will hate it, maybe it's time we turned to chemical weapons? They could be dropped on historical sites and not damage them (or not much at least).[/QUOTE] [t]http://www.oocities.org/rungsatmrf/AO/spraypic2.jpg[/t] yeah, totally a good idea, I'm sure [URL="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/25/article-2613038-1D5630E000000578-393_964x653.jpg"]nsfw[/URL] yep, I agree, totally won't damage anything or have repercussions later. Completely perfect idea 10/10.

[QUOTE=ksenior;47281900]As much as some people will hate it, maybe it's time we turned to chemical weapons? They could be dropped on historical sites and not damage them (or not much at least).[/QUOTE] lets drop nuclear bombs on the sites, the radiation wouldn't affect it

posting a ill child always makes the point

[QUOTE=J!NX;47282653][t]http://www.oocities.org/rungsatmrf/AO/spraypic2.jpg[/t] yeah, totally a good idea, I'm sure [URL="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/25/article-2613038-1D5630E000000578-393_964x653.jpg"]nsfw[/URL] yep, I agree, totally won't damage anything or have repercussions later. Completely perfect idea 10/10.[/QUOTE] last time I checked, that desert doesn't have a forest.

[QUOTE=jokoman;47282726]last time I checked, that desert doesn't have a forest.[/QUOTE] last time I checked, chemical weapons can cause massive genetic mutations in animals and people that can last for a little too long to justify and also kill them and civilians horrifically

Nah let's just drop bombs full of hornets on them to freak them out and make them leave. I'm fairly certain this idea was considered at some point in history, much like the bat bomb

[QUOTE=ksenior;47281900]As much as some people will hate it, maybe it's time we turned to chemical weapons? They could be dropped on historical sites and not damage them (or not much at least).[/QUOTE] Well unfortunately for you, international bodies have declared the use of chemical weapons as cheating. For a good reason, at that.

[QUOTE=J!NX;47282653][t]http://www.oocities.org/rungsatmrf/AO/spraypic2.jpg[/t] yeah, totally a good idea, I'm sure [URL="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/25/article-2613038-1D5630E000000578-393_964x653.jpg"]nsfw[/URL] yep, I agree, totally won't damage anything or have repercussions later. Completely perfect idea 10/10.[/QUOTE] Somehow I think anyone intending to use chemical weapons would probably want to do something more immediately effective than killing their potted plants and mutating their kids.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;47282776]Somehow I think anyone intending to use chemical weapons would probably want to do something more immediately effective than killing their potted plants and mutating their kids.[/QUOTE] You mean like in vietnam or in ww1 [URL="https://drminna.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/mustard-gas/"]chemical warfare totally went well back then[/URL] and 'immediately effective' just means it's even WORSE than those 2 examples, and [URL="http://insidethevietnamwar.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/9/1/14910730/5826415.jpg?287"]agent orange was extremely immediately effective[/URL] but it's not like you were arguing for its use in that post so its not that big of a deal

[QUOTE=Mingebox;47282776]Somehow I think anyone intending to use chemical weapons would probably want to do something more immediately effective than killing their potted plants and mutating their kids.[/QUOTE] Napalm and agent orange were both deadly as fuck, especially the latter. Seriously, that shit killed an extreme amount of people very quickly.

[QUOTE=J!NX;47282855]You mean like in vietnam or in ww1 [URL="https://drminna.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/mustard-gas/"]chemical warfare totally went well back then[/URL] and 'immediately effective' just means it's even WORSE than those 2 examples, and [URL="http://insidethevietnamwar.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/9/1/14910730/5826415.jpg?287"]agent orange was extremely immediately effective[/URL] but it's not like you were arguing for its use in that post so its not that big of a deal[/QUOTE] I don't get why people always bring up agent orange. It was a herbicide that had a side effect of giving people cancer and give their kids birth defects, which pretty much made it useless as chemical weapon unless you intend to be fighting someone for 20 years.

if chemical weapons were used in modern times it would probably be a nerve gas of sort which afaik doesn't cause cancer but does murder the shit out of people very quickly still tho don't fucking use chemical or biological agents, that opens a door that we barely were able to get closed

[QUOTE=ksenior;47281900]As much as some people will hate it, maybe it's time we turned to chemical weapons? They could be dropped on historical sites and not damage them (or not much at least).[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume this is a sarcastic comment... I wonder if Iraq's Sunnis are thinking about what this is going to cost them in tourism revenue further down the line. Granted, nobody has probably taken a vacation to Iraq since 2003, but that's still potential revenue they're losing out on. When you blow up the big damn thing, suddenly people don't want to come and spend money to see the big damn thing. Other extremist groups have done similar things and faced backlash because they destroyed the locals' tourist income.

[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;47282481]This is fucking terrible, it's like the stuff the christians did to the scandinavian pagans, destroyed their sites of worship, their sacred items, everything related to our own religions. I thought we had gone past "Hey I don't like this place because it was built by people who worshiped a different god than ours let's bulldoze it!! :downs:" This would make an awesome movie, undead assyrians vs. savage terrorists I wonder what it's title would be and what genre.[/QUOTE] Well it's ISIS vs. an undead army, so Monster Mash I guess? Like Godzilla vs. Mothra or Dracula vs. Frankenstein.

Love reading people discussing shit like chemical weapons on this forum because you can tell 77% of you have no fucking clue what you're talking about besides what you source from Wikipedia.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47283229]if chemical weapons were used in modern times it would probably be a nerve gas of sort which afaik doesn't cause cancer but does murder the shit out of people very quickly still tho don't fucking use chemical or biological agents, that opens a door that we barely were able to get closed[/QUOTE] "Ok, so chemical weapons are out. What about biological warfare? Does ISIS have any natural predators?"

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47283433]Love reading people discussing shit like chemical weapons on this forum because you can tell 77% of you have no fucking clue what you're talking about besides what you source from Wikipedia.[/QUOTE] I dunno what you picked out as wrong, but afaik Agent Orange was a chemical defoliant, not a chemical weapon. Although it does have fucked up side effects for in utero exposure and other long term expose.