• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chris Matthews claims Hitler and US did not use WMD in WWII [W:99]

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,987
Reaction score
7,711
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yep... he said it... in defense of Obama's soon to be unilateral war.

The problem is, I don’t like it, first of all I’m rather dovish, I don’t like what I’m going to say but it’s true. If you basically put down a red line and say don’t use chemical weapons, and it’s been enforced in the Western community, around the world — international community for decades — don’t use chemical weapons. We didn’t use them in World War II, Hitler didn’t use them, we don’t use chemical weapons, that’s no deal.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ious-claim-about-hitler-and-chemical-weapons/
I do believe Hitler used gas to kill many of the millions of Jews he murdered, and I do believe we dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.

Amazing the crap Leftists will come up with to defend Mr. Hope & Change.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
61,087
Reaction score
21,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Matthews has always said idiotic things. It's his niche. :lol:
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yep... he said it... in defense of Obama's soon to be unilateral war.



I do believe Hitler used gas to kill many of the millions of Jews he murdered, and I do believe we dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.

Amazing the crap Leftists will come up with to defend Mr. Hope & Change.
My best guess, it's liberal revisionism.

Gas was used by the Nazis to murder millions of Jews, gypsies and commie socialist.

America did nuke Japan so I could be conceived and participate on the PD.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
12,100
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yep... he said it... in defense of Obama's soon to be unilateral war.



I do believe Hitler used gas to kill many of the millions of Jews he murdered, and I do believe we dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.

Amazing the crap Leftists will come up with to defend Mr. Hope & Change.
Yeah, from what I read he only said the US and the Germans did not use chemical weapons. He did not say the US did not use weapons of mass destruction, everybody knows that the US nuked Japan but they did not use chemical weapons. The first world war was full of chemical warfare the second world war did not use chemical warfare.

And sorry, but killing Jews and others with gas is not the same as chemical warfare, what the Germans did to the Jews and others were crimes against humanity. The Germans did not do it on the battle field nor did the Americans so Matthews is absolutely right, the US nor the Germans deployed chemical weapons during the war.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
12,100
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
My best guess, it's liberal revisionism.

Gas was used by the Nazis to murder millions of Jews, gypsies and commie socialist.

America did nuke Japan so I could be conceived and participate on the PD.

The OP claims things that Matthews did not say, not using chemical weapons is not the same as not using weapons of mad destruction.
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,883
Reaction score
821
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yep... he said it... in defense of Obama's soon to be unilateral war.



I do believe Hitler used gas to kill many of the millions of Jews he murdered, and I do believe we dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.

Amazing the crap Leftists will come up with to defend Mr. Hope & Change.


The U.S. used to have and use chemical weapons in WWI. However, we got rid of them and do not produce them today. Our argument has been that if anyone uses chemical weapons on us we will use our nukes on them.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
43,281
Reaction score
19,354
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wasn't one of the justifications for the Iraq war that Saddam used chemical weapons "on his own people?"

I don't favor intervention in Syria, I just think it's amazing how that's not a valid justification anymore to Republicans.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,786
Reaction score
9,583
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Wasn't one of the justifications for the Iraq war that Saddam used chemical weapons "on his own people?"

I don't favor intervention in Syria, I just think it's amazing how that's not a valid justification anymore to Republicans.
That was only a justification after they figured out there weren't any WMD's.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yep... he said it... in defense of Obama's soon to be unilateral war.



I do believe Hitler used gas to kill many of the millions of Jews he murdered, and I do believe we dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.

Amazing the crap Leftists will come up with to defend Mr. Hope & Change.
Hitler used gas to to exterminate the Jewish people, he didn't use it as a terror weapon like Saddam Hussein did against the Kurds.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yeah, from what I read he only said the US and the Germans did not use chemical weapons. He did not say the US did not use weapons of mass destruction, everybody knows that the US nuked Japan but they did not use chemical weapons.
So what was the atomic bomb then? Did we drop two Trojan horses over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and when they hit the ground they broke apart and a bunch of little midget soldiers came out to shoot everything?

I'm no chemist, but I think the damage caused by atomic bombs has something remotely to do with a chemical reaction. Feel free to play science teacher and prove me wrong if you'd like.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The OP claims things that Matthews did not say, not using chemical weapons is not the same as not using weapons of mad destruction.
I know some libs who consider napalm to be a WMD.

But then again, I know many Americans who have come to the conclusion that Obama is a WMD to the American way of life.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So what was the atomic bomb then? Did we drop two Trojan horses over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and when they hit the ground they broke apart and a bunch of little midget soldiers came out to shoot everything?

I'm no chemist, but I think the damage caused by atomic bombs has something remotely to do with a chemical reaction. Feel free to play science teacher and prove me wrong if you'd like.
Yes if you throw out the standing definitions of "Atomic Bomb" and "Chemical Weapon" that have stood for what 70 years at least? If you do that, you may have a point.

Do you know also that US Soldiers use chemical weapons every day in Afghanistan? I'm no chemist but I'm pretty sure the damage of a bullet hitting you has something remotely to do with combustion inside a rifle, which is a chemical reaction, and the bullet is made of steel too which is the result of the chemical reaction between iron and carbon.

Jesus that means police use chemical weapons against our own people every day too!!
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I know some libs who consider napalm to be a WMD.

But then again, I know many Americans who have come to the conclusion that Obama is a WMD to the American way of life.
I love how when you get caught with your pants down you throw out a massive red herring to change the subject.

The OP said Matthews said the US never used WMDs in WW2, but what he actually said was that the US never used chemical weapons, massive difference there if you care to notice.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,986
Reaction score
34,316
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Strictly speaking though, as a weapon of war, Gas was never used as far as I know by any side during World War II.

I believe that's what he was trying to say.

Matthews is an idiot but if we're strictly speaking in terms of actual warfare, Chemical weapons were not used in the second world war.

But yeah he's still an idiot.

Anyway

Here you have a situation where chemical weapons were used in battle as a weapon of war in a highly populated area.

My issue with this, is its a bit too convenient.

The Rebels know their only hope of getting Western support is if Assad uses Chemical Weapons.

And Assad knows the sure fire way to get the west involved (precisely what he doesn't want) is to use chemical weapons.

Therefore this suggests the Rebels have more to gain from an apparent use of Chemical Weapons than Assad...

Which leads me to be monumentally cautious about involvement in this predicament.
 
Last edited:

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yes if you throw out the standing definitions of "Atomic Bomb" and "Chemical Weapon" that have stood for what 70 years at least? If you do that, you may have a point.

Do you know also that US Soldiers use chemical weapons every day in Afghanistan? I'm no chemist but I'm pretty sure the damage of a bullet hitting you has something remotely to do with combustion inside a rifle, which is a chemical reaction, and the bullet is made of steel too which is the result of the chemical reaction between iron and carbon.

Jesus that means police use chemical weapons against our own people every day too!!
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm currently deployed in Afghanistan, you'll have to explain your argument as youtube is blocked over here on this computer.
Sheldon Cooper on Big Bang Theory explaining the concept of reductio ad absurdum.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sheldon Cooper on Big Bang Theory explaining the concept of reductio ad absurdum.
Ok and how do you feel that concept relates to my post, seriously man can you just type out a resposne? I'm assuming you feel I went to far with my analogy?

Fine, but still you have to admit that to call an A-bomb a chemical weapon would throw out the meaning of "chemical weapon" that's been in use for almost 100 years now, and the meaning of "Atomic Weapon" as has been used for nearly just as long. You'd basically be redefining a word to suit your position.

For example in the Army there's something called "CBRN training" or "Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear training" which teaches Soldiers how to survive in these types of enviroments, you'll notice that chemical and nuclear are both listed because they both have different meanings.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Ok and how do you feel that concept relates to my post, seriously man can you just type out a resposne? I'm assuming you feel I went to far with my analogy?

Fine, but still you have to admit that to call an A-bomb a chemical weapon would throw out the meaning of "chemical weapon" that's been in use for almost 100 years now, and the meaning of "Atomic Weapon" as has been used for nearly just as long. You'd basically be redefining a word to suit your position.

For example in the Army there's something called "CBRN training" or "Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear training" which teaches Soldiers how to survive in these types of enviroments, you'll notice that chemical and nuclear are both listed because they both have different meanings.
They're different in that nuclear also includes a physical, concussive force - but I'm guessing that both "chemical" and "nuclear" environmental training include certain aspects that are either very remotely visible, or invisible altogether.

Also, I'm not redefining the word. Frankly, this shouldn't even be a discussion, but for some reason liberals want to defend Matthews' (and Obama's) intense stupidity.

I haven't even thrown out the fact that the man behind what's commonly referred to as the "greatest human rights violation ever"...was a Democrat.

The good thing about this forum is that you can easily point out the kookiest of kooks on DP - not you, but some names come to mind (that will, of course, remain anonymous).
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They're different in that nuclear also includes a physical, concussive force - but I'm guessing that both "chemical" and "nuclear" environmental training include certain aspects that are either very remotely visible, or invisible altogether.

Also, I'm not redefining the word. Frankly, this shouldn't even be a discussion, but for some reason liberals want to defend Matthews' (and Obama's) intense stupidity.

I haven't even thrown out the fact that the man behind what's commonly referred to as the "greatest human rights violation ever"...was a Democrat.

The good thing about this forum is that you can easily point out the kookiest of kooks on DP - not you, but some names come to mind (that will, of course, remain anonymous).
Let me put it to you this way, I've literally never seen in any professional setting or text a nuclear weapon referred to as a form of chemical warfare or as a chemical weapon. This is literally the first time I've ever heard of chemical weapon meaning an atomic bomb.

If you can show me an example of a professional or academic paper or document listing atomic weapons as chemical weapons, that would help support you're argument. Even better if you found a military source, since we are discussing the military, that called them the same thing. I can tell that you won't find such a source in the US Army, so either the US Army, and the entire US military, has been mislabeling these weapons for decades, or you're wrong :/
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
12,100
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So what was the atomic bomb then? Did we drop two Trojan horses over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and when they hit the ground they broke apart and a bunch of little midget soldiers came out to shoot everything?

I'm no chemist, but I think the damage caused by atomic bombs has something remotely to do with a chemical reaction. Feel free to play science teacher and prove me wrong if you'd like.
Did you actually read what I wrote? Or did you miss me saying "everybody knows that the US nuked Japan".

Simple:

nuclear weapons use splitting nuclear materials or fission of nuclear materials, the reaction that creates a thermobaric pressure wave that can destroy structures, vehicles and personnel causing radiation that can linger for weeks, even months if high enough in the atmosphere.

chemical weapons are exactly what they sound like, they use chemicals to inflict injury and death. They can be packed in shells, mortars, etc. etc. The chemical weapons can have nerve gas, toxins or other chemical compounds that can cause suffocation, blindness. Chemical weapons are usually liquid at room temperature and when released they are gasses that do their deadly or harmful work.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,300
Reaction score
12,100
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I know some libs who consider napalm to be a WMD.

But then again, I know many Americans who have come to the conclusion that Obama is a WMD to the American way of life.
Napalm is IMHO a weapon of mass destruction.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Let me put it to you this way, I've literally never seen in any professional setting or text a nuclear weapon referred to as a form of chemical warfare or as a chemical weapon. This is literally the first time I've ever heard of chemical weapon meaning an atomic bomb.

If you can show me an example of a professional or academic paper or document listing atomic weapons as chemical weapons, that would help support you're argument. Even better if you found a military source, since we are discussing the military, that called them the same thing. I can tell that you won't find such a source in the US Army, so either the US Army, and the entire US military, has been mislabeling these weapons for decades, or you're wrong :/
So you're asking me to prove that "military intelligence" is oxymoronic? Okay, back in a few. :D
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Did you actually read what I wrote? Or did you miss me saying "everybody knows that the US nuked Japan".

Simple:

nuclear weapons use splitting nuclear materials or fission of nuclear materials, the reaction that creates a thermobaric pressure wave that can destroy structures, vehicles and personnel causing radiation that can linger for weeks, even months if high enough in the atmosphere.

chemical weapons are exactly what they sound like, they use chemicals to inflict injury and death. They can be packed in shells, mortars, etc. etc. The chemical weapons can have nerve gas, toxins or other chemical compounds that can cause suffocation, blindness. Chemical weapons are usually liquid at room temperature and when released they are gasses that do their deadly or harmful work.
It sounds as if the only difference between your two descriptions is the lethality (although both are obviously lethal in large and excessive amounts). An atomic bomb is "packed in a shell". It has chemical compounds that cause...well, death. Also, atomic bombs are not "hot to the touch" pre-release.

Sounds like semantics to me.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So you're asking me to prove that "military intelligence" is oxymoronic? Okay, back in a few. :D
No I'm seriously asking you to find me historical examples of professional, military, academic, government papers or documents that refer to chemical and atomic weapons as the same thing.

Heck just use some common sense, a chemical weapont released over a city is not going to inflict the same type of change in the same way as a nuclear bomb released over a city, and the recovery from such an attack will be very different as well. Its obvious why one would naturally treat the two as different, sure the science behind nuclear weapons involves some chemistry, but after the explosion the two aren't the same as all.
 
Top Bottom