Talk:Chemical warfare/Archive 2

Non-use of gas by British Empire in the 1920s
I think the information in this link

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022064745.htm

("Despite Claims, UK Did Not Gas Iraqis In The 1920s, New Research Finds")

should be incorporated into the article, in order to make it more accurate. Would do it myself, but am not really sure how! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.55.177 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fatal vs. non-fatal history
I propose getting rid of the section about Argentine use of tear gas, as it's non-fatal and commonly used by many governments. I also propose adding a section about the US and Israeli use of white phosphorous in recent years.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Persians
Check out this article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7837826.stm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.148.161 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
I removed this very undercited section to the talk page. Accusations of this magnitude require multiple very good sources. Rmhermen (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sri Lanka's army used chemical weapons on LTTE soldiers during the 2009 war. Its believed that these chemical weapons were supplied by India to Sri Lanka

LTTE & Chemical Weapons There is no evidence of the Sri Lanka military ever using chemical weapons. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the world’s most brutal terror group, has been using chemical weapons in its separatist war. In September 2008, as many as 16 soldiers had to be flown to the rear base in Anuradhapura, to receive emergency treatment after the LTTE fired two canisters filled with "CS" gas, which is the popular name for 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile. Breakaway LTTE commander, Col.Karuna Amman, revealed that Prabhakaran (the LTTE leader) had told his commanders once that when cornered, the LTTE should use chemical weapons. Between 1990 and 1994, Karuna said that PH3 (Phosphine or Phosphorus hydride) was used by the LTTE in its attack on a Sri Lankan army detachment at Kumburumunai in Batticaloa district. PH3, used in pest control, is flammable and highly toxic."

Merger
I suggest that Timeline of chemical warfare be merged to the "history" section of this article, as they cover the same subject. Attempt to redirect was contested. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that I just created the article Timeline of chemical warfare minutes ago. It is not meant to any sense duplicate the current article.  Rather it is a timeline, in the tradition of the many historical timelines we have here. Cool3 (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not be meant to duplicate content of this article, but that is what it is doing nonetheless. The history section already is a timeline of chemical warfare. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only in the sense that Timeline of World War I duplicates World War I. It's a very common practice to have a timeline that exists independently from the main article of history.  The history article presents the main themes and points in a narrative fashion, while the timeline is a concise listing of discrete events. Cool3 (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Shema Jisrael, Adonai elohemu, Adonai echad!
This article shamefully does not make any mention of the nazi german's WWII use of poison chemicals on 6 million jews and half a million gypsy people in the gas chambers of Birkenau. This means the article is nazi-whitewashing, antisemitic and outright holocaust-denialist. I am disgusted! Of course it was very convenient for the allies to re-use nazi gassing knowledge earned on "inferior races" blood, but it is still disgusting and mention should be made because of the many, many dead. 91.82.32.98 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust was not combat so it doesn't fit the definition of chemical warfare. The Nazis did not use chemical warfare although the Allies had expected they would at some point and prepared defenses and retaliatory plans. . I was surprised to see no mention of the German use of chemicals during the Holocaust though. Rmhermen (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning it obviously antisemitic! This artile already mentions Saddam Hussein's use of poison gas on iraqi kurdish villages, which is also not "combat use", but "internal law enforcement police and militia issue" according to the same cynical logic. Why does the article mention the kurds then, when there is zero mention of the jews and gipsy gassed? Obvious selective enforcement with an antisemitic agenda. I wish to escalate this complaint higher in Wikipedia, because it may cause a press problem if not remedied! 91.83.35.131 (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is rarely a good idea to open a conversation by calling someone a nazi. The reason is that the technical means used for the gassings were different. The nazis generally gassed prisoners in specially constructed facilities inside the death camps as opposed to out in the open field. They are both genocidal actions against civilians using chemicals, but one is chemical warfare, and the other is systematic genocide by concentration camp. I would add that the Nazi Holocaust is thoroughly documented on Wikipedia, there has been no attempt to hide the facts of the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)