chemical weapon

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Guardian_Reader, Jan 23, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Britain had a terrrorist problem in the 1970s, starts breaking international laws.

    26 years later, Russia has a terrorist problem, starts breaking international laws.

    Understandable why both countries broke the rules given the situation, but perhaps damages the long term campaign of winning hearts and minds .
  2. Am I alone in finding the concept of winning hearts & minds vaguely ridiculous in many of the scenarios in which it is being used today?

    If a people have had a more or less negative attitude, or at best shown general antipathy towards you for generations, you're not that likely to win them over regardless of how nice you are to them while at the same time you're slotting other people who on the face of it appear to be "like them".

    If anything I believe many will find attempts to curry favour as beneath contempt, sure they'll take all you can give with a smile, but it's unlikely to change many long held opinions.

    Put the shoe on the other foot and think about how you'd react.
  3. Maybe you and me against the rest but you are not alone.
  4. Guardian_Reader - or is it Guardian_Writer?

    Which international law is broken this time?

    Perhaps you've forgotten the definition of a chemical weapon from the NBC ATD? By definition, riot control agents aren't classified as chemical weapons.

    The main down-side that I can see to this is that the guard-force weren't informed or equipped to be able to operate in the conditions that would have been present.
  5. Oh dear, is it chopping time again?