Jorvik
Because you made the claim--and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
In point of fact--multiple sources--and not just USA sources have determined that Sarin was used in Syria.
-Agent Orange--maybe, but certainly not by the standards of the time. Wasn't designed as a "people killer." Kinda like all the asbestos we used for decades--nobody really understood just how dangerous it was.
-Napalm--nope--does not even come close to the definition of a "chemical" weapon.
-Willie Peter--nasty stuff but not a "chemical weapon" in the general meaning of the term.
-Depleted Uranium--again, not actually a "chemical weapon" but does seem to have to some term health effects--but you need some pretty dense stuff to penetrate armor--tungsten works but it too has some reported long term effects. So if you need to get through armor your choices are kinda limited.
In other words its only "hypocritical"
if you define the term "chemical weapon" all of context and actual meaning. By that definition the gunpowder used in the cartridge is also a "chemical weapon."
I generally don't trust "argument by youtube" but I will check them out.
Ok--checked them out--don't really understand what the
unsupported self-serving statements and claims of Galloways have to do with anything.
Note that Galloway draws a distinction between his meetings and Rumsfelds.
Galloways meetings with a murderous madman were about how to bring peace and end suffering--like Saddam had in interest in doing either--this is the same guy that hired
official, card carrying rape squads after all. While anybody else meeting with a murderous madman must be up to no good.
How does he know precisely what was discussed in a meeting with Saddam and Rumsfeld?
Besides--didn't Galloway make out like a bandit in oil deals with Saddam? Or is that motivation only applied one direction?