Saturday, April 22, 2017

[cogfpzpk] Trump apology for Holocaust denial

Of the many, many groups that the Trump adminstration has offended thus far, is "Hitler did not use chemical weapons" the only offensive thing said by the administration (through its mouthpiece Sean Spicer) that it has apologized for?

Does this speak to the political strength of Jews compared to that of other groups the administration has offended?

Using toxic chemicals for execution of prisoners is qualitatively very different from using toxic chemicals for killing on the battlefield.  It seems bad faith to equate them, though taking a political opponent's words and interpreting them in bad faith is (cynically) synonymous with politics.

The type of chemical differs considerably between gas chambers for execution (carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide) and battlefield (mustard gas, sarin, VX).  The delivery method differs considerably between execution (pump the gas into a room) and battlefield (bombs and munitions, outdoors).  On the battlefield, there is much more danger of the gas hurting your own soldiers, for example, due to a change in wind direction.

Even the U.S. has used gas chambers for execution, and continues to use toxic chemicals for the execution of criminals.  Does that mean the U.S. is doing the same evil as Hitler and whoever it was in Syria (presumed to be Assad)?  There are of course considerable differences in the justice system preceding each use of chemicals for killing, but the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons does not specify a standard of justice that makes using the weapons OK.

Incidentally, Imperial Germany did use mustard gas on the battlefield in World War I, and presumably the technical knowhow survived into the Nazi regime, so Hitler may have consciously chosen not to use chemical weapons on the battlefield in World War II, even though he easily could have.  Use of weapons of mass destruction in WWII would have to wait for another country.

No comments :