"By calling it a chemical weapons attack..."
I'm doing no such thing - it was an attack with chemical weapons therefore it was a chemical attack (which was at first denied then admitted by the perpetrators) - I compared it to nothing; you are, as usual, making it up as you go along and putting words into my mouth.
It is really immaterial when I used the term 'ethnic cleansing'; if I used it yesterday I had overlooked having done so (that's what their policy amounts to as far as I'm concerned); but my point was that I agreed to use it instead of genocide (my attitude to this was made in my previous post) some time ago and you have deliberately overlooked this in order to score points and divert attention from your own totally untenable position.
"The USA who made and supplied it insist it is not."
Would this be the same USA that used Napalm and Agent Orange on peasant farmers in Viet Nam? Hardly a trustworthy source of information I would have thought (though a fairly apt bedfellow).
I wonder why my dictionaries haven't picked up their assurances?
"That was blatantly untrue.."
Israel's purity laws suggest otherwise - and you've never responded to the Shatila and Sabra massacres that Israel played a full part in - another of your convenient little 'oversights'!
Jim Carroll