More than 100,000 people have been killed by guns, rockets, bombs and whatever else during the conflict in Syria. Recently about 1,000, or less than 1 percent of the total killed, apparently were killed by chemical weapons.
President Obama and the media are in an uproar. Why? Is it more palatable to be killed by conventional means? The 100,000 were killed that way and “only” 1,000 by a less-conventional method. If the dead could talk they would say: What difference does it make — I was killed. Why all the attention to the 1,000, while the 100,000 just fade away?
Gunter Leibkuchler, Miami