Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Chemical Weapon Group Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

Posted by timothy on from the thinking-positive dept.

elashish14 writes "The Nobel Prize Committee has chosen to award the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon (OPCW) with this year's Peace Prize. The OPCW conducts inspections and oversees the destruction of chemical weapon arsenals. They were established in 1997 and 190 nations have agreed to the treaty. The Nobel Committee's decision was a surprise to many however, who expected Pakistani education activist Malala Yousafzai to receive the award."

61 comments

  1. Rewarding the Wrong Group by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

    This whole thing is f**ked up.

    Give the money to ones affected by the CW. Who cares if they, OPCW, needs donations, the state they are disarming should pay for it!

    Nobel Peace Prize my ass. Nobel War Prize

    1. Re:Rewarding the Wrong Group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the state they are disarming should pay for it!

      Brilliant, let's give one more reason for states not to disarm.

      Btw, the reason they won it is Syria. The "Peace" "Nobel" is 100% political.

  2. A group whose peace accomplishments... by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...are on par with Barack Obama, which is to say non-existent.

    But at least they're better than Yasser Arafat or Le Duc Tho.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      ...are on par with Barack Obama, which is to say non-existent.

      But at least they're better than Yasser Arafat or Le Duc Tho.

      I'm pretty sure that the OPCW would need to be actively manufacturing and selling chemical weapons for that analogy to hold.

      Actually, they seem like a fairly good choice (if, unfortunately, probably one made in knee-jerk response to the recent Syrian incident, rather than any more significant thought). The OPCW mostly does banal, administrative stuff in support of identifying and classifying scheduled compounds and precursors for the purposes of trade controls, and acting as a technical and advocacy group for the (huge) stockpile drawdowns that have occurred in the US, Russia, and a few other Cold War belligerent types who manufactured vast amounts of the things.

      War is not something that's made by a single telegenic villain with a snappy mustache, nor is peace something made by a single charismatic diplomat or saintly empathy-jockey. Peace needs a bunch of relatively dull institutional groundwork in organophosphate and other chemistry. Good for the OPCW.

    2. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by dj245 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...are on par with Barack Obama, which is to say non-existent.

      But at least they're better than Yasser Arafat or Le Duc Tho.

      I'm pretty sure that the OPCW would need to be actively manufacturing and selling chemical weapons for that analogy to hold. Actually, they seem like a fairly good choice (if, unfortunately, probably one made in knee-jerk response to the recent Syrian incident, rather than any more significant thought).

      If it is a hasty decision, then they deserve it even less. Chemical deaths are less than 1% of the deaths in Syria. Tens of thousands have died by conventional means. Someone decides they want to get rid of the chemical weapons and they are suddenly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize?

      It elevates the destruction of a weapon to be of a higher importance than the elimination of war. That isn't what the peace prize should be about. Destroying chemical weapons doesn't mean diddly to the average Syrian in the conflict zone. Chemical weapons are mostly a fear of Western nations in the event they "got out" and into the hands of terrorists. Syrians are right to believe that the West only cares about their own potential safety instead of actually stopping a war.

      I wouldn't have given the prize to Malala either. She can get it when she turns 18 or 21. Her actions have already made her more than deserving, but she is a big enough celebrity as it is. She should finish what is left of her childhood.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    3. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Is there any particular reason you mention Le Duc Tho, who declined the award, and not his co-winner who accepted it?

    4. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 2

      ...are on par with Barack Obama, which is to say non-existent.

      But at least they're better than Yasser Arafat or Le Duc Tho.

      ... but still better than say, Henry Kissinger?

    5. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Nobel Peace Prize is like Soviet Russia: a bad joke that nobody fucking wants to hear anymore. The prize committee should just skip the half-measures and award it jointly to Kim Jong Un, Dick Cheney, and Weird Al Yankovic, then commit group suicide. There's no possible way to recover the prize's reputation at this point, they might as well go out with a bang.

    6. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone decides they want to get rid of the chemical weapons and they are suddenly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize?

      I would say it's more like someone decided they dare not give the award to Snowden (for fear of pissing off the US Govt), so they need to find someone who would be most politically incorrect to challenge getting the prize. OPCW is the safest option.

    7. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      "I wouldn't have given the prize to Malala either."

      She is, IMNSHO, far more deserving than a nearly nameless group of people who will try to do the job, but miss half of them, and will be forgotten by the time the next GP races results are posted.

      "She can get it when she turns 18 or 21.

      By whose rules? OTOH, that might serve as a mild life insurance policy they'll want to get a large piece of before the taliban kills her.

      "Her actions have already made her more than deserving, but she is a big enough celebrity as it is. She should finish what is left of her childhood."

      I agree with the latter sentiment, but this girl has no childhood left in her future. She has been forced to grow up 10 years worth of maturity in the last year, and you cannot turn that around now or ever. If she goes home, the taliban will just try to kill her again until they succeed.

      But, if she goes home with the prize, and the money, then they will let her live as long as there is money to be milked, and she will probably use the money to grease palms to gain access to the local radio and continue to be a PITA to the taliban, so they'll take her money till it runs out, and the dirty, smelly end of the GI tract that is Karachi's powers that be will do nothing when she is killed for real the next time.

      I admire the girls understanding of the situation, greatly, but I can't stand guard 24/7/365 for another 75 years to keep her from being killed, and neither can the lot of you, without first doing something about the taliban.

      Which makes me ask the question: Is there a connection between her, and our putting the collar on one of their top people in Pakistan earlier today?

      Good question that, but I am not a fly on the wall. Future news story, video at 22:30...

      No Cheers on this one, I just don't see that much length to her future.

      Gene

    8. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Syrians are right to believe that the Western politicians only care about their own fortune and power instead of actually stopping a war.
       

      FTFY.

    9. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But if we elevate certain crimes and certain peoples above others why can't we do it with weapons. I mean if you are black and kill another black person, you might get a couple years in jail. On the other hand if you are black and kill a white girl, or are a white man and kill a black man, you are committing a hate crime, and will likely never see the light of day. It works the same way with homosexuals and jews. You can kill a white guy, but don't kill a homosexual. Esspecialy don't kill a homosexual black female jew. Certain people are just more equal than others. Nothing can be said or done to them. Likewise there are certain weapons that are just really awefull. You can kill as many people as you want with bullets. But if you use chemical weapons, or dirty bombs, you are truely and international criminal and need to have your ass raped in the international court of law. It works the same way with disasters. It is OK if a tsunami wipes out tens of thousands of people, but if the Tsuanami casuses a reactor to fail which in turn leaks radation and kills 400 people this is an unacceptable disaster.

      It all makes sense and is perfectly logicial if you think about it the right way.

    10. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      "If it is a hasty decision, then they deserve it even less. Chemical deaths are less than 1% of the deaths in Syria. Tens of thousands have died by conventional means. Someone decides they want to get rid of the chemical weapons and they are suddenly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize?"

      My suspicion (based on the apparent complete incompetence and goldfish-calibre historical memory of the Peace Prize selection committee) is that the decision was hasty, and based largely on dramatic (but, as you say, statistically almost negligible) recent deaths in Syria.

      However, it's important to distinguish between the organization and the decision. The OPCW has been in operation for something like 15 years, with largely the same objectives and activities. It presumably has been tapped by one or more member nations for work in Syria, since the organization is dedicated to having expertise in chemical-weapons-related testing and destruction-verification; but that's been their remit since their founding(most of it being rather duller technical work and oversight of the destruction facilities gradually processing legacy stockpiles), there isn't anything 'hasty' about them, nor is Syria even their call (as a disarmament group, the OPCW is, of course, against chemical weapons and encourages the perception that they are ghastly things that only terrible people would use; but they don't make the call on whether a given country will comply or not).

      Choosing a largely faceless organization that provides technical and logistical support to the implementation of an almost-two-decade-old treaty strikes me as kind of feckless on the selection committee's part; but my distinct lack of being impressed is with them, not with the OPCW's work.

    11. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But at least they're better than Yasser Arafat or Le Duc Tho.

      I don't think so. Arafat did actually try, and Tho actually had the good grace to decline. Thanks for the reminder, though. The Kissinger connection made me feel better about the previous two prizes, as in, it wasn't the first (nor the last) time the committee made a boo-boo.

    12. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Barracks would like to ban cellulose and silicon so it would quit dis'n him.

    13. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Kim Jong Un deserves a nobel peace prize.
      Right now he has less wars going on than Obama, who did win one.

    14. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by johanw · · Score: 1

      And by developing nuclear weapons he probably even prevented a war: the US doesn't dare to take the risk of attacking North Korea. Now let the Iranians hurry up with theirs.

    15. Re:A group whose peace accomplishments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're almost right. They should announce that they plan to commit suicide and award the prize to themselves then not kill themselves.

  3. It's a dirty job... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    . . . but someone has to get credit for it. I say good on them.

    1. Re:It's a dirty job... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it dirty? The weapons they are talking about haven't been deployed. They're just sitting there. It's just a matter of verifying them, evaluating how to safely dispose of them, and doing it.

      How about the people cleaning up after a nuclear disaster? Now that's a dirty job.

    2. Re:It's a dirty job... by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      How is it dirty?

      Because chemical weapons stocks are often poorly maintained and dangerous to handle and dispose of. Because working in NBC suits in a desert is a shit job to start with, without having to do it in a warzone.

  4. Malala is just getting started by themushroom · · Score: 1

    She's young and driven to do great things, so while giving her a Nobel Prize isn't premature -- oh, she's not done writing this legacy, there's more to come. If she continues doing as she plans, to become a leader in Pakistan when she's older and being an activist for the education of females in the meantime, she'll get another consideration.

    --
    Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
    1. Re:Malala is just getting started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh-huh. The way things are going over there in the Middle-East, she's gonna get a one-way ticket to see Benazir Bhutto in Jahannam.

      -- Ethanol-fueled

    2. Re:Malala is just getting started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was rooting for Malala or Snowden. Snowden also as a mea culpa for that Obama prize years earlier.

      But oh no, can't call out their own mistake, gotta award it to some obscure group like hipsters would do. Bullshit.

    3. Re:Malala is just getting started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? A sig as AC?

    4. Re:Malala is just getting started by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think they decided not to give it to her to save her life. The nut jobs are still talking about killing her for daring to talk about girls getting an education. If they'd given her the award it would have just been like throwing gas on a fire.

    5. Re:Malala is just getting started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With all due respect, Malala's greatest accomplishment until today is getting shot and having it spinned all over the news. While talking and raising issues is important, practical contribution to general peace is far from having been established (yes, Obama peace prize was a major mistake). Her wiki page has only 3 meagre paragraphs on political career and activism which is not at all on par with Nobels of 2010 and 2011 who would be comparable to her. She's too young and she has much more to prove. I believe she will in time but not yet.

      The Guardian has an article describing in some more detail the works of OPCW. They have been overseeing the destruction of about 80% of declared chemical stocks all over the world. This is a dangerous job and an appreciation is totally deserved, and they probably need it now more than ever. It's a great Nobel prize rewarding an agency which is just silently doing its job to clean humanity up of some of the nastiest stuff it had invented.

    6. Re:Malala is just getting started by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      What is your problem? He's right.

      Malala is a posterchild for peace. Not calling for increased war against the Taliban, but instead resistance to their ideas and ideals. She greatly impressed me, and awarding her the price would be a way to peacefully add a loud voice against the Taliban. The million dollars into her fund would probably also not go amiss.

      And Snowden exposed Obama and the US government as running a network to spy on their citizens that the KGB and Stasi could have only dreamt of. They basically took the First Amendment away. What Snowden did was necessary and good.

    7. Re:Malala is just getting started by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The nut jobs are still talking about killing her for daring to talk about girls getting an education.

      In the UK? Hmm, although, you may be right...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Malala is just getting started by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You missed it. My reply was to the anon who posted calling her a cunt. While I admire the girl I think awarding her the prize would only further incense the radicals that want her dead. She is safer without it.

  5. PRO-chem by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    how about this? a peace prize for the one who designs Dyno-Mite! JJ.

  6. I'm not sure I support this by bitt3n · · Score: 3, Funny

    Should we really be celebrating a group that supports the weaponization of anti-chemicals? I've seen enough Star Trek to know the dangers that anti-matter poses to us all.

    --
    how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
  7. BZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peace is kind of a silly prize to award these fools. The chemical BZ is extremely non-lethal. Great for warfare. Nobody dies.

  8. Why not Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was the one that wanted to get rid of Chemical weapons by waging war against Syria. I think he deserves that peace prize medal just like the other one he got before waging illegal wars. Although what I find silly is that out of everything bad, chemical weapons is the worst? Sorry, but I'd rather die by gas than dying from an infection from shrapnel thank you very much.

  9. Just like Henry Kissinger by HiThere · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sorry, but ever since Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize over Viet-nam I've declined to consider it as anything but a badge of shame.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  10. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't stop Syria from making them or possessing them. They didn't stop them from being used in Syria. They haven't removed them from Syria. Yet they are being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their actions?

    1. Re:Huh? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      And they wouldn't even be there if it weren't for violent military threats from the US getting underway, for better or for worse.

      It's like giving a prize for a painting to the guy who came in and put a frame around it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  11. Questioning the questionable by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    If the Nobel Peace Price was everything that it should stand for, I would still vote Malala and would deride this choice over her. But between having in the past chosen the likes of Kissinger, and oh so prematurely, Obama, I say good for her for not being chosen. The real question is: is it not sad that we need a prize for being a good human being at all?

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Questioning the questionable by khallow · · Score: 1

      The real question is: is it not sad that we need a prize for being a good human being at all?

      Given how easy it is to be a bad human and how hard it is to be a good human, I'd say it's not sad.

  12. ISRAEL NON-SIGNATORY by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Stockpiles CW, Uses dual-purpose agents (White Phosphorus) on civilian populations.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:ISRAEL NON-SIGNATORY by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Stockpiles CW, Uses dual-purpose agents (White Phosphorus) on civilian populations.

      Of course, to the Israelis Palestinians don't even exist (they are really just Arabs and should be living somewhere in the Arab world) and how can you commit genocide against a people who never existed in the first place...?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:ISRAEL NON-SIGNATORY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? They are imaginary people? This whole thing has been a dream? Maybe you've take post-modernism too far/

    3. Re:ISRAEL NON-SIGNATORY by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Seriously? They are imaginary people? This whole thing has been a dream? Maybe you've take post-modernism too far/

      No, its the official line. I don't believe it myself, I'm just saying what the Israeli line is. I think its based on the name 'Palestinian' being derived from 'Philistine' (the other people who the Jews exterminated in order to create a homeland) which, in turn, was derived from Phoenician. The Israeli theory is that the Arabs who were living in 'their, Jewish, homeland' in the 1950s tried to pretend to have a right to live there by making a connection to the ancient historical people of the region and that, in 'fact' they were 'just Arabs' and had 'no right' to live there and hence could be just kicked out of their homes and either evicted or exterminated.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re: ISRAEL NON-SIGNATORY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally unrelated to a Syria-only routine. Time to refactor your thinking.

    5. Re:ISRAEL NON-SIGNATORY by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      And now? The recent Genetic discovery that Ashkinazim mitochondrial DNA excludes an origin in "the holy land", and places the maternal line of ancestry in a group with modern Italians.

      The manifest Irony here is that the Palestinian people are the genetic and estate inheritors from the Judean people of biblical times - while the great majority of Israeli Jews are on the WRONG side of Masada, being descendents of Roman Legions, not Macabees.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:ISRAEL NON-SIGNATORY by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      An interesting story I read said that there came from Egypt, with the Jews, a group of people of mixed race whose fathers were Jews but whose mothers were not. It was decided that they were not real Jews and weren't fit to live in the promised land. They were kicked out and they went south and became the Arabs. This is also borne out etymologically; the Hebrew word for 'mixed race' is indeed 'arab'.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:ISRAEL NON-SIGNATORY by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Impossible. Matrilinear inheritance of Jewishness was an invention of the Romans, imposed on Judea and Samaria, in a time half-again more distant from that of Pharoah, as we are from Caesar.

      Firstly, this was done by Rome to destroy the strong tribal affiliation among the conquered peoples. Secondly, it was to remove the possibility of citizenship for the sons of Romans, sired in conquered Judea. These were codified into law, by Pharisees, etc.

      There is also the entire question of Egypt, which has never been borne out by any contemporary record, other than the Talmud/Old Testament assertions. Nothing Egypt's record has any correspondence to the bondage of a nation, or its release/escape. Nor the various Mycenaean, Babylonian or other peripherals. Archaeology and physical evidence demonstrate that the great monolithic works were NOT built by slaves - but organised contract labour. This is likely, native Egyptian story - retold by one segment of the eastern conquered people, with an oral tradition reconciled as part of the Torah, during the Babylonian period - crafted into a deliverance metaphor, relating to their condition in Mesopotamia at the time.

      Etymology? "Moses" is even an Egyptian name. "Arab"? "In Hebrew the words arav and aravah literally mean "desert" or "steppe". In the Hebrew Bible the latter feminine form is used exclusively for the Arabah, a region associated with the Nabateans, who spoke Arabic."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_(etymology)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:ISRAEL NON-SIGNATORY by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Allow me a MINOR correction. The Egyptians DO refer to a period wherein a nation is held captive. That is the Egyptian people, themselves captive, under the Hyksos. Most of the record of Hyksos coming and going is unclear. This was in a time corresponding with Mycenae and Troy. One would assume it was in Hyksos time that the supposed "bondage in Egypt" occured.

      No coherent theory that corresponds these events exists, to my knowledge, other than correlation and speculation.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  13. "Anti-chemical" weapons? by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

    In a fundamental sense, aren't all weapons used against chemicals? Well, except weapons used against energy beings, I guess.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  14. they might be a good choice! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    they might be a good choice! but after the obama fuckup you would think they would wait for a year or two AFTER the happening before giving the money.

    add to this that this organization is just doing their job and it was other people who chose them to do the job. obama and putin of all fucking people too...

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  15. One more in the list by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    With all the respect that surely deserves OPCW, this prize,in this moment, only makes more evident how low has fallen the institution of the Nobel Prize and how much is sold the committee to the powers that be. It was used to promote the US "intervention" in Syria business, while they wont ever destroy their own chemical, biological, or nuclear arsenal, for something that probably where rebel chemical weapons given by foreing powers.

    In the other hand, the biggest event in this decade that is surely is making a dent for mankind as a whole, that are Snowden leaks, have less chance than a snowball in hell. Manning, suffering years of prison and torture for his original leaks that also had its own big influence in the world as a whole, also was easily dismissed. About the other 250 nominees, not sure which ones did something that trascended frontiers like what those two did, or are as known as them.

  16. Obama wuz Robbed!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn! I was really hoping they would give it to Obama again. He deserves it just as much as the first time!

    Or maybe they could give it again to Yasser Arafat posthumously. Al Queda is still doing his work.

  17. uninspiring choice by binarstu · · Score: 1

    While I am not questioning that the OPCW does really great work to make the world a better place, my disappointment with this selection is that it is simply uninspiring. The Nobel committee had nominations for numerous individuals who, at great risk to their own livelihood and safety, did extraordinary things to stand up for what they knew was right and just. Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to such a person would affirm that even today, one individual doing the right thing can make a difference that is felt on a global scale. Regardless of whether the OPCW was most deserving of this year's prize (which is certainly debatable, as attested to by other comments on this story), the choice doesn't really stir much passion.

  18. Why not Putin? by cpghost · · Score: 1

    Let's see: OPCW are doing a great job. Nobody denies this. But they wouldn't be in Syria right now if Putin hadn't convinced Assad to get rid of CWs. OPCW are just executors here, while the real political drive to dismantle the Syrian CWs came from Putin. Sure, in this good cop - bad cop game, Obama played the aggressive bad cop and Putin the pacific good cop, so both would deserve the Nobel Peace Prize because of the result. However, since Obama already got it, Putin would have been the logical choice this time, IMHO.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Why not Putin? by Turbio · · Score: 1

      There is no good cop bad cop game. Syria is Iran's only ally. Obama wants to change it's government and weaken Iran. Putin wants to keep it's government, because otherwise he would lose strength in the region. If Israel would have used chemical weapons, the roles would be inverted.

    2. Re:Why not Putin? by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      There is no good cop bad cop game. Syria is Iran's only ally. Obama wants to change it's government and weaken Iran. Putin wants to keep it's government, because otherwise he would lose strength in the region.

      Well, you can't really blame Putin for preferring an evil dictator that sort of keeps the country together to letting the crazies in. It's pretty much what the West did with Saddam Hussein.

    3. Re:Why not Putin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They gave it to OPCW so they don't have to give it to Putin in 2014. Btw. nominations were accepted as of February, what does Syrian CW attack have to do with it?

  19. Snowden Deserved the Peace Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He demonstrated that the military intelligence agencies have run amok.

  20. There is some haste by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    She can get it when she turns 18 or 21.

    Part of her merit is that several Talibans have decided she shouldn't turn 18. And the Nobel prizes are not posthumous.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu