British Army’s White Phosphorus Addiction

submitted by [deleted] from (consortiumnews.com)

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They're ADDICTS

They're ADDICTED

ADDICTED to having used it less than a handful of times during training after having cleared the land of humans and animals.

What about the ruzzia's use of white phosphorus over Donbass, that's not an addiction, they can quit any time.

Hey big brain, which expansionist fascist white phosphorus user do you think they're training to fight against?

Using it less than a handful of times during training = THEYRE ADDICTED

Using it during warfare against humans = STOP COMPLAINING

Yeah this article seems totally above board OP. Good find. But you can quit reading this shit anytime you want, right, you just choose not to, nothing pathological about it

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah this article seems totally above board OP. Good find. But you can quit reading this shit anytime you want, right, you just choose not to, nothing pathological about it

So the UK can criticize Russia for using white phosphorous, and then go ahead and use it themselves, got it

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That only makes sense when you bury your head in the sand and pretend. The russia is using it in hot blood, during warfare, on people and civilians, because it's painful and kills well. The other is using it carefully on a cleared range, by my guess, so that they know what to do if the russia fires it at them. There's a big difference and you have to be trying really hard not to notice it.

Edit - oh sorry and apparently UK are ADDICTED while the ruzzia can quit any time, that's an important part of the make-believe too

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

If it's so OK why are they using it in Kenyan civilian areas, but not in their own. You show me where they use this stuff in UK civilian areas and I'll happily admit I'm wrong

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You show me where they're using it in Kenyan civilian areas first.

From the declassifieduk.org source in your own link -

The [British] army claims that range wardens and contractors clear the area of civilians prior to exercises through outreach to the local pastoralist population. Helicopters are used to ensure wildlife has vacated.

So let me see. In your mind, it's totally condemnable for the British to use it in outback training after removing all the people and animals. In that case I think you'll join me in absolute condemnation of the russians who have used this terrible weapon carelessly in hot blood, in a deliberate attempt to hurt people. I'm just checking we're absolutely aligned in our condemnation of the russia for this awful behaviour, given that your position on the British army use leaves you no other logically consistent take on the russian use.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This debate is getting more heated than I think it needs to be. Let me try to be a little more clear about my own positions and address some of the points you are making which I agree are valid.

You mention the article talking about 'addiction' to white phosphorous - yes this is absurd hyperbole. I haven't seen this story anywhere else, so I posted what they had to say, they don't necessarily speak for me.

As far as Russia goes, yes I would condemn them for using this stuff in Ukraine based on what I'm reading about it here.

However...the topic of this article that made me post it was the discussion on whether or not the UK was being hypocritical in their criticisms about Russia's use of this substance. I personally feel like one ought to make sure one is on the moral high ground before casting stones. Now, UK says what they are doing is OK and Russia is not. Clearly Russia's use is not, but I think UK is falling in the questionable category, though I am open to being convinced.

Now UK cites the fact that they are obviously trying to prevent people from being harmed by whatever it is they are doing - this is definitely a point in their favor, and yes they are clearly not as bad as Russia.

You show me where they're using it in Kenyan civilian areas first.

Yes they are evacuating it, but the fact remains that this is an area otherwise inhabited by wildlife and civilians. Now the question is not whether they are intentionally causing harm, but whether they are subjecting Kenya to risks they would not themselves tolerate. If UK was using this stuff in a similar manner in their own country, it would be one way of proving to me that they didn't think this was a danger.

Lacking this evidence, I would even accept a rational justification for why this stuff needed to be used in Kenya but not the UK, maybe there is a good reason that was not provided by my article. Lacking either of those pieces of evidence I have to be suspicious that these are risks they would not take with their own people and country, in which case, I think condemnation and pointing out of hypocrisy is appropriate. Western nations have a long history of using African nations to test drugs, testing nukes on islands, torture prisons and gain of function research performed in countries with laxer laws than out own, and otherwise exploiting 3rd world countries with dangerous and illegal activities.

To me, this article raises a valid question that suggests more information is needed about exactly why UK thinks it is necessary to use white phosphorous in Kenya in areas normally inhabited by nomads and animals, and if/why not similar usage is occurring in the UK. I am quite open to you providing information that would reassure me that this is justifiable.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh okay it was just hyperbole. Funny how the hyperbole always lands one way and never the other, almost like it's a deliberate framing for fake news.

To me, this article raises a valid question that suggests more information is needed about exactly why UK thinks it is necessary to use white phosphorous in Kenya

It does indeed raise the question doesn't it! But it takes a closed mind to assume one already knows the answer to a question, then make that lie into a factual part of their worldview. Actually if you were really truly wondering why they might be using white phosphorus there, that's something you could research an answer to.

First of all, why are there UK soldiers in Kenya in the first place? One of the UK's roles in Kenya is to train the Kenyan forces to deal with unstable factions in the region, like terror group Al shabaab. So has white phosphorus been used in the region?

You could check and, yes it has

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/23/exclusive-ethiopians-suffer-horrific-burns-suspected-white-phosphorus/

In the event that the disaster happens to you and your country is invaded by a force that has access to this kind of armory. Then you would be extremely grateful if your defenders had trained to deal with chemical warfare.

[–]ephrem_moseley 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why would you even believe what the UK says about why they use it? I think that it is quite possible that they are lying. Have you considered that?

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No weapon should be off-limits in warfare. If you don't want your people burning alive with fires that can't be extinguished, either be stronger or don't antagonize the brits.

[–]chottohen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is ridiculous to condemn only British troops of using Willy Peter (white phosphorus) since The US used it in Vietnam against combatants or anyone unlucky enough to be hit with it. Among US troops there was the expression: Willy Peter make you a believer.