Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: hypocrisy on Syria: Canada's hands are not clean when it comes to chemical weapons

  1. #1
    Senior Member LoboCanada's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,501

    Default hypocrisy on Syria: Canada's hands are not clean when it comes to chemical weapons

    Was emailed this today, this true…

    http://rabble.ca/news/2013/09/harper...emical-weapons


    [*******#3F3F3F][FONT=Verdana]While one may wish this were the case, it's not. In fact, Canada has repeatedly been complicit with the use of chemical weapons.[/FONT][/COLOR]
    [*******#3F3F3F][FONT=Verdana]During the war in Afghanistan Canadian troops used white phosphorus, which is a chemical agent that can cause deep tissue burning and death when inhaled or ingested in significant amounts. In an October 2008 letter to the Toronto Star, Corporal Paul Demetrick, a Canadian reservist, claimed Canadian forces used white phosphorus as a weapon against "enemy-occupied" vineyards. General Rick Hillier, former chief of the Canadian defence staff, confirmed the use of this defoliant. Discussing the difficulties of fighting the Taliban in areas with 10-foot tall marijuana plants, the general said: "We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work." After accusations surfaced of western forces (and the Taliban) harming civilians with white phosphorus munitions the Afghan government launched an investigation.[/FONT][/COLOR]



  2. #2
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    25,609

    Default

    White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon in the military sense. Sounds like another "journalist" trying to catch eyeballs with a sensationalist headline. Technically ALL conventional explosives are "chemical weapons" as they use chemicals to make them explode.

  3. #3
    Senior Member IDF_TANKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    The world's 6th most dangerous country.
    Age
    36
    Posts
    13,152

    Default

    Not this WP **** again...

  4. #4
    Platinum Member Rattfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In a knife fight with a gypsy...
    Posts
    13,997

    Default

    The article plainly contradicts its own headline. WP was used to defoliate an area in order to deny concealment to the enemy. The same was done in Iraq but with heavy equipment on date palm orchards.

    And no **** you can't eat a "Significant quantity" of W/P.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,240

    Default

    I see a significant difference between Syrian chemical weapons and Canadian "chemical weapons". A big, focking difference.

  6. #6
    Senior Member T-5 Killer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Age
    33
    Posts
    5,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IDF_TANKER View Post
    Not this WP **** again...
    +1 people need to do there homework on WP vs Chemical weapons.

  7. #7

    Default

    In that case, neither is many of the coalition forces, including the US. We used 60mm and 81mm WP rounds in our mortars, alot. Stupid journalist is stupid.

  8. #8
    Hot Biker Dude of Death Royal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    'round and about...
    Posts
    8,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon in the military sense. Sounds like another "journalist" trying to catch eyeballs with a sensationalist headline. Technically ALL conventional explosives are "chemical weapons" as they use chemicals to make them explode.
    No, but it is banned under Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (of which Canada, the US and UK are all signatories) IF it is used as an incendiary. Its use as a screening agent however is not banned.

  9. #9

    Default

    Is there different types of white phosphorous shells?
    I mean
    white phosphorous( smoke )
    white phosphorous(incendiary)
    Many years ago why I was doing infantry mortar training We where given white phosphorous to fire in training
    They never mentioned incendiary effects or anything like that they just said it was for smoke
    although they did say the smoke was acrid and could be used to drive people away in close terrain

  10. #10
    Senior Member KillerBD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Close to a coffee mug, closer to an AK
    Posts
    4,178

    Default

    To be fair WP is viewed to be quite haneious in its use in war and even in the US military its considered highly controversial. Kind of like expanding munitions, etc. Though not really the same as 'Chemical Weapons' like Sarin, it's still a very gruesome means to 'sanitarily' fight a war (by western standards anyway). At least on a personal level, dying from an explosive-blast or gunshot wound tends to be more 'acceptable' to the international community, than using napalm/WP, or even DU munitions.

    I think the whole point of this is, our definitive reasoning for the proposed military intervention into the Syrian conflict, is a bit of a sham. Somewhat hypocritical going by what some politicians say as well, trying to rewrite history to justify going ahead with these proposed strikes.

  11. #11
    Hot Biker Dude of Death Royal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    'round and about...
    Posts
    8,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnhan278 View Post
    Is there different types of white phosphorous shells?
    I mean
    white phosphorous( smoke )
    white phosphorous(incendiary)
    Many years ago why I was doing infantry mortar training We where given white phosphorous to fire in training
    They never mentioned incendiary effects or anything like that they just said it was for smoke
    although they did say the smoke was acrid and could be used to drive people away in close terrain
    Not any more - anything legal in a western army is a screening (smoke) munition. Its the way that its used that is the issue.

  12. #12

    Default

    what a ridiculous comparison. this guy should work for the guardian! next they will be saying standard 5.65 rounds are equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb.

  13. #13
    Senior Member LineDoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    38S MB 3661/8351
    Posts
    33,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LoboCanada View Post
    Was emailed this today, this true…

    http://rabble.ca/news/2013/09/harper...emical-weapons
    Yves Engler, retard, next he'll say gunpowder is a Chemical weapon.

  14. #14
    buck duck huck luck muck puck ruck suck tuck yuck fuuuuuuuu muck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Beim Barte des Proleten!
    Posts
    15,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Royal View Post
    Not any more - anything legal in a western army is a screening (smoke) munition. Its the way that its used that is the issue.
    True, but as long as no one is intentionally hurt white posphorus's use as a defoliant is peanuts compared to the intentional slaughtering of some 1000 civilians.

    Journalism is a deceitful business. I mean, what's the point of this article - that Canada has no moral grounds to protest against Assad gassing women and children?

  15. #15
    Senior Member LineDoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    38S MB 3661/8351
    Posts
    33,240

    Default

    As I suspected Englers is a fellow traveler type. Once doused Canada's Foreign Affair's minister with cranberry juice shouting Pettigrew lies Haitians die during a press conference. Now he fellates Palestinians and typically blames the US and Israel for everything. He's even pro North Korea he has the audacity to claim the North Koreans didn't invade the south in 1950

    he even rants against people who have automobiles

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •