Originally posted in the comments at Defense Tech, a military reader weighs in on the debunked Think Progress article being repeated by such frauds as Sigfrido Ranucci.

The "military reader" writes:

"I have to chuckle at the 'chemical WP' story from the 'Think Progress' website.

Can they truthfully say that "Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As 'Chemical Weapon'". Sure they can....technically. That is what the words say. However this is not not some Pentagon policy paper, or tactics manual, or even primer on WMD making that claim. It is a HUMINT field report, from a Kurdish source. And we all know several things by now about this type of reporting.

First, HUMINT reporting can be shaky on several levels, for many reasons. One of the main problem with HUMINT...having a truthful source.

Second, it is a field report. A straight regurgitation of what the source told the reporter. No analysis has been put against this info whatsoever, it is simply an info report. Chances are, the guy who did up the report had no idea what White Phosphorus really is, so the info sounded like it would make a good report on Saddam's treachery. Also, I would bet, that when the report actually reached an analyst who knew a thing or two about Chemical Weapons, it was probably tossed in the burn bag as ludicrous.

Lastly, we have to remember the source was the Kurdish opposition. As we well know now, the Kurds were willing to provides lots of "intelligence" to us, much on it not up to snuff. They did this for many reasons, including money, and to influence us to act against Saddam. Once again, a problem with HUMINT is that sometimes there are motives behind a source, not just the information.

Thus I find it a little ironic that a movement from a certain end of the political spectrum that has chided the President for going to war based on bad intelligence (and worse), is now trying to pillory the Administration and DoD based on the same type of "bad intel" from the same suspect source pool.

Bottom line is that this is not a definitive "Pentagon Document", but rather one piece of suggestive information provided to the DoD. Thus this is not an example of how the Pentagon considers "white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons" as 'Think Progress' would like to have us believe. It is hardly a smoking gun, say in the way if they found a hypothetical document penned by a Pentagon lawyer warning that WP could be considered CW. That would be something with direct influence on policy, this report is not. I don't think that 'Think Progress' is being underhanded in their analysis, just plain wrong. I just don't think they know what kind of report they are referencing, or how to read it.

I then sent sent the following message to Think Progress via their web site's contact form:

Gentlemen,

I've been reading (and commenting) on your story, "Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon'" for several days now.

A simple reading of the formerly classified document shows that it is nothing more than a transcript of a phone call between two Kurdish civilians. The Pentagon does note label white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, the civilians do. Your contention is false.

If John Podesta took down notes of a phone conversation between Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, that fact that he wrote those notes would not mean that Mr. Podesta endorsed the positions, would it? Of course it wouldn't.

If Think Progress is indeed a "nonpartisan organization" seeking to "provide a forum that advances progressive ideas," don't you think that the idea of advancing truth would warrant a retraction of your erroneous story?

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Bob Owens
Confederate Yankee Blog
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/

I do not expect a response.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 665 words, total size 4 kb.

My first "web" job back in '96 or '97 as a "search engine marketing specialist" was for a group of small businessmen that realized that they couldn't find their own companies on a simple web search. In the early days of "search engine optimization services" (SEOs) my job was to determine how search engines ranked pages, and "tweak" web page code accordingly so that my clients would show up accurately in search results for their products.

For example, one South Carolina-based client manufactured and repaired machine tools. I optimized their site to score well for the services they offered. As a result, their services were easily found, and in some cases, they appeared to clients searching online to be only machine tool company capable of doing certain kinds of work, because their real-world competitors were lost in the search results "clutter" several pages back. This is how search engine optimization was supposed to work and indeed, is how it was often marketed.

But this optimization knowledge wasn't always used for accuracy. It was, in fact, often used to purposefully distort search engine results in favor of clients.

This led to a cat-and-mouse game between the search engines of the day and SEO companies. The search engines had to produce and maintain relevant results to survive. Most search engines were unable to keep ahead of SEO companies, and their increasingly irrelevant results led to their downfall. They couldn't keep out the trash, became less relevant, and were abandoned by users.

There is a reason why "to search" on the web today is "to Google." Google was able to filter out the trash.

Today, blog trackback parties are a continuation of the same kind of gaming the system that occurred during the heyday of the abuse of search engine optimization, adapted to work off of the idiosyncrasies of the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem instead of search engines.

Trackback parties "game" the system, and have been used to artificially adjust individual Ecosystem rankings. That N.Z. Bear noticed and corrected an abuse of a system he created is morally defensible. He has to, or otherwise it becomes meaningless, and the Ecosystem becomes meaningless and dies. It's survival of the fittest, and N.Z. Bear is well within his rights to assert his dominance in the food chain to assure his own survival.

Those who intended to game the Ecosystem will be among the loudest critics of this move, and those who are sincere about providing links to create true communities won't care. I guess we'll see which is which soon enough.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.

Like we didn't see this coming...

...or this going, for that matter.

At least we've still got these kewl graphics from those high-dollar branding consultants!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:41 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

139 terrorists killed. 256 terrorists captured. Operation Steel Curtain ends today as a success.

Did I mention that a substantial number of the soldiers fighting for the coaltion were locally-recruited Iraqis?

Via Centcom:

The 17-day offensive, which took place in the cities of Husaybah, Karabilah and Ubaydi, was part of the larger Operation Sayaid (Hunter) designed to prevent al Qaeda in Iraq-led terrorists from operating in the Euphrates River Valley and throughout al Anbar province. The operation made way for the establishment of a permanent Iraqi Army security presence in the al Qaim region and set the conditions for local citizens to vote in the upcoming Dec.15 elections.

Operation Steel Curtain ushered in the first large-scale operational employment of the Iraqi Army, approximately 1,000 Soldiers, in western al Anbar province. The Iraqi Soldiers conducted detailed clearing missions alongside Coalition counterparts and began establishing permanent bases within these three cities. Forces at these outposts will prevent the al Qaeda in Iraq-led terrorists from regaining a presence in these cities and threatening local residents with their murder and intimidation campaign.

Integration of locally recruited Iraqi Army Soldiers in al Anbar was introduced by the arrival of the Desert Protectors. The Desert Protectors were recruited from the al Qaim region and worked alongside the Iraqi Army and U.S. units throughout the course of the operation. Their familiarity with the area and its people was crucial in identifying friend from foe and enabled their Iraqi and Coalition partners to better understand the geographical complexities of the region.

This comes on the heels of a discovery of a large cache of terrorist weapons in Baghdad by 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division the day before.

Iraqi police and military forces are increasingly asserting themselves, and so it is perhaps not surprising that their leaders are feeling confident enough to call for withdrawing coalition forces... if not exactly right now. Some folks seem surprised by this, but they shouldn't be; it has only been our plan since the beginning.

Some are also a bit taken aback by the fact that Iraqi officials have not condemned the insurgency outright. Indeed, they make the statement:

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

Call me cynical, but I'd interpret that as Sunnis pandering to their insurgent elements in an attempt to get their agreement for furhtering the political process, while Shia and Kurd may have agreed because it would focus Sunni insurgents on the U.S. military forces best equipped to kill them.

The Iraqi government goes forward, insurgents get killed as things wind down, and we leave Iraq with a democratically elected government.

Yeah, I can get behind that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 4 kb.

[Far Left political blogger Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest aroused the ire of retired Army veteran John Yetter with his nonsensical attacks against America's military and those who serve in it. CW5 Yetter asked for a moment to respond. He has certainly earned it.]

Dave Johnson, I see in your bio that you do not list military service. Therefore, let me weigh in and lend a perspective from my 31 years service in the United States Army.

First of all, a reasonable President and his DOD Secretary will rely upon the military experts, the general officers and their staff, to plan and execute war. That includes the withdrawal as well as the initial assault. Considerable National Command Authority (NCA) should be extended down to the general in command of the theater of operations. (NCA held at the Oval Office results in Mogadishu and Somalia. NCA extended to the theater commander produces the take over of Iraq with very little loss of life.) Exit strategy, as it has become known, is part of the operational plans and will be held very close hold so as to deny the enemy usable intelligence. Announcing an exit strategy with a time line is divulging too much information. It is a providing the enemy with usable intelligence by which they may plan their operations. President Bush has repeatedly said that we will stay only as long as it takes to complete the mission. For any segment of the population to demand that more information, with an inclusive time line, be divulged is asking the president to give the enemy usable intelligence. That would not be very intelligent.

One man's dissent can very well be another man's treason. With that you should not disagree. Article III, Section 3 of The Constitution of the United States, reads, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” I am sure you can reason that comments comparing our soldiers' actions to those of Stalin's henchmen in the gulags or the Nazi's SS troops in the concentration camps would give our enemy comfort. I will be the first to proclaim a person's right to speak out critically about our policies or about our president and his cabinet, because I defended that right with my life for 31 years. I'm also going to be the first person to tell you there is a consequence to an action (speaking out) and that you own the responsibility for that consequence. I do not agree that there is such a thing as inconsequential free speech where there is no associated responsibility. You must take ownership of your actions and the consequences. If the consequence of your dissension provides comfort to an enemy with whom we are at war, then you must take responsibility for a treasonous act.

To believe that Iraq is the focus of the war on terrorism is to be too narrowly focused. Iraq is merely one front in the war. And, yes, the war against radical Islamic terrorist is extremely vital to the free world. Radical Islam has specifically targeted the United States since the Tehran Embassy takeover. This war did not start on 9-11; it was then that it was brought to our homeland. But 9-11 finally caused us to take action and we must not fail to be victorious in this war. By establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as free Islamic nations, we will deny al-Qaeda two logistical strongholds from which to base operations, recruit, train, finance, etc. If radical Islam can cause us to withdraw prematurely from Iraq and Afghanistan they will in essence render us globally ineffectual against their onslaught. That would be quite an accomplishment for a few radicals, but absolutely devastating to us nationally. That is why the American public must maintain a will to win.

I would also like to address the issue of White Phosphorus (WP) being a chemical weapon. There have been many testimonies by other subject matter experts that have substantiated that WP is not a chemical weapon, but there is a dogged belief that it is and that a covered up has been effected. Outside of a soldier's hands and feet, and such simple weapons as the bayonet and garrote all of our weapons are “technically” chemical in nature. Bullets are launched by the reaction of the ignited “chemicals” of the propellant (gun powder). Grenades, artillery shells, rocket and missile warheads, etc., explode due to the ignition of the “chemicals” causing huge pressure waves and shrapnel to kill and destroy people and equipment. True chemical weapons, regardless of the delivery mechanism (artillery shells, bombs, etc.), are liquids, powders or gases designed to attack the nervous system shutting down organs or the blood by preventing the absorption of oxygen. Chemical weapons are VX, saran and ricin – NOT WP. IMHO after all the facts have been laid out and to persist to claim that WP is a chemical weapon, a chemical WMD, is giving the enemy comfort in the court of world opinion. To me, that's treasonous, plain and simple.

Now, I've just given you substantial facts. How you receive them, of course, is up to you. However, I would implore you to start trusting the experts to do what they are trained to do. I don't believe you would take your car to your doctor for a motor tune up, nor would you ask your local Ford dealer to perform brain surgery. Let the military fight the war, and you support them.

I leave you with this quote. “Through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.” The author is Colonel Bui Tin who was the Chief of Staff to General Vo Nguyen Giap, the Commander of the Peoples Army of Vietnam (North Vietnam). He spoke of our pullout from Vietnam. In the war against radical Islamic terrorists, this must not become our epitaph.

John Yetter, CW5, USA (Retired)

Note: Dr. Rusty Shackleford delivers a brutal dressing down of another liberal blogger as being worse than a traitor. Considering the blogger in question and comments he's made, I'd say I agree with his assessment.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:27 AM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 996 words, total size 6 kb.

I got sidetracked debunking the lies of Think Progress last night, and didn't get around to writing a post I meant to write about current Congressman and former Marine John Murtha.

Murtha has garnered recent interest for calling for a U.S retreat from Iraq. While Congressman Murtha has every right to his own opinion, the fact he was a decorated hero does not mean he has great judgement, nor does it insulate him from criticism.

As courageous as his record may have been in battle, John Murtha's record as a cheese-eating surrender monkey while in Congress has served to inspire this nation's enemies.

Generation Why? has the details.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:21 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

This article by radical liberal group Think Progress might make your blood boil, but be careful: they might then try to label it a chemical weapon.

Their spin begins:

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren't technically “chemical weapons.”

I too, was shocked that the U.S military used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah in 2004. While white phosphorus is an extremely effective obscurant, and it thwarted the ability of terrorist snipers and machine guns to easily slaughter our soldiers by hiding them from view, both night and day, it is all but useless as an offensive artillery round since it can neither penetrate nor burn though the concrete and concrete block construction of the urban battlefield. It was, however, was effective offensively as a "potent psychological weapon."

In a tactical trick called a "shake 'n bake," American mortars or howitzers would drop several white phosphorus shells as close as possible to an entrenched enemy position. The white phosphorus-saturated felt wedges would then deploy and fall to the ground, where some could potentially burn terrorists hiding in trenches and spider holes, but it would almost certainly obscure their vision, no matter what kind of cover they were under.

The terrorists, knowing that American forces preferred to use the dense smoke of white phosphorus to screen attacks, would panic, fearing they were about to be overrun. As the evacuated their entrenched ambush positions, high explosive shells were the fired to kill the insurgents flushed out in the open.

These high explosives, which "aren't technically chemical weapons" as Think Progress is sure to agree, use far more lethal chemical compounds than white phosphorus, and are able to destroy structures, spread fragmenting shrapnel, char, and liquefy flesh with concussive blasts.

Other battlefield weapons that "aren't technically chemical weapons" but are universally far more a lethal threat than white phosphorus include pistol, rifle, and machine gun bullets, hand grenades, RPGs, mines, IEDs, anti-tank rockets, tank gun rounds, and aerial bombs. Indeed, it would probably be accurate to say that the only kind of ammunition less lethal than white phosphorus shells used in the battle of Fallujah would be magnesium flaresÂ… though those could potentially leave nasty burns as well.

Think Progress's spin continues:

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”

Now why on earth would the New York Times claim repeatedly that white phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" and not “chemical weapons?” Could it be the imposing influence of "Freeper" Maureen Dowd? What about that rabid right-winger Frank Rich?

Or, could it be possible, that the New York Times, long considered as the "newspaper of record," actually interviewed some experts in the field? While a fact-based article might be outdated for a progressive organization lkeThink Progress, I found that my own military artillery experts came to the shocking conclusion that incendiaries catch fire, but aren't chemical weapons like mustard gas, Sarin or VX. Who knew?

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature.

No dears, it isn't a political distinction, but a scientific one. Look up a branch of science called chemistry. You might just learn something that all the reputable news sources already know: white phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon.

But hey, if you can't rely on falsified media claims, and science lets your narrative down, can't you always rely on rough intelligence draft from a non-expert's brother over the phone?

DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED
BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]

. DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION,
THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE
PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS

Of course you can!

A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. [Â…]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they're used by our enemies.

Yes, their “classified Pentagon document" boils down to a single brief phone call between two Kurdish brothers. Not so impressive now, is it?

And why does Think Progress also leave out the warning the report that forcefully states:

WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED

Just to make this clear: the Pentagon NEVER referred to white phosphorus rounds as "chemical weapons" in this report. Only the conversation of two Kurdish brothers mentioned the term "chemical weapons" and that characterization was never accepted by the military.

Think Progress completely misrepresents the core element of their article.

The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon's legalistic parsings.

"Legalistic parsing," is Think Progress-speak for "facts."

The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.”

They quoted William Arkin's throughly debunked Washington Post blog entry as a source? You've got to be kidding me.

And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

After all the erroneous and intentional deceit you've tried to pass off so far, do you really think a link to the organization that pays you is going to hold any credibility at all?

To paraphrase President Bush, this isn't a question about what is legal, it's about what is right.

What do you know... they finally got something right.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:22 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 1068 words, total size 8 kb.

1 "What is right" is to use every available, legitimate military tool to disrupt, disable,and destroy the insurgency in Iraq. That includes WP, napalm, bunker busters, scatterable mines, etc. Losing is not an option.

Posted by: olddawg at November 22, 2005 09:20 AM (7nc0l)

2 Personally, I’ve become weary of the naive bunch that believes fighting is wrong (unless you’re wearing Che Guevara apparel!) and thinks there really are “rules” in warfare. It would be great to see everyone play fair, but that’s not what warfare is about. At which point you’re willing to risk your life to kill another, what’s right or fair is no longer a consideration—only winning matters. Yes it’s a Machiavellian perspective, and it’s the perspective employed by our enemies and all those who have won wars in the past. The losers are those who hold back, or blunder because they fail to grasp significance of the situation. Go back to the ancient world. The mass slaughter of the defeated is standard fare. Enslavement, forced resettlement, are all normal features of war. We should count ourselves lucky that this is no longer done (although I do believe it would be if the situation were just right—because I believe human nature has not changed since then). What happens to an insurgent, or terrorist, or enemy combatant matters little to me. I only care that their capture or demise serves to bring us victory. Yes, this is a cruel attitude, but it is the only attitude that wins wars. The time for mercy is after victory is secured, not during the firefight. And remember, the terrorists started this war. I wonder if a 737 can be considered a weapon of mass destruction or count as a chemical weapon? Maybe the left would feel better if we employed suicidal “freedom fighters” to blow up businesses, schools, and public places. I am disgusted when I see their websites condemn our leaders and our troops, but never those who deliberately kill the innocent, especially children. At least we take precautions, rather than seek to kill innocents. Why we even take precautions at the expense of our own lives! Enemies within, and enemies without, the usual arrangement for a state at war; but make no mistake, the words, “Vae Victus” (woe to the vanquished) apply to us just as they did to the Romans.

Posted by: Marshall Neal at November 22, 2005 11:37 AM (WabmA)

3 What you are seeing is the fascinating emplosion of a major US political party. The blameocrats are using false evidence (and have been, check out factcheck.org for new info on the Iraq intel issue)and it may get them short term gain and create the illusion that republicans are on the rope, but when the moderate public sees the truth....

Posted by: Ray Robison at November 22, 2005 01:12 PM (CdK5b)

4 Golly, are suicide bombers and IEDs scanctioned by the Geneva and UN conventions? Limiting what our troops can use in combat against terrorists who have no such limitations is like taking a knife to a gun fight, just doesn't make any sense. All this white phosporus stuff is just so much 'smoke'!!

Posted by: docdave at November 22, 2005 03:43 PM (s65f7)

5 MY GOD! I never knew that my city was trying to kill me each Forth of July by shooting chemical weapons in the air. OH THE HORROR! All of that toxic smoke from fireworks! We should all be dead! GOTT IM HIMMEL, every country on Earth has access to these deadly chemical weapons. Who knew that the peaceful Chinese were selling cheap chemical weapons to individual citizens at the Crazy Bill Firework stand. Maybe my National Guard unit should attack my garage to clean out my stocks of chemical weapons.

Posted by: Greg at November 22, 2005 08:54 PM (yyMom)

6 I'm open side.. a chemist.. P + O2 = fire - point: chemical sucks oxygen. Human being + O2 = life - point: sucks oxygen it's all chemicals guys.. don't dally or dice with death on semantics. Cruelty: an honest guy :: war is cruel :: but whose war is this—I said war not acts of terror! Perspective and basis to this honesty—read "Lunch with Mussolini" by Hansen, 1994. Allied bombing of Berlin and its approaches. Cloud cover stopped HE - unseen targets. Object: smash german war machine. So what did they do? Get the workers, the productive capacity. With what—WP—that's what! Eye witness account: "They told us the bombers had dropped little bombs filled with phosphorus which split open on impact and splashed fire everywhere. They told us the phosphorus keeps eating away at flesh until neutralised. This was the case for some of the less fortunate people around us who were in agony." Cruel, yes, but civilians (as a means of destroying workers in the factories). Gross cruelty. Maybe the Battle of Fallujah was not what many have asserted. But with both track records and the attitudes I have read in this blog's comments, there is a need to prove this by full inquiry as opposed to blind belief.. wouldn't you say? Finally, just why are US taxpayers funding Iraq? I try be straight and honest. Maybe you folks can try match that. I'd like to come back and read about that.. Bye for now.

Posted by: roman eos at November 23, 2005 02:41 AM (PU1Iy)

7 Damn, your own government knows WP is a chemical weapon (WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!) - File: 950901_22431050_91r.txt Page: 91r Total Pages: 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL Filename:22431050.91r PATHFINDER RECORD NUMBER: 16134 GENDATE: 950504 NNNN TEXT: ENVELOPE CDSN = LGX854 MCN = 91107/02896 TOR = 911070142 RTTCZYUW RUEKJCS0771 1070142-CCCC--RUEALGX. ZNY CCCCC HEADER R 170142Z APR 91 FM JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC INFO RUENAAA/CNO WASHINGTON DC RUEAHQA/CSAF WASHINGTON DC RUEACMC/CMC WASHINGTON DC RUEKCCG/USDP-CCC WASHINGTON DC RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC RUEALGX/SAFE R 160504Z APR 91 FM CDR500THMIBDE CP ZAMA JA//IAGPD-OP-CM// TO AIG 9149 RUCJACC/USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL//J2// RUSNNOA/USCINCEUR VAIHINGEN GE RUEDBIA/CDR513THMIBDE FT MONMOUTH NJ RUAGAAA/CDR501STMIBDE SEOUL KOR//IABDK-PH// RUAGAAA/CDR524THMIBN SEOUL KOR//IABDK-CX-PC// RUAJMAB/FOSIF WESTPAC KAMI SEYA JA//CSG// RUEOADA/9TIS SHAW AFB SC//INO// RUEHAK/USDAO ANKARA TU BT CONTROLS SECTION 001 OF 002 SERIAL: (U) IIR 2 243 1050 91 /*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/ BODY PASS: (U) DIA FOR ITF/JIC/OICC/; DA FOR DAMI-FII-E COUNTRY: (U) IRAQ (IZ); TURKEY (TU); IRAN (IR). SUBJ: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY IRAQ IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS; AND CURRENT SITUATION OF KURDISH RESISTANCE AND REFUGEES (U) WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED --------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE --------------------------------------------------------------------- DOI: (U) 910300. REQS: (U) T-8C2-2650-01-90. SOURCE: [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] . DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS -- A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ, BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, TURKISH AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED SEVERAL REFUGEE CENTERS ALONG THE TURKISH-IRAQI BORDER. THE SITUATION OF KURDISH REFUGEES IN THESE CENTERS IS DESPERATE -- THEY HAVE NO SHELTERS, FOOD, WATER, AND MEDICAL FACILITIES (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). B. IRAQI GOVERNMENT ULTIMATUM TO KURDS REBELS AND REFUGEES -- ON OR AROUND 2 APRIL 1991, RADIO BAGHDAD ISSUED AN ULTIMATUM TO THE KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES WHO FLED IRAQ AND SETTLED IN REFUGEE CENTERS IN TURKEY. IN THE BROADCAST, IRAQI AUTHORITIES WARNED THE KURDS THEY HAD 10 DAYS TO RETURN TO THEIR TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OR ELSE FACE COMPLETE ANNIHILATION. THE IRAQI BROADCAST ALSO PROMISED THE KURDS THAT NO RETALIATORY ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM IF THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). C. KURDISH REBELS ARE LOSING IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES -- KURDISH REBELS WHO WERE FIGHTING IN NORTHERN IRAQ WERE FORCED TO WITHDRAW INTO TURKEY BY TROOPS LOYAL TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. POOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF HEAVY WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, AND SUPPLIES ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF KURDISH LATEST DOWNFALL. THE ONLY GROUP CURRENTLY FIGHTING SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THE "PESHMERGEH" (FRONT WARRIORS). HOWEVER, THIS GROUP IS ARMED ONLY WITH SMALL ARMS SUCH AS M-60 MACHINE-GUNS, AK-47 RIFLES AND UNKNOWN TYPES OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS. D. KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING "DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). E. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REASON NOT TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE U.S. LED COALITION FORCE DURING "DESERT STORM" -- THE GENERAL PERCEPTION AMONG THE KURDS IS THAT PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE COALITION BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID THAT ALLIES WOULD RETALIATE BY USING BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) - IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE AREA. 2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] 3. (SOURCE COMMENT) - MOST OF THE SMUGGLING OF REFUGEES ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS OCCURRED AT NIGHT. 4. (FIELD COMMENT) - ACCORDING TO THE TIMES' WORLD ATLAS, THE TWO IRAQI PROVINCES ERBIL AND DOHUK ARE ALSO CALLED ARBIL AND DIHOK RESPECTIVELY. //IPSP: (U) PGW 2650//. //COMSOBJ: (U) 211//. ADMIN PROJ: (U) 252132. INSTR: (U) US NO. PREP: (U) 500TH MI BDE. ACQ: (U) TOKYO, JAPAN (910409). DISSEM: (U) FIELD: NONE. WARNING: (U) REPORT CLASSIFIED

Posted by: Exposed Driver at November 23, 2005 01:28 PM (M7BWM)

8 ED, may I be the first to say that you might be the dumbest SOB ever to post here? I throughly debunk a post, and you response is to cut and paste what I just debunked? Short bus, long numbers?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2005 01:44 PM (g5Nba)

9 If this phone between two kurdish bros is not so impressive, why should the Department of Defense find some interest in it? Isn't like that if an information, whatever dumb maybe be, becomes a proof if useful and remains trash if not? May you pardon me for my english.

Posted by: Domiziano Galia at November 24, 2005 05:09 AM (yw20+)

10 Domiziano Galia, Thanks for writing. I thought I would answer your question, "If this phone between two kurdish bros is not so impressive, why should the Department of Defense find some interest in it?" The simple answer is: they didn't. This is one of thousands of raw data reports gathered every single day. Some are treasure troves of useful information.Some are all but worthless. Watch for my next post. As soon as I clear it, I'm relasing an analyst of this from a U.S. Intelligence officer who can directly answer your question far better than I.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 24, 2005 08:53 AM (0fZB6)

11 cs(tear) gas is a chemical weapon, so is a heavy cloud smoke grenade, so are star cluster flares, so are flash bangs. wp, he, incendiary, and tracer rounds are too. big fuckin' deal.

Posted by: meangreeneinsc at November 24, 2005 11:45 PM (WB4NZ)

12 Chemical weapons are generally and acceptably classified under certain categories, namely irritatants, choking, toxic, nerve and incapacitating. None of the chemical agents actually release more energy when oxidized as far as I know and quite a few of them are inert unless mixed with a second chemical (binary chemicals). WP is an incendiary of the same way magnesium can be or phosphorous or potassium. When exposed to certain conditions they are a chemical that undergoes a reaction to release heat and energy (aka a lot of heat/fire) and as a byproduct smoke. At the very least the people who are spouting that this is a chemical weapon should at least read what chemical weapons ARE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon

Posted by: Valentine at November 25, 2005 12:11 AM (acomN)

13 If this phone between two kurdish bros is not so impressive, why should the Department of Defense find some interest in it? Mountains of documents and conversations are gathered every day by the DoD and other agencies, the vast majority of which is simply filed away because there's no way to confirm the intelligence, or it's not really useful on it's own, but may be useful later if other intelligence comes in, and so on and so on. Just because they gather it, doesn't mean they agree with it. Over time, things are declassified. And besides, when you record a conversation, you don't write down your own spin on what is being said, you write down exactly what is being said. Think "No" Progress is just another idiotic, conspiracy fuelled shithole catering for the gullible masses. You're either fooled by them, or not. Your choice.

Posted by: MisterPundit at November 25, 2005 12:28 AM (EM/BR)

14 This is an IIR (WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED) these come out about every minute thru routine classified (R 160504Z APR 91 note the R in front of the date time group) message traffic all they are for is to give a heads up to everyone in case it turns out to be confirmed. They are sent out immediately without being verified in any way in tnis case some knucklehead used the word chemical when he should not have, it should read "munition" instead of "chemical" it means nothing most of these (99%) turn out to be nothing.

Posted by: Joe at November 25, 2005 03:51 AM (kEgnJ)

15 The intersting part,is why the anti-war/Democrats/liberals adopt the same line as the terrorist in Fallujah,is there some connection? Time and time again both groups have the same talking points and details,are they being used or collaborating?

Posted by: Puzzled at November 25, 2005 07:25 AM (UsFuZ)

16 ED, may I be the first to say that you might be the dumbest SOB ever to post here? I throughly debunk a post, and you response is to cut and paste what I just debunked? I'm not ED, but I'll point out that what he did was pretty much debunk your debunk. You posted a tiny snippet of a DOD document, and you describe it as if it's a quoted transcript from the brothers. In fact, the document you're excerpting contains no quotes at all; it's a summary of the conversation, written and interpreted by DOD personnel. The classification of WP as a "chemical" weapon was the designation of the person writing the report, not a quote from the Kurds. The most obvious part, omitted by your quote, is the summaries at the top: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL ... SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL Clearly the person writing the "summary" characterizes WP as a "chemical". Otherwise the summary wouldn't have used that term. The rest of the document is just an interpretation of the conversation, as well... NOT a quote. It's the DOD and Pentagon personnel, not the Kurdish brothers, who decided to call WP a "chemical" weapon. Next time you try to debunk something, make sure you read the whole document first. (And please don't be so lame as to delete this post, as you did before. If your positions can't withstand criticism, perhaps you should choose new ones.)

Posted by: Ron at November 25, 2005 01:15 PM (PArbS)

17 "(And please don't be so lame as to delete this post, as you did before. If your positions can't withstand criticism, perhaps you should choose new ones.)" The report's allusion to "chemical" gives no context to what kind of chemical. Is it nerve, toxic, indendiary? What is it? Also, reporting it as an illegal munition is counter to DoD's own listing. WP is NOT listed as a toxic, nerve, incendiary. Those are prohibited from use in standard operations. WP is used as a smoke munition. It's designed to camoflauge and confuse. End of story. Just because some third world dictator massacres a village using boiling mayonnaise doesn't make mayonnaise an illegal weapon. It makes him a sick MF'er, and it makes people blanche when they think of mayonnaise. That's it. If the report is true (unconfirmed) then it means Saddam used WP in a way that's not intended by our own military. His use does not change OUR use. Get it?

Posted by: The False God at November 25, 2005 02:02 PM (EX0M/)

18 If the report is true (unconfirmed) then it means Saddam used WP in a way that's not intended by our own military. His use does not change OUR use. Get it? Yes, I get it. So I can fire warning shots over the head of a crowd in a movie theater, and it's OK for me to kill someone then because I'm not really using the gun in the same way it's intended to be used by a mass murderer. His use does not change MY use. Nice rationalization. And it's silly to keep hiding behind the "unconfirmed" nature of the report. Unconfirmed doesn't mean false. If the report was false, the Pentagon would be readily able to dispute it. They haven't.

Posted by: Ron at November 25, 2005 02:38 PM (PArbS)

19 What is silly Ron, is continuing to label WP as a chemical weapon for political expediency. WP, as used by the US military, as an obscurant and a signaling device. There are better incendiary devices (thermite), to use and probably are using where applicable. And, if the commanders on the ground want to use thermite, napalm or depleted Uranium on any target they deem necessary, more power to them. You are gaining no traction outside the determinedly deranged anti-Bush partisans but Im sure, gaining many propaganda points with Islamofacists.

Posted by: harry mallory at November 25, 2005 03:18 PM (6mUkl)

20 Ah, once again, the strategy of equating any disagreement with a Bush administration strategy with derangement and sympathy with Islamofacists. How predictable. I think there needs to be a Godwin's Law corollary for that. It's removed all rational thought from the conversation. I shall leave it at that.

Posted by: Ron at November 25, 2005 03:52 PM (PArbS)

21 I can not believe that our troops are so mean as to actually try to obscure the vision of those poor innocents that are trying to shoot and kill them. Oh, Mr. President, the shame of it all.

Posted by: John M. at November 25, 2005 06:59 PM (9OPS7)

22 Today in the Guardian (British left wing paper) They published a story about how Poland has released documents of how Russia would have conducted a nuclear war in Europe. The Russians it seems were going to nuke Germany but not touch Britain and France? (Maybe something about an independent nuke system scared them) The fact remains the darlings of the Liberal elite were going to nuke first in which to steal land. They though that if they only took Germany ,Denmark and the low countries then the US wouldn’t wish to start a full scale nuclear war. The fact the Americans fielded cruise missiles in Europe during the 80s proved to the Russians that the Americans would take the fight to mother Russia. The liberals who cried that Regan was a war mongerer, that America was the bully and that fielding neutron bombs (Actually a shell) was a war crime never seemed to grasp the message that Russia wanted them. Now the main bully is Islam. (lets call a spade a spade) They oppress millions, They export terror and the holy book of Islam actually dictates to the faithful that killing non Muslims in the march to conquer the world is a just cause. (Before anybody calls me a bigot or such, I am an apostate from Islam and the e-mail I posted is false so that I don’t get lots of hate mail from Muslims as I used to do when I first started visiting the net) I can talk about Islam because I understand it. And it makes me cry when I hear intelligent people claim that we don’t have a problem on our hands. Muslims, not neo cons crashed planes into the WTC. Muslims not neo cons blew up 2 American embassies in Africa. Muslims not Neo cons chop off peoples heads and lastly it will be Muslims who set off a Nuclear weapon in the west and not neo cons. Cry foul play all you want. But appeasement didn’t work in 1939 why should it work now.

Posted by: Pounce at November 26, 2005 08:17 PM (KXoQ2)

23 What i'd like to ask Ron is "who cares?"...I mean, we all know WP isn't a chemical weapon as defined by the military. That point cannot be contested. And so what if the report alludes to someone at the DoD calling WP a chemical weapon? Ever heard of someone making a mistake or being confused or just plain not knowing what they're talking about? This whole argument is ridiculous...all it's about is the left trying to make our military and therefore our president and country look bad for their own personal gain. These idiots could care less how we fight a war, or whether we win or lose. They simply look for any angle, no matter how obtuse or irrelevant to further their own agendas. I actually think it's funny to see these smug jerks flaunting their presumed "intellectualism" on a subject they know nothing about and did absolutely no research on before opening their stinking, subversive, traitorous pieholes. Come on Ron, or any of you other stupid twits on the left...show me where our White Phosphorous rounds are chemical weapons. Give me some hard data, some examples of a WP round from an artillery piece killing a person simply by being a WP round. It's SMOKE you idiots! Sgtmech

Posted by: Bill at November 29, 2005 10:49 AM (flhYe)

24 The only good libertroll is one you can hit in the head with a club!

Posted by: RepublicanTeamLeader at January 04, 2006 10:24 PM (ATxdh)

25 So when is are the NeoCons going to stop supporting the Saudi terrorists that attacked us on 911 and get the hell out of their pet project called Iraq and go after the people that actually attacked America? Maybe the neocons (like the nazis) dont care who they are killing as long as they are killing somebody. Maybe that is what the liberal founding fathers meant by "Give me LIBERTY or give me death!"??? Naaa... rightwingers have never even read the writings of the likes of Ben Frankling, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, nor Thomas Paine... newp rightwingers are far smarter than the deists and liberals that made this country in the first place... SOOOO where were the republicans in WWII? Leading America against the Nazis and the Japanese? NOPE they were covering their asses because they were supporting the nazis until public opinion turned against them...traitors ...those neocons are all traitors against this LIBERTY based country that puts the PEOPLE above rich fat cats that think they own America.

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 04:59 PM (FohTw)

26 By the way calling Liberals communists make you RED COATS ...Benedict Arnolds... You see LIBERTY is what founded this country "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" But traitors like the rightwingers dont love America and only care about their ignorant little teams that they swear their allegance to instead of to America. Well that is what prison is for...

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:03 PM (FohTw)

27 The neocons have done to the Iraqis (who did not attack nor could attack America EVER) the same way the red coats treated the founding fathers and all the TRUE Americans that lived then. Hope you are proud of becoming exactly what the founding fathers faught against.

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:07 PM (FohTw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I do not begrudge Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest his right to disagree with the present administration. Indeed he takes part in disagreeing with the George Bush with considerable passion, as is the right of every American.

But Mr. Johnson's hatred of President Bush, not at all uncommon among liberals, is so rabid that he eagerly, and blindly attacks American soldiers for using "chemical weapons," in Iraq. This is a position soundly refuted by military experts and chemists alike, but Johnson doesn't care because, as he explains in his comments to this post:

"The Pentagon" does not refer to "our troops." It means the political leadership of the military-industrial complex, appointed by Bush.

"The Pentagon" as used here is the chickenhawk Republican Party leadership, every single on of whom hid out during Vietnam - advocating FOR that war, as long as others served in their place. Similarly, they advocate for war again, as long as none of THEIR families, neighbors, etc. have to serve.

And further:

Posted here is a link to a document in which the Pentagon describes White Phosphorus as a "chemical weapon."

This is about the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, and you know it. Trying to deflect this by claiming that criticism of Bush is criticism of "the troops" or soldiers insults your and my readers.

By his own admission, Johnson, a respected blogger in the liberal circles with over a million visitors to his blog, cannot discern between senior career officers in the Department of Defense, and the elected and appointed civilian officials of the Executive branch.

Nor does Johnson have the capability to discern that (falsely) attacking the actions of troops in the field is not criticism of the Executive branch.

Should we question the patriotism of liberals? Perhaps not.

But we should question their understanding of American government, along with the level of danger they are willing put American soldiers under in their attempt to undermine a president.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:08 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Central Command:

Coalition forces acting on multiple intelligence sources and tips from concerned citizens raided a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist safe house in Baghdad Oct. 31 capturing an al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist named Uthman Faruq Muhammad Abd-al-Hamid (aka Abu Ibrahim). Abu Ibrahim was a technology expert, advisor and supplier to al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists and leaders in Baghdad.

Abu Ibrahim was a computer store owner, a programmer and part owner in an engineering company in Baghdad. Abu Ibrahim admits he supplied hundreds of triggering devices for improvised explosive devices, as well as other technology items, to the al Qaeda in Iraq military commander in Baghdad on multiple occasions. These items include hand-held radios, cellular telephones, wireless telephones, computers, software and computer parts and electronic components.

I guess someone else is going to have to rip Baez and Streisand CDs for al Zarqawi from now on.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Kurt Vonnegut, another leftist enamoured with terrorism:

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

Mr. Vonnegut – again, a patriot whose dissent is being cruelly ground into the nurturing earth before your eyes – seems to think that suicide bombings literally happen in a vacuum, an unpopulated space where the bombers just pop like soap bubbles. It may be painless for them – alas – but it is not painless for the victims.

Of course, it's Chimpy McHilterburton's fault.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

As Atlas notes, the eight bodies recovered from the Mosul firefight today are, "burned black and unrecognizable."

How long do you think it will be before ignorant America-hating leftists try to connect this to Rai's fraudulent documentary, and accuse U.S. forces of using "chemical weapons" against al-Zarqawi?

It isn't like they've ever let facts get in the way before.

06/08/06 Update: Got 'em.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Ever willing to downplay any strides towards peace or a more stable Iraq, Armando at Daily Kos is downplaying the significance of Musab al-Zarqawi's possible death after a protracted gunbattle today in Mosul:

The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq.

What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. [emphasis added]

Will the death of Musab al-Zarqawi (if confirmed) put an end to all violence in Iraq? Of course not. But the vast majority of terror attacks again primarily civilian targets was the direct result of al Qaeda in Iraq attempting to ignite a civil war. If al-Zarqawi did die today along with senior members of the al Qaeda leadership in Iraq, it is reasonable to suspect that suicide attacks against Iraqi civilians will severely decline.

As increasing acceptance and participation by Sunnis the last round of elections proved, the struggles between ethnic factions is not "intractable" as Armando asserts. Shia and Kurdish interests are now being joined en masse by Sunni political groups that realize that ballots, not bullets, will ultimately determine the future of Iraq.

Armando considers defeating terrorists where they live versus where we live "empty rhetoric."

The majority of 25 million free Iraqis might just disagree.

Update: Generation Why? has more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:50 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Little Green Footballs and The Jawa Report, there are now three different reports (via sources of varying credibility) that the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (and arguably the real power in al Qaeda since Osama Bin Laden is only communicating with mountain goats and Yetis on a regular basis) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may have died today after blowing himself up once he found himself surrounded by U.S and Iraqi forces.

Via LGF we have this report from the Jerusalem Post:

At least one Arab television media outlet reported that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed in Iraq on Sunday afternoon when eight terrorists blew themselves up in the in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

The unconfirmed report claimed that the explosions occurred after coalition forces surrounded the house in which al-Zarqawi was hiding.

The Jawa Report has more. Via DEBKAfile:

US forces and forensic experts are examining the bodies of eight high-ranking al Qaeda leaders in Mosul to find out if their chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is among them.

A sample of his DNA is in American possession for a match-up.

The bodies they are trying to identify are of 7 men and one woman, who blew themselves up Sunday, Nov. 20, after their hideout in northern Iraq was under siege by a large US force, backed by tanks and helicopters. The bodies are burned black and unrecognizable. Four Iraqi security officers were killed and 10 injured in the operation.

Israeli News source Ynet News is also reporting a similar version of events.

If this is true, (and that is a big if) then the insurgency in Iraq will lose a figurehead and suffer a severe psychological loss.

If al-Zarqawi did survive, things may not be much better. His own family has renounced him, and some family members have stated that they wouldn't hesitate to kill him.

Dead or currently alive, I don't think he'll have a very happy Thanksgiving.

Update: Associated Press is now reporting that:

U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaida members died in a gunfight — some by their own hand to avoid capture. A U.S. official said Sunday that efforts were under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

Lending more credibility to this theory is this bit of information:

During the intense gunbattle that followed, three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, Iraqi officials said. Eleven Americans were wounded, the U.S. military said. Such intense resistance often suggests an attempt to defend a high-value target.

American soldiers controlled the site Sunday, and residents said helicopters flew over the area throughout the day. Some residents said the tight security was reminiscent of the July 2003 operation in which Saddam Hussein's sons, Odai and Qusai, were killed in Mosul.

If it is true that the security around this site beyond what is ordinary for other post-combat scenes, it would lend some credibility to the theory that this is a site of some importance.

Time--and DNA tests--will tell.

Correction: YnetNews was previously and incorrectly identified as an Arab news source. Ynet News is in fact the English-language version of the Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli Hebrew newspaper and web portal.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.

Pixy Misa has a post up called Correcting Fluid that "fixes" Liz Sidoti's Associated Press coverage of the Republicans in the House calling the Democratic bluff to turn tail and run from Iraq.

A sample:

Democrats, aghast that their bluff had been called, said it was a political stunt and quickly decided to vote against it in an attempt to drain it of significance.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

The House rejected the Democratic call for headlong retreat from Iraq by a resounding 403-3 vote this evening.

Democrats denounced it as a political stunt and an attack on Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic military hawk who stunned his colleagues on Thursday by calling for troops to be withdrawn as quickly as possible.

Lets try to have a little bit of honestly, shall we?

Of course the call for a vote was politically calculated—so was Murtha's "surprise" call for a headlong retreat. Despite willful media amnesia, Murtha has been trying to back out, no in, no out of Iraq since 2002, well before the invasion. I'm thankful for Murtha's service to this nation's military, but to call him a pro-war "hawk" is like labeling a Pomeranian an attack dog. When it comes to position on Iraq, Murtha has more flip-flops than an Imelda Marcos/John Kerry timeshare.

The Democrats pulled a shrewdly calculated stunt by trotting out a hero to try to undercut the White House while the president was out of the country. House Democrats had estimated—and no one could blame them—that a Republican House, so flustered by the Democrat's last cheap stunt, would likely drop the ball again leaving the Republicans looking awkward and foolish as Congress headed into a long holiday break.

But the Democratic plan backfired, and backfired horribly. Instead of folding as they typically do, the Republicans grew a spine, and embarrassed the neo-copperheads into voting against their own treachery in a resounding and humiliating defeat.

Congressman Murtha's three decades of military service to his nation was whored away in a cheap bit of failed political theater by the Democratic Party. It is sad, sad sight to see.

Update Fixed some grammar issues pointed out by those turkeys at Bright and Early that weren't quite as obvious when it was Tired and Late.

Update 2: Discriminations uses the deplorable tactic of actually looking at what Democrats said. Scum. Also, excellent points brought up by Real Clear Politics about the three that did vote for an immediate withdrawal: Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York.

Update 3: History will look back at the Democrats as political opportunists using Rep. Murtha to make one last desperate bid to lose the Iraq War and retain some minor relevance . Unfortunately for them, the war plan is working and teh United States will start withdrawing troops in 2006 because we have won.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:10 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

As most of you know, I'm one of the members of the New Evil Corporation taking over the InterWebosphere with Girls Gone Mild pictures of female bloggers exposing their naked thumbs for fun and profit.

Well I was.

Now Iowahawk wants to blow the whole damn thing, undermining our business plan before we ever have a chance get going.

Traitor.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:50 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:16 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Previous: The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1

False claims are a constant in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, as another scene from Sigfrido Ranucci's film amply demonstrates.

Approximately 18 minutes into the film, we hear this commentary:

Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in open fields to illuminate enemy troops. For this tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November, as we will show you in this exceptional documentary, which proves that the chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way to end districts of Fallujah.

In the days that followed, U.S satellite images shows that Fallujah was burnt out and razed to the ground.

Tracers are specialized, briefly-glowing bullets used to aim machine gun fire. Traveling several thousand feet per second and emitting small amounts of light lasting just tenths of a second, they are not used as a source of illumination. Rai News24 and director Ranucci have clearly not consulted with any military subject matter experts while in the making of this film, or that preposterous statement would have never been uttered.

But it gets worse.

The film that correlates the quoted text above shows footage of what the narrator claims is, "A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November." But the footage shown does not show helicopters or helicopter-borne weaponry.

This is a cutaway view of the "helicopter."

The 155mm howitzer's M825A1 white phosphorus shell present in this picture is packed with 116 white phosphorus impregnated felt wedges. The projectile is approximately 2.5 feet long.

The top picture shows two M825A1 shells in a still from the U. S Army. The bottom image is a still captured from the Rai film. It shows a flare on the left, and two white phosphorus shell bursts that are nearly identical to the M825A1 shells.

As a matter of pure fact, the " helicopter attack" shown in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre (from 17:54-18:40) shows a grand total of two white phosphorus shells exploding... along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. That's it.

There were no helicopters "raining fire" on Fallujah.

We will however, be discussing helicopters once again before we complete the developing series that is The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:04 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

Thanks to Tim Blair, we can see the wonderful world Osama bin Laden would allow for the liberals of this world who don't want us to fight preemptive wars against terrorists and rouge regimes.

Their "rights" under Osama bin Laden, would be:

• a mandatory coversion to Islam.
• the destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which would be replaced by strict sharia religious law.
• homosexuals would be jailed (and likely executed).


• women and women's pictures would be barred from appearing in the press, magazines, or advertising.
• alcoholic drinks would be banned.
• gambling would be barred.
• Any woman serving "passengers, visitors and strangers" would be out of a job, meaning the end of public employment for women.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:30 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

I will not question the patriotism nor the sincerity of Congressman John Murtha (D-PA). He is a former Marine who served in Vietnam, and I thank him for his service to our nation at that time. I cannot however, support his call to turn tail and run from Iraq.

Jim Geraghty's reponse to Murtha's speech is close to my own, but this post is not really about my feelings. Instead, I turn to another veteran comments about this war that I had agreed to publish several days ago.

You might recognize him by his handle, Old Soldier. These are his words on this war, unedited.

Make no mistake; we are at war with an enemy motivated by a radical theology diametrically opposed to our foundational religious underpinnings as well as our national ideology of divinely bestowed individual freedom and liberty. We can ill afford political polarization emulating our Vietnam War conclusion; political defeat snatched from the jaws of military victory. For the sake of generations to come, this war against radical Islamic terrorists must be prosecuted to a victorious conclusionÂ… there must be no capitulation or appeasement.

In 1969, as a young man, I went off to war in Vietnam. With the anti-war movement's gain in momentum and the incessant pounding by politicians and the news media that the war was “unwinnable”, public opinion turned against the effort. America lost heart; ultimately, we dishonorably withdrew. Militarily, we had actually won¹ the war, but the politicians and news media turned that victory into what is now referred to as a defeat for the U.S armed forces. That defeat was not a military defeat; it was decidedly a mutinous political surrender – laid at the feet of a lack of fortitude to see the conflict to victory. With our withdrawal came the purgings and the rise to power of Pol Pot; unnecessarily costing millions of lives. Fortunately (or unfortunately is more realistic) we suffered no adverse repercussions as a nation.

In 1990, as an older man, I went off to war in Southwest Asia. Saddam's army had invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia asked the United Nations for protection, fearing invasion of their state as well. Resolutions were passed; a coalition formed around the U.S. military and Desert Shield/Desert Storm ensued. This time the political leaders held their tongues; the military commanders prosecuted the war. Victory was accomplished with a minimum loss of coalition lives and done so in very short order.

Since 1968 there have been approximately 150 acts of violence directly attributed to radical Islamic terrorists. On September 11, 2001 they openly declared war on the United States proper. They have shown their absolute willingness to die to prosecute their theological agenda. With our feathers ruffled and our national ego assaulted, we responded with unified determination in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we did not kill just to kill or strike a blow at a despised enemy; we purposely resolved to displace an oppressive theocracy and a despotic dictatorship with freedom producing democratic governances for each nation. With both popular and political unity we resolutely set about to build Free states that would no longer sponsor terror; but would in fact become allies against the oppressive radicals, and become shining free beacons to oppressed nations around them. This was not an easy undertaking; desired results could not reasonably be expected to occur overnight.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, operational control was initially given to the military commanders and resounding successes ensued. However, since the initial military successes, politicians have become involved, constraining both resources and operations; now “quagmire” becomes the description most often coined by the MSM. Political polarization is being fueled by increasingly noisy anti-war groups. One political party has come to disavow their initial support for the actions taken. Elite liberalism is crying out that this war is “unwinnable”, that, “this country isn't worth dying for.” Their twisted distortion has erroneously caused the enemy to become… us.

Militarily, to be victorious it is imperative to know the enemy; i.e., know his tactics, know his doctrine, know his motivation. Do not confuse “knowing the enemy” with “understanding” his psyche. “Understanding” is a liberalistic warm and fuzzy emotion that contributes nothing to the fight. Our military leaders know our enemy and he can be defeat with the tools we possess. The first tool is actually a toolbox consisting of law enforcement (FBI), intelligence gathering (CIA) and the armed forces. We must mount offensive operations to definitively deny his ability to freely operate. The second tool is our ideology – freedom, liberty, democratic representative governance. We cannot build a free nation where none previously existed if we lose heart and withdraw too soon; abject lesson – Vietnam.

The current polarizing movement is reminiscent of the Vietnam era; only the flames are being fanned by a tremendously biased and self-flagellating MSM fueled by elitist liberalism. Individually, journalists may be opposed to war and that truly is fine. What are not acceptable are their incessant impositions: “peace at any cost” and the “war is unwinnable.” This irresponsible behavior provides the enemy with hope; hope born of our own boisterous and impatient critics; the very same hope given to North Vietnam. Actions bear consequences; some good, some bad. An unbearable consequence is the unwarranted loss of another soldier because our enemy was fortified by America's loss of heart. Our brave Soldiers will maintain the fight to victory, provided they know we remain committed to they purpose.

Afghanistan and Iraq are but two fronts of the war. Once victory is concluded there, we must nurture the fledgling nations to maturity. How many years did we “occupy” Germany and Japan after WWII; patiently developing democratic governments? We are not an occupational army in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but each must be given time to emerge and capably assume responsibility for their own security. Both are firmly on that path. However, once each is secure, you can count on another front opening up; the radical Islamic terrorists will undoubtedly move to another terror sponsoring state. We must have concrete national resolve to engage them until they become totally ineffectual. It may require many years to accomplish the required victories one at a time; but, if we are not committed to victory, this may become the 100-Years War of the 21st Century. Failure, God forbid, would rest squarely on the shoulders of elite liberalism; the same elite liberalism that historically would categorically deny any responsibility.

For reasons involving our national security, ideology, and the safety of your grandchildren, we cannot afford to lose this war – and we will not lose if we resource the first toolbox and let the commanders prosecute the war to victory. If we do not stay the course to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq (and beyond), we will empower our enemy beyond measure. We will unequivocally demonstrate to the radical Islamic terrorists – to that theocracy – that we are not willing to share freedom and our commitment has an expiration date. We will embolden the enemy to initiate more and more attacks against our homeland and most sadly we will no longer be able to nationally lay claim to the phrase, “These colors don't run.”

America, please do not lose heartÂ…, again. Our freedom to exist as a nation is at stake.

I leave you with words spoken almost 45 years ago; words with probably far greater application today than when they were spoken.

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

“In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.” John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, Jan 20, 1961.

¹ According to General Giap, the commander of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces, had we continued to prosecute the war – Hanoi would have fallen. Our anti-war movement and political opposition gave the North Vietnamese government the hope they needed to hang on just long enough to finally watch us withdraw.

About the author:
Old Soldier was born and raised on the southeastern Connecticut coast. In 1967 he joined the U.S. Army to become a Warrant Officer and helicopter pilot. In 1970 he returned from Vietnam to the rabid zealot cries of “baby killer” and experienced his uniform being spat upon because he did not denounce his war duty. Other tours include: Korea, Italy, a covert intelligence mission in Central America, the First Gulf War (and by contrast returned to a tearfully humbling red carpet heroes welcome), and several other stateside assignments.

He retired after 31 years active U.S. Army service, achieving: the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Five, and the status of Master Army Aviator. His decorations include: the Legion of Merit Medal, 3 Bronze Star Medals, 3 Meritorious Service Medals, 11 Air Medals, 3 Army Commendation Medals and many more awards and decorations. He currently continues supporting U.S. Army Aviation programs as a defense contractor analyst working in South Alabama.

Update It seems Murtha's speech isn't exactly news... he said roughly the same thing last year.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:32 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1593 words, total size 10 kb.