[Note: Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre is a recently released film from Italian Rai News24, an offshoot of communist-dominated channel Rai 3, and was directed by Sigfrido Ranucci. Thanks to Sgt. B of The Gun Line for the tip in this post at Argghhh!]

Starting with a lie

Kim Phuc, as shown in Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre

Fallujah, the Hidden Massacre, begins with a scene of horrified Vietnamese civilians fleeing a village after an air strike. Many are injured and burned by napalm, including a young girl who stripped naked to escape her burning clothes. The narrator of the Italian film explains that:

This is how a photo can speak about war, in Vietnam. Kim Phuc, age nine, whose fragile, naked body mutilated by the napalm thrown by the Americans, running, arms outstretched to escape death. It is 1972, and the image will circle the globe over...

Except this is alternative history.

On June 8, 1972, at approximately 1:00 PM, AE-1 Skyraiders belonging to the South Vietnamese Air Force based at Bien Hoa, bombed and strafed the outskirts of the village of Trang Bang near the Cai Dai pagoda. American forces were not involved in any aspect of this tragedy.

Nick Ut's 1973 Pulitzer Prize photograph

Phan Thi Kim Phuc says actions by photographer Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut that day saved her life.

But it was the South Vietnamese Air Force, and not Americans who rained fire upon the village of Trang Bang. It is an act of great arrogance and/or incompetence that Rai News 24 would try to rewrite the events surrounding one of the most famous photographed events of the Vietnam War.

Sadly, this is the mark director Sigfrido Ranucci makes throughout this truly incompetent and dishonest film.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:25 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

A great letter, via California Conservative.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:16 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Bill Frist showed his political cowardice Tuesday, co-sponsoring an amendment to a spending bill that undermines the troops and the war on terror. As Residual Forces said in utter disgust, "Bill Frist is dead to me."

More on this tomorrow. Right now, I'm so pissed I can't see straight, and I don't want to say something I do not mean.

Update: Swift Boat Veteran Tom "River Rat" Mortensen does a wonderful job conveying the feelings I share in this letter faxed to Republicans senators who voted for the resolution. I'll just let him talk for me:

Senator,

Re: The American Surrender Resolution of 2005

I am named for an uncle who gave his life in the Pacific in 1942 for the freedom of this nation and its principles. My father lost a lung to bunker oil in the waters of the Pacific in 1943 for this nation and its principles. I carry shrapnel from two combat wounds and wear a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat “V”, Navy Commendation Medal with Combat “V”, and two Purple Hearts acquired while defending this nation's principles on the rivers of Vietnam in 1968 and ‘69. I believe this grants me moral authority to say what follows.

I finally became a committed Republican in 1972 when a Democratic Congress voted to defund support of our allies in South Vietnam. That act of moral cowardice and treachery to our founding principles led to the death of millions in the killing fields of Southeast Asia.

Your vote yesterday in favor of what I'm calling the “American Surrender Resolution of 2005” is a travesty unparalleled in post-Vietnam American history. Your cowardice in face of an electorate deliberately misled by Democrats and a traitorous National Media is beneath contempt. It will lead directly to the death of now uncountable Americans and Iraqis and their graves will lie directly at your feet. Senator, you are a moral coward and the worst type of political panderer.

This vote provides direct aid and comfort to our avowed enemies. Thus Senator, you have no right so serve in elective office. I will work tirelessly to assure you are removed from office at the earliest possible date. I will spare no treasure or waking moment in this quest and anticipate the moment I can spit on your political grave.

I do commend with all honors the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too cowardly Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. You should look to them for the courage you obviously lack.

Disrespectfully,

G. Thomas Mortensen
USA S/V Anticipation
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Now hold on there a minute, ConYank. Sen. Warner's & Frist's compromise headed off the Demistan's proposed measure that demanded a timetable for withdrawal. Instead this bill calls for progress reports. President Bush has finally begun to stand up to the "Bush lied" meme. These progress reports can be another opportunity to use the bully pulpit.

Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at November 16, 2005 08:59 AM (JSetw)

2 Why so "pissed"? In manageing the big picture,(Victory)I'm sure it is tough to get it precise at every turn. One wants to put some presure on the Iraqis that they must be vigorous in assuming control of their destiny without sending too much hope to the "insurgents." Seems to me that things are unfolding as they should.

Posted by: Brian at November 16, 2005 02:29 PM (MyYr7)

3 I haven't been to your blog before, but I like it. You are doing a good thing here. You have written on your Template: "Because liberalism is a persistant vegetative state." Yep... just like Louisianna! (Pun intended) Good job. Regarding this particular post, don't know enough about this just yet to make a comment. Wouldn't want to speak on something I know nothing about. You might take me for a moonbat or something!

Posted by: Gayle at November 16, 2005 03:31 PM (4jhqP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've come to expect a certain level of dishonesty from the foreign media regarding the error-riddled white phosphorus "crockumentary" produced by Rai News24, but it is another thing entirely for a writer for a major American news organization based in our nation's capitol to uncritically repeat such "news", as has William M. Arkin in his Washington Post piece, "White Death" Is A Losing Strategy.

Arkin begins:

The military's use of white phosphorus during operations in Fallujah last year is making its way around the world media and blogosphere, with the claim being that the United States has again shown its inhumane side by using munitions normally reserved for smoke screens and target illumination to terrorize insurgents and kill civilians.

So the United States is "inhumane" when it decides to “terrorize" insurgents? Cry me a river, Mr. Arkin. I can't seem to work up the same amount of sympathy that you can for those that murder unsuspecting civilians on a near daily basis. Note that Mr. Arkin slyly works the language to portray killing civilians as a co-equal goal of the military mission in Fallujah, along with killing or capturing terrorists.

At least you can't accuse Arkin of hiding his biases.

The United States used "chemical" weapons, says the Italian media. A "war crime" says GlobalResearch.ca. "Illegal" and "banned" weapons say others. "White Death" says the African Mathaba.net.

He couldn't find any reputable news sources, but these will work well enough for his purposes... Just don't ask if the claims they make are "credible." They unequivocally are not.

The U.S. government's handling of the allegations has been typically clumsy and confused, fueling the controversy.

Thank the all-but-useless State Department for not being able to clearly state that white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, and that the military does not intentionally target any civilians with any of our weapons. Even a blind hog will find an acorn every once in a while.

But what is most interesting here is why the Army chose to use white phosphorus as a terror and anti-personnel weapon, and why critics insist on labeling it "illegal" without ever recognizing the contradiction in their argument. Because the fight over white phosphorous has become so heated, it is likely that the military will stand firm behind its present policy and the commanders won't be held accountable.

Again, Arkin proves no compelling evidence at all that white phosphorus was used against civilians, nor can he justify his choice of calling a munition that has been in the conventional military arsenal of the majority of our allies and enemies, a "terror" weapon. It is an intentional misuse of language by Arkin, and a craven act. In addition, Army Field Manual (FM 3-6) states:

The purposes of incendiaries are to cause maximum fire damage on flammable materials and objects and to illuminate. Incendiary materials used include gasoline, gels, burning metals, incendiary mixes, and white phosphorus.
To be effective, incendiary munitions should be used against targets susceptible to fire or heat damage. A considerable part of the target must be flammable, so the fire can spread.

It might be another scientific shock to Arkin, but human bodies, made primarily of water, are not considered flammable by the military, and therefore, are not thought of as anti-personnel weapons.

It is also interesting that Arkin wants military commanders to be "held accountable" when he cannot even provide evidence that they did anything wrong, unless, perhaps, in Arkin's opinion it is simply criminal enough to be in the military while President Bush is in office.

Skipping down a few paragraphs we find:

The documentary shows close-ups of Fallujah civilians, badly burnt, their skin dissolved or caramelized. An Iraqi biologist in Fallujah is interviewed, saying, "a rain of fire fell on the city," burning people's flesh, but strangely leaving "their clothes intact."

This is sheer conjecture, by a highly-biased and suspect source, presented as fact.

Watch the crockumentary and you will see many bodies—well, not many actually, though they repeat then again and again to make it appear there are more than their actually are. Some are clearly wearing military load-bearing equipment as you would inspect an insurgent might, Many of the other dead and wounded, in fact the majority, appear to be military-aged men. As the insurgents are not in the habit of wearing uniforms, it is quite a stretch for the Italian documentary makers to claim these were civilians.

Further, Arkin does not have any basis for claiming that the state of the bodies had anything to do with specific weaponry without an autopsy performed by a trained pathologist, preferably one with military experience. The bodies in the video most often appear to be in advanced stages of decomposition, not suffering from burns, unless the easily observable maggots on some of these bodies were present before the people died.

And while some may consider it a minor point, it would also make sense to mention that the Iraqi biologist in question has been accused of being a supporter of the insurgency... if one was trying to be objective, that is.

Arkin also misses the large, obvious lie embedded in this segment: white phosphorus, which burns hot enough to melt light steel and iron, would most certainly burn through cloth. This is not up for debate, Mr. Arkin. It is a scientific fact.

The fact that the clothes are intact on the bodies shown is strong evidence towards disproving white phosphorus as being the cause of death. But don't believe me, Mr. Arkin, call a local university chemistry department.

Obviously, fact checking is not on Arkin's agenda, it gets in the way of his message.

A year ago, Arab media was filled with reporting that the United States also used napalm and incendiary weapons in Fallujah. Islam Online, a Qatar-based website, reported that U.S. forces used "chemical weapons and poisonous gas." According to the State Department, the claim was soon "posted on hundreds of Web sites." Even the UK Sunday Mirror carried reporting that the U.S. was "secretly using outlawed napalm" in Fallujah

He has no evidence, but once again more unsupported insinuation seems to be enough for him. Arkin refuses to do the minimal legwork it would require to find out if any Mark 77s were expended in Fallujah during the assault. They were no known sightings of the massive fireballs characteristic of such weapons, cited by so much as a single credible source. Not one.

The Pentagon categorically denied the use of any chemical weapons, but the U.S. government did admit that the Marines had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in 2003, and the admission became conflated with the denial.

The U.S. further painted itself into a corner arguing that although it had removed its last napalm bombs from its arsenal in 2001, "napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed."

He doesn't have any evidence, but he'll still insinuate his predetermined storyline. Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

Finally, the U.S. said that phosphorous was used only "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

That was from the State Department, which can't figure which end of a gun to point, and should never have been involved in this conversation.

Arkin then goes on to repeat this partial story, the he finds (not surprisingly) on a far left wing blog:

A year later, after the Italian documentary, the U.S. was again denying, but this time there was no denying that the claims about the use of white phosphorous appeared valid. Dailykos reported that the March 2005 edition (pdf) of the Army's official Field Artillery Magazine contained an article -- "The Fight for Fallujah" -- by three Army artillerymen that said:

"We used it [white phosphorous] for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosives]. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

First, American military forces never claimed (to the best I can determine) that we did not use white phosphorus in the battle for Fallujah. White phosphorus was primarily used as a screening agent, a luminary, and as an anti-material weapon, as doctrine indicated. The "shake and bake" missions were a perfect example of this doctrine, and worked only because the insurgents know that white phosphorus is typically employed as a screening agent.

As the article stated, white phosphorus was used for screening mission so American forces could advance during the battle. The "shake and bake" mission were a "potent psychological weapon" because WP dropped upon their position made them fear they were about to be the immediate victims of an overrun attack by United States Marines. Marine forces were better armed, better armored, and better trained than their opponents, and the insurgents knew this. They tried to fall back to a more defensible position, but were mowed down by high explosive (HE) shells during their retreat. White phosphorus shook them, and HE cooked their respective gooses.

It is also interesting that rkin and his friends at Daily Kos couldn't seem to find this information in the Field Artillery Magazine article:

...TF 2-2 IN encountered few civilians in its attack south.

How willful do you think that omission was?

After skipping a few paragraphs, we find Arkin blathering on:

I for one am reluctant to pronounce whether the use of white phosphorous for "shake and bake" missions in Fallujah and the evident blundering use of white phosphorous in areas known to be occupied by civilians is illegal.

You shouldn't be reluctant at all. Civilians were given almost a week to evacuate by U.S. forces in the most telegraphed offensive of the war. It was well known that Fallujah was going to become a major urban battleground. The insurgents chose to heavily militarize an urban environment, and by giving civilians plenty of time and advance warning to evacuate the city, the military has every right to claim that Fallujah was an urban battleground ,but that it was not a battleground expected to contain civilians. The Army soldiers Arkin so eagerly quotes above prove that, in fact, civilian contact was rare.

Neither am I buying the State Department's line that the use of white phosphorous in this way -- that is, to possibly inflict unnecessary suffering -- is not "illegal" use. What I'm sure of is that the use of white phosphorous is not just some insensitive act. It is not just bad P.R. It is the ill thought out and panicked use of a weapon in an illegitimate way. It is a representation of a losing strategy.

Tell me, Mr. Arkin, what do you consider necessary suffering? The suffering of American soldiers, perhaps? Or perhaps better yet, can you indicate a single weapon that has not inflicted, by your definition, "unnecessary suffering."

White phosphorus used in Fallujah was not "ill thought out and panicked" as Arkin ignorantly describes, but is part of a well thought out, carefully crafted and well-practiced doctrine that has evolved over many decades of theoretical and practical use. Every credible source indicates that white phosphorous was used exactly in the ways U.S. military doctrine stipulates during the battle of Fallujah.

There is indeed bad PR being spread, but it is Mr. Arkin and his ilk spreading it.

Other posts on the White Phosphorus crockumentary:

Popham, Meet Sites
Ablution Exclusive: Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims
Crow. The Other White Meat
Be Careful What You Wish For
Rai's White Phosphorus Fraud
The WP Controversy
Yet More WP

Update: Jeff Goldstein joins the fray as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:26 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 1973 words, total size 13 kb.

1 If you are a leftist, you can ignore any fact that gets in the way of a higher truth.

Posted by: shoprat at November 15, 2005 06:34 PM (BewsC)

2 I like white phosphorus, napalm, gas bombs, daisy cutters, nuclear subs and stuff such as that. Our enemies need to remember that we can blow them to smithereens much worse on all levels than any of their murder bombers. That is what this columnist misses completely, that we are at a war, not a party.

Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy at November 15, 2005 07:11 PM (9oivZ)

3 Damn straight! We are at a war we created to overthrow a country which was doing absolutely nothing wrong at the time. The UN disagreed - oh, remember how the US criticises other countries who carry out an act w/o UN approval? Anyhow, we, the GD US of A own this unholy earth and by God we have the right to bomb, incinerate and fornicate against any country that pisses our GOP off. Because God is on our side - same God we don't allow in our schools and government? These colors don't run - they kill!

Posted by: Jim Bob Moneybags at November 15, 2005 08:50 PM (JW/T0)

4 Honestly, I read this and just gave a yell. I can't believe they're pushing this slime in our own newspapers! Al Jazeera, yes, Daily Kos, yes, THE WASHINGTON POST? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? And then you read the comments...

Posted by: Cutler at November 15, 2005 08:55 PM (5f4Yy)

5 A few things: the state department has a long and glorious history of misstating defense department matters. That is why I called this quote in the documentary into question in my debunking of the fakeumentary at: www.confederateyankee.mu.nu I do not believe they do this on purpose, but because most of the "statees" have no military background. The other point, the fakeumentary shows (whether from fallujah or not) scenes of illumination rounds falling under parachutes (harmless) and WP for smoke being deployed in an airburst that is not over any type of structure. This is to screen movement. Why smoke at night? Night Vision technology is becoming cheaper and it is very plausible that the enemy had them. And they have surely gotten NVGs off the battlefield. Don't confuse this with thearmal imaging which can see through smoke. Also, good binoculars can be used to improve night vision, as I found out during Desert Storm. And WP smoke can be put on the enemy to confuse and scare them, it has very low probability of a kill. They had much better weapons to kill with then WP. There is no mysterious chemical cloud that burns!!!! Burns occur from contact with the flame. The smoke is harmless. If you set up a laboratory experiment, you could possibly set up the conditions to kill with WP smoke, but there is near zero probability in practical use. The cloths would burn. Soldiers would have MOPP gear. Good enough talking points?

Posted by: Ray Robison at November 15, 2005 10:50 PM (4joLu)

6 Pathophysiology: White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing. Few studies have investigated the degree of tissue destruction associated with white phosphorus injuries. In the experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation. Systemic toxicity has been described extensively in the animal model. Pathologic changes have been documented in the liver and kidney. These changes result in the development of progressive anuria, decreased creatinine clearance, and increased blood phosphorus levels. Depression of serum calcium with an elevation in the serum phosphorus level (reversed calcium-phosphorus ratio) with electrocardiographic changes including prolongation of the QT segment, ST segment depression, T wave changes, and bradycardia also have been observed. Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathologic changes to the liver and kidneys. The accepted lethal dose is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death. Individuals with a history of oral ingestion have been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").

Posted by: Dr White at November 16, 2005 08:34 AM (JW/T0)

7 "...Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus. If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin..." Accordingly, the fact that exposed areas of the bodies skin (face and hands) are burned but the clothes are (at least partially) intact seems to be consistent with massive use WP burning in air with many left burning particles hitting the ground at a later time. The combined effects of this burning powder and of the highly hygroscopic and corrosive oxide dust[8] could indeed be the cause of the injuries on the bodies reported on 9 November by RAI.

Posted by: Dr White at November 16, 2005 08:41 AM (JW/T0)

8 Any tool that causes the most casualties to the enemy with the least danger to our troops is the tool for the job. No one bitched when we dropped 15,000 pound fuel bunkerbusters on Tora Bora. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." George S. Patton Hooah! Phantom Driver Proud father of an American Soldier

Posted by: Phantom Driver at November 16, 2005 11:01 AM (gLr9P)

9 Yo Phantom, The US wasn't forced into war - you started it - unprovoked claiming the enemy had weapons of mass destructions. Yet, they didn't and although you claim to be the loving democracy your army has no problem using weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq used WP agains't the American army then the US would say, "Smoking gun", see they are bad and deserve to die. Glad you are proud of your son - you should be. Yet, maybe you should start questioning the government that runs your country and armies.

Posted by: Exposed Driver at November 16, 2005 11:27 AM (nXTeA)

10 Dr White- You provide evidence to make your case...but the context and knowledge of the U.S. military application is important. "Systemic toxicity has been described extensively in the animal model." This paragraph refers to the ingestion of WP as evidenced by “Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathologic changes to the liver and kidneys.” While this is certainly possible that it occurred on the battlefield, there is no evidence presented in the documentary. There are no toxicology reports from legitimate sources (that I am aware of) to make the case that this happened to any civilian, much less on the scale stated by the fakeumentary. The video itself shows WP being deployed in open empty terrain, evidence to the contrary of what the fakeumentary claims. Also, the U.S. Army M825 uses WP embedded felt wedges. The specific purpose of this embedding is to keep the chemical contained to the wedge vs. being dispersed into the air in a mist. Granted some would come off, but very little and I would argue not enough to create the conditions you cite other than the presence of epidermal burning and worse case subcutaneous, but not ingested in quantities indicated for lethal dose and certainly not enough to form a corrosive cloud. Also you state: “the fact that exposed areas of the bodies skin (face and hands) are burned but the clothes are (at least partially) intact seems to be consistent with massive use WP burning in air with many left burning particles hitting the ground at a later time.” I think this is directly at odds with your reference: pathophysiology. “If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin.” I also think it is at odds with your reference again: “In the experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation.” This means oxidation causes the injury. Oxidation is a fancy word for fire, not chemical corrosion. I also conclude that you indicate this would require massive amounts of WP in the air to burn. There is zero indication that this occurred in Fallujah as the evidence is provided in this fakeumentary. Or can you rule out that the bodies that appear burned are possibly due to exposure, explosions, or non WP related fire? If so, I would like to hear it. thanks

Posted by: Robison at November 16, 2005 11:54 AM (CdK5b)

11 Exposed Driver, Saddamm Hussein used WMDs at least eleven times that we are aware of. 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and roghly other 1000 radiological elements were captured after the fall of Baghdad, and are now in safekeeping in the United States. IEDs containing Sarin and Mustard gas were used against U.S. forces in May, 2004. There was ZERO question that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had WMDs and had used them; the question was, and still is, "what happened to the WMDs Saddam declared he had at the end of the 1991 Gulf War?" Iraq was home ot four known terrorist organizations, and Baghdad was home to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, perhaps the two most famous terrorists in the world prior to Osama bin Laden, and Abdul Rahman Yasin, the bomb-builder in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, was also a guest of Saddam Hussein. White phosphorus is a conventional weapon that is, to the best of my knowledge, issued and used by every member of NATO. Your ignorance of what WP is doesn't make it a chemical weapon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 16, 2005 11:55 AM (g5Nba)

12 Yet, they didn't and although you claim to be the loving democracy your army has no problem using weapons of mass destruction Wow, Exposed Idiot you have no idea what you are talking about. Here's a clue: when the exalted U.N. Weapons Inspectors were looking for WMDs, WP wasn't on their list.

Posted by: Jordan at November 16, 2005 08:12 PM (xEXsr)

13 To Jordan - . . .and prior to 9/11 an airplane was just a source of travel. To Yankee - the 1.8 tons of uranium and radiological elements captured by the US were being used by Iraq for what? To Yankee - The IEDs you mentioned - I believe plural was wrong and singular IED was right. Certainly a remnant or two from the past hardly supports a claim that Iraq is a threat to the US by stockpiling WMDs. To Yankee - There absolutely is NO question that Sadam HAD WMD. Hum, were did he get the weapons?, hum, I think I remember reading the ole USA. Good job guys!!! Guess it was okay back then to use them against Iran, but lordy don't use them against the US. To Yankee - Lastly, the US is home to alot of bad people too. Maybe China should attack the US? Hey, odd that no one denied "The US wasn't forced into war - you started it"

Posted by: Exposed Driver at November 17, 2005 11:43 AM (M7BWM)

14 Exposed, you remember wrong. The US did not supply Iraq with WMD.

Posted by: Lugo at November 17, 2005 01:21 PM (aklAt)

15 Ah, you so wrong Lugo. "Even before Iraq released its weapons-program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was said that the report would name the corporations that supplied Iraq with the equipment and other material it needed to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Soon after the report was released, those suspicions were confirmed. Sources who had seen the report said that it identified suppliers from the US, UK, Germany, France, China, and elsewhere." See - http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm or - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,861902,00.html

Posted by: Exposed Driver at November 17, 2005 02:58 PM (M7BWM)

16 And what, praytell, did Americans provide, ED? Sarin? Flamethrowers? Gas chambers from Sears? I'm just dying to find out.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 17, 2005 05:38 PM (0fZB6)

17 To Jordan - . . .and prior to 9/11 an airplane was just a source of travel. What are you babbling about? WP has never been classified as a WMD.

Posted by: Jordan at November 18, 2005 02:25 AM (pLJN7)

18 Did I miss something? Did you really just quote a report from Iraq, Saddam Hussein, to implicate the U.S.. Please guys, tell me I didn't just see that. I am too depressed by that. I'm going home.

Posted by: Ray Robison at November 18, 2005 10:50 PM (4joLu)

19 exposed , you are wrong in your assumption that U.S started the war. The 1991 Gulf War started with the Iraqi army invading Kuwait and ended in a ceasefire agreement between the Coalition forces and Iraq, the terms of which Saddam's goverment repeatedly broke; after 14 or so innefective UN resolutions and 9/11 President Bush's new foreign policy was basically 'no more screwing around', fair enough imo. Saddam continued to screw around. The UN continued to screw around. The MSM continues to screw around!! So, who started it? yah, twas Saddam Hussein... ho hum

Posted by: majah at November 21, 2005 05:47 AM (h2Hcc)

20 You people think I am crazy for calling WP a chemical weapon - Well, your own damn leaders think it is!!! Americans are soooo freaken dumb and arrogant! 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 01:18 PM (M7BWM)

21 E.D., you are so far behind the mental curve on this I can't even see your headlights. This was completely debunked before breakfast yesterday: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/134779.php Think Progress has already been throughly humiliated over this, as their "secret Pentagon evidence" is nothing more than the transripts of a phone call between two Kurdish brothers. Apparently critical reading is not one of those skills you picked up at cut 'n paste school. James Bond you ain't.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2005 01:33 PM (g5Nba)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

h/t The Anchoress:

Senator Jay Rockefeller's alledged meetings with representatives of enemy states in advance of the Iraq War, if true, should lead to an investigation under the Logan Act.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

The Central Intelligence Agency isn't perfect, but to suggest there is no difference between CIA and al Qaeda personnel is far over the line, even for the traitorous cesspool that is the Democratic Underground.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Rai News24, an offshoot of communist-dominated channel Rai 3, recently released a film titled Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre accusing the United States military of using chemical weapons against civilians in the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. Immediately, and without question in most instances, left of center media outlets and political blogs trumpeted the "fact" that white phosphorus was used to create deadly clouds of poison gas, killing unknown scores of Iraqi civilans as they slept in their beds.

But who are the documentary's experts, and can they be trusted?

The Documentary "Experts"
Noted anti-American communist and serial fabricator Guiliana Sgrena was one "expert" who came armed with her opinion, but without any actual evidence. In the film she explains that the terrorists who took her hostage for several months did not want videotaped evidence of U.S. attrocities to leak out.

Jeff Englehardt, a former soldiers and left-wing poltical blogger has been roundly debunked for his erroneous claims about the physical properties of white phosphorus, has now apparently retracted his claims, while claiming that the Rai film team (that let him go on at length) misquoted him.

Another "expert witness" journalist mentioned in the video is actually Mark Manning a retired deep sea diver (not Mark Manning, the acid-tripping lead singer of Zodiac Mindwarp and The Love Reaction), who coincidentally, has his videotapes of alledged atrocities conveniently stolen before another living soul could view them, apparently by a cash rich street bum with ties to George W. Bush himself.

Even the U.S. helicopter video that the documentary presents as evidence of U.S. brutality has been exposed as fraudulently edited footage taken from another battle entirely.

One might begin to question the credibility of Rai's experts...

A Real Expert Speaks
But some experts are rather difficult to refute, and former U.S. Captain Robison (full name and current employment have been witheld for security reasons), a Confederate Yankee reader, is such an expert.

Captain Robison has over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group.

He had this to say:

I am a former fire support officer, who was trained to travel with infantry and armor units and be the eyes of the artillery to call for fire.

I read the article from the Italian news source, and let me state unequivocally that what it claims is physically impossible. A white phosphorous round used for illumination is a base ejecting projectile that "opens" in the air and floats down under a parachute. The projectile casing does continue down range, but fire direction officers and fire support officers along with the maneuver commanders clear this impact area as part of the calculations. The projectile casing itself could kill a person, as any bullet would, but it is not possible to use it as a chemical warfare attack.

The flare itself floats down and you would pretty much have to chase after it and position yourself under where you project it will land to even get burned. It is possible although very unlikely that this flare could hit a building and could cause a fire, but the injury wouldn't be a chemical burn, but a burn from the building fire. I have never seen anything close to this happen.

The flares come down slowly and usually burn out first, but since they are the brightest thing in the sky, it would be easy to avoid one if it landed while burning. I have seen a few flares land on the ground while burning, but this is much different than a chemical attack.

The only way you could purposely harm anyone with this is if you direct fired at a short range. The projectile most likely wouldn't eject the flare (it has a timed fuse) and it really wouldn't matter if you fired Cheetohs at someone at that range, the concussion would kill them.

An artillery unit wouldn't use direct fire unless it was being attacked. And even then it would use their organic direct fire weapons and if necessary, another type of projectile. To use a WP for direct fire would be entirely counterproductive to the security of the battery even in self defense.

This Italian news story is nothing but a lie.

I hasten to add that Captain Robison is a perhaps the single most qualified person to examine this documentary so far.

He graduated with a B.S. Biology (pre-medicine) from the University of Tampa, and has graduted the U.S. Army Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Signal Officer Adanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and Airborne and Air Assault.

Further, in addition to his outstanding artillery and medical background, he is also a video expert, contracted under DIA to provide analysis of captured Saddam regime video, documentation, audio, and computer media. Later, his team analyzed captured insurgent media, and analyzed thousands of videos to determine intelligence value. His team provided support that assisted in the capture of Saddam Hussein and later provided intelligence of insurgent activities.

He had this to say in specific about the video itself:

I analyzed the video and am pleased to announce that it is junk. There are many things I could point out, but here is what sticks out.

1. The “fire raining down from the helicopter” was the part that concerned me...

   Contrary to the documentary claim that hellicopters were shooting fire, there are no helicopters in that video segment. There is a split second airbust and if you freeze the picture at the right instant, the airburst lights up the sky. There are no helicopters present. This proves a false claim by the documentary creators in what may be the most significant portion of the video...

   ...I had to watch it repeatedly to figure it out. At first I thought it was the backblast from a missile being fired the other direction. After a more thorough analysis, I realize it was an air burst of WP artillery rounds. Those are basically small rags that looked like balls of fire. This is because it is night and it is hard to get perspective at night, with or without night vision equipment. Taken out of context, it is easy to make it look like fire raining down on the city. The rag would certainly burn, but it would be like a cigarette and you would just need to brush it off, maybe take off clothes, and get away from it.

2. The voice over states "contrary to the claim by the state department that WP was used in open fields, this was not true because tracer rounds were used to illuminate the enemy" Nothing could have spelled out liar any bigger than that one statement. Tracy rounds are never used to illuminate the enemy. The glow from a tracer round lasts tenths of a second and travels hundreds of miles an hour; it could not possibly be used for this function, again a claim that defies all practicality. Tracer rounds are used to see where your bullets are going so your fire can be adjusted, flat out. And quoting the State Department about a military function?
3. The pictures of dead bodies while hideous provide no analytical value. Contrast the opening from Vietnam, with the burned little girl, running from a napalmed village. That is conclusive evidence. Nothing about these dead bodies looked any different to the many dead bodies I have seen analyzing other videos (of dead bodies) that were all made that way (dead) by Saddam's regime and then by Jihadists. There is no way to determine what killed these people by looking at pictures, except maybe by a forensics expert.

The soldiers in the video , however were a bit more complicated for the fomer Captain:

I find the taller guy, I think his name was Garret, credible. His story rang true and is tragically repeated. [Note: his story was about a civilian car traveling at soldiers at a high rate of speed, and the soldiers firing on the vehicle. --ed.] But this is not a war crime or a chemical attack, but bad target identification and a complete human tragedy, assuming the "civilians" were indeed non combatants, it is very hard for the soldiers to tell. Although I do question his motives that is irrelevant to this analysis since he provides no “evidence” of chemical weapons.

The other guy Jeff was a liar, to the point I would need to see his orders to believe he was in Iraq. He states, (paraphrasing) "the orders unequivocally came from the pentagon to wait until after the election".

How does he know this? Was he CENTCOM commander at the time? Did the CENTCOM commander call him up and tell him that? Even if it was true, that fact in itself is not nefarious.

The re-election of Bush would be a crushing blow to the Jihadists in Fallujah, and let me tell you, I have seen their own videos recovered from there and the place was crawling with them. It would make tactical sense to wait, if you were pretty confident that Bush would win. They call this tactical patience.

Also, the timing of the attack was heavily influenced by the Iraqi Provisional Authority. The U.S. had just helped them form and wanted to get them involved with running their country as soon as possible. That is why the first battle of Fallujah was ended, because the new Iraqi government wanted more time to talk with the Jihadists. That is until the new Iraqi government officials figured out that they were now the primary target of the Jihadists and told the U.S. effectively, go get them (the Jihadists in Fallujah) as soon as you can.

Jeff states (paraphrasing), that the U.S. was using chemical weapons because we used WP.

Hogwash.

Furthermore about Jeff Englehardt (and for the record, I noticed this too):

He states (paraphrasing) when they used the stuff (WP) they would come over the net and say the WP is coming or "commence bombing" or something.

Commence bombing? Who was on the net giving this sitrep, Clark Gable? That's about the last time anybody used this term. This guy is a clown.

But for Captain Robison, perhaps the most damning evidence of fraud comes from contradictions in the very video itself:

The real tip off about the credibility of this “news story” is the pictures of dead animals.

The voice over said, paraphrasing: that several animals were found dead with no visible sign of trauma.

First off, did they examine the animals? If so, they didn't show it. Sure something is not visible, if you don't look! Animals die everyday from natural causes, hunger, disease, or even getting hit by cars or possibly by conventional weapons.

And get this, they show people who appear burned and claim this to be a sign of a chemical weapon, then they show animals with no injuries in the context of this discussion to imply they died of a mysterious chemical weapon. Their “facts” not only fail to support each other, but they directly conflict with each other.

After reviewing all of this evidence, he states:

By introducing these “facts” in the context of a chemical weapons discussion, yet not having any supporting evidence, I can only conclude that not only are these charges false, but this was done with the documentary creator's full knowledge that they were baseless charges. In other words, they purposely lied, which goes to their credibility.

Captain Robison then floored me with this firsthand experience as he reacts to reading this story at Daily Kos, regarding Marines talking about using white phosphorus in screening missions:

The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it. [my bold]

Unless someone at Daily Kos or Rai News24 can present me with convincing evidence that Captain Robison died due to his exposure and is now a zombie, then I think this "crockumentary" can now be listed as thoroughly debunked.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:09 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 2070 words, total size 13 kb.

Via The Corner:

It's about these guys.
It's about these guys who do what they are asked to do for very little money to defend and fight for what they consider to be freedom.

And it's not just for this country. It's for the world. It is time for terrorism to stop. And the United States is the country that can stop it. And that's what they're doing over there."

That was actor Bruce Willis, talking about Duece Four LTC Erik Krillia's unit if you read Michael Yon as you should, before offering one million dollars of his own money for the heads of Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahri, or Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Diarist Steven D at Daily Kos, citing the Altercation peice without bothering to put his brain in gear, parroted the same argument, cuasing a gleeful kos to make the challenge:

Let's see them deny this shit now -- kos

Bad move, cupcake.

In a post titled "US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon," Steven D starts off with the following claim:

That's right. Not from Al Jazheera [sic], or Al Arabiya, but the US fucking Army, in their very own publication, from the (WARNING: pdf file) March edition of Field Artillery Magazine in an article entitled "The Fight for Fallujah":

"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

In other words the claim by the US Government that White Phosphorus was used only for illumination at Fallujah had been pre-emptively debunked by the Army. Indeed, the article goes on to make clear that soldiers would have liked to have saved more WP rounds to use for "lethal missions."

Steve D seems to have an issue meshing reading comprehension with tactical knowledge, as exposed by the paragraph that he cites as "proof" of chemical weapons attacks.

A primary use of white phosphorous is indeed creating smoke screens. But Steve D somehow manage to transmutate the use of white phosphorous as a "potent psychological weapon" into that of a chemical weapon. WP was used to scare the enemy, so that the enemy would run, where he would then be cut down by high explosive fragmentation ammunition.

Am I to believe that he takes issue with scaring the enemy before we kill him?

Steve D then repeats an untruth from emailer Mark Kraft at Altercation, who wrongly claims:

. . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren't just psychological in nature.

Unequivocally this is false information. Altercation's commentator Kraft is totally, completely wrong. White phosphorous has been used for over 60 years by the United State military, and is most often deployed to screen the movement of troops from specific enemy positions. As these soldiers assault the position screened by the white phosphorous cloud of smoke, they must often maneuver directly through that smoke to taken their objective. I have been unable to find one instance dating from World War II to the present where a soldier has become a casualty as the result of the "deadly chemical cloud" Kraft relates to. As one of my readers, a retired Army Lt. Colonel related to me via email, "I'm sure breathing the smoke isn't the best thing for you, but Sarin it ain't."

Sadly, it just gets worse for Steve D. and others on the left that would like to forge ahead with this false story.

Military experts have debunked all claims made about white phosphorous weapons. The Italian filmmakers who started this left-wing meltdown have had their credibility shredded, and their American soldier witness was found to be an anti-war activist who never got closer to the battle than a radio.

Now even kos is trying to backtrack and shift focus. Too little, too late.

Consider you anti-American hatred forcefully, and conclusively, denied.

Update: More background on the Italian television station at the bottom of this left-wing fiasco from Captain Marlow.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:36 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 637 words, total size 5 kb.

Yesterday, I wrote blog post responding a pack of lies passed off as journalism by the Independent's Peter Popham.

Popham wrote an article accusing the United States military of using massive quantities of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon the battle of Fallujah. He claimed massive civilian casualties. He claimed that assault went unreported by the media, as were (presumably) the supposed atrocities. But none of Popham's story is supported by the truth.

I wrote a scathing reply to his false charges in this post, pointing out the very obvious fact that many journalists were in Fallujah, including Kevin Sites who shot the internationally famous (or infamous) video of a Marine shooting a wounded terrorist in a Fallujah mosque, or of a picture that made a Kentucky Marine famous as the "Marlboro man."

News photographers shot thousands of photos and hours of video in Fallujah. I was so right about the fact that they were there, but I was so wrong about what their presence and photographic evidence meant.

After reading Popham's article, I must have internalized the quote from the "former American solider" he quotes, who said:

"Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

I then claimed that the lack of protective gear in the photos proved white phosphorous could not have been used in "massive quantities" as claimed by Popham. Boy, was I wrong. It proves nothing of the sort.

From a reader, who happens to be something of an expert:

You made an erroneous correlation in your commentary "Popham, Meet Sites"
concerning the absence of chemical protection on the Marines indicating that
WP would not have been used. Chemical protection is not needed nor used
when WP is employed. There is no respiratory "chemical threat" associated
with WP. Our chemical protection suits would not protect a person from
burns associated with WP. (WP would burn right through a chemical
protection suit.)

In other words, the lack of protective gear I cited meant precisely nothing, because protective gear wouldn't stop white phosphorous, nor even slow it down. He further clarifies the properties of WP:

WP is not employed in an anti-personnel roll. It works great in disabling equipment because of the extreme heat properties of the chemicals. It can burn through thinner steel and iron very quickly rendering equipment unusable. Of course it will quickly ignite fuel and ammunition, hence its use against POL [petroleum/oil/lubricants] and Ammo storage areas. It does not work well against heavily armored equipment like tanks because the there just isn't a large enough mass of burning phosphorus to burn through tank armor.

But wait. Didn't Popham claim the following?

Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

So clothes don't remain "largely intact" nor is skin "dissolved," but is instead completely burned away. White phosphorous does not leave skin "carmelised" nor turns the skin "consistency of leather."

High explosives, commonly used in warfare, however, can "carmelise" skin, and dead bodies in hot dry desert air tends to begin to mummify, and can quite easily turn " the consistency of leather" because of the desiccation of the human body in such an environment.

In short, these wounds are not caused from WP. Period. The burn physics of white phosphorous does not change, though the excuses on the Left flitter by like the wind.

The expert concludes:

Most of the Fallujah operation was conducted in daylight, so the primary use of WP would have been as an obscurant. WP especially from mortars would serve no useful destructive purpose (like an HE round). Technically, in this employment roll, WP would be a tactic, not a weapon – in that it would not be fired with the expectation of killing the enemy. If the enemy was inside a building WP would be wholly ineffective as a weapon employed to neutralize/kill him...

In your defense, Sites and any other reporters close at hand did not report any massive use of WP. It would seem to me that if the Marines had used massive amounts of WP rounds; something out of the ordinary as compared to tactics previously employed, there would have been reporter comments. Not comments condemning the use of chemical weapons, but comments about the employment of an unseen and unusual tactic. Those comments were not forthcoming.

Scott Burgess at the UK blog The Daily Ablution has a similar conversation with an expert today that follows a similar path and reaches similar conclusions.

The Independent stories--Popham's yesterday, and Andrew Buncombe's today--are meritless, tawdry political theater based upon willful ignorance and deliberately uncritical reporting and editing.

I guess there is a place for "Mary Mapes-style" journalism in the world after all.

Also: While you're here, consider this post, will you?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:21 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 839 words, total size 6 kb.

A burned-out McDonalds in Corbeil-Essonnes, south of Paris. Via Yahoo!

A bomb-making operation was found in a Paris suburb last night as more than 900 vehicles, schools and shops were torched by Muslim immigrants in incidents spreading across France from Normandy to Paris to Mediterranean Sea.

The European Civil War is ahead of schedule, but hardly surprising. Sadly, as Mark Steyn notes, we have come to the edge of critical point in Western European history.

Now would be a prudent time to deploy the military to restore order, but as Parapundit notes, the loyalty of the French Army is in doubt.

The riots seem to be spreading, the police are ineffectual, the government is paralyzed by doubt, and the military, apparently, isn't trusted to follow orders.

If the French don't break out of their torpor soon, this might become known as the largest minaret in the world.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:05 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 2 kb.

Wow.

Probably nothing but a conspiracy theory, but all too many intersecting interests, altogether, indeed...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Via AP:

One al-Qaida suspect was killed in a police raid and a second was arrested, Pakistan announced Thursday, and an official said officials are trying to determine if the detainee is a Syrian with a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head for training terrorists.

Intelligence officials said a third man, with links to a Pakistani extremist group, was also captured Tuesday during the raid on a shop in this southern city that served as the office of an Islamic charity linked to a militant group.

"I can only confirm there was an encounter, and our security forces arrested one suspected al-Qaida terrorist while another terrorist was killed," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told The Associated Press. He said it would "take some time" to confirm their identities.

But a senior government official raised the possibility one of the arrested men is Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, 47, a Syrian native who holds Spanish citizenship.

It continues

Media reports have linked Nasar, also known as Abu Musab al-Suri, to the 2004 commuter train bombings in Madrid, Spain, that killed 191 people and to the July 7 attacks in London that left 56 dead, including the four bombers.

In September 2003, Nasar was among 35 people named in an indictment handed down by a Spanish magistrate for terrorist activities connected to al-Qaida.

If this is true, another high-level terrorist is out of action. The killing or capture of "A" list terrorists are getting fewer and further between. Of course, that probably has something to do with the fact that there aren't many more "A" listers still alive.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.