White phosphorus and other stuff
First, the US has corrected itself (again) on using white phosphorus in Falluja, now admitting it was used as an incendiary weapon there.
There's some other interesting stuff kicking around today as well. First Fred Kaplan, a "lefty writing for the MSM" on Bush's pushback strategy: "I was wrong, but so were you".
Here's some good news for the Girlie and other boomer haters. How to tell when the boomers lose control of the media. The "shocker" link is, well, a shocker.
The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial has been a public relations disaster for the US military.Just as Sir Humphrey's predicted it would be. Well done guys. The truth will out.
There's some other interesting stuff kicking around today as well. First Fred Kaplan, a "lefty writing for the MSM" on Bush's pushback strategy: "I was wrong, but so were you".
Here's some good news for the Girlie and other boomer haters. How to tell when the boomers lose control of the media. The "shocker" link is, well, a shocker.
posted by Rob O'Neill at 6:21 PM
4 Comments:
The Wikipedia excerpt about "the shocker" makes for fascinating reading for boomers (well, this one, at least) - in particular, the euphemisms. While I know it will distress many younger readers if I invoke Steely Dan yet again, one of their late-period albums is called 'Two Against Nature' - surely a prescient, critical social comment on "the punisher".
Trying to move the goal posts and distort things again Rob? As is the BBC.
The US military spokesman simply said the enemy had been fired at with WP shells, which we already knew.
The anti-war activist:
(1) Said the US military used chemical weapons. Untrue.
(2) Claimed the US military attacked civilians. Untrue.
(3) Insinuated the US military used a weapon resembling napalm. (Not banned for the US military, as they didn't sign the convention in questoin). Untrue.
(4) said he was present during the "battle of Fallujah". Later admitted that was untrue, he'd been part of patrols after the main attack and thus very unlikely to have seen fresh bodies resulting from fighting (or a napalm attack).
(5) said he'd witnessed bodies with wounds resulting from napalm-like devices. But the wounds and pattern of clothing burn-marks he described are not those resulting from such weapons.
(6) was discharged from the US military for mental health reasons.
And from the BBC article:
Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.
"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."
Did you read that and decide to lie, or did you not bother reading the source?
You really do live in a parallel universe, dontcha AL.
In your own post (http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/11/reuters-promotes-yet-another-anti-war.html) you say the US said such bombs were not used.
I quote: "The US military says such bombs were never used in Falluja."
They have now corrected their initial statement about WP twice - not willingly, under pressure from the media.
All of that gives what Englehart and the Italian TV guys said much more credibility, whether you like it or not.
Then in your comment to my original post you deny the existance of an incendiary device: "The paragraph you and the Kos kids misrepresent says nothing about using an incendiary device (probably because there is no such thing anymore as an incendiary artillery shell), and certainly nothing about attacking civilians."
The US now admits it used these non-existent devices.
You are not interested in what actually happened in Falluja AL. As you said yourself you are far more concerned about "international goodwill towards the Bush Administration and the United States."
Even when US statements have proven to be false, twice, you are still prepared to take their statements at face value.
Wake up!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home