Redstate

I watched the Italian documentary special and read an article in La Repubblica on this matter. It sounded pretty convincing and I was angry. I've since read conservative blogs (Balloon-Juice and its links) that are predisposed to find fault with its findings. I've also read Liberal Blogs that are predisposed to find it credible. And well, that's where we are. I'm sure major papers have caught wind of the story as well as other news sources. But still we see no stories, analysis or debunking or validation of any kind.

This is where the Liberals begin a tirade on the "corporate media" that avoids uncomfortable hard news that doesn't conform to the status quo while silly fluff news gets 24/7 coverage with little scrutiny or grasp of the facts prior to the debate.

It's also where the conservatives begin their preprogrammed attacks on "America-hating" Liberals who'll believe anything that damages America while ready to scream "Liberal Media" as soon as a major paper touches it without taking the tone of John Cole at Balloon Juice.

Here we go again. I got my popcorn.

My point is that the 5% of the country that learns about these stories are quickly entrenching themselves and battling it out while the other 95% of America goes about its business.

Will these story see the light of day in the U.S.? Who knows.

A non partisan anaysis of this matter would be welcome. We have yet to see one.

Does not begin to express how I really feel.

That profanity be allowed for this situation.

I dn't buy this complaint, either.  It has all the smell of "Christmas in Cambodia".

with ZTN. How many people actually know about this story? It seems to me that the MSM would look stupid debunking a story it hasn't covered. It also could be the fact that they are doing research into whether the story is true or not before they do any reporting on it.

The latest I could find on Daily Kos agrees that there is no evidence that WP was used as a weapon or in an illegal manner. They do have a bit of a spin on it, saying it shouldn't be used if we still want to use that "Saddam used chemicals on his people" line of talk.

Personally, I would like to see it used as little as possible, but when you need light it seems to do the job best.

Anyone have experience with WP and other combat lighting? I'm curious if there is anything that is more chemically safer (to both sides).

A non partisan anaysis of this matter would be welcome.

However, a partisan reader can have a very difficult time recognizing a non-partisan analysis. After 9/11 I spent a fair amount of time on various message boards discussing world affairs and most of time was spent attacking/defending sources of information.  No one could a agree on an independent source.  On top of that, the lines between news and op/ed have become blurred in recent years.

This is where we differ; You are waiting for it to be disproved, I'm waiting for anything that even approaches proof.

And there is another area where we disagree I guess; I am absolutely disgusted with Americans who are immediately prepared to accept as truth, or even possible truth, this kind of cr*p about their fellow citizens in the military.

I watched the Italian documentary special and read an article in La Repubblica on this matter. It sounded pretty convincing and I was angry.

Boy I can certainly relate to that. I watched the Area 51 UFO Alien Autopsy documentary and it seemed pretty convincing to me. I haven't slept properly in years. /sarcasm <- just on the off chance that it's really necessary

Cr*p, cr*p and more cr*p.

-----------

The Kos walkback begins in earnest.  In the military, this is called a retreat.

He still is advancing flawed premises, though.

The so-called Americans who are immediately prepared to accept this cr*p as truth make me sick.

If you are worried about some claim being treated as "Received Truth" shouldn't you wait until someone treats it as such?

Website actually references the use of WP in Fallujah.

Here is the link. Look under the section labeled "Munitions." The quote is as follows: ""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."

First of all, the use of WP is perfectly acceptable in a combat situation. I wouldn't hesitate to use WP in most conditions. The problem, as I've said before, is that the use of high explosive rounds in urban areas is that civilian casualties are almost guaranteed. The impacts from CAS may be precision guided in many cases, but a 2,000 lbs bomb is going to level a chunk of real estate, not all of which is confined to the target.

Since everyone knows the U.S. uses high explosive weapons, all that is necessary is to put out photos (that could be from anywhere or anytime) and claim that they are burned children or women from the latest U.S. action.

It doesn't matter if it's true. That has been my point all along. They could be true, and that is all that is needed to hang us in the court of public opinion.

Of course Saddam was a tyrant and a murderer. But he's not the one using 155 MM HE rounds in the center of Iraqi cities at the current time. He's old news thanks to us. The insurgents, of course, are murderous snakes. But that doesn't sell newspapers. What gets attention in Europe is alleged wrong-doing by the U.S.

We've spent decades lecturing others on human rights and the value of life. That wasn't the wrong thing to do. The world's tyrants need to hear those lectures. The problem we have is when we are judged against our own rhetoric, a case can be made that we are not living up to our own ideals.

The U.S. military does not target civilians. But as long as we are using High Explosive weapons systems in urban fighting, we are going to keep getting these kinds of articles. And defending against them, whether the pics are doctored or not, is going to be tough. People believe what they see, even in the age of creative editing.

If we are concerned about public opinion, then we need to rethink our tactics. If we are not concerned about public opinion, then we should just get on with our lives and let them carp.

ZTN has apparently already done that, he's waiting for this cr*p to be disproved.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/11/italians-release-video-of-phosphorous.html

WP isn't for lighting, it is primarily a screening agent/obscurant but it is also an incindiary. The fact that it burns and produces light is more than offset by the fact that it creates smoke. For lighting you use illumination rounds that are deployed by parachute.

Artillery and mortars use WP for smoke, while 155mm howitzers have enough throw weight to use HC, mortars don't.

This is not to say that WP isn't pretty ferocious on exposed troops. While you can brush WP off your clothing (no, it doesn't stick) if you are hit by a fragment that has enough velocity to pierce your skin it's unpleasant to have a slug of 800 degree Centigrade burning metal in you. The inhaled smoke is a lot less than pleasant also.

More than you want to know about smoke.

If the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or Washington Post were to report this story, even in a negative light, wouldn't that give the story credence.

This is a peripheral story that will be ignored by anything that doesn't have a very large axe with a dull edge.

...however, civilians in Fallujah were given fair warning, well in advance, and most had left town prior to the operation.

He says:

The use of incendiary bombs against civilian targets or concentrations of civilians with no military function is forbidden by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Although the US ratified Protocols I and II of the Convention, it does not appear to have adopted Protocol III into US law.

Protocol I, which we did sign states:

Art. 51. - Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
   
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
   
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
   
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.
   
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

So it doesn't matter if we signed the chemical weapons protocol or not.

If Al-Qaeda forces weren't fortifying themselves in heavily urban areas, we wouldn't have this problem.  As is, Iraqi civilians seem to have learned that if Al Qaeda is entrenched in their city, it's a good time to get the duck out of Fodge-- read carefully the next report of urban fighting; you'll read things like 'US forces engaged Al Qaeda in the town of Derkaderkastan, population 8000; all but a few hundred civilians have already fled'.

We have two choices: use these kinds of weapons as we have been, or leave Al Qaeda forces entrenched in the cities.  As the latter really isn't an option, I recommend you suggest an alternative to the former instead of just saying that we shouldn't do that.

It received wide press coverage in United Kingdom (population 60 million) and Italy (population 58 million), and the Internet spreads this news worldwide in a matter of hours.  We are fighting a global war, and we can't afford to wait until it finally wends it way to editors' desks in the Beltway and on Manhattan Isle.

War can be fought one of two basic ways.  Kill them all and let God sort them out or you worry about propaganda.    In the former, the methods are not important.  In the latter they are.

If you are trying to fight a media aka propaganda war, then you have a major problem with this.  White Phosphorus has been used in Iraq against nominally civilian targets.  The reality to our forces may be that those targets were military(to me also), but that distinction could get lost in war of words.  The problem may be more complex because in this type of war, civilians are where they should not, because of poverty, stubbornness or coercion.  

So if the question is did we use white phosphorus in Iraq, there is lots of media evidence that we did.  Did we use it against civilian targets like houses? Yes.  Were those targets held by insurgents? Yes.   Were there civilians there?  Yes.  Were the Civilians targeted?  No!   The civilians were `collateral damage'.  

I am not sure how the one No, a big No, and a very important No, will play in the media.   Or if it will be heard.

Examples of WP use in media articles prior to November 2005.  These are older articles from last year mostly.  But if you assert we did not use white phosphorus, then this will be thrown up at you.  I take no position on these articles else I found them via google.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.tx
t

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6791

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/10/MNG6P9P3ER1.
DTL

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/dec2004/iraq-d03_prn.shtml (refers to Asia times)

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/5A38AF67B24C4B39CA2
56F4D0011675A

An important fact to remember is that the strategy of the insurgents is to win in the propaganda area.

I think we have to admit that we used it, but used it only against insurgent positions and repeat that over and over.  Next figure someway to kill smarter.  It is hard to win when an insurgent strategy is to get killed with as many civilians as possible.  And the winner wins by propaganda.

the use of Falluja as an example is just egregious. Anyone who wanted to leave Falluja before the attack could leave.

We have openly carried it in our inventory for six decades.

It is the assertions that WP is somehow a 'chemical weapon' and that we used it to indiscriminately bomb civilians that pissed everyone off.

Add to that the simple fact that all of the people pissing and moaning have no idea what WP is, what it is used for, and why using WP is legitimate and, in many instances, saves lives, and you have some real problems with the crap Kos and others were peddling.

I keep seeing the phrase white phosphorous rounds repeated.

Am I missing something here? Aren't they talking about tracer bullets? I'm sure they are pretty hot if you get shot, but it's hardly a chemical attack.

I think protocol III was only refered to in so far as he was trying flush out the definition of "chemical weapons" and whether special rules apply to certain weapons; which is at issue here. Civilians are a different story.

Folks - I agree with both of you. Logically, you are both right. No argument from me.

We are talking about propaganda, right? Public perception? As I said, all that is necessary is to produce photos purported to be from Fallujah that show burned kids and blame it on WP. Throw in comments like 'shake and bake' (which is perfectly acceptable military jargon, but has bad connotations for civilians) and you have all the makings of a PR stampede.

I know what happened. You know what happened. But the majority of people don't remember much about Fallujah. In the European press, the news from the battle was dominated by pictures of destroyed buildings.

Again, I'm just looking at this from a PR standpoint. Given the fact that we do use these weapons, any moron with Adobe photoshop can create a 'massacre' on his desktop, pass it off to fellow travelers in the media, and we have an instant PR crisis.

I just want us to do better. In an emotional battle, the side of reason loses. That's what this is about, creating an emotional response in the viewers. It's why Fox covers Natalie Holloway to death - losing a pretty daughter strikes a chord that keeps parents glued to the news. In countries that have experienced major combat (Europe, Japan, Asian countries), the sights and sounds of major destruction are what gets people's attention. Trying to counter that is really, really hard.

Except the military account makes clear that the munitions in question were for illumination and psychological effect. They didn't kill the enemy-- HE shells did.

This propaganda is really ridiculous... how anyone could buy this crap is beyond me. It certainly is incompatible with rationality.

At least demand some positive proof. Or are people that ready to consider American troops war criminals?

I remember reading that it was used on equipment as well, because it burns through metal. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

That it isn't a "chemical weapon" but could be used as an incindiary weapon, is important.

Thanks for the info!

They redefine the term.

Just like carbon dioxide, a major component of the atmosphere and something every living animal produces is now called a pollutant.

I'm not sure what is stopping them from referring to HE rounds as chemical weapons. Remember, these are the same people who claim we are using "nuclear weapons on civilians" in Iraq, because of the DU we use in armor piercing rounds.

the comment remains stupid.

Civilians are protected persons whether you're using napalm, mustard gas, or brass knuckles.

I think his intent is pretty clear, it's the old "the US doesn't follow international treaties" meme.

-White phosphorus is a colorless, white, or yellow waxy solid with a garlic-like odor. It does not occur naturally, but is manufactured from phosphate rocks.

White phosphorus reacts rapidly with oxygen, easily catching fire at temperatures 10 to 15 degrees above room temperature.

White phosphorus is used by the military in various types of ammunition, and to produce smoke for concealing troop movements and identifying targets.

It is also used by industry to produce phosphoric acid and other chemicals for use in fertilizers, food additives, and cleaning compounds. Small amounts of white phosphorus were used in the past in pesticides and fireworks.

-A tracer projectile is constructed with a hollow base filled with a pyrotechnic flare material. In US and NATO standard ammunition this is usually a mixture of strontium salts and a metal fuel such as magnesium perchlorate. This yields a bright red light. Russian and Chinese tracer ammunition generates green light using barium salts.

As a former Marine I see no reason no to use WP it's a very effective tool on the battlefield

It is the assertions that WP is somehow a 'chemical weapon' and that we used it to indiscriminately bomb civilians that pissed everyone off.

Perzactly. It's the caterwauling to the effect that we basically carpet-bombed Fallujah with WP munitions.

I assure you, if the United States wanted to inflict massive civilian casualties, there are far more efficient means at its disposal than use of white phosphorus munitions.

"This is where the Liberals begin a tirade on the "corporate media" that avoids uncomfortable hard news that doesn't conform to the status quo while silly fluff news gets 24/7 coverage with little scrutiny or grasp of the facts prior to the debate."

Do you mean like how the media virtually ignored the Abu Ghraib scandal?  That tirade is a bit worn thin.

...is using the chemical Dihydrous Oxide against our enemies to great effect.

about here in the US. Yes, it has spread all over the internet but how many people in the country actually read these blogs for their information? I have had the news on all day today and haven't seen it reported on cable news.

thermite. A mix of aluminum and iron oxide.

I remember reading that it was used on equipment as well, because it burns through metal. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

that WP could burn through some metals but that would be an unusual happening.

Happy Birthday Marine.

I would love it if there were more specifics about what they mean by phosphorous rounds. Kossacks are operating as if they are basting children in the stuff.

I thought there were WP tracers, maybe not.

I'm following the rest of this conversation, but, I will take issue with you brushing off the DU weapons.

Granted they're not 'nuclear' weapons (I'm not sure that dirty nuclear weapons would be a fair characterization either), but, from what I've read the rates of cancer in areas where they were used have sky-rocketed.

With all respect I don't think it does your argument any good to write off the DU rounds (and their effects) as of no concern what-so ever.

I'd like to see such studies, because they contradict every scientific investigation into DU conducted.

DU is not a threat to human health. For instance, The World Health Organization states:

...because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.

Another WHO report found:

The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU.

And the EU found the same:

The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures - sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry - and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional.

DU doesn't remain in the body long enough to cause damage, and it emits only very weak alpha particles. A piece of paper would be enough shielding to stop an alpha particle.

I could see cancer rates increasing on a battlefield, but not due to DU. A Soviet T-72 tank contains mercury, radium, and asbestos, all of which are much more potent carcinogens and toxins that DU.

Tracers emit light. WP emits smoke.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

"White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. "

It isn't chemical warfare...

brush off nonsense.

DU is depleted uranium. That means it isn't radioactive, or any more so than any other dense metal.

DU replace tungsten carbide as a kinetic penetrator because it is several time more dense than steel and because some modern armors embed tungsten carbide in the steel to deflect kinetic penetrators.

If you're in the immediate vicinity of a DU round striking there may be a health hazard from inhaling uranium dust that will inevitably separate from the penetrator... however that will be the least of your health problems.

We were in Falluja to kill insurgents...a munition not banned in any treaty was used to accomplish this aim.  Civilians quite probably were killed in the battle, extremely sad, but this is war.  Death by WP is a horrible way to die...I get it.  I'm sure the insurgence would have prefered to be blown up by a standard shell (or by their own suicide belts), but who cares what they want?

If we were targetting civilians on purpose Falluja would look more like Hiroshima.

No source is credible unless it conforms to biases of the reader. It's so unfortunate. I feel like I've flipped back and forth over my adult life and have made a concerted effort to park on disconnected middle ground.

I'm glad I did. I now see the pros and cons of common arguments on both sides. And common sense trumps loyalty....which is easy for me since I have no loyalty to any party though I do have some to certain indivuals.

That said, I have bias toward moles being exposed. Unfortuantely, the collateral damage of partisan spin will always prevent a clear picture or blow any isolated or unique finding out of proportion.

On further inspection it seems the aswear lies in the middle.

You are right that it is not much of a radioactive threat (i.e. it might make a nice mantel piece).

My source is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

From:

http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Depleted-Uranium.pdf

Lifetime cancer mortality risk coefficients have been calculated for nearly all radionuclides, including uranium (see the companion fact sheet or Uranium). On an activity (curie) basis,these risk coefficients are essentially the same for all hree natural uranium isotopes. Hence, the risk is essentially independent of the ratio of the arious isotopes in a uranium compound. For this reason, the risk of a fatal cancer from exposure to depleted uranium is essentially the same as for enriched uranium on an activity basis.

My science know how is not worth much. What I have got from what I (briefly) read, is that DU presents a long lasting toxic danger, which is probably what accounted for (Lend what credibility you will to the BBC -> they point out Sadam also may have something to do with the toxicity of the battlefields )

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1118306.stm

Dr Jawad, who works at the Cancer Hospital in Basra, says the rate of cancer has increased nine-fold since the Gulf War.

The International Community thinks DU weapons are

rather nasty apparently. As far as I can see though what I said about a mantel piece is true.  

I humbly withdraw my prior bold assertions. I have leant a fair bit about DU weapons today. :)

...from what I've read the rates of cancer in areas where they were used have sky-rocketed.

You need to read some actual scientific sources.

For that! Happy Birthday to you too and Semper Fi!

I enjoy your blog's very much.

The anti-war crowd is reaching here. Mountain out of a mole hill comes to mind!

Keep in mind many every day metals are toxic if injested in sufficient quantites. Lead and copper for example.

about foreign press reports, shouldn't the question be whether it's a chemical weapon under the treaties to which those countries are signatories?  And if it is, isn't the foreign press accurate when they describe it as a chemical weapon?

However it does not matter.

You can win every battle, Vietnam comes to mind, and lose the war.  

In this war, winning in the media is as important as killing the enemy.  

The polls say that the US citizens are tired of it and want out.  This is just part of the strategy of the insurgants to get us out.  

issues have been covered in laborious details.

Not a chemical weapon. Period. Under any treaty. Made of chemicals, yes. A chemical weapon, no.

because it has nothing to do with the truth. It has everything do with America-bashing and the standard leftist litany of "war never proved anything", "nothing is worth going to war over", blah, blah, blah.

I can't stand that straw-man argument. It's never about the troops. Never. It's about the choices that those in charge of waging make. Troops follow orders.

It's only about the troops when high command points fingers to rank and file soldiers. Sometimes it's legitmate but sometimes it's ala "A Few Good Men".

Pointing about Abu Grahib is not an antidote to the reality of this point of view.

Something is there and it's making noise. To dismiss it as completely false because it's uncomfortable is arrogant. To believe it 100% at face value is naive.

To put an eye of scrutiny on it and ask questions is fair and prudent.

I see no fault in my position. If anyone does, it's partisan-based. I'm sure many of you would withhold a instant defense if the President was Democrat. I don't mean to be harsh but partisan-rooted rationalizing is so easy to see when you are NOT PARTISAN.

I'd love to go back and read the outrage of many here when the Newsweek Koran story in Afganistan broke out.

Please. Let's be American first and partisan a distant second.  

Republicans weren't attacking the military and accusing them of warcrimes in Kosovo or any of the previous wars with a Democrat commander in chief.

We are talking about propaganda, right?

That is one thing that does irritate me about this administration.  After saying at one time that (summarizing my understanding of it) the WOT would be a long war encompassing many facets of warfare, it has completely dropped the ball on with regards to the media war, which is the most important aspect of the WOT.

Yes, there is something there and it is making noise; that thing is the same as it is always,  the &^%$%^$ hate-America first leftists, foreign and worse, American.

The people you are prepared to accept are blithely dropping burning phosphorus on these innocent civilians are our children, our mothers and fathers, our brothers and sisters. They are people who were brought up on the same standards and values, the common understanding that is supposed to bind us all together.

I know that this naive belief in America and Americans is simply too 'hokey' for the enlightened liberals that believe they should be guiding us, but some of us just can't get with the program.  

Please. Let's be American first ...

Yes, lets try that.

Routinely used HE in the fighting; unlike the Brits, Germans, and Russians.

GI's would stay off the streets, and use the HE of which they had plenty to blast through buildings and work up the streets through buildings. The Germans found that "unfair" likely because they didn't think of it first and were limited in HE. GI's knocked down a lot of buildings this way, or badly damaged them. They also used howitzers point blank on machine gun nests. They put the GIs lives first over buildings and lives of German civilians.

Some of these guys are still alive. WHY isn't the media screaming (and why have they been silent for so many years) for their heads?

If anything the GIs of today put themselves at greater risk for BUILDINGS and civlians than their WWII predecessors. I find the current mediacrat controversy laughable and frankly reflexively anti-American; objectively pro-terrorist.

Now the question is do you care more that the US uaed the weapons or they used them on only "bad people"?

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf

****So, to sum up:

The primary evidence for the Italian documentary's claims that white phosphorus was used as a weapon against civilian targets in Fallujah consists of photos provided by a campaigner to have the Americans prosecuted for war crimes, and an interview with an antiwar activist who wasn't directly involved in combat.

Concerning the photos, the Independent's chosen weapons expert disputes the key claim - that the intact clothing on the bodies constitutes virtual proof that the victims were incinerated by phosphorus used as weaponry.

It's clear that this story has all it takes to become the latest Received Truth. Look forward to hearing it repeated ad nauseam.******

In this comment you saeem to be saying that it simply is a hox by some lefty paper.

Terrorist want the US to react this way.  We procect our troops, but we use HE, and other stand off weapons with the result that no matter how careful we are.  And we care a lot about minimizing civilian casualites.  But you cannot set off HE and expect it to just target the bad guys.  

It will catch the unlucky and unfortunate.  The old folks and sick that cannot get out, the families and friends of the terrorists willing to die for Allah and hostages set up to be killed will die and become news items in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.  

We will lose if we protect our troops and we will lose if we do not.  

Given the lose no matter what, we must protect our troops.  Maybe there is a better way to fight this war than blow up cities.  

Isikoff's story has been pretty much retracted by NEWSWEEK don't you think we had a right to be outraged? Or is it okay to just make things up?

How do fair-minded people evaluate claims like this? Well, it's not propositional logic or a strictly-controlled physics experiment, so what do you do? Well, you go to Falluja and dig up some dead bodies and look for phosphorous burns. Then you listen to some first and second-hand accounts and discount accordingly. Then you call up your close friends on the JCS and ask them if it was a conscious and coordinated policy. Then you discount accordingly. And so on.

Or you do what the rest of us do: you read an article in La Repubblica that was written by someone who did all of the above. Then you evaluate the credibility of the story. And how do most people do that? Well, they check whether the  source is reputable (meaning, a lot of other people with credibility have said good things about it). Then you make sure the reporter is good-looking and has an air of respectability about him/her. Then you listen to your friends, and to that guy at work who always seems to know a bit more than anyone else. Once you've made a conclusion, you tell everyone your conclusion with the unshakable air of established fact.

That's where common sense comes from.

of Fake but Accurate™

...or a factual fallacy or a point that you're trying to make from your link, please point it out.

Looks like we were wrong on this one. The Pentagon has come back out and stated otherwise.

on getting anyone to pay attention.