COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

Proving that some filthy dogs cannot be housebroken, no matter how many times you spank them with a broom handle, the UK Guardian continues to stick with its ignorant White Phosphorous meme, even as it concedes that the Italian video wasn't worth crap.

US admits using white phosphorous in Falluja

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Wednesday November 16, 2005
The Guardian

US forces yesterday made their clearest admission yet that white phosphorus was used as a weapon against insurgents in Iraq. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC last night that it had been used as "an incendiary weapon" during the assault last year on Falluja in 2004.

Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable said the substance, which can be used to lay smokescreens but burns down to the bone in contact with skin, was not covered by international conventions on chemical weapons.

But Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford's Department of Peace Studies said the substance would probably fall into the category of chemical weapons if used directly against people.

The fact that this idiot's first idea for a call for comment was to call some flowerchucker at a university's "peace studies" department tells you all you need to know about the ideological baggage hobbling this reporter and his editors.

The Pentagon spokesman's comments also appeared to contradict the US ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, who denied in a letter to the Independent that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon. Mr Tuttle said: "US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons."

Well, the career diplomats at the State department are frigging morons. They proved it when they issued a press release stating that WP ammunition was not used in the TWO ROLES it's specificially designed for: Screening and marking.

They said it was used only to illuminate enemy positions.

Yeah, I think its important to use the same round you normally use as an obscurant to illuminate stuff.

Dipweeds.

The President should be placing a nasty call to Condi telling her to tell the State Department to stay in its frigging lane.

A recent documentary by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, claimed that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, had died of burns caused by white phosphorus during the assault on Falluja. The report has been strenuously denied by the US. But Col Venable said it had been used to dislodge enemy fighters from entrenched positions in the city.

"White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal," he told the BBC. "We use them primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases. However, it is an incendiary weapon, and may be used against enemy combatants."

Damn straight. Don't like it? Don't be an enemy combatant. Or even let them operate in your neighborhood.

US admits using white phosphorous in Falluja

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Wednesday November 16, 2005
The Guardian

US forces yesterday made their clearest admission yet that white phosphorus was used as a weapon against insurgents in Iraq. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC last night that it had been used as "an incendiary weapon" during the assault last year on Falluja in 2004.

Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable said the substance, which can be used to lay smokescreens but burns down to the bone in contact with skin, was not covered by international conventions on chemical weapons.

Article continues
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford's Department of Peace Studies said the substance would probably fall into the category of chemical weapons if used directly against people.

The Pentagon spokesman's comments also appeared to contradict the US ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, who denied in a letter to the Independent that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon. Mr Tuttle said: "US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons."

A recent documentary by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, claimed that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, had died of burns caused by white phosphorus during the assault on Falluja. The report has been strenuously denied by the US. But Col Venable said it had been used to dislodge enemy fighters from entrenched positions in the city.

"White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal," he told the BBC. "We use them primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases. However, it is an incendiary weapon, and may be used against enemy combatants."

Asked if it was used as an offensive weapon during the siege of Falluja, he replied: "Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on, and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position: the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so you can kill them with high explosives."

Glory, halle-fallujah.

White phosphorous burns spontaneously on contact with air, producing phosphorus pentoxide smoke. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture, and will burn mucous surfaces. Contact ... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."

Well, that's the general idea, isn't it? That seems pretty obvious to everyone except morons who take their cues about war from a professor at a "Department of Peace Studies."

That's like taking a fish bone to a gun fight. Stupid.

Another Guardian Columnist weighs in here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1642831,00.html

This cretin refers to U.S forces as "The invaders." Ok, true after a fashion. But will he refer to Al Qaeda in Iraq as "terrorists?"

From the article:

Given that they care so much, why has none of these hawks spoken out against the use of unconventional weapons by coalition forces?

Umm, because they're not "unconventional weapons," dumbass?

Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him.

To try to draw a moral equivalence between Saddam and Chemical Ali on the one hand, and an allied forward observer under fire on the other, is simply outrageous. Especially when Monbiot's arguments collapse so quickly in light of the facts.

Monbiot does not know warfare, he does not know fire support, he does not know doctrine. He is wholly ignorant of the subject matter about which he speaks. It's not as if the opinion of informed observers is even divided. EVERY participant I've seen in this debate who has more than a rudimentary knowledge of fire support doctrine has weighed in against the idea of WP being a chemical weapon. Without exception.

Unlike most debates, this is a debate with all the informed on one side, and all the clueless jack brains on the other. Inexplicably, Monbiot and the Guardian choose to ally themselves with the clueless jackbrains.

He only makes a fool of himself. And the fact that the Guardian can write a column and a straight news story wholly ignoring huge swaths of the debate - as if there had never been one - speaks volumes about the lack of intellectual discipline or honesty among the editors of the Guardian.

Splash, out

Jason