SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (15609)11/8/2005 1:42:03 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Chirac Attacked Over Handling of Crisis(Too Harsh)
AP ^ | 11/08/05 | JAMEY KEATEN
Tuesday November 8, 2005

PARIS (AP) - French President Jacques Chirac's political rivals criticized his decision Tuesday to declare a state of emergency as ill-suited to quelling rioting. Others faulted Chirac for not taking a more prominent public role in managing the crisis. ``It's not enough to announce a curfew. There have to be security forces on the ground who can enforce it,'' said former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius.

Speaking on France-Inter radio, Fabius called curfews ``repressive.''

He and others on the political left said the government had not offered enough support to troubled suburbs and called for new social support and jobs programs.

Communist Party leader Marie-George Buffet warned that curfews could fan unrest by enflaming the rioters, adding that the government was ``incapable of stopping these youths.''

``I do not see how you can enforce the curfew,'' she told France-Info radio.

The leader of the center-right UDF party, Francois Bayrou, said the curfew was largely ``symbolic'' and of ``shock'' value, and criticized Chirac for distancing himself during the unrest.

Bayrou told RTL radio; ``there needs to be a little distance - but the absence of the president is remarkable.''

Chirac was keeping to his official schedule, hosting Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga on Monday and lunching Tuesday with Prince Albert II of Monaco. The president's first public comments on the rioting came Sunday - 10 days after it began.

Two leading police unions, in a joint statement, said they welcomed Chirac's emergency decree, saying it would ``give extra measures to police to ensure the law is respected.''

The head of France's largest teacher's union, Gerard Aschieri, attacked the declaration, saying it could come across as a ``message of war'' to youths across France.

``It's a very bad measure,'' he said. ``Symbolically, it's very serious to reactivate a law from the colonial era ... How will our colleagues who work in the suburbs be able to work with youths subject to this curfew?''



To: Sully- who wrote (15609)11/8/2005 1:57:39 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Documentary In Italy To Accuse U.S. Of Using WMD’s In Iraq

By Rob on International Scene
Say Anything

<<<

Rome, 7 Nov. (AKI) - A documentary to be aired on Tuesday by Italian state satellite TV channel RAI News 24 alleges that US troops used chemical weapons during their assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah in November last year. The documentary - ‘Fallujah - the hidden massacre’ - uses witness accounts from former US soldiers, Fallujah residents, video footage and photographs, to support its claim that contrary to US State Department denials, white phosphorous was used indiscriminately on the city, causing terrible injuries to civilians, including women and children.

“I heard the order being issued to be careful because white phosphorous was being used on Fallujah. In military slang this is known as Willy Pete. Phosphorous burns bodies, melting the flesh right down to the bone,” says one former US solider, interviewed by the documentary’s director, Sigfrido Ranucci.

“I saw the burned bodies of women and children. The phosphorous explodes and forms a plume. Who ever is within a 150 metre radius has no hope,” the former soldier adds.
>>>

Those are some pretty serious charges, but the “blame America first” crowd is (as you might expect) swallowing them whole without even bothering to pause first and wonder about their veracity.

Because, you know, if it’s negative for Bush and/or the war on terror then clearly it’s true.

And even if it is true, is it worthy of the rhetoric coming from the left? Phosphorous rounds are used to illuminate the enemy. I know that word sort of sounds like “immolate,” but they don’t mean the same thing, and comparisons to “weapons of mass destruction” are simply ludicrous.

Think about it. If our military wants to bomb a neighborhood, why would they use phosphorous? Why not use real bombs? They had plenty at their disposal.

Unless you believe that they were dropping the phosphorous in a malicious attempt to cause as much pain and suffering on their target as possible, but personally I’m not willing to impart that kind of wholesale cruelty on our troops even if the rabid anti-war left is willing to buy it.

But then, why wouldn’t they buy it? They’re willing to buy the fabricated crap liars like Jimmy Massey are selling (Troops murdering Iraqi protesters? Shooting little girls in cold blood), so it’s not such a stretch to think that they’ll buy into this one too.

feeds.feedburner.com

adnki.com

flickertail.blogspot.com

sayanythingblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (15609)11/8/2005 2:56:53 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Willy Pete

Posted by Greyhawk
Mudville Gazette

November 2004:

<<<

FALLUJAH, Iraq — The U.S. and Iraqi forces who entered this militant stronghold on Monday were prepared for days of fierce street fighting with insurgents who have been building defenses for months. <...>

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said he had given his approval for the operation, which is being waged by an undisclosed mix of U.S., Iraqi and international forces. He also announced a round-the-clock curfew in Fallujah and in Ramadi, another insurgent stronghold about 40 miles west of here. Iraq is also temporarily closing its borders with Syria and Jordan. Only trucks carrying food and other emergency supplies will be allowed to cross those borders.

"The people of Fallujah have been taken hostage ... and you need to free them from their grip," Allawi told Iraqi soldiers on Monday during a visit to the main U.S. base outside Fallujah.

"May they go to hell!" the soldiers shouted. Allawi replied: "To hell they will go."
>>>

November 2005:

<<<

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
>>>

Where to begin?

How about with "Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists".

The November 2004 attack on Fallujah was undoubtedly the most widely telegraphed punch ever thrown in the history of warfare. I collected and posted links to virtually every major media story done on the events of those days in a series I called "All Eyes on Fallujah" given the intense media scrutiny the battle received. I think you'll have a tough time finding a more comprehensive round up. As I noted at the time


<<<

As we've seen in the week since, stories and photos from those many journalists were delivered rapidly and regularly from the frontlines throughout the battle for Fallujah. Regardless of your thoughts on the results of their efforts, the risks taken by these individuals were real, and their results were often outstanding and always worth noting.
>>>

Here's the introduction to the series.

mudvillegazette.com

Here are links and quotes from 17 articles in the New York Times.

mudvillegazette.com

Here's the same for 13 articles in the Washington Post.

mudvillegazette.com

When you've finished those check out these 17 stories from the LA TImes.

mudvillegazette.com

And then finish with 18 stories from the London papers - The Times, Financial Times, and Telegraph.

mudvillegazette.com

As for the rest, the BBC debunks many of the instant myths surrounding this story, noting that White Phosphorous is an incendiary weapon (also used to create smoke screens), not a chemical weapon, and that although the US is not a signatory to any international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices the military has stated they were used to illuminate combat areas at night.

news.bbc.co.uk

mudvillegazette.com

usatoday.com

news.independent.co.uk



To: Sully- who wrote (15609)11/8/2005 8:18:52 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
U.S. Denies Using White Phosphorus on Civilians

Posted by James Joyner
Outside The Beltway

The U.S. military has denied charges that it used white phosphorus against civilian targets in Falluja last November.

<<<

U.S. denies using white phosphorus on Iraqi civilians (Reuters)

The U.S. military in Iraq denied a report shown on Italian state television on Tuesday saying U.S. forces used incendiary white phosphorus against civilians in a November 2004 offensive on the Iraqi town of Falluja. It confirmed, however, that U.S. forces had dropped MK 77 firebombs -- which a documentary on Italian state-run broadcaster RAI compared to napalm -- against military targets in Iraq in March and April 2003.

The documentary showed images of bodies recovered after a November 2004 offensive by U.S. troops on the town of Falluja, which it said proved the use of white phosphorus against men, women and children who were burnt to the bone. "I do know that white phosphorus was used," said Jeff Englehart in the RAI documentary, which identified him as a former soldier in the U.S. 1st Infantry Division in Iraq. "Burnt bodies. Burnt children and burnt women," said Englehart, who RAI said had taken part in the Falluja offensive. "White phosphorus kills indiscriminately."

The U.S. Marines in Baghdad described white phosphorus as a "conventional munition" used primarily for smoke screens and target marking. It denied using it against civilians. "Suggestions that U.S. forces targeted civilians with these weapons are simply wrong," U.S. Marine Major Tim Keefe said in an e-mail to Reuters. "Had the producers of the documentary bothered to ask us for comment, we would have certainly told them that the premise of the programme was erroneous." He said U.S. forces do not use any chemical weapons in Iraq. A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said earlier on Tuesday he did not recall white phosphorus being used in Falluja.

An incendiary device, white phosphorus is also used to light up combat areas. The use of incendiary weapons against civilians has been banned by the Geneva Convention since 1980. The United States did not sign the relevant protocol to the convention, a U.N. official in New York said.

[...]

"The only instance of MK 77 use during (Operation Iraqi Freedom) occurred in March/April 2003 when U.S. Marines employed several bombs against legitimate military targets," Keefe said. He said the chemical composition of the MK 77 firebomb is different from that of napalm.

RAI posted a copy of the document [online].

rainews24.rai.it
>>>

Let's hope this one is resolved quickly. Given that the use of WP against military personnel is not a violation of international law, one presumes that the denial of any such use is a good sign that they were not used against civilians.

outsidethebeltway.com

today.reuters.co.uk



To: Sully- who wrote (15609)11/9/2005 6:44:46 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims

Little Green Footballs

The latest story floated out to the ever-willing mainstream media by the “anti-war” crowd is that the US military used “chemical weapons” in Fallujah; Scott Burgess has a report that casts serious doubt on this claim: Ablution Exclusive: Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims.

littlegreenfootballs.com

dailyablution.blogs.com



To: Sully- who wrote (15609)11/10/2005 11:37:49 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Instapundit

SCOTT BURGESS offers a pretty thorough debunking of the "U.S. used chemical weapons in Fallujah" story -- though it was pretty obviously bogus on its face (2nd link below).

UPDATE: More on the "white phosphorus" claims (3rd link below), leading to this conclusion:

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

And a pretty big one, by all appearances.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Fred Ray emails:
    Just wanted to comment on the allegations going 'round 
about "indiscriminate" use of white phosphorus against
civilians. I'm a former armor officer and Vietnam vet who
has used WP on quite a number of occasions. So far as I
know it is no longer made for tank (or Bradley) guns, but
is fired by artillery and at times by mortars.
    We use WP as a marking round, because it makes a nice 
column of white smoke that's easy to see. The most common
use is with air strikes and helicopters -- you can direct
them in relation to the smoke column and thus avoid
hitting your own troops or civilians. I suppose you could
use it as an incendiary (and it says so in the book) but
I've never seen it used that way, because it's not very
efficient.
    So did we use WP in Fallujah? Maybe -- but the effects 
would have been quite limited because the burst radius is
about 150' (that for a 155mm shell), and it only affects
people who get some particles of it on them. We also have
a non-WP smoke round that we use for screening.
    Now, WP is nasty stuff, no doubt. If you get it on you it 
will burn you badly and it's very difficult to
extinguish. But it's not a "chemical" weapon except in
the sense that any non-nuke is a chemical weapon i.e. it
works by means of a chemical reaction. Nor is it in any
sense banned by any sort of international convention.
Some of the drivel coming from these so-called human
right organizations is unbelievable -- that people can be
burned or "caramalized" (what does that mean?) without
their clothes burning. WP will burn anything it comes in
contact with.
    Or...that WP creates a killing toxic "cloud." I'm sure 
breathing the smoke isn't the best thing for you, but
Sarin it ain't. Both these statements ought to be your
clue that you're dealing with pure BS.
    It always amazes me what people will believe, but 
apparently there is a segment of the MSM that will
believe anything as long as it's anti-American.
Yes, and it's a sizable one.

MORE: Reader Henry Gowen emails:
    Look for the next breathless reporting about weapons in 
Iraq to include the startling news that bullets are being
used, and they hurt people. White phosphorus has been
around at least since World War II--and it was used as an
antipersonnel weapon. Like napalm, it was useful against
targets protected from conventional explosives. In my
Army days, 1959-61, we fired WP ("Willie Peter") shells
from 4.2 inch mortars for practice. When the round lands,
it produces a cloud of white. (Watch for this in WWII
documentaries, especially from the Pacific.) Nasty stuff,
we were told, because the dispersed particles stick to
cloth and skin and cannot be extinguished with water.
Bad, but certainly not new. This is what happens when
news staffs have nobody with any military connections.
Reminds me of a Wall Street Journal headline from decades
ago that referred to a .30 caliber cannon. That would be
an accurate descriptor, of course, only in the
Lilliputian army.
Indeed.

instapundit.com

dailyablution.blogs.com

confederateyankee.mu.nu



To: Sully- who wrote (15609)11/25/2005 4:07:31 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
White Phosphorus Charges Are Burning Lies

by Michael Fumento
townhall.com
Nov 24, 2005

Time again to try to cripple U.S. military efforts in Iraq! It's not enough that whenever we bomb a terrorist safe house we're accused of killing 40 civilians and no terrorists. (Why always 40?) Nor that we're told we must turn the prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay into genteel facilities fit for Martha Stewart. Now the defeat-niks are screaming about our use of white phosphorus during the bloody battle for Fallujah last year.

Capable of being packed into a huge array of munitions, WP burns on contact with air and is highly useful for smoke-screening, smoke marking, and as an anti-personnel weapon.

WP is hardly new, having been first used in the 19th Century and subsequently in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Nor should it be news that it was used at Fallujah. An article in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery explicitly details the use of WP during the battle.

Yet it's being treated as a major new revelation because of an Italian documentary now available on the Internet titled "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre." It’s as if the use of WP necessarily involves a massacre or as if there haven't been awful massacres in recent years using nothing but machetes and clubs.

Further, there’s no proof of any wrongdoing in the video itself. Rather it relies on “explanations” exclusively from the narrator and other anti-war zealots.

This includes the infamous Giuliana Sgrena, the reporter for the Italian Communist Party newspaper Il Manifesto, allegedly seized by courteous kidnappers. In turn for her release they conveniently demanded what she had also been demanding, Italy’s withdrawal from the war. Her articles are so viciously anti-American they’d make Al Jazeera blush.

There are several accusations against our WP usage.

It’s allegedly outlawed by the Geneva Convention as a chemical weapon. Therefore its use puts us in the same category as Saddam Hussein – or so claims the hugely popular leftist blogsite Daily Kos. But according to the authoritative think tank GlobalSecurity.org, “White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory.”

Is it a chemical? Sure! So is something else you may have heard of. It’s called “gunpowder.” And those chemicals used in high explosives? Yup, they're chemicals too.

Another charge is that contact with WP can cause awful and sometimes fatal burns. But painless ways of killing and destroying such as Star Trek’s beam weapon phasers have yet to be developed. On the other hand, the vipers we cleaned out of Fallujah were days earlier sawing off civilian heads with dull knives. Sound like a pleasant way to die?

Fact is, the soldier’s weapon of choice remains high explosives. WP's best uses aren’t against personnel at all, but to the extent it is employed this way the most practical application is flushing the enemy out of foxholes and trenches where they can then either surrender or be killed.

It's also claimed that civilians were “targeted” with WP and the Italian video does display dead civilians. But how does this show they were the intended victims, rather than accidental casualties? It’s not like when terrorists detonate bombs in crowded marketplaces or at weddings, where the intent is rather obvious.

Regardless of the weapon, how can you possibly avoid non-combatant deaths when the enemy not only hides among civilians but hides as civilians – in total violation of the Geneva Convention, for those of you keeping track.

Further, the dead civilians in the video are wearing clothing. Both the film’s narrator and another of those defeat-nik “experts,” former Marine Jeff Englehart, try to explain this away by saying WP can burn flesh while leaving clothes intact. But true weapons experts, such as GlobalSecurity.org Director John Pike, say there’s no such black magic. “If it hits your clothes it will burn your clothes,” he told reporters.

As daily news reports illustrate in brilliant red Technicolor, the greatest threat to Iraqi civilians are the terrorists. If we want to save civilians, our soldiers must be free to use the best legal equipment available to kill those terrorists and to continue liberating Iraq.

Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and a science and health columnist for Scripps Howard News Service.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (15609)11/29/2005 3:27:09 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Incendiary Politics

by Clinton W. Taylor
townhall.com
Nov 29, 2005

PALO ALTO, CALIF. -- The Left’s outrage factory has been working double shifts these days, fabricating massive quantities of indignation over the "illegal" use of white phosphorus--also known as “Willie Pete” or “Willie Peter”--artillery rounds by American Marines in the siege of Fallujah. If the anti-war activists are so incensed by the use of incendiary weapons, however, they might want to look a little closer to home.

WP is a terrible weapon, but it isn’t illegal, and the charges are ably refuted in this essay by Scott Burgess.

townhall.com

All that needs to be added to Burgess’ analysis is some context: Fallujah was Al-Qaeda’s vision of paradise on earth, their ideal Taliban-style Islamic government, and it was hell.

atimes.com

It was a nest of insurgent command and control, a site for making suicide vests and IED’s, and a slaughterhouse where beheadings were filmed and sent over the Internet to recruit more terrorists. (This slide show offers a chilling retrospective.)

fototime.com

Our troops are there to kill the enemy efficiently, not to inflict pain on them. When a bullet or a conventional explosive can do the job, it makes moral, tactical, and public-relations sense to employ it instead of WP. In this case, though, more Marines would have been killed had the Fallujah jihadists not been routed from their fortifications by the Willie-Peter rounds. Most of America sheds no tears for the head-hacking ghouls of Fallujah’s dungeons, who got no worse than they deserved, and who now reside where white phosphorus feels like a cool shower.

But amid this white phosphorus smokescreen, the media seems to have forgotten about a little incident in San Francisco earlier this month. At a protest on November 2, someone threw a Molotov cocktail at the San Francisco Chronicle building.

A Molotov cocktail, as described in this all-too-detailed Wikipedia entry (linked below), is a homemade firebomb made from a glass bottle filled with gasoline or homemade napalm. If the gasoline has been converted into napalm, either by adding soap chips (probably not a household item among these protesters) or motor oil (Che Guevara’s secret recipe), it will stick to things, and to people, as it burns.

Some of the blazing liquid stuck briefly to SFPD Officer Gary Constantine, who brushed it away as it burned his uniform. An undercover photographer who calls himself "zombie" snapped an amazing photograph (among this series of protest pictures ) of Officer Constantine on fire:

zombietime.com

Officer Constantine was uninjured. But the photo shows clearly that he was in considerable danger of being horribly burned or even of becoming the second California policeman killed this decade by anti-war activists (the first was Red Bluff Officer David Mobilio, gunned down by psycho Andrew Mickel in 2002. Mickel, now on death row, bragged about executing Mobilio on the leftist site Indymedia.)

Police soon arrested an East Bay (ahem Berkeley hrmph) teenager with more Molotov cocktails in his possession. An SFPD spokesman told me an investigation of the firebombing continues. The San Francisco district attorney's office would not disclose the exact charges filed since the defendant is a juvenile.

At this point you may be wondering, why the San Francisco Chronicle? Not exactly National Review, are they? Certainly not, but that same day the Chronicle ran an article which boldly identified the group behind the protest, World Can’t Wait, as a communist organization.

One of WCW’s founders, Boots Riley, is famous for recording “Yakety Sax”, the theme to the Benny Hill Show. No, no, wait, that’s country saxophonist Boots Randolph. Riley, a self-described communist, raps with a group called The Coup whose even less popular oeuvre includes ditties like "Five Million Ways to Kill a CEO" and "Pork and Beef,” which goes a little something like this:
    "If you got beef with C-O-P's, Throw a Molotov at the P-I-G's!"
Perhaps one of Riley’s fans, one who "got beef" with the Chronicle, looked to those lyrics for inspiration on November 2.

Aside from the article linked above and a letter to the editor calling the demonstrators "cowardly poseurs" and suggesting they take their party out to the suburbs where the Republicans live, the Chronicle, along with most major media, have been silent about this attempt to burn their house down. So has World Can’t Wait, whose site proclaims their Nov. 2 march was a “powerhouse of youthful energy” but neglects even to acknowledge, let alone condemn, the arsonist(s) among their ranks.

There’s the double irony: every bit as strident and baseless as the attack on our troops for using WP is the charge that American troops deliberately target and kill journalists. Giuliana Sgrena, Eason Jordan, and Linda Foley have all advanced some version of this canard and the foreign press has wallowed in it.

Yet in San Francisco, on November 2, there was a clear and uncontested example of an anti-Bush demonstrator targeting a major American newspaper with a deadly incendiary weapon. The crickets are still chirping.

No big deal, you say? If some crazy kid throws one Molotov cocktail, should we chalk it up to youthful exuberance?

Fine.

I’ll remember you said that the next time some nut lights up an abortion clinic with the rosy glow of homebrewed accelerants.

It is a big deal. Burning policemen--even just a little bit--is not peachy keen. Burning a newspaper office must be strongly condemned. These things demand an abject repudiation of the communist WCW organization that allowed this to happen. And they demand aggressive prosecution.

Even here in California, we are not yet France, although we soon could be. After all, their recent riots saw a newspaper office near Nice torched as well. We now know well that a Gallic shrug and a puff of existential smoke will not protect us from the nihilist, naphtha-soaked anarchist culture that lurks at the fringes of the anti-war protests here and around the world. It must be confronted. If it is not, if the Left defends it or ignores it, that picture of the flaming policeman will be splashed across billboards and political ads and sites like this one for decades, captioned “This is what they defend! This is what they stand for!”

I won’t hold my breath waiting for the outrage to materialize. I expect more of the same double standard: the sort of weapons forbidden to our soldiers will be romanticized when employed by the opponents of civilization. Tragic battlefield accidents in which journalists are killed will still be chalked up to a malicious (and fictitious) U.S. policy, while an anti-Bush demonstrator’s real attack on the press is ignored.

So for that far-left crowd determined to cut off the Marines’ Willie-Peter, and more concerned about the welfare of Al-Qaeda’s minions than American journalists, let’s just restate the story of Fallujah like this:
    Last November, a group of angry, energized American 
youths staged a very intense, well-organized and
successful revolutionary "protest" against a fascist,
theocratic regime in which a few incendiary devices
happened to be employed.
Anybody got beef with that?

Clinton W. Taylor is a lawyer and a Ph.D. candidate at Stanford. He was a David L. Boren National Security Program Fellow in 2000, and a 2005 Publius Fellow with the Claremont Institute.

townhall.com

sfgate.com

en.wikipedia.org

zombietime.com