November 22, 2005
Think Progress Misrepresents Phone Call Between Brothers as "Chemical Weapons" Evidence
This article by radical liberal group Think Progress might make your blood boil, but be careful: they might then try to label it a chemical weapon.
Their spin begins:
To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren't technically “chemical weapons.”
I too, was shocked that the U.S military used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah in 2004. While white phosphorus is an extremely effective obscurant, and it thwarted the ability of terrorist snipers and machine guns to easily slaughter our soldiers by hiding them from view, both night and day, it is all but useless as an offensive artillery round since it can neither penetrate nor burn though the concrete and concrete block construction of the urban battlefield. It was, however, was effective offensively as a "potent psychological weapon."
In a tactical trick called a "shake 'n bake," American mortars or howitzers would drop several white phosphorus shells as close as possible to an entrenched enemy position. The white phosphorus-saturated felt wedges would then deploy and fall to the ground, where some could potentially burn terrorists hiding in trenches and spider holes, but it would almost certainly obscure their vision, no matter what kind of cover they were under.
The terrorists, knowing that American forces preferred to use the dense smoke of white phosphorus to screen attacks, would panic, fearing they were about to be overrun. As the evacuated their entrenched ambush positions, high explosive shells were the fired to kill the insurgents flushed out in the open.
These high explosives, which "aren't technically chemical weapons" as Think Progress is sure to agree, use far more lethal chemical compounds than white phosphorus, and are able to destroy structures, spread fragmenting shrapnel, char, and liquefy flesh with concussive blasts.
Other battlefield weapons that "aren't technically chemical weapons" but are universally far more a lethal threat than white phosphorus include pistol, rifle, and machine gun bullets, hand grenades, RPGs, mines, IEDs, anti-tank rockets, tank gun rounds, and aerial bombs. Indeed, it would probably be accurate to say that the only kind of ammunition less lethal than white phosphorus shells used in the battle of Fallujah would be magnesium flares… though those could potentially leave nasty burns as well.
Think Progress's spin continues:
The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”
Now why on earth would the New York Times claim repeatedly that white phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" and not “chemical weapons?” Could it be the imposing influence of "Freeper" Maureen Dowd? What about that rabid right-winger Frank Rich?
Or, could it be possible, that the New York Times, long considered as the "newspaper of record," actually interviewed some experts in the field? While a fact-based article might be outdated for a progressive organization lkeThink Progress, I found that my own military artillery experts came to the shocking conclusion that incendiaries catch fire, but aren't chemical weapons like mustard gas, Sarin or VX. Who knew?
But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature.
No dears, it isn't a political distinction, but a scientific one. Look up a branch of science called chemistry. You might just learn something that all the reputable news sources already know: white phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon.
But hey, if you can't rely on falsified media claims, and science lets your narrative down, can't you always rely on rough intelligence draft from a non-expert's brother over the phone?
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
Of course you can!
A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]
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.
In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they're used by our enemies.
Yes, their “classified Pentagon document" boils down to a single brief phone call between two Kurdish brothers. Not so impressive now, is it?
And why does Think Progress also leave out the warning the report that forcefully states:
WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED
Just to make this clear: the Pentagon NEVER referred to white phosphorus rounds as "chemical weapons" in this report. Only the conversation of two Kurdish brothers mentioned the term "chemical weapons" and that characterization was never accepted by the military.
Think Progress completely misrepresents the core element of their article.
The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon's legalistic parsings.
"Legalistic parsing," is Think Progress-speak for "facts."
The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.”
They quoted William Arkin's throughly debunked Washington Post blog entry as a source? You've got to be kidding me.
And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.
After all the erroneous and intentional deceit you've tried to pass off so far, do you really think a link to the organization that pays you is going to hold any credibility at all?
To paraphrase President Bush, this isn't a question about what is legal, it's about what is right.
What do you know... they finally got something right.
"What is right" is to use every available, legitimate military tool to disrupt, disable,and destroy the insurgency in Iraq. That includes WP, napalm, bunker busters, scatterable mines, etc.
Losing is not an option.
Personally, I’ve become weary of the naive bunch that believes fighting is wrong (unless you’re wearing Che Guevara apparel!) and thinks there really are “rules” in warfare.
It would be great to see everyone play fair, but that’s not what warfare is about. At which point you’re willing to risk your life to kill another, what’s right or fair is no longer a consideration—only winning matters. Yes it’s a Machiavellian perspective, and it’s the perspective employed by our enemies and all those who have won wars in the past. The losers are those who hold back, or blunder because they fail to grasp significance of the situation.
Go back to the ancient world. The mass slaughter of the defeated is standard fare. Enslavement, forced resettlement, are all normal features of war. We should count ourselves lucky that this is no longer done (although I do believe it would be if the situation were just right—because I believe human nature has not changed since then).
What happens to an insurgent, or terrorist, or enemy combatant matters little to me. I only care that their capture or demise serves to bring us victory. Yes, this is a cruel attitude, but it is the only attitude that wins wars. The time for mercy is after victory is secured, not during the firefight.
And remember, the terrorists started this war. I wonder if a 737 can be considered a weapon of mass destruction or count as a chemical weapon? Maybe the left would feel better if we employed suicidal “freedom fighters” to blow up businesses, schools, and public places. I am disgusted when I see their websites condemn our leaders and our troops, but never those who deliberately kill the innocent, especially children. At least we take precautions, rather than seek to kill innocents. Why we even take precautions at the expense of our own lives!
Enemies within, and enemies without, the usual arrangement for a state at war; but make no mistake, the words, “Vae Victus” (woe to the vanquished) apply to us just as they did to the Romans.
What you are seeing is the fascinating emplosion of a major US political party. The blameocrats are using false evidence (and have been, check out factcheck.org for new info on the Iraq intel issue)and it may get them short term gain and create the illusion that republicans are on the rope, but when the moderate public sees the truth....
Posted by: Ray Robison at November 22, 2005 01:12 PMGolly, are suicide bombers and IEDs scanctioned by the Geneva and UN conventions? Limiting what our troops can use in combat against terrorists who have no such limitations is like taking a knife to a gun fight, just doesn't make any sense. All this white phosporus stuff is just so much 'smoke'!!
Posted by: docdave at November 22, 2005 03:43 PMMY GOD! I never knew that my city was trying to kill me each Forth of July by shooting chemical weapons in the air. OH THE HORROR! All of that toxic smoke from fireworks! We should all be dead! GOTT IM HIMMEL, every country on Earth has access to these deadly chemical weapons. Who knew that the peaceful Chinese were selling cheap chemical weapons to individual citizens at the Crazy Bill Firework stand. Maybe my National Guard unit should attack my garage to clean out my stocks of chemical weapons.
Posted by: Greg at November 22, 2005 08:54 PMI'm open side.. a chemist..
P + O2 = fire - point: chemical sucks oxygen.
Human being + O2 = life - point: sucks oxygen
it's all chemicals guys.. don't dally or dice with death on semantics.
Cruelty: an honest guy :: war is cruel :: but whose war is this—I said war not acts of terror!
Perspective and basis to this honesty—read "Lunch with Mussolini" by Hansen, 1994. Allied bombing of Berlin and its approaches. Cloud cover stopped HE - unseen targets. Object: smash german war machine. So what did they do? Get the workers, the productive capacity. With what—WP—that's what! Eye witness account: "They told us the bombers had dropped little bombs filled with phosphorus which split open on impact and splashed fire everywhere. They told us the phosphorus keeps eating away at flesh until neutralised. This was the case for some of the less fortunate people around us who were in agony."
Cruel, yes, but civilians (as a means of destroying workers in the factories). Gross cruelty.
Maybe the Battle of Fallujah was not what many have asserted. But with both track records and the attitudes I have read in this blog's comments, there is a need to prove this by full inquiry as opposed to blind belief.. wouldn't you say?
Finally, just why are US taxpayers funding Iraq?
I try be straight and honest. Maybe you folks can try match that. I'd like to come back and read about that..
Bye for now.
Posted by: roman eos at November 23, 2005 02:41 AMFinally, just why are US taxpayers funding Iraq?
It's called personal freedom and liberty. You know - that inalienable right endowed by our Creator? Perhaps you were not informed, but those nasty old radical Islamic terrorists; they don’t want us to have that endowed right any longer. They think we should be ruled by sharia law. In fact, they are actually demanding that we submit to Allah’s will and their Talibanistic governance. They sent a unique invitation to convert to Islam on 9-11. Don’t you remember? It was covered by all the MSM. Maybe you were out of the country and missed the invitation.
Object: smash german war machine. So what did they do? Get the workers, the productive capacity. With what—WP—that's what!
Yes, and we dropped two atomic bombs on civilians in Japan. Would you have preferred to speak German and salute the fuehrer or Japanese and bow to the emperor? Do you enjoy your freedom to speak out critically about any aspect of our government or opposing ideology? Do you enjoy the fact that no one threatens to throw you in jail because you pontificate about the inhumanity of war? If you enjoy your freedoms; then thank the ruthless bastards that had the inhuman audacity to develop and deliver those horrible devices of war. It’s not a cliché, freedom is not free. The blood of patriots is demanded to secure your freedom each and every year, whether it be on the battlefield or in training exercises learning the most effective tactics to take out the other guy. Is it more humane to wound someone with a rifle bullet, or perhaps a jagged piece of shrapnel, or perhaps sawing off their head while they scream in agony, or perhaps vaporize them inside an airplane while enroute to CA?
Victory in war comes when the enemy no longs possesses the means to mount offensive operations. In Germany, we broke the industrial complex and infrastructure; in Japan we broke their spirit or will to fight; in Iraq we denied Saddam the ability to command by taking out his communications and command structure. It’s pretty straight forward stuff when the enemy is an organized military. The principle strategy still applies when fighting radical Islamic terrorist groups – deny them the ability to mount offensive operations. We must disrupt their command structure, their communications, their funding, their training sites, etc. etc. on a global basis. Standing Iraq up as a free Islamic democracy will deny the radical Islamic terrorists that nation within which to operate. Freedom is not anecdotal. Once a people possess it they don’t want to let go – e.g. the USA.
If you have no stomach for war, that’s fine – don’t join up. But quit whining and sniveling and first-blaming the warfighters that secure your freedom. We have the finest and most moral military ever fielded by this nation. We’ve lost many soldiers unnecessarily in the avoidance of collateral civilian casualties. Because you have a misperception of the employment of one weapon does not warrant an accusation of inhumanity by our military.
Damn, your own government knows WP is a chemical weapon (WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!) -
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
ED, may I be the first to say that you might be the dumbest SOB ever to post here? I throughly debunk a post, and you response is to cut and paste what I just debunked?
Short bus, long numbers?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2005 01:44 PMIf this phone between two kurdish bros is not so impressive, why should the Department of Defense find some interest in it?
Isn't like that if an information, whatever dumb maybe be, becomes a proof if useful and remains trash if not?
May you pardon me for my english. :)
Posted by: Domiziano Galia at November 24, 2005 05:09 AMDomiziano Galia,
Thanks for writing. I thought I would answer your question, "If this phone between two kurdish bros is not so impressive, why should the Department of Defense find some interest in it?"
The simple answer is: they didn't. This is one of thousands of raw data reports gathered every single day. Some are treasure troves of useful information.Some are all but worthless.
Watch for my next post. As soon as I clear it, I'm relasing an analyst of this from a U.S. Intelligence officer who can directly answer your question far better than I.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 24, 2005 08:53 AMcs(tear) gas is a chemical weapon, so is a heavy cloud smoke grenade, so are star cluster flares, so are flash bangs. wp, he, incendiary, and tracer rounds are too. big fuckin' deal.
Posted by: meangreeneinsc at November 24, 2005 11:45 PMChemical weapons are generally and acceptably classified under certain categories, namely irritatants, choking, toxic, nerve and incapacitating. None of the chemical agents actually release more energy when oxidized as far as I know and quite a few of them are inert unless mixed with a second chemical (binary chemicals). WP is an incendiary of the same way magnesium can be or phosphorous or potassium. When exposed to certain conditions they are a chemical that undergoes a reaction to release heat and energy (aka a lot of heat/fire) and as a byproduct smoke. At the very least the people who are spouting that this is a chemical weapon should at least read what chemical weapons ARE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon
Posted by: Valentine at November 25, 2005 12:11 AMIf this phone between two kurdish bros is not so impressive, why should the Department of Defense find some interest in it?
Mountains of documents and conversations are gathered every day by the DoD and other agencies, the vast majority of which is simply filed away because there's no way to confirm the intelligence, or it's not really useful on it's own, but may be useful later if other intelligence comes in, and so on and so on. Just because they gather it, doesn't mean they agree with it. Over time, things are declassified. And besides, when you record a conversation, you don't write down your own spin on what is being said, you write down exactly what is being said.
Think "No" Progress is just another idiotic, conspiracy fuelled shithole catering for the gullible masses. You're either fooled by them, or not. Your choice.
Posted by: MisterPundit at November 25, 2005 12:28 AMThis is an IIR (WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED) these come out about every minute thru routine classified (R 160504Z APR 91 note the R in front of the date time group) message traffic all they are for is to give a heads up to everyone in case it turns out to be confirmed. They are sent out immediately without being verified in any way in tnis case some knucklehead used the word chemical when he should not have, it should read "munition" instead of "chemical" it means nothing most of these (99%) turn out to be nothing.
Posted by: Joe at November 25, 2005 03:51 AMThe intersting part,is why the anti-war/Democrats/liberals adopt the same line as the terrorist in Fallujah,is there some connection?
Time and time again both groups have the same talking points and details,are they being used or collaborating?
ED, may I be the first to say that you might be the dumbest SOB ever to post here? I throughly debunk a post, and you response is to cut and paste what I just debunked?
I'm not ED, but I'll point out that what he did was pretty much debunk your debunk. You posted a tiny snippet of a DOD document, and you describe it as if it's a quoted transcript from the brothers.
In fact, the document you're excerpting contains no quotes at all; it's a summary of the conversation, written and interpreted by DOD personnel. The classification of WP as a "chemical" weapon was the designation of the person writing the report, not a quote from the Kurds.
The most obvious part, omitted by your quote, is the summaries at the top:
IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
...
SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
Clearly the person writing the "summary" characterizes WP as a "chemical". Otherwise the summary wouldn't have used that term. The rest of the document is just an interpretation of the conversation, as well... NOT a quote. It's the DOD and Pentagon personnel, not the Kurdish brothers, who decided to call WP a "chemical" weapon.
Next time you try to debunk something, make sure you read the whole document first.
(And please don't be so lame as to delete this post, as you did before. If your positions can't withstand criticism, perhaps you should choose new ones.)
Posted by: Ron at November 25, 2005 01:15 PM"(And please don't be so lame as to delete this post, as you did before. If your positions can't withstand criticism, perhaps you should choose new ones.)"
The report's allusion to "chemical" gives no context to what kind of chemical. Is it nerve, toxic, indendiary? What is it?
Also, reporting it as an illegal munition is counter to DoD's own listing. WP is NOT listed as a toxic, nerve, incendiary. Those are prohibited from use in standard operations.
WP is used as a smoke munition. It's designed to camoflauge and confuse. End of story.
Just because some third world dictator massacres a village using boiling mayonnaise doesn't make mayonnaise an illegal weapon. It makes him a sick MF'er, and it makes people blanche when they think of mayonnaise. That's it.
If the report is true (unconfirmed) then it means Saddam used WP in a way that's not intended by our own military. His use does not change OUR use. Get it?
Posted by: The False God at November 25, 2005 02:02 PMIf the report is true (unconfirmed) then it means Saddam used WP in a way that's not intended by our own military. His use does not change OUR use. Get it?
Yes, I get it. So I can fire warning shots over the head of a crowd in a movie theater, and it's OK for me to kill someone then because I'm not really using the gun in the same way it's intended to be used by a mass murderer. His use does not change MY use. Nice rationalization.
And it's silly to keep hiding behind the "unconfirmed" nature of the report. Unconfirmed doesn't mean false. If the report was false, the Pentagon would be readily able to dispute it. They haven't.
Posted by: Ron at November 25, 2005 02:38 PMWhat is silly Ron, is continuing to label WP as a chemical weapon for political expediency. WP, as used by the US military, as an obscurant and a signaling device. There are better incendiary devices (thermite), to use and probably are using where applicable. And, if the commanders on the ground want to use thermite, napalm or depleted Uranium on any target they deem necessary, more power to them.
You are gaining no traction outside the determinedly deranged anti-Bush partisans but Im sure, gaining many propaganda points with Islamofacists.
Posted by: harry mallory at November 25, 2005 03:18 PMAh, once again, the strategy of equating any disagreement with a Bush administration strategy with derangement and sympathy with Islamofacists. How predictable. I think there needs to be a Godwin's Law corollary for that. It's removed all rational thought from the conversation. I shall leave it at that.
Posted by: Ron at November 25, 2005 03:52 PMI can not believe that our troops are so mean as to actually try to obscure the vision of those poor innocents that are trying to shoot and kill them. Oh, Mr. President, the shame of it all.
Posted by: John M. at November 25, 2005 06:59 PMToday in the Guardian (British left wing paper) They published a story about how Poland has released documents of how Russia would have conducted a nuclear war in Europe. The Russians it seems were going to nuke Germany but not touch Britain and France?
(Maybe something about an independent nuke system scared them)
The fact remains the darlings of the Liberal elite were going to nuke first in which to steal land. They though that if they only took Germany ,Denmark and the low countries then the US wouldn’t wish to start a full scale nuclear war.
The fact the Americans fielded cruise missiles in Europe during the 80s proved to the Russians that the Americans would take the fight to mother Russia. The liberals who cried that Regan was a war mongerer, that America was the bully and that fielding neutron bombs (Actually a shell) was a war crime never seemed to grasp the message that Russia wanted them. Now the main bully is Islam. (lets call a spade a spade) They oppress millions, They export terror and the holy book of Islam actually dictates to the faithful that killing non Muslims in the march to conquer the world is a just cause.
(Before anybody calls me a bigot or such, I am an apostate from Islam and the e-mail I posted is false so that I don’t get lots of hate mail from Muslims as I used to do when I first started visiting the net)
I can talk about Islam because I understand it. And it makes me cry when I hear intelligent people claim that we don’t have a problem on our hands.
Muslims, not neo cons crashed planes into the WTC. Muslims not neo cons blew up 2 American embassies in Africa. Muslims not Neo cons chop off peoples heads and lastly it will be Muslims who set off a Nuclear weapon in the west and not neo cons. Cry foul play all you want. But appeasement didn’t work in 1939 why should it work now.
What i'd like to ask Ron is "who cares?"...I mean, we all know WP isn't a chemical weapon as defined by the military. That point cannot be contested. And so what if the report alludes to someone at the DoD calling WP a chemical weapon? Ever heard of someone making a mistake or being confused or just plain not knowing what they're talking about? This whole argument is ridiculous...all it's about is the left trying to make our military and therefore our president and country look bad for their own personal gain. These idiots could care less how we fight a war, or whether we win or lose. They simply look for any angle, no matter how obtuse or irrelevant to further their own agendas. I actually think it's funny to see these smug jerks flaunting their presumed "intellectualism" on a subject they know nothing about and did absolutely no research on before opening their stinking, subversive, traitorous pieholes. Come on Ron, or any of you other stupid twits on the left...show me where our White Phosphorous rounds are chemical weapons. Give me some hard data, some examples of a WP round from an artillery piece killing a person simply by being a WP round. It's SMOKE you idiots!
Sgtmech
The only good libertroll is one you can hit in the head with a club!
Posted by: RepublicanTeamLeader at January 4, 2006 10:24 PMSo when is are the NeoCons going to stop supporting the Saudi terrorists that attacked us on 911 and get the hell out of their pet project called Iraq and go after the people that actually attacked America?
Maybe the neocons (like the nazis) dont care who they are killing as long as they are killing somebody. Maybe that is what the liberal founding fathers meant by "Give me LIBERTY or give me death!"???
Naaa... rightwingers have never even read the writings of the likes of Ben Frankling, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, nor Thomas Paine... newp rightwingers are far smarter than the deists and liberals that made this country in the first place... SOOOO where were the republicans in WWII? Leading America against the Nazis and the Japanese? NOPE they were covering their asses because they were supporting the nazis until public opinion turned against them...traitors ...those neocons are all traitors against this LIBERTY based country that puts the PEOPLE above rich fat cats that think they own America.
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 8, 2006 04:59 PMBy the way calling Liberals communists make you RED COATS ...Benedict Arnolds... You see LIBERTY is what founded this country "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" But traitors like the rightwingers dont love America and only care about their ignorant little teams that they swear their allegance to instead of to America. Well that is what prison is for...
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 8, 2006 05:03 PMThe neocons have done to the Iraqis (who did not attack nor could attack America EVER) the same way the red coats treated the founding fathers and all the TRUE Americans that lived then. Hope you are proud of becoming exactly what the founding fathers faught against.
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 8, 2006 05:07 PM
