White Phosphorus, hype vs reality

Well, one of the resident America hating s***theads at ZIWETHEY is ranting about this, even though it's been debunked for a while now. So I guess I'd better draw attention to it.

So, here's a link

Excerpt:

On the anti- side, of course, you have accusations that WP is a "chemical" weapon or an "illegal" one. It's not.* WP was heavily used in the Second World War by the Allies, including Canada, against both Germany and Japan**, for exactly the same reasons and missions it's being used now. But yes, a WP artillery shell is a bad thing to have land near you... not nearly as bad as a regular high-explosive artillery shell of the same size, but certainly the next worst thing.

The job of those opposed would be much harder, of course, if the pro- side had any more of a clue what they were talking about. The State Department's retracted statement, that WP was "fired into the air at night," is classic. It should go without saying that using a smoke shell to try to light up a dark sky would be a failure... I guess only the State Department could confuse phosphorus with magnesium, which is what real illuminating rounds are made of.

*I've seen a lot of people claiming that the 1980 Incendiary Weapons protocol of Geneva forbids the use of white phosphorus against civilians. It does not. It forbids the use of "incendiaries," and specifically excludes weapons like WP where the incendiary effect is a secondary effect of smoke production (incendiary weapons by definition are those weapons designed to create fires... WP occasionally will start fires, but it's not very reliable in that role... generally it just creates a lot of smoke). Whether the U.S. has signed it or not is irrelevant.

I say:

So many big lies, repeated so often and so shrilly by the true believers. It's hard to keep up. (I think that's behind Bush's poll ratings these days. He hasn't been heard from enough lately.) It's not enough to debunk a lie once. You have to get the debunking out there, everywhere the lie has been. And when the lie re-e,erges, you have ot debunk it *again*, until the poor beleagered audience is sick of the repetition. Only then is the lie truly dead. Helping the truth get its boots on is a hell of a job. But in the meantime, it's a contest to see which side can call the other side a liar more shrilly. What sort of person agrees to fight such a contest? Hint: you don't necessarily get a choice about it, unless you can change the nature of the game.

But it will all come out in the end, because we are slowly changing the nature of the game. Get the facts out... the confirmed evidence, the peer review of the blogosphere, and - slowly but surely - the lies will be driven back, and then obliterated. Never before in history has the natural advantage of lies been so weak. The old centralized means of disseminating alleged information - the mainstream media, the lecture halls - are on their last legs. The Internet is the closest thing ever to a level playing ground, where lies and truth meet on comparable terms, and *all* the facts come into play. Determine what the truth is, and you will know who the real liars were. And those who gleefully spread the lies... never let them live it down. There is no learning without memory. And memory must be without mercy. For until the liars pay a price, there will no end of lies. Todd Blanchard, you are a liar, and will always have been a liar. The slanderers of the good are by nature beyond guilt, but they are only temporarily beyond shame. Time will shame them all.


There's also a shameful Martin Rowson cartoon captializing on this white phosporus slander. It's really sad to see what Rowson has become. He was always a Left-winger, but there was a time, long ago, when he had some wit and cleverness. Now he's just a hack for hatred. I still love his take on The Wasteland. His drag queen Tiresias always made me giggle. I wish he'd do more work that entertaining, but I'm not holding my breath.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/iraq.html#20051126