Making Incendiary Claims

In wake of last week’s airstrike in Afghanistan in which upward of 120-147 civilians may have been killed, there are now charges of white phosphorus being used in the battle as some of the hospitalized victims have unusual burns.

AP:

KABUL (AP) — Doctors voiced concern over ”unusual” burns on Afghan villagers wounded in an already controversial U.S.-Taliban battle, and the country’s top human rights groups said Sunday it is investigating the possibility white phosphorus was used.

The American military denied using the incendiary in the battle in Farah province — which President Hamid Karzai has said killed 125 to 130 civilians — but left open the possibility that Taliban militants did. The U.S. says Taliban fighters have used white phosphorus, a spontaneously flammable material that leaves severe chemical burns on flesh, at least four times the last two years.

Using white phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is considered legitimate under international law, but rights groups say its use over populated areas can indiscriminately burn civilians and constitutes a war crime.

~~~

Human rights groups denounce its use for the severe burns it causes, though it is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory.

Even if white phosphorus were used as a weapon, let alone used at all, how would it constitute a war crime anymore than, say, dropping bombs? Those can kill indiscriminately and leave ghastly wounds, as well. Since human (re: anti-war) rights groups can’t dissuade the use of conventional weapons, they have to scaremonger over something like white phosphorous, which, if it had been used by our military, would have been used for purposes of illumination or smokescreen.

In Kabul on Sunday, hundreds of people marched near Kabul University to protest the U.S. military’s role in the deaths. Protesters carried signs denouncing the U.S. and chanted anti-American slogans.

The incident in Farah drew the condemnation of Karzai, who called for an end to airstrikes. The U.S. has said militants kept villagers captive in hopes they would die in the fighting, creating a civilian casualties controversy.

And what would happen if these protesters had their way? If Karzai’s public denouncement and calls for airstrikes to end, came about? In the long-term, how many more civilian casualties then? How much longer the conflict?

This is the kind of news coverage the Taliban and al-Qaeda feed off of, and fuel. If they can’t win on the battlefield, they will try to do so through the media.

This Ain’t Hell also points out the bias:

Of course, the story here is that the Taliban is using white phosphorous against civilians, AP can’t bring themselves to tell that story – they’d prefer to feed the anti-American conspiracy by alluding to US’ use of white phosphorous. The US does use what the troops refer to as Willie Pete to conceal movement and disorient the enemy – it makes a very nice smoke screen – and it’s legal under the laws of land warfare to use willie pete in that role.

In Journalism 101, students are taught that they should tell the story in three places, once in the headline, once in the first paragraph and again in the body of the article. Apparently, at the Associated Press, they tell half of the story in the headline and the same half of the story in the first paragraph.

The AP should offer a clarification here, lest they be accused of perpetuating media myths and distortions:

The U.S. military used white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in November 2004. Israel’s military used it in January against Hamas targets in Gaza.

The U.S. military’s use of white phosphorus in Fallujah was not as an incendiary type of WP, but as smoke.

Nor was Israel’s use of WP in its offensive on the Gaza Strip illegal.

It’s just more enemy red herring propaganda and smokescreen for the real abusers of human rights and their sympathizers/enablers.