FALSE Charges

This one positively reeks of outright lies being reported as fact by a major media outlet. Period. There is no – none – zero - zip – reason Israel would use anything other than normal weapons. This one stinks out loud. And this may finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back on clamping down on outright hostile abuses of so-called journalism.

Israel using chemical weapons: doctors

Lebanon is investigating reports from doctors that Israel has used weapons in its 15-day-old bombardment of southern Lebanon that have caused wounds they have never seen before.

"We are sending off samples tomorrow, but we have no confirmation yet that illegal weapons have been used," Health Minister Mohammed Khalife said.

The Israeli army said it had used only conventional weapons and ammunition in attacks aimed at Hizbollah guerrillas and nothing contravening international law.

Blackened bodies have been showing up at hospitals in southern Lebanon two weeks into the war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas that has seen at least 418 people, mostly civilians, killed in Lebanon and at least 42 Israelis.

Killed by Israeli air raids, the Lebanese dead are charred in a way local doctors, who have lived through years of civil war and Israeli occupation, say they have not seen before.

Bachir Cham, a Belgian-Lebanese doctor at the Southern Medical Centre in Sidon, received eight bodies after an Israeli air raid on nearby Rmeili which he said exhibited such wounds.

He has taken 24 samples from the bodies to test what killed them. He believes it is a chemical.

Cham said the bodies of some victims were "black as shoes, so they are definitely using chemical weapons. They are all black but their hair and skin is intact so they are not really burnt. It is something else."

"If you burnt someone with petrol their hair would burn and their skin would burn down to the bone. The Israelis are 100 per cent using chemical weapons."

Lebanese President Emile Lahoud has repeatedly accused Israel of using phosphorus bombs in its offensive.

This one is so high and deep it defies belief. Throwing the flag on this one, folks.

UPDATE: Confederate Yankee thoroughly dismantles this one.

This entry was posted in Throw The Flag, War. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to FALSE Charges

  1. wolf says:

    This is just another blood libel against the Jews. So glad Passover isn’t around the corner or we would be hearing that the Jews need that extra blood for baking matzohs.

    Actually, that is what they are saying on Iranian, Egyptian and Palestinian TV stations!

  2. crosspatch says:

    I believe they might well be seeing wounds they have never seen before. I can only imagine what the inhabitants of a house that had a dozen rockets and a few odd anti-tank missiles stored in it would look like if the building were hit.

    Also, didn’t Hezollah brag at some point recently that they had chemical weapons? They probably store those in people’s houses too.

  3. Bill Franklin says:

    Such strong denials. You sound just like the US emassador to Britian, when he said “US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons.” After all, we accused Saddam of using “white phsophorus chemical weapon”, as outlined in this military report:
    http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

    As it turns out, despite our denials, proof that we did use WP as a weapon was exposed by the Italian Press. Then we said it’s OK to use.

    So the moral of the story is that it’s wrong if one of our enemies uses chemical weapons, but it’s OK if we or one of our allies uses it. But be sure to deny it until irrefutable evidence comes out disproving your denials. Then say it’s OK to use.

  4. Gaius says:

    Sure, irrefutable proof from a media source. Keep dreaming.

  5. crosspatch says:

    Gaius, we have used WP as a “marker” round in Iraq where we wanted to mark a point with smoke or bright light (night) and its use is not banned in any way for such purposes. We wouldn’t use WP to produce casualties because it is too unpredictable for that. I believe a relatively few rounds of WP were used in Fallujah and a few other battles. You could possibly send in a WP round against enemy troops but the extent to which it will cause casualties will vary widely depending on how much of the stuff happens to get on someone. We have much better anti-personnel weapons that are more reliable.

    We don’t use WP as a weapon, we use them for battlefield screening or marking, to provide points of reference. One major reason is that using such weapons produce wounds that are difficult to treat and tend not to be lethal, at least not right away. Since we end up treating the wounded, it places more demand on our own field hospitals and saps resources needed to treat our own wounded. Using WP as a weapon against enemy troops in places such as Iraq would only cause more of a burden on us and create more wounded to have to deal with.

  6. Gaius says:

    I know that. The lefty is conflating things, as usual.

  7. The rational, logical explanation of why it is tactically unsound to use WP as an antipersonnel weapon has been given the Left time after time after time. It matters not to them because _facts_ simply don’t matter to an ideological group that finds the truth inconvenient to the purity of their belief system. “Fake but accurate” is not just a right wing laughing point; to the left feelings trump facts every time. I recently found a DKos post wherein he makes the following statement.:

    “Whether factual or not, these alternative accounts should at the very least raise serious questions as to Israel’s motives and rationale for bombarding Lebanon.” {bold by QM.}

  8. Gaius says:

    Too true, sadly.

  9. Bill Franklin says:

    Evaluate the “truth” of this statement, made by Dept. of Defense spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable, when asked if WP was used antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah:

    “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 because 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 that you can kill them with high explosives (i.e. ‘shake & bake’).”

    Crosspatch – Your statement is False; it is contradicted by the above statement from a DOD spokesperson.

    Quilly Mammouth – Do you ever research anything, or are you a just a dittohead? Does the above explanation from a Lt. Colonel sound like a left wing touchy feely explanation?

    “Too true, sadly”…..INDEED.

  10. Bill Franklin says:

    > Throwing the flag on this one, folks.

    I hope it’s a white flag. For what it’s worth at this point, you were wrong:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/777549.html

  11. Gaius says:

    Not really, Bill. The article in question does not validate the claims in the article I linked in the post.

  12. Bill Franklin says:

    Compare and contrast:

    > There is no – none – zero – zip – reason Israel would use anything
    > other than NORMAL weapons.

    vs

    “The Israeli army made use of phosphorous shells during the war against Hezbollah in attacks against military targets in open ground.”
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-22-israel-lebanon_x.htm

    There is no contradiction here? And your link to confederate yankee that “throughly dismantles THIS ONE”?

    I don’t know why I bother. This blog clearly is a tool for the administration. And you folks accuse lefties of ignoring “inconvenient truths”…

Comments are closed.