Anti-American Protesters

[Ragoczy]

I apologize but I don't have enough faith in your intellectual honesty to pursue this.

Who does this guy have to tell the story to before you will address the story? You tell me who the audience has to be and I will try to find a video of him telling this story to that audience. FIRST, you have to explain to me how the same guy telling the same story is of no concern to you unless and until you believe he's telling the story to people who understand constitutional law.

I actually have a very intimate knowledge of the whole White Phosphorus scandal and international outrage. The video is a snippet from an Italian documentary on the subject. The U.S. government finally admitted using it in the face of overwhelming evidence, after lying about it repeatedly.

It was a huge deal that you somehow managed to completely miss. The fact that you are unfamiliar with it has somehow convinced you that I am an idiot. Again, I don't see how that follows.

My original post in this thread was about examining the source of documentary as well as the content. That's why I commented about CCR, the source of one of the videos you linked to. Then you asked me a specific question about the US Congress, which I answered.

I said nothing about the credibility of the specific individual telling his story, simply that the group presenting it, CCR, has an agenda which would likely color their presentation of it. Just as I pointed out the agenda of the creators of the original video in this thread might color their presentation of the protesters.

With specific regard to the gentleman's story, I haven't taken the time to research it and don't typically take testimony at face value without independent research. A lot of people have made accusations, and even Congressional testimony, that had only a passing relationship with the truth.

Again, my point is simply that the source, and the source's possible agenda or prejudices should be considered, as well as independent confirmation of the facts.

With regard to the white phosphorus issue, WP is an incendiary weapon, not chemical, and the US, to my knowledge, is not a signatory to any treaty banning its use. That being the case, I actually have no issue with the US military using WP against enemy combatants.

There is no evidence that the US military "lied" about its use to their chain of command or civilian command structure. Everyone's panties are in a wad about statements to reporters. Again, I don't care if the military, any country's military, lies to the press. In fact, since the press has proven it's incapable of using discretion to keep knowledge that endangers soldiers lives out their reports, I encourage it.