"Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre" includes footage that the film makers claim is WP distribution onto a civilian population via helicopters. There's just one problem: you can't deliver WP that way -- that's not how WP is used.
Agreed that what's shown in those particular clips could be a different kind of weapon, but that doesn't disprove that white phosphorus was used; and no one denies much of the town was levelled with many civilians buried under the rubble or smashed for life. There was minimal media presence during the entire battle, tv teams are not freely invited to that kind of fighting, and that was the main point of my argument. When a massacre or an atrocity is shown on live tv and primetime news for all to see it incites a much more powerful response, and governments and army staff know about this and adapt to it. So what gets shown on tv and what is kept off becomes a matter of importance.
The film also has an ex-American serviceman testify that Fellujah was "just a massive killing of Arabs." Amazing, after a bit of research it came out that he wasn't even present firsthand during the fight.
Jeff Englehart, the ground soldier you're thinking of, wasn't an eyewitness inside the city but he had been with the forces just outside and had been in touch with people who had gone in, or who had been higher up in the chain of command during the battle. So he may very well have acquired his information from other soldiers. There's nothing surprising about how soldiers who had seen ugly things committed by USAF first-hand would not want to talk openly to outside reporters about it.
During the battle of Felujah around 100 American Soldiers were killed, about 1300 Insurgents, and around 800 civilians. On 9/11 about 3000 civilians and 19 terrorist hijackers died. If you can't see the difference between those two, I find that stunning
It's the kind of attack
and the fact of its indiscriminateness that matters, not simply which number is the larger one. I could have brought in Hiroshima but I wanted to keep to events that had happened in the last ten years and so Fallujah was the most obvious instance. Bombing was indiscriminate in Afghanistan during 2001-02 as well, thousands of civilians who had never had anything to do with al-Qaeda must have died - or perished during the cold winter months after their houses, crops and villages had been blown out.
Many of the victims in Fallujah were civilians and they had certainly not done anything in order to be roasted or maimed.The number of dead is not dependent on whether phosphorus was used, plus numbers of casulaties in this kind of thing are uncertain as a matter of course.
Even the people who were fighting in Fallujah were engaged in a perfectly legitimate effort to drive out the occupying power. They were not motivated simply by any support for Saddam but by a legit wish to become a part of the future of their country: the U.S. had not presented a viable future (I know you will contest this, Jude, but tough luck!). You don't have to share the political ideals of a given resistance group to see that their cause may be legitimate inasmuch as they're opposing a forceful occupant that's killing their friends and exploiting their country - isn't that part of the basic American idea of freedom, that a people has the inalienable right to kick the butt out of anyone trying to oppress them?
And by the same token, criticizing American policies or misguided acts of U.S. warfare, torture etc is not the same as being anti-American or even "un-American".
Before we get into a free-for-all about the Iraq war here I would point out that I didn't invoke Pearl Harbor and Fallujah to say Bush was bin-Laden or that FDR was Tojo, but to show that it doesn't work too well to defend all kinds
of measures of war or vengeance, all in one, by saying "I've got a right to kick anyone I want to bits, that's what anyone does and if you're opposing it you just don't get why the USA is great".