http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327543.ece

On a side note, I think it’s hilarious that the Pentagon even has to deny doing anything wrong when accusations first come up. We know the answer before we hear it. We know they deny everything until presented with undeniable evidence. Does anyone believe what a Pentagon spokesman has to say?

[Warning: Half-naked Larry the Cable Guy ad alert]

Anyone want to spare a minute to suggest the “insurgents� have an accountability problem for deliberately mingling into a densely populated civilian area and waging war from there with utter disregard for civilian life � nay, with deliberate intent to get as many civilians killed as possible as part of their mission.

Callimachus,

Excellent point and one that doesn’t get touted as much as it should.
To not hold the insurgents accountable in this regard is an absolution of sorts.

The reporting they’re doing here seems to be mostly second-hand: Reporting anecdotal evidence and claims and photographs gathered by other, less reputable media. It’s not a good job, frankly. Like NBC news picking up a story from the National Enquirer — a la Clinton’s sex affairs.

That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Clinton really did have affairs. But it means it’s not necessarily right, either.

I’m still trying to picture what’s left that I’d call “reputable media” on a case like this. I honestly can’t think of one.

A “chemical weapon” is not simply a weapon that has chemicals in it. It’s a weapon that kills primarily by chemical action.

Again, it’s damning, and our military and our Administration seems to have a serious accountability problem

Anyone want to spare a minute to suggest the “insurgents” have an accountability problem for deliberately mingling into a densely populated civilian area and waging war from there with utter disregard for civilian life — nay, with deliberate intent to get as many civilians killed as possible as part of their mission.

Without knowing what is going on for sure in this case, isn’t possible that someone in the military could be a whistleblower without ulterior motives?

Of course, anything is possible…
With that said though, there would be more credence to that assertion if the whistleblower had engaged a more reputable media representative (yeah, I know reputable and media in the same sentence is an oxymoron : ) Why would he go to this source instead of the mainstream media who are just as hungry for such a story?

Not automatically untrustworthy, although again you have to question motivation and how he is arriving at the conclusions (or possibly having his words twisted) when there was ample opportunity for this type of news to have been shared by more reputable sources.

“Would a soldier who is satisfied with being a soldier have presented such a tale?”

So, I guess that because a soldier is presenting a information that is unfavorable to the administration, he is automatically “disgruntled.” And since he is disgruntled, he cannot be trusted. It looks like any information that is unfavorable to the administration is automtatically untrustworthy, according to you.

Without knowing what is going on for sure in this case, isn’t possible that someone in the military could be a whistleblower without ulterior motives?

Until this is jumped on by other news outlets, particularly mainstream American ones, I will view it with a skeptical eye. The Independent is reporting that evidence has emerged suggesting that the U.S. dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus, a…

And Denise, to assume that this soldier is simply some disgruntled person, well, you can do better than that.

You have to look at motivation when a story such as this is presented. Without any inkling from the numerous sources (media and otherwise) over the past year that an incident described as such had occurred should cause one pause.

Would a soldier who is satisfied with being a soldier have presented such a tale?

The man identifies himself as an ex-soldier, an ex-Marine … ex-Marine? There’s no way a Marine would identify himself as anything but a Marine.

Sorry, but there is more to the story there and a disgruntled soldier is one who would play into this type of reporting tactic.

Agreed that we’ll want to digest more of the detail as it becomes available, but there’s a human nature element that should be acknowledged in the analysis.

http://www.rainews24.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=57784

Their website didn’t load for me, not surprisingly with the thousands probably trying to access it.

Remember, these things happened in Vietnam to innocent civilians, so it’s not exactly unlikely that they didn’t happen here. Was it on purpose? I’m 99% sure it wasn’t, since I know what this stuff is used for. But what’s the appearance of doing this and then not owning up to it? Again, it’s damning, and our military and our Administration seems to have a serious accountability problem, which recently culminated in Bush publicly saying that the US doesn’t torture people, while Cheney seeks to keep “every” option on the table. Ridiculous stuff!!!

Again, let this one play out before you cry foul. There may be more to this story than you may think.

And Denise, to assume that this soldier is simply some disgruntled person, well, you can do better than that.

Course it’s always possible someone did a great cleanup job, but frankly I don’t think our military is THAT effective…and unless they murdered everyone in the city, surely some Iraqis would have talked before now, and Al Jazeera would have played it for all it was worth.