Okay, who's responsible for this headline? Who has done the fact checking on this article? Because it comes across as rather shoddy-looking, to me. (1) The headline allows the inference that the article refers to an order given during the war. (2) It is clear that Mr. Blau's lead-in seeks to distort the context in which the order was given, making it appear more proximate to the war than was the case. (3) It is not clear that this decision was at all unusual or in any way unwise; not consultation with an expert source is referenced. (4) It is not clear that the remaining ammonia in the tanks would have killed "tens of thousands" of civilians; again, there is no reference to any sort of expert source, and at this point no assumption of journalistic credibility. (5) It is patently clear that the order did not endanger civilian lives as anywhere near as directly as the headline implies. Bad. Bad writing, bad editing.
Saudi Arabian king cuts France trip short after beach controversy (Reuters)
from the article: General's order put thousands in Haifa area at risk during war