Napalm in Iraq?

[Ste]

umm, this is the first I've heard of it.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/n...&siteid=106694

US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.

Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.

America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world still using the weapon

Now, I know it's the Mirror.
But if this is true surely there must be widespread condemnation not just throughout the world but within the US itself?

Also on the mirror site: AMERICAN jets killed Iraqi troops with a controversial napalm-type weapon during the war in Iraq, the Pentagon has admitted.
Other reports:
U.S. Admits Using Napalm Bombs In Iraq: Report
Al-Quds accusing US troops of using chemical weapons

If these are true, would any pro-war people like to comment?

[skiddy]

Yeah.

I'd use it. Like stated, there is no law banning its use so why not? If I had a bridge that I wanted to take intact whilst killing those guarding said bridge, I'd use it - I can think of no better way of doing it, coupled with that it'll put the fear of god into those around the target area making them more likely to surrender their arms.

Napalm is great.

[NEWSBOT3]

russians have been using thermo weapons for years in chechnya etc, and those are half napalm half nuke.

[Ninja_spammer]

Thermobaric bombs and Napalm are different beasts, though both are unpleasant (then again name me a pleasant way the military has of killing ppl) .

Skiddy would you use napalm in a civilian area as this seems to be ste's 'problem' .

[mist]

huh?

-mist

[Ninja_spammer]

brain fart.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Thermobaric bombs and Napalm are different beasts, though both are unpleasant (then again name me a pleasant way the military has of killing ppl) .

Skiddy would you use napalm in a civilian area as this seems to be ste's 'problem' .

Collateral damage.

(Yes.)

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Ste

If these are true, would any pro-war people like to comment?

There doesn't seem to be much truth to comment on.

Saying that the use of naplam is outlawed is misleading. The 1980 UN Convenstion only 'restricts' its use:

• You can't use it against civilians (previous conventions prohibit deliberately targeting civilians with any weapon, so this one is nothing new).
• You can't use it via air delivery against military targets in close proximity to civilians.
• You can't use it via any other delivery against military targets in close proximity to civilians unless you can reasonably avoid the civilians.
• You can't use it in forests, unless those forests are being used as military concealment

Also, the article twice refers to napalm as a gas. It's a jellied (semi-solid) incendiary.

I doubt we used napalm (or napalm-like) weapons in Fallujah as the typical delivery system (the Mk 77) is a very "dumb" canister bomb that doesn't have the kind of precision you usually need in an urban environment (unless you're out to just fire-bomb a whole city block). One exception would be flamethrowers, but US stopped using those years ago.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

One exception would be flamethrowers, but US stopped using those years ago.

damnit, flametanks would be a good idea!

seriousuly, if you're using the abrahams to clear buildings, you might as well just set the whole place on fire and stand back...

-mist

[Marilyn Manson]

I love the smell of threads about napalm on the boards.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by skiddy

I'd use it.

That's because you're the bastard son of the military advisor on Civ II.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

That's because you're the bastard son of the military advisor on Civ II.

I always went for nuclear weapons on Civ II, never bothered invading places, just built up my own cities and flattened others from afar with AEGIS cruisers, B2 bombers and around thirty carrier fleets.

[Marilyn Manson]

"I am Ghandi of the Indians and our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. We have decided to erase your pathetic civilization from existence. Goodbye."


Such fun.

[mist]

SDIs were the spawn of satan :/

planet busters > civ II nukes tho

-mist

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

"I am Ghandi of the Indians and our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. We have decided to erase your pathetic civilization from existence. Goodbye."


Such fun.

I haven't played it for years but I remember going round annoying other countries by floating* my fleet into their waters and then getting threats from their ambassadors - promptly ignoring their threats and using my fleets to demolish every city they owned within three turns or so.

The AI started playing my game then and giving me what I wanted.




*Well you can't drive a boat can you, and piloting aircraft carriers just gets confusing.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by skiddy

*Well you can't drive a boat can you, and piloting aircraft carriers just gets confusing.

Sailing is the word you're looking for.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Ste

Sailing is the word you're looking for.

I'll be the judge of that, thankyou very much.

[Marilyn Manson]

You can't sail a boat if it doesn't have sails.

That's silly. Or witchcraft.

Either way, I don't wish to be associated with it.

[Demon Dave]

Phosphorus (spl?) is better than Naplam, and that actually is a gas. although i agree with skiddy, Napalm is fun

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by mist

SDIs were the spawn of satan :/

planet busters > civ II nukes tho

-mist

Those are just pure evil

[mist]

they were cool!

although, nuking your own land to get rid of mindworms was a lot more hazardous if you used those

-mist

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

Phosphorus (spl?) is better than Naplam, and that actually is a gas. although i agree with skiddy, Napalm is fun

It's not a gas, it's a powder that burns on contact with air producing a dense white smoke.

It's a smoke grenade.

It'll also burn whatever it comes into contact with, and ignite flammable things in it's blast area.

Standard WP Smoke Grenades will contain around 12 ounces of phosphorus.

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by skiddy

It's not a gas, it's a powder that burns on contact with air producing a dense white smoke.

It's a smoke grenade.

It'll also burn whatever it comes into contact with, and ignite flammable things in it's blast area.

Standard WP Smoke Grenades will contain around 12 ounces of phosphorus.

hmmm, i was always taught in chem classes that phosphorus was a gas anywho phos is phun

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Also, the article twice refers to napalm as a gas. It's a jellied (semi-solid) incendiary.

odd that, isn't it? that they don't even know what napalm is but they are still reporting about it. Three times they mistakenly identify what napalm actually is. twice a gas, and once polystyrene and jet fuel.

[Qdeathstar]

why to people post such utter useless shit for?

No wonder you people are so 'antibush; antirepublican'

With bullshit like that spreading the net, no wonder.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

why to people post such utter useless shit for?

No wonder you people are so 'antibush; antirepublican'

With bullshit like that spreading the net, no wonder.

Thank you for that wonderfully thought out response to this thrilling debate. Its comments like this that make us Proud to have supported the U S of A in its battles with the evil regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brother QDeathStar, i salute you!

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

why to people post such utter useless shit for?

No wonder you people are so 'antibush; antirepublican'

With bullshit like that spreading the net, no wonder.

Sigh, i'm wishing I hadn't said in a previous thread that you'd seemed to have started to post better.

I'm not going to be subtle like Kura, I'm just gonna say: WTF are you talking about?

AMERICAN jets killed Iraqi troops with a controversial napalm-type weapon during the war in Iraq, the Pentagon has admitted.

Are you arguing this is a good thing? or are you arguing it's untrue? I would like your reasons why either way.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

why to people post such utter useless shit for?

No wonder you people are so 'antibush; antirepublican'

if you're implying that to like bush you have to ignore all the stupid things he does, i fully agree

-mist

[skiddy]

I like bush.

[Qdeathstar]

i could of swore i said Anti Bush, Anti american.

O.o

In anycase, i had written that in about 30 seconds having only read the first post.

With more time, what I am saying is this:

Firstly, I disagree with the truth that the article has to offer. Its probably false, much like Dan Rathers report against President Bush's service in the National Guard.

Secondly, It is no supprise to me, while people here, who read day in and day out this rubbish, and absorb it, believe it, and feed off it, become swayed into becomming bush basher's and anti-american biggots. With news sources like that, no wonder.

Its utter crap. Its like if Michael Moore was then producer of a News Channel. Highly flashy, interesting to read, but totally false.

The sunday mirror to anti-americans is what Aljezzera is to Arab Terrorists.

Dirty, Flithy, Sad, Untrue, Meaningless Propoganda.



The reason I doubt it is true is: Our new media isnt a fan of President Bush. If it was reportable, they would report it. Secondly, the Red Cross watches over our wars, its there job, and im sure there would have been a big problem with us doing that.

The best to arguments against it being true are:

Thirdly, There would be no reason for the United States to risk war crimes to fight a war, when they have the technology and armory to complete abliterate whole cities, in a matter fitting with Geneva laws.

Fourthly, President Bush values life, and is compassionate.


Note: Dont try to claim that "oh but the Red Cross could be paid off" or "no one dares actaully try US of War Violations. Because thats pretty much illogical, being that there is zero evidence that that could or is being done.

EDIT: Going to check Ste's post. ++Ego.

[Ste]

QDS - You're basically saying that you don't believe it's true. Why couldn't you just say that?
Anyway... If the army were proved to have used napalm - what would your position be?

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...399055,00.html

US forces used napalm-like MK-77 firebombs against Iraqi forces in their drive toward Baghdad last spring, a Pentagon official confirmed on Thursday
...
Marines used the napalm-like bombs on at least two other occasions during the drive to Baghdad - against Iraqis defending a bridge across the Saddam Canal and near a Tigris river bridge north of the town of Numaniyah in south central Iraq, the San Diego Tribune reported on Tuesday.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," Colonel Randolph Alles, the commander of Marine Air Group 11, was quoted as telling the newspaper. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

Oh I have to say though:

Originally Posted by QDeathstar

President Bush values life, and is compassionate.

Firstly HAHAHAHAHAHA
secondly - President Bush wasn't mentioned by me at all, for the reason that I doubt he personally authorised use of napalm, didn't say it couldn't be used maybe, but didn't give the order.

[JonnyBGood]

QDS gets owned on a disgracefully regular basis on here

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

President Bush values life, and is compassionate.

Unless you happened to be on death row in Texas during his governorship. In which case you were a bit ****ed, really.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Fourthly, President Bush values life, and is compassionate.

I've always thought that Qdeathstar was just ridiculously stupid, but to make that statement in all seriousness you'd have to have a mental capacity so low that you wouldn't be capable of breathing in and out. I now assume he's just trolling.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Secondly, It is no supprise to me, while people here, who read day in and day out this rubbish, and absorb it, believe it, and feed off it, become swayed into becomming bush basher's and anti-american biggots. With news sources like that, no wonder.

yes. everyone should watch fox news, damnit. seriously, where do you suggest we go to get an unbiased view of bush's antics?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The sunday mirror to anti-americans is what Aljezzera is to Arab Terrorists.

Dirty, Flithy, Sad, Untrue, Meaningless Propoganda.

Isn't Al Jezzira that arab satalite channel that all the terrorists send their beheading videos to?
if they thought it was a dirty filthy channel, wouldn't they send them elsewhere? and in your references to untruths, are you claiming that actually noone's been beheaded and it's all some publicity stunt

i also think it's rather ironic that you a) think that an international aid charity exists in order to stop america committing war crimes and b) apparently think one needs to exist.

-mist

[Qdeathstar]

QDS - You're basically saying that you don't believe it's true. Why couldn't you just say that?
Anyway... If the army were proved to have used napalm - what would your position be?

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/...1399055,00.html

Your link proves nothing... upon closer inspection one find's that this news web-site is mearly mirroring the original . Its the same information. There is no independent confirmation. Just a couple of shady websites pretending to be news...

Not really, Im just talking the brick wall. Im not owned by the brick wall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qdeathstar
President Bush values life, and is compassionate.

Unless you happened to be on death row in Texas during his governorship. In which case you were a bit ****ed, really.

Oh, you mean, unless you happen to have commited a murder, or raped a 3 year old, or something of that sort, Then no, he isnt compassionate to them types.

yes. everyone should watch fox news, damnit. seriously, where do you suggest we go to get an unbiased view of bush's antics?

No. How bout

CBS, BBS, MSNBC, ABC, ect ect. Those world wide stations would be acceptable.

[/quote]
Isn't Al Jezzira that arab satalite channel that all the terrorists send their beheading videos to?
if they thought it was a dirty filthy channel, wouldn't they send them elsewhere? and in your references to untruths, are you claiming that actually noone's been beheaded and it's all some publicity stunt
[/quote]

No, im not claiming that no beheadings have taken place. It is still a plubicity stunt, Is pro-terrorism Propaganda. And they have LIED explicitly about other things. They have also aired things against the Rules of the Geneva Convention and common moral sence.

The Red Cross is sent out to make sure that Nations treat war-criminals fairly. Yes.

[mist]

the red cross does a lot of things, a small part (unless bush keeps invading places...) of their work is looking at warcrimes, but i would suggest this is a byproduct of their being places where americans might commit them, because they're trying to help the people there.

what have al jezzira lied about? i'm quite curious.
i'm well aware that the beheadings are a publicity stunt, in the same way that letting reporters travel with marines is a publicity stunt. does this mean that any tv channel showing that kinda thing is dirty, filthy and sad?

-mist

[Dreadnought FTW]

Napalm owns

Fry the towlies!

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by mist

the red cross does a lot of things, a small part (unless bush keeps invading places...) of their work is looking at warcrimes, but i would suggest this is a byproduct of their being places where americans might commit them, because they're trying to help the people there.

Actually, the International Committee of the Red Cross has primary responsibility for monitoring treatment of prisoners. Beyond that, the ICRC has sponsored all of the Geneva Conventions (including, interestingly, the most recent Convention in 1949--the UN declined to participate on the grounds that since war was obsolete any regulations governing war were irrelevant--heh).

what have al jezzira lied about? i'm quite curious.
i'm well aware that the beheadings are a publicity stunt, in the same way that letting reporters travel with marines is a publicity stunt.

Um, I don't think so. What generally defines a publicity stunt is whether or not the 'stunt' would occur absent the publicity. While it is plausible to suggest that the beheadings might not occur sans publicity, it is not plausible to suggest that the US marines would cease operations sans embedded reporters.

[mist]

i meant the act of sending the reporters was a publicity stunt, not the act of sending the marines (although, some would argue that this was a media event, which is close enough).

i was under the impression that the red cross is made up of more than just the international committee? for example, they do first aid at loads of events like carnivals and big carboot sales and such around here.

http://www.redcross.org/services/int...0_323_,00.html also seems to indicate that they're more worried about "emergency relief" than they are about keeping an eye on american soldiers

-mist

[Qdeathstar]

thats the American Red Cross, which is different from the Interational Red Cross. I think. Or something like that.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Um, I don't think so. What generally defines a publicity stunt is whether or not the 'stunt' would occur absent the publicity. While it is plausible to suggest that the beheadings might not occur sans publicity, it is not plausible to suggest that the US marines would cease operations sans embedded reporters.

I think it is the "letting the reporters travel" bit which is the publicity stunt, though I still don't think that is quite right. call me cynical if you like, but I think this is a case of "keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer" - the media, if let loose, could cause real trouble for the war effort, and it is by constraining them that most of the really nasty stuff can be hidden from public view. There are lots of other problems that I see with embedded reporting, that I will not go into here.

[Inferno]

What is wrong with Al-Jazeera television station? Just because show represent the views of the other side which you would never get in the TV stations which you mentioned doesnt mean that they are utter shit. All Al-Jazeera did was report what happened, as it happens, where it happens and that is not good for the Americans since they dont want hte world to see what they are really doing.

What are you talking about when you say that what Al-Jazeera did, and I quote

against the Rules of the Geneva Convention and common moral sence.

What about this war that America started in the first place? Didnt they go against the UN and carried out this illegal war and deny medical treatment to any Iraqi prisoners? Didnt they carry out this war without any real reason or evidence to do so? Clearly the Americans went against every law and complain when someone else does it, whether against them or to some other lot.

No weapons of mass destruction. Just the black gold and another outpost in the middle east. Its all they ever wanted.

[Inferno]

As for those who dont know how napalm works, just watch the nice presentation which is also known as Ste's avatar.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Your link proves nothing... upon closer inspection one find's that this news web-site is mearly mirroring the original . Its the same information. There is no independent confirmation. Just a couple of shady websites pretending to be news...

Ok, I take it back, US didn't use napalm.
They used Mark 77 firebombs

While the United States military has adamantly denied using napalm in its invasion of Iraq, U.S. Military personnel have confirmed that they did use “Mark 77 Firebombs,” an incendiary bomb strikingly similar to napalm. The only difference between napalm and Mark 77's is that Mark 77 bombs utilize kerosene-based jet fuel rather than using gasoline and benzene. The destructive effects are essentially the same. This is likely why U.S. military personnel and the press repeatedly referred to the use of Mark 77 firebombs as “napalm.”

Very interesting: http://worldtribunal-nyc.org/Documen..._2_E_Ridha.pdf

Your line of arguing:
"It doesn't follow my point of view so therefore it's biased shite."
Try opening you eyes a little.

EDIT I have no idea about US papers, does this help? http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...firebombs.html
EDIT2 How about http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tions/mk77.htm

[Kurashima]

Im going to get some t-shirts made

"Please form an orderly line to troll these forums"

"You must be this tall to troll"

"Please keep your hands on the keyboard at all times"

"Unattended children will be removed and may be sold to Dace"

"My other forum is SA"

"Just because the media says it doesnt mean its true"

and various other wonderful ideas that this thread has popped in my head.

PS : QDeathstar, why would the media print things that are blatantly untrue and total fabrications. Does the concept of Libel or Defamation not exist in the USA? Surely the US Government would be absoloutely within its rights to sue the pants off any media printing untrue allegations about allegedly factual happenings , right?

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Inferno

What is wrong with Al-Jazeera television station?

do they show the atrocities commited by the insurgents? if not, then that is what is wrong.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

PS : QDeathstar, why would the media print things that are blatantly untrue and total fabrications. Does the concept of Libel or Defamation not exist in the USA? Surely the US Government would be absoloutely within its rights to sue the pants off any media printing untrue allegations about allegedly factual happenings , right?

Whom would this be libel against or defamation of? GWB?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

odd that, isn't it? that they don't even know what napalm is but they are still reporting about it. Three times they mistakenly identify what napalm actually is. twice a gas, and once polystyrene and jet fuel.

Is napalm not a combination of polystyrene and jet fuel?

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

do they show the atrocities commited by the insurgents? if not, then that is what is wrong.

Theyre just awaiting takeover by Rupert Murdoch so he can have a further polarised viewpoint. Itll be rebranded as "Fox News Arabia"