Napalm by another name: Pentagon denial goes up in flames

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

looks like napalm.
acts like napalm.
kills like napalm.
used like napalm.

But Pentagon denies its "napalm".
What Pentagon 'meant' was it is not brand-name "Napalm".

A generic 'napalm'.

...the god damned US military brass has gone mad --
using napalm

on edit- civilians in or next to a combat zone are
in extreme danger to begin with, and just as in Vietnam
the excuse by the military brass is --war is hell

Napalm was used in Vietnam, and we all know the result.



----------------------------------
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145870882.html

Napalm by another name: Pentagon denial goes up in flames

By Ben Cubby
August 9, 2003


The United States military has admitted it used napalm-type weapons in Iraq.

A Pentagon spokesman had told the Herald it did not have any stocks of napalm, but it seems the denial was a quibble.

The Pentagon no longer officially uses the brand-name Napalm, a combination of naphthalene and palmitate, but a similar substance known as fuel-gel mixture contained in Mark-77 fire bombs was dropped on Iraqi troops near the Iraq-Kuwait border at the start of the recent war.

"I can confirm that Mark-77 fire bombs were used in that general area," said Colonel Mike Daily, of the US Marine Corps.
Colonel Daily said that US stocks of Vietnam-era napalm had been phased out, but that the Mark-77s had "similar destructive characteristics".

more............


- - - -

NOT IN MY NAME

[arcane1]

1. hmm, wouldn't this be a chemical weapon, technically?

:shrug:


I guess it's ok for us to use them, just not anyone else..
(I'm sure freepers unanimously agree)


:grr:

win their hearts and minds, or burn them alive instead. Typical neocon "faith-based" killing...

let's just distribute some syphillis-infected blankets to the Iraqis and be consistent, why don't we?

[Dem2dend]

6. Don't flame the messenger

but the U.S. did not sign a treaty to stop using napalm.

[w4rma]

10. So? Should we really be destroying our respect in the world for

very little tactical gain?

And that's not even mentioning the human rights abuse of using the stuff on people.

[JanMichael]

15. Figures that we didn't. Empires rarely cooperate.

But, just for arguments sake, didn't the US say that we had destroyed the last of our Naplalm and would cease to use such weapons (That we claimed to have destroyed)?

IIRC the Pentagon made that statement some years back...

Am I mis-taken?


PS~ Trick question, I already know the answer:-)

[Eloriel]

22. Oh, well then

That makes it perfectly okay.

Eloriel

[dansolo]

19. No, because all explosives are technically chemicals

Chemical weapons derive their lethality on the toxicity of the chemicals that are dispersed after th explosion of the weapon. Explosive and incendiary bombs should not be classified as chemical weapons, even to try and and make a rhetorical point.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

2. Napalm in civilian areas? That would be front page news . . .

if it were true. Is the fact that it's not the leading story on CNN or CBS News and indication that the civilian napalming charge isn't verifiable?

I love bashing this administration as much as anybody. But, as we go for Bush's jugular for stretching the truth, let's make sure we're not guilty of the same sin.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

7. i refer to a previous comment by US miltary......

The comment was made by a US military commanderin Iraq.

The commander was asked ' what about Iraqi civilians in the area?'

He answered back something to the effect that there couldnt be
civilians in that area because ALL who were in that area are
deemed the 'enemy'.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

9. I still don't see from your answer where we napalmed civilian areas.

Let's not stretch the truth, okay? If you got facts, tell us. I don't accept "something to the effect". Nor should you. If we napalmed civilians, say so and back it up. My point was that I don't believe the story because if it were true, Al Jazeera and Al Aribia would be broadcasting pictures of civilian victims nonstop 24-7. That ain't happening. So, I believe the poster of this thread is suffering from "George Bush lying disease".

[JanMichael]

25. Doesn't matter bucko.

Why are you defending the use of these weapons?

I simply don't get your posturing here...

[whoYaCallinAlib]

27. It's real simple bucko. I don't believe that we napalmed civilians.

I am not defending the use of these weapons. I never have, not once, not a single time defended the use of these weapons. I will never, ever defend the use of these weapons. But when I see something that on it's face appears to be an outright fabrication, I question it. Okay Bucko?

By the way, Bucko, do you believe everything you hear? Didn't think so Bucko.

[JanMichael]

17. Look up Napalm and the US.

We've claimed for years that we're Napalm clean.

But...Apparently we're not!

At the very LEAST this should concern an honest citizen.

[FatbackSlim]

3. Civilian areas?

I didn't see mention of that. Just against troops.

[acmavm]

4. This country is being run by amoral thugs who have no qualms about

using whatever barbaric means possible to accomplish their ends. This story, though, just goes to show that very little was learned from the Viet Nam era. What is astounding is that people in this country do not care what atrocities we are committing in the name of "freedom".

What really confuses me though is how they can equate the behavior they condone with their "Christian" values. Insane, absolutely, obscenely insane.

[Dem2dend]

5. Napalm

is the fastest way to illiminate the enemy.
The U.S. never signed on to a treaty to stop using it, I read somewhere else that the excuse given was "We warned them"

The napalm was used to secure a few bridges prior to our troops going over, the other option would have been a fire fight that could have caused American casualties. Given the other option I'd say the napalm created the same results (death) as a fire fight may have caused but without our troops taking any casualties.

The pilot also said that he saw soldiers after dropping the weapon, it seems doubtful that civilans would have been with the soldiers.

[JohnyCanuck]

8. You can be damned sure if Saddam's troops had used naplam

to fry alive a bunch of American GI's the news of Saddam's barbarity would have been broadcast far and wide courtesy of CNN Fox and the rest of the media whores. But you know what they say, "All is fair in love and war," especially when your side gets to write the history.

[Dem2dend]

11. Saddam didn't need Napalm

He was able to gas and shoot many of his own people for political purposes and bury them in mass graves.
This whole debacle is wrong but as was posted here prior, we are not legally prohibited from using napalm and we (you and I) spent billions on bombs that were designed not to harm civilans. In fact Bagdad's citizens went on with their lives amidst he bombings.
While we don't approve of this war, it seems to be going MUCH better than was originally predicted.
At the beginning we were warned that thousands of soldiers would be killed in hand to hand combat or that WMD would be used against us.

We've got enough things that we are aware of that stink to high heaven in Washington now without trying to micromanage situations we have no control of.
Our anger can be used much more creatively if we focus on things we can change.

[RC]

12. So tell me

about these bombs that we spent billions on that were designed not to harm civilians.
Just how do they differentiate between the civilians and the military? Our own troops are having trouble doing this.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=59163&mesg_id=59163

The abd al-Kerim family didn't have a chance. American soldiers opened fire on their car with no warning and at close quarters. They killed the father and three of the children, one of them only eight years old. Now only the mother, Anwar, and a 13-year-old daughter are alive to tell how the bullets tore through the windscreen and how they screamed for the Americans to stop.

"We never did anything to the Americans and they just killed us," the heavily pregnant Ms abd al-Kerim said. "We were calling out to them 'Stop, stop, we are a family', but they kept on shooting."

* * * *
Just what the bloody hell are we doing over there?

[sistersofmercy]

14. This is not a meritless point

Mark 77 fire bombs are the same thing as napalm, different juice, same effect. Upon impact it basically splatters this burning gel which adheres to the skin. Very painful death, very nasty hard to treat wounds. Totally disgusting psychological warfare. No different than the chemical weapons Saddam used against the Iranians. But he has the real WMD makes the rules.

[scarletwoman]

16. This isn't about Saddam, this is about US!

It is a completely corrupt argument to say that "Well, Saddam was a bad man." So what? So that means WE should go ahead and commit atrocities too, just as long as we keep the number of victims below Saddam's record?

How morally bankrupt can you get????

sw

[sistersofmercy]

18. Not my point at all

In fact it is quite clearly another case of the gov. smirking and ever so carefully telling their half truths. Plain and simple, they denied the use a napalm and are now saying well, it's sort of like napalm but not exactly, the difference kerosene instead of petrol. I still say it makes them no better!

[Ohio Dem]

21. You can't be serious.

At the beginning we were warned that thousands of soldiers would be killed in hand to hand combat or that WMD would be used against us.


Well, thousands of soldiers haven't been killed . . . yet. Give it another few years. We'll still be there, you know. And no, WMD hasn't been used because they don't have any!

As for the bombs we have that don't kill civilians, you must watch too much Fox News. We've killed something like 8000 of them already. Civilians, that is. We killed a whole shitload of Iraqi soldiers, too, but they don't count, I guess.

[sistersofmercy]

24. you got that right on

I've tried to find a number of Iraq Soldiers KIA, can't find one! they don't want ppl to know the real devastation, notice no embedded reporters now!

[diamond14]

26. here's the Iraqometer (link) which give a count...IMO, it's a

nightmare....and it's lots of blood on the hands of America ! WE THE PEOPLE must stop this massacre...I can't even dignify it by calling it a war...it's really not a war, it's a massacre....

http://www.iraqometer.com/


BTW, sistersofmercy...WELCOME to DU
we're glad to have you here...I went to Our Lady of Mercy High School in Detroit Michigan, and was taught by Sisters of Mercy....

Welcome:

:hi: :hi: :hi: :bounce: :bounce: :hi: :hi: :hi:

:nuke:

[Aristus]

13. Next they'll be telling us they don't search and destroy.

They "Sweep and Clear."

God I hate these assholes.

[grasswire]

20. the article says....

.....generals love napalm.

[diamond14]

23. Napalm is an incendiary chemical weapon banned by UN....

(link) UN Article III bans incendiary chemical weapons...
except under special military circumstances, but at all time prohibits the use of incendiary chemical weapons against civilians...

Napalm is an incendiary chemical weapon...it is the ignition of a chemical burning of plastics, flinging an explosion of hot flaming plastics everywhere, igniting everything...including human beings...it is almost impossible to get the hot burning plastics off or out-of human skin...it's a horrible, painful, and prolonged death


Article III
Opened for signature at New York: 10 April 1981
Entered into force: 2 December 1983

http://www.mineaction.org/advocacy_conventions/_ccw_amendedprotocolii.cfm#p3

General Information
http://disarmament.un.org/ccw/index.html

(this really makes you realize why bush* wants to eliminate the UN, afterall, bush* violates UN rules and regs so often...it would be easier for bush* to just eliminate the UN and avoid prosecution by for war crimes...)...

here's a link to the USA acceptance of UN rules and regs

http://disarmament.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf/View%20by%20country%20and%20treaty?OpenView&Start=171&Count=30&Expand=186#186

[Swede]

28. When you drop 2000 pound bombs

In a city of 5 million in an undeclared pre-emptive strike war,what's a little napalm?