Quote:
|
I had contempt for nuns in general you would obviously be spinning, and I'd call you on it, but that's beside the point.
|
Exactly, and you are saying I hate my country using exactly the same sort of extrapolation. I'm calling you on it. You're spinning.
Quote:
|
As for the article itself, you cannot call them liars, and there were no words to twist, napalm is not what they used. Albeit a technicality, your accusations are fundamentally not true.
|
Well you should correct the USA military. The MK77-4, which the armed forces commonly referred to as napalm, was actually, as you said, a mix of petroleum, benzene, and polystyrene. Napalm is "technically" a mix of <b>na</b>phthene and <b>palm</b>itate with gasoline. With the MK77-5 the USA changed the formula slightly and denied that the product was napalm, even through the MK77-4, by your definition, wasn't napalm in the first place.
So, I guess it would be ok for the USA to start using mustard gas again as long as we started calling it Freedom Gas.
Being "technically" correct isn't good enough when people are being roasted alive. The military knew damn well they were using napalm against the Iraqis, but issued a denial to cover up. Clinton was "technically correct" when he said "I did not have sex with that woman." I wonder if you were defending him a few years ago?