Napalm In Iraq?
 

I first heard from a friend in London that napalm had been used in Iraq, but I had a great deal of skepticism that it could be true. I see now that it has been perculating in the British press for some time and the story has found it's way to the internet. Alas, our free press has yet to mention it.

If it is true that the Pentagon has verified the claims, why are we hearing nothing of this from the mainstream press?

________________________________________________________________

Covering Up Napalm in Iraq
By Mike Whitney
ZNet

Tuesday 28 June 2005

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Robert Duvall, "Apocalypse Now" (1979)

Two weeks ago the UK Independent ran an article which confirmed that the US had "lied to Britain over the use of napalm in Iraq". (6-17-05) Since then, not one American newspaper or TV station has picked up the story even though the Pentagon has verified the claims. This is the extent to which the American "free press" is yoked to the center of power in Washington. As we've seen with the Downing Street memo, (which was reluctantly reported 5 weeks after it appeared in the British press) the air-tight American media ignores any story that doesn't embrace their collective support for the war. The prospect that the US military is using "universally reviled" weapons runs counter to the media-generated narrative that the war was motivated by humanitarian concerns (to topple a brutal dictator) as well as to eliminate the elusive WMDs. We can now say with certainty that the only WMDs in Iraq were those that were introduced by foreign invaders from the US who have used them to subjugate the indigenous people.

"Despite persistent rumors of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm" the Pentagon insisted that "US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq." (UK Independent)

The Pentagon lied.

Defense Minister, Adam Ingram, admitted that the US had misled the British high-command about the use of napalm, but he would not comment on the extent of the cover up. The use of firebombs puts the US in breach of the 1980 Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons (CCW) and is a violation the Geneva Protocol against the use of white phosphorous, "since its use causes indiscriminate and extreme injuries especially when deployed in an urban area."

Regrettably, "indiscriminate and extreme injuries" are a vital part of the American terror-campaign in Iraq; a well-coordinated strategy designed to spawn panic through random acts of violence.

It's clear that the military never needed to use napalm in Iraq. Their conventional weaponry and laser-guided technology were already enough to run roughshod over the Iraqi army and seize Baghdad almost unobstructed. Napalm was introduced simply to terrorize the Iraqi people; to pacify through intimidation. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Negroponte are old-hands at terrorism, dating back to their counterinsurgency projects in Nicaragua and El Salvador under the Reagan Administration. They know that the threat of immolation serves as a powerful deterrent and fits seamlessly into their overarching scheme of rule through fear. Terror and deception are the rotating parts of the same axis; the two imperatives of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy strategy.

Napalm in Falluja

The US also used napalm in the siege of Falluja as was reported in the UK Mirror ("Falluja Napalmed", 11-28-04) The Mirror said, "President George Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet-fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun the world.... Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh...Since the American assault on Falluja there have been reports of 'melted' corpse, which appeared to have napalm injuries."

"Human fireballs" and "melted corpses"; these are the real expressions of Operation Iraqi Freedom not the bland platitudes issuing from the presidential podium.

Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, who was the head of the Iraqi Ministry of Health in Falluja, reported to Al Jazeera (and to the Washington Post, although it was never reported) that "research, prepared by his medical team, prove that the US forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks on the war-torn city."

Dr Shaykhli's claims have been corroborated by numerous eyewitness accounts as well as reports that "all forms of nature were wiped out in Falluja"...as well as "hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses." An unidentified chemical was used in the bombing raids that killed every living creature in certain areas of the city.

As journalist Dahr Jamail reported later in his article "What is the US trying to Hide?", "At least two kilometers of soil were removed......exactly as they did at Baghdad Airport after the heavy battles there during the invasion and the Americans used their special weapons."

A cover up?

So far, none of this has appeared in any American media, nor has the media reported that the United Nations has been rebuffed twice by the Defense Dept. in calling for an independent investigation into what really took place in Falluja. The US simply waves away the international body as a minor nuisance while the media scrupulously omits any mention of the allegations from their coverage.

We can assume that the order to use napalm (as well as the other, unidentified substances) came straight from the office of Donald Rumsfeld. No one else could have issued that order, nor would they have risked their career by unilaterally using banned weapons when their use was entirely gratuitous. Rumsfeld's directive is consistent with other decisions attributed to the Defense Secretary; like the authorizing of torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the targeting of members of the press, and the rehiring of members of Saddam's Secret Police ( the Mukhabarat) to carry out their brutal activities under new leadership. Rumsfeld's office has been the headwaters for most of the administration's treachery. Napalm simply adds depth to an already prodigious list of war crimes on Rumsfeld's resume'. Co-opting the Media

On June 10, 2005 numerous sources reported that the "US Special Operations Command hired three firms to produce newspaper stories, television broadcasts and Internet web sites to spread American propaganda overseas. The Tampa-based military headquarters, which oversees commandos and psychological warfare, may spend up to $100 million for the media campaign over the next five years." (James Crawley, Media General News Service) It's clear that there's no need for the Defense Dept. to shore up its "strategic information" (propaganda) operations in the US where reliable apparatchiks can be counted on to obfuscate, omit or exaggerate the coverage of the war according to the requirements of the Pentagon. The American press has been as skillful at embellishing the imaginary heroics of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman as they have been in concealing the damning details of the Downing Street Memo or the lack of evidence concerning the alleged WMDs. Should we be surprised that the media has remained silent about the immolation of Iraqis by American firebombs?

The US "free press" is a completely integrated part of the state-information system. Its meticulously managed message has been the most successful part of the entire Iraqi debacle. By providing the requisite cheerleading, diversions and omissions, the media has shown itself to be an invaluable asset to the men in power; perpetuating the deceptions that keep the public acquiescent during a savage colonial war. Given the scope of the media's culpability for the violence in Iraq, it's unlikely that the use of napalm will cause any great crisis of conscience. Their deft coverage has already facilitated the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people; a few more charred Iraqis shouldn't matter.

Got a link?

I want to have an open mind, and I don't like going after the source over the story, but with lovely comments like, "Their deft coverage has already facilitated the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people; a few more charred Iraqis shouldn't matter," it's a little difficult.

Just do a search for Mike Whitney and you'll see how this isn't exactly a reliable source.

AFAIK the US are not using Napalm, they are using a different stuff with similar results (MK 77 Bombs).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...alm-iraq01.htm

more links about the topic

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...749944836.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...c.irq.savidge/
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...9_1n5bomb.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...145828249.html
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/t...name_page.html

I posted the following story in a thread on this forum, back on June 17.......
It is also quoted in over 8600 google.com search resultsm and to my knowledge,
it has not been refuted by either the UK or the US government.....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=11
Well....I guess that our state dept. cleared that up. It seems an odd way to defend the use of "napalm like" weapons.

Host, I apologize for not doing a topic search first. I thought it was new news. :)

I agree with you that his article is inflammatory and it is obvious that he has no love for the current administration. I should have stated that at the onset. I received the article from truthout.org which is clearly left leaning.

My only interest in posting this was to determine if this was just left-wing crazies making unsupportable claims, or is our mainstream press once again ignoring the international press.

Based on the links that Pacifier and Host have given me, it would appear that the Pentagon used "napalm-like" explosives on Bagdad and Fallujah. Isn't this just an attempt to skirt international law? I also wonder what purpose it would serve, as was brought up in the article I posted.

Yeah, I remember this story popping up on the internet a few weeks ago. As to why the MSM hasn't picked up on it, well, I'm sure they're just so busy what with white women disappearing in Caribbean nations and all that catching up to do on the Downing Street Memos story.

Not to mention the oh so last month Paris Hilton. :)

When and where did the Pentagon "confirm" this?

Lots of things that are not incendiary weapons make things burn. Remember the four Blackwater employees who got killed and hung from the bridge? Remember how charred their bodies were? Did the insurgents use napalm on them? Of course not. When things go boom, combustibles will burn.

Napalm does not contain White Phosphorous. As the 7-up commercial went: "Never had it, never will. AHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!"

The same exact type of wounds tend to be generated when anybody is in a vehicle that is hit and they do not make it out of it. Why? Because gasoline, which powers many vehicles, burns. Odd how that works, isn't it?

we used nerve gas? Why are they not saying we nuked them?Oh, yeah, that whole thing about the spy satellites of other countries proving we didn't...

Nope, the US media just doesn't give press time to obvious falsehoods and enemy propaganda.

Moose, as to your first question you will find the answer in the links provided. The Pentagon as admitted to using "napalm-like" weapons. Your other questions are likely to be answered in the links as well, if you should choose to read them.

From the following link: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv..._Fallujah.html

"similar effect to napalm" does not mean "napalm-like". A bullet can kill you. So can a stampeding herd of cattle. Does that make a stampeding herd of cattle "bullet-like"? They both have the same result of making somebody dead, right?

Is a FAE bomb "napalm-like"? They both use combustibles, right?

Let's use another example. You're familiar with the old Corvair of Ralph Nader fame, right? The Prius, the new hybrid gas-electric car manufactured by Honda, IIRC, could be considered honestly to be an "advanced version" of the Corvair, since it's several generations of automotive technology later, yes? Manufacturing the Corvair to it's original safety standards now would be quite illegal. Making the Prius is not illegal at all.

What's the point of all this verbiage? When necassary, words can be quite deceiving, and must be parsed very, very carefully.

moose, are you kidding? The Pentagon admits that a firebomb which has "similar effects to napalm" was used and you are honestly going to claim that we don't really know what it does because hey, a stair case could kill ya too if you don't watch your step, what's the difference?

Lots of things which have "similar effects to Napalm" are NOT "Napalm". Gasoline in an automobile fuel tank can "have similar effects to napalm" if it catches fire. So if my car catches fire, am I to be arrested for possession of Napalm?

Ummm let me get this straight, based even on the report on the left wing independent.

We used firebombs, on military targets, that may be banned under a treaty we didn't sign, and we should be upset by this?

And does anyone honestly think we could get away with using these on a city, when we had reporters, sometimes quite hostile to the marines if you recall, with the marine units? This was during the most closely monitored offensive in modern warfare history.

You can't cover up the effects of a fire bombing on a city, give me a break.

Well the current Administration did a hell of a job covering up WMD, so in comparison, a block or two or three of firebombing shouldn't be that difficult. I'm just guessing though, I wasn't there. And napalm-like substances? Could it be somewhat likely that this substance is worse than napalm? We've come along way since Vietnam, baby.

Amazing this attitude that it's ok for the US to do whatever the Hell we want, and yet we are supposed to be so much better than the terrorists.

Then they don't understand why everyone hates us. Let's keep running up trade deficits killing our factories at home and see how much pity other countries will take on us when we can't pay the bills.

Yeah, they must have done a hell of a job. They even managed to fool the French and German intellegence.

And this has to do with the subject how...?

Yes, you should and I tell you why:

1. A lot of states signed the treaty and the fact that you didn't signed it and that you use those weapons is oil in the fire of those who hate you (no not the liberals, I'm talking about extremist terrorists here). This "fuck you we don't care" attitude is in fact the reason for a lot of your problems, start learning!

2. At least one of your allies has sigend th treaty (UK) and they might be a bit upset. Sure, you still have Poland, but you should try not to piss off too many allies.

3. You'll loose the moral highground you claim to have (although I don't now why you claim it...) if you use every dirty trick possible.

1. Good for them, we didn't because such treaties are stupid. I rather doubt that any extremist terrorists were thinking 'You know the United States isn't that bad...wait they used a firebomb instead of a bunker buster? Those bastards! We will suicide bomb them now!'

2. They will get over it.

3. If we used every dirty trick possible there would no longer be a problem. Our dirty tricks are measured in megatons.

This really a much to do about nothing issue brought up only to destabilize the US/UK alliance by those who would rather see us fail, regardless of the consequences to Iraq. I don't think anyone reading this really cares what weapons we used.

Your conclusions about what "French and German intellegence" determined about Iraqi WMD before the march, 2003 invasion of Iraq are open to dispute. Consider that, in addition to the three news articles that I offer here to raise doubts about the solidity of your statement, that the political leaders of France and Germany did not share Bush and Blair's urgency to invade Iraq to pre-empt the WMD threat, and that they actively opposed the invasion. This indicates to me that, although we cannot know for sure what the consensus of these intelligence agencies actually was regarding the threat of Iraqi WMD, they did not make a persuasive enough argument to their political leaders to sway them toward the policies of Bush and Blair.
pan6467 and I agree that one of the most grievous shortcomings of the present U.S. administration, is it's lack of action in regard to the greatest threat to our national security; the vunerability of our paper fiat currency to
a fundamentally driven decline in it's purchasing power, with only the speed of the decline in doubt. Our government indicates that it has no plan to deal with unsustainable trade and budget deficits, aggravated by politically driven and, from the standpoint of new financial demands on the U.S. treasury created by Bush's "war on terror", unjustifiable, signifigant tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest tax payers. Only lip service and posturing is paid to advocacy for solutions to profligate use and dependence on foreign crude oil.
Bush has proposed less than $1 billion in federal support for his folly that is supposed to relieve our dependence on motor fuels; "hydrogen fuel cells", during a time when oil has doubled in price on his watch, and caused the annual trade deficit to expand by more than $125 billion on the increase in the cost of crude oil alone!

It is not unreasonable to regard the U.S. to be a candidate for a currency collapse similar to the recent experience in Argentina. pan6467 makes the point that this is not a time for the U.S., a massive debtor nation that is trading it's infrastructure to countries like China for an unsustainable consumption binge, spending more on oversized homes with granite kitchen countertops, than was malinvested on still unlit fiber optice networks and still unused telecom and internet infrastructure, just a few years ago, to piss off the rest of the world with it's "in your face" attitude.

An announcement tomorrow by OPEC or Russia that oil purchase must be paid for in Euros instead of dollars would suddenly reduce the ability of the U.S. to continue to purchase both guns and butter.

How many civilian casualties have their been in Iraq since the beginning of the war? And why don't you know for sure? But what about the hostile reporters? Isn't this the most closely monitored offensive in modern warfare history?

We don't know shit about this war. We get reports like this all the time. We're probably using cluster bombs, we're kidnaping civilians and are torturing them. But how do we know for sure? I'm not in Iraq, and neither are you. We try to trust that the information we get is trustworthy, but we know it isn't. So how can you say, in all seriousness, that the use of napalm can't be covered up?

willravel, as you seem to hold about every conspiracy theory as true, I think its best if I just agree to disagree with you. I'll just say that claims require proof.

Well Ustwo every one in this country now knows that what goes around comes around. That dissaster of 9/11 and the current conflict in Iraq are direct results of our past policies. They may have been for the greater good at the time but we payed dearly for them in the present.

You are of course right that the treaty and the issue isn't all that important. Yet much ado about nothing can work both ways. I am pretty sure that the most advanced millitary in the world can find a way to achieve their objectives without the use of incendiary devices. Thus without actually sacrificing much we can gain a moral high ground.

So if napalm is used, I deduct marks from the millitary for using it.

We haven't signed the anti-landmine treaty for a reason as well.

They work in warfare and serve a purpose which can't be easily replaced.

So do fire bombs. If any US commander allowed casualties to US troops when he had a weapon at his disposal which would have prevented those casualties, based on a treaty we did not ratify, then I would like to see him court marshaled. There are limits of course, we have banned our own use of chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons have become a weapon of ultimate last resort, but fire bombs are not in that category, especially used against military targets. Would it have been better had we used moabs instead?

Poison gas works really well too, as do biological and chemical weapons.

After the horror of WWI, the international community chose to outlaw these weapons because of their terrible and disturbing effects. The ONLY two things that stop people from using them are the international consensus, and a common, shared sense of humanity.

The kind of rationale that states the pragmatic usage of such weapons during war, erodes each of those stops. It wont be long before some other country uses the US' refusal to 'do the right thing' as a valid reason for them to act likewise.

I think it's ironic that such weapons have been used in a war that was sold to the aggressors public as a righteous war against an evil dictator who used banned weaponry against his own enemies.

Now, Ustwo, you state that there should be limits. Where and how exactly should those limits be set?

Ok... so we're in trouble for breaking a treaty we didnt make or sign?

Based on claims of burned corpses... in war.

Saying the Mark 77 bomb is napalm like... which is equivilant to saying a truck is equivilant to a tank because they are made of metal and move forward.

Because we used a weapon we are fully legally able to use.

And the justification is it makes the terrorists hate us MORE? They're willing to kill themselves to kill us... I dont know what's going to make them hate us more. Hell, I dont think anything we do will quell that anger.

So the solution is for the US to apologizing for killing those who seek to kill us? To apologize for using a weapon that has no long-lasting effects and a very close kill radius to protect our troops?

Should we apologize to them because we as Americans continue to breed? Or is the fact that we are not ending our reproductive rights just going to anger them as well?

Did Saddam sign a treaty that stated he wouldn't hide or use imaginary weapons of mass destruction? It's just a matter of practicing what you preach - unfortunately, you need to be whiter than white before you can justifiably use muscle on foreign civillians.

How many Iraqi's wanted to kill US citizens before the invasion (justified on moral grounds of weapons of mass destruction)?

If force is to be used, then use it - just don't pretend that it is being used for any other reason than furthering one's national position.

If you have an issue with napalm, napalm like weapons, landmines, or other things that cause horrific casualties then there's that question as well, but I think it's the pretense and hypocrisy (not to mention civillian casualty) that might cause other nations to see the US in a less than positive light.

Finally, no Seaver, you are not in trouble. Why? Because you have the largest millitary in the world, and it would be very difficult to stand up against that kind of power if it was misused. Of course, since direct attack on a battlefield would be suicide, the only remaining option is an indirect, suicide attack.

A quote come to mind.........

Yeah... he did sign it. After the first Gulf war. Try again?

I do not readily accept every conspiracy theory as truth. Actually, I am only interested in one. This isn't a conspiracy theory, though. This has been discussed on news channels, in newspapers, and online articles. The possibility of napalm or a napalm typoe weapon being used in Iraq is common knowledge. I'll thank you not to refer back to something in the Paranoia section every time you want to bash me.

Without proof we don't know the first thing about the war. That was my point. Sounds as if our points have converged. I do not necessarily think that napalm is used. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but I can't say "yes, I know they are using napalm". All we can really talk about is probabilities based on what has happened in the past.

Good call Seaver - I'd like to see evidence of that treaty, please post a link.

Either way, considering that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and the US waging a war based on that issue, subsequently using them themselves, doesn't make the action any less hypocritical does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

Another link on the subject: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...irebombs01.htm

What in carnations are you talking about? Napalm is a very nasty weapon when misfired on civilians. Using it makes us look bad. Simple as that. Apologizing to terrorists for continuing to breed - I am sorry but what?

*sowly backs away from Seaver*

Seaver isn't the only one, but i'm rather confused as to why it's being claimed that the Mark 77 is completely not napalm. Yes, there are some differences. But let's hear a military spokesman on the subject:

Remarkably similar. Truck vs. tank comparsions, Mr. Seaver? Cattle and bullets for Mr. Moosenose? When the military spokesman calls the effect remarkably similar, i think we have a meaningful comparison. Yes, it is important to have the right names. No, the Mark 77 is not technically napalm. But it is an incidiary device, and it's use is something that this nation needs to make a decision about.

The rest of the article, in whice the Pentagon confirms use of Mark 77s.

New, improved and more lethal: son of napalm
By Ben Cubby
August 8, 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?oneclick=true

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

"I can confirm that Mark-77 fire bombs were used in that general area," Colonel Mike Daily of the US Marine Corps said.

Colonel Daily said that US stocks of Vietnam-era napalm had been phased out, but that the fuel-gel mixture in the Mark-77s had "similar destructive characteristics."

"Many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark-77 as 'napalm' because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar," he said.

On March 22nd, correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was travelling with the US Marines, had reported that napalm was used in an attack on Iraqi troops at Safwan Hill, near the Kuwait border. Murdoch's account was based on statements by two US Marine Corps officers on the ground.

Lieutenant-Commander Jeff A. Davis, USN, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense (Public Affairs) had called Murdoch's story "patently false".

"The US took napalm out of service in the 1970's. We completed the destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm," Commander Davis told smh online. He was apparently referring to Vietnam-era Napalm-B, which consisted of inflammable fuel thickened with polystyrene and benzene.

The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidizers, which make it harder to extinguish than Napalm-B.

Neither weapon technically contains napalm. The chemical mixture that became known as 'napalm' - a combination of naphthalene and palmitate - was used only in the earliest versions of the weapon.

Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement. Use of Mark-77 fire bombs is considered legal by the US military.

Ms. Toni McNeal, a spokesperson for Rock Island Arsenal, in Illinois, said the facility is currently producing a further 500 Mark-77s for the US Marine Corps.

She said she did not consider the Mark-77s to be napalm bombs.

But Mark-77s are referred to as 'napalm' in some current US inventories and public affairs documents.

A US Navy public affairs document dated 22/10/99 says that the US Navy no longer uses napalm but "the US Marine Corps has a requirement and uses it at ranges at Yuma and Twenty-Nine Palms."

Twenty-Nine Palms, in California, is the home base of some of the Marine Corps units that took part in the attack on Safwan Hill in Iraq.

Captain Robert Crum, USMC, Public Affairs spokesman for Twenty-Nine Palms, said: "Mk 77s are not routinely used in training at 29 Palms. Yet it would be inappropriate to say that they are never - or never would be - used in training here.

"The average young Marine may be unfamiliar with the technical nomenclature, and probably does refer to this munition by the vernacular 'napalm'."

Thanks Martin for clearing things up. Seems pretty clear to me now.

Mark-77 is napalm-like.

If only they could invent a war that didn't kill people. Man, that would be something.
an indirect, suicide attack is suicide too.

stevo, yes - war without casualty would be worth working towards.

There are plenty of non-lethal weapons that can be employed - at a cost. What I'm averse to is usage of things like landmines that continue to injure children for many years after the conflict ends and other cheap and indiscriminate weaponry.

Yes, both are suicide, but my point is that an attack against civillian targets delivers a more effective blow to the enemy than one of a more traditional millitary nature.

Ironically, it is the US' millitary might that makes it a target for terrorism.

I thought this thread was about "napalm-like weapons," not landmines. Plus, the weapons in question were used against military targets, not civillians. So why the fuss?

So you're against landmines that continue to kill children years after a conflict, but you are for attacking civillian targets because it delivers a more effective blow to the enemy?

I don't agree with any of this. esp. the part about terrorism delivering a more effective blow than traditional military nature. If that were true the US ARMY would be full of suicide bombers ready to blow themselves up in mosques and markets. But its not, because it isn't as effective.

Landmines, cluster bombs, napalm, biological weapons, toxin weapons are usually deployed against millitary targets, it's when the target is missed that things turn bad.

Frankly I don't see how an MK77 bomb would be any differnt in creating civilian casualties then a standard bomb. Whoever a bomb of any kind lands on would obviously be dead or mamed. I asume that there is an explanation out there somewhere on why napalm is considered so terrible. I certainly hope it wasn't due to the photograph by Kim Phuc of a burned naked child running down a road. While terrible, any munition would cause equaly grevous wounds upon impact.

Incediary weapons still apear to be useful against certain targets:

edit: always forget the link :rolleyes: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...incendiary.htm

So I withdraw my comment to Ustwo about our ability to utilize other weapons for the same effect.

stevo, the point I'm making is that the US army are so effective that someone in conflict with them would be better off striking soft targets, because they'd be able to inflict a more devestating blow as evidenced in the 9/11 strikes, the French Resistance, Iraqi Insurgency, and other guerilla styles of warfare.

I'm not saying I agree with such tactics, only that they are the only effective means of combat against a technologically and millitarily superior force.

If you wanted to hurt the US, how would you plan your attack?

As for usage of napalm type weapons, unguided bombs and landmines, it is the indiscriminate nature of these weapons that makes their use deplorable, not necessarily the methods they use to inflict casualties on one's opponents.

With the exception of Vietnam (due to the pullout), we have accounted for and disarmed all landmines used in battle. So why should we sign the treaty?

This simply boggles the mind. Everything that kills, when missed, turns bad. How about regular bombs? Heck a missed knife can kill, should we outlaw those too?

This is a war, people are complaining we used weapons that are legal, against legitimate targets firing on American/Iraqi forces, in a time of war. Whats the problem again?

This is a completely un-based claim.

Please read the next paragraph in my post.

The difference is that certain weapons are worse then others. Some having a higher chance to cause civilian casualties then others. Now it's still out to be proven if the MK77s are indeed "that bad". It could be a moot case Seaver, but I am sure you can understand "what the problem" might be.

Id say it is so closely monitored by literally everyone around the world, that in truth, nobody knows whats going on. Reporters are so quick to jump on any and every story to feed the masses that all of the bullshit that usually gets filtered out is thrown in. No one here knows jack shit about this war and you all know it, so quit trying to act like what you say has any grounds at all. In 20 years, everyone will have plenty of time to dissect each and every little thing, you know, like we do with every other war.

If anyone that visits these forums has served in, or around Iraq in any way shape or form, let them be the starting grounds for your rants, complaints, and bias

Oh, please.

Google "United Nations Security Council Resolution 687."

You also might read The Harvard Salient

But still, we hear the mantra: Bush lied! Bush lied!

MM, you're new "here", so maybe you'll only need this response once to discourage you from being more "Bush" in your defense of Bush, than he himself has been since he "threw in the towel" via his spokesperson, on Jan. 12, 2005.

In late January 2003, in his SOTU address, more than a month after Iraq had presented it's data and inventory of WMD and WMD programs to the U.N.,
Bush claimed that Iraq's WMD inventory, as a justification for war, included:

1. 25,000 liters of anthrax
2. 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
3. 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
4. 30,000 chemical munitions
5. several mobile biological weapons labs
6. advanced nuclear weapons development program
7. a design for a nuclear weapon
8. five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb
9. high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production

Here is that portion of the speech that Bush gave in his 2003 SOTU address:
And....yes...MM....a president who publicly declared the following, just five days after the 9/11 attacks, mimicked by his NSA chief, the following spring, when compared to what was later reported, can arguably and convincingly be labeled a "liar", and, if Wolfowitz's statements to a congressional committee, quoted above, are taken into account, and the inaccuracies in the 2003 SOTU address, Bush can arguably be characterized as a grossly incompetent leader who surrounds himself with equally incompetent lieutenants.
Only later did we find this to call the president's remarks into question:

Four months have passed since I first posted this topic, and to my knowledge the msp has yet to report on the use of a "napalm-like" weapon in Iraq. Witnesses have been coming forward to attest that white phosphorus was used in the attack on Fallujah, indescriminately killing civilians as well as insurgents. The Truthout url provided below also has a link to a documentary video.

The use of the incendiary substance on civilians is forbidden by a 1980 UN treaty. The use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty which the US signed in 1997. Is there anyone here that could find justification in using white phosphorus on Fallujah's civilians, as we did in Viet Nam?


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110805Z.shtml



Fowarded by the same friend from the original post:

Could perhaps the argument be made that in the circumstance surrounding Fallujah, that everyone was giving ample warning to get out lest they be viewedand treated as a threat. Do said treaties say anything against using those weapons on combatants?

yeah i read this today. it is a shame that the only human rights our great country seems to honor lately are our own and those who aren't in our way.

Do you believe that happened Mojo? I will look to you to answer your own questions. We have already seen in the US how difficult it is to evacuate a city. Where would you have the civilians of Fallujah go?

We make agreements and break them without any fear of punishment. Can someone please hold us responsible for our actions? This reminds me of my college days in my child psychology classes. The US needs boundries. We need to understand that our actions have acceptable limitations, and if we misbehave we will be punished. The rpoblem is that our parents (England, Spain, Portugal, France, etc.) are no longer responsible for us. There are global organizations, but none of them have the power to hold us responsible. Until China takes our place as international police, we will be able to break treaties whenever we want.

I don't know. I do know this place was a hotbed for terrorist and insurgent activity, being right smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. I can't remember how long they had to leave, don't know it if was ample, and I don't necessarily disagree with them for not wanting to leave their homes. But in the midst of a war, in a hotbed of trouble, if you are told that the thunder is coming and it would be in your best interest to leave, perhaps you should've.

Also I don't know if all of that having been said justified the use of these weapons, it was a sincere question.

from www.rainews24.it -
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/in...osforo/001.jpg

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/in...osforo/003.jpg

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/in...osforo/004.jpg

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/in...osforo/006.jpg

It's hard to get any sense of scale or place from these. The allegations have shifted over time from napalm, to poison gas, and now phosphorus (which is not illegal). So now the charges are that U.S. soldiers are using devices meant to illuminate the night as weapons. The U.S. is painfully aware of the P.R. implications of targeting civilians and has avoided it where possible. Mostly though, it's going to be impossible.

It'd be great if everyone were equipped with nerf bats but...this story seems like such a minor feck of shit on the honking turd that is the Iraq war.

My apologies for thinking otherwise. The written statement never conveys the full intention like a face to face discussion. I think we both can agree that any warnings that were given did not include burning alive in your bed if you stay.

This is striking me full force because I was a young adult during the Viet Nam war. My first husband was a vet and he told me of his direct experiences with Willy Pete, Agent Orange, the torture of captives and government deceit to the troups and the public. We, as citizens of a great country rose up and ended it because it was wrong. I honestly believed that We would never allow something like Viet Nam to happen again. Obviously, We have short memories and do not learn from our own history.

Why should using a "napalm-like" substance be news. I recently used a "napalm-like" substance to start my grill. Am I a war criminal now :rolleyes:

I highlighted the news sources just for you it seems. It is a pity that you didn't actually read even the first line of either post or you would have noticed that. White phosphorus burns the human body in the same way that napalm and it's derivatives do.

You must know that a gasoline fire can be smothered in many ways. You are either pretending ignorance or simply being belligerent to suggest that gasoline is the same as WP. That argument didn't hold any substance four months ago, so I would suggest that you take that silly twaddle elsewhere. Titled Nonsense would be my recommendation.

we reviewed this upthread.

A Army spokesman described the bombs as functionally equivalent to napalm, noting that people in the army often conflated them because the effect is "remarkably similar."

This whole thread probably belongs in Nonsense (or Paranoia), but I didn't make it, so I have to deal with it where it is. I read the stories when they were first posted, and my comment stands. And I also noted that you gave no links showing why use of white phosphorous was a war crime. Maybe it's you who should read the "news" sources.

I did. Obviously you didn't.

What belongs in nonsense is the response to the alligations. "Um, we were just using the white phosphorus for lighting....". I wonder if they read by napalm light, too.

Hmmm..

How interesting that today the Pentagon admitted to using White Phosphorus for lethal missions as well..

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me....ap/index.html

They state they used it against insurgents, but anyone who has seen the use in video knows you can't contain it.

People keep saying "Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement."

This is not true.

The use of napalm against non-military, civilian targets was banned. However, use of Napalm against military targets was NOT banned by the convention.
The position of the US is that they take great care to bomb only military targets. This is demonstrated repeatedly by its well known and unique practice of using precision guided munitions to destroy military targets near civilian positions with minimal casualties to civilians.
It is true that minimal does not equal none.
It is also true that when fighting insurgents, sometimes a military target may be individuals that are combatants but are also civilians.

I dont know where you are getting you information on this...

Napalm munitions (or fier bombs) are not precision weapons. They are dumb bombs.. None of them have laser guidence. They also lack stabalizing fins because the bombs have to have a tumbling motion in order to maximize dispersion..

MK77 750lb Napalm
MK78 500lb Napalm
MK79 1000lb Napalm

All the same.. Tumbling balls of death.

Throw a 2 litre soda pop bottle in the air in heavy wind. Watch the spray, then you tell me a bomb that spews fire like that that burns at 1200 celcius will provide "minimal casualties" :thumbsup:

Losthellhound wrote:
"I dont know where you are getting you information on this...
Napalm munitions (or fier[sic] bombs) are not precision weapons. They are dumb bombs.. None of them have laser guidance[sic]. They also lack stabilizing[sic] fins because the bombs have to have a tumbling motion in order to maximize dispersion.. "

Please reread what I wrote. I said "The position of the US is that they take great care to bomb only military targets. This is demonstrated repeatedly by its well known and unique practice of using precision guided munitions to destroy military targets near civilian positions with minimal casualties to civilians. "
Nowhere did I claim that the US never used dumb bombs. I was pointing out the clear effort to avoid unneeded casualties by carefully selecting the munitions appropriate for the surroundings. This practice would preclude the use of such weapons as huge firebombs or "daisy cutters" in areas with nearby noncombatant populations. It does NOT preclude the use of dumb bombs, firebombs, or daisy cutters in other areas.

Losthellhound : "Throw a 2 litre soda pop bottle in the air in heavy wind. Watch the spray, then you tell me a bomb that spews fire like that that burns at 1200 celcius will provide "minimal casualties""

It is NOT the goal of bombs to "provide minimal casualties". I did not claim this. The goal of the military is to destroy the target, with minimal unintended casualties. One way this is done is by choosing the weapon that matches the requirement. It may be perfectly correct to choose a mk77 firebomb for one target, but very irresponsible to choose it for a different one. This is no different from any other weapon. You choose the weapon that will destroy the enemy with least risk to others, with "others" being both your own troops and noncombatants.
To claim that one should eliminate a weapon solely because it is not a precision weapon is silly, since not all situations call for precision weapons.
To call for the elimination of a weapon because it kills the other guy too well is silly, since that is the whole purpose of the weapon.

Clear now?