USA admits to dropping napalm on Iraq - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

gArGOyLe^^ · **USA admits to dropping napalm on Iraq -** 08-10-03

Is Napalm a chemical weapon?

Quote:

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
10 August 2003

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to surrender.'"

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," it said.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Mr Musil said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration]".

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_re...&host=3&dir=70

Qoji · 08-10-03

Yeah, good for you...lying like that...good stuff.

Qoji · 08-10-03

"We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," was a big fat lie, and I believe lies are worse than napalm.

Sixgun_Symphony · 08-11-03

Napalm is a very effective weapon for use against entrenched enemies.

I wonder at the motivation of those who oppose its use.

Iron's Rite · 08-11-03

Not to mention that it was Weapons of mass destruction being referred to along with chemical weapons. I'd say that napalm qualifies.

Sixgun_Symphony · 08-11-03

Explain your reasoning Denalay

Qoji · 08-11-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixgun_Symphony

Napalm is a very effective weapon for use against entrenched enemies.

I wonder at the motivation of those who oppose its use.

That has no relavence to the fact that your gov't lied about not having napalm, and lies make Baby Jesus cry.

Iron's Rite · 08-11-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixgun_Symphony

Napalm is a very effective weapon for use against entrenched enemies.

I wonder at the motivation of those who oppose its use.

I just think it's funny that the U.S. government uses such atrocious double standards.

Sixgun_Symphony · 08-11-03

I have only seen you refer to napalm as a WMD.

Poison gas qualifies, but napalm does not. Napalm would have to be used in mass quantities ala Dresden & Tokyo firebombings to get the same number of casualties as a WMD.

Iron's Rite · 08-11-03

I don't know what or if there is an official definition for a WMD. However I will argue that a WMD can be best designated as a type of heavy ordinance designed in mind to kill a large of number of people. Napalm bombs fit that definition.

Sixgun_Symphony · 08-11-03

One napalm bomb is not going to destroy a city.

A nuke is a WMD, poison gas is a WMD, a biotoxin is a WMD.

Napalm? It is a big stretch to call it a WMD.

Qoji · 08-11-03

WMD or not, they still lied about it

Iron's Rite · 08-11-03

Not just Napalm, but a napalm bomb designed to be dispersed over a large area, Causing massive destruction.

Sixgun_Symphony · 08-11-03

That would be a bombardment of napalm bombs.

A bombardment of 2000 pound bombs dropped from a fleet of B-52s would destroy a city too, but such conventional bombs are not considered WMD's.

Sixgun_Symphony · 08-11-03

The reason for the concern about small nukes, poison gas, and biotoxins is that a small gang of terrorists could destroy a city.

Its much easier to intercept conventional military forces than it is to intercept a few terrorists sneaking across the border with lets say a biotoxin.

Did you ever see the film 12 Monkeys with Bruce Willis? It should give you an idea of what a real WMD could do.

Qoji · 08-11-03

Then why did they lie about it?

Sixgun_Symphony · 08-11-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qoji

Then why did they lie about it?

Who are "they" and what exactly did "they" allegedly lie about?

Qoji · 08-11-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixgun_Symphony

Who are "they" and what exactly did "they" allegedly lie about?

Quote:

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," it said.

Sixgun_Symphony · 08-11-03

Quote:

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed.

So now they got a better firebomb recipie than old fashioned napalm these days. Good.

Qoji · 08-11-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixgun_Symphony

So now they got a better firebomb recipie than old fashioned napalm these days. Good.

Quote:

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.".....

....But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense