Incinerating Iraqis

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Incinerating Iraqis; the napalm cover up

by Mike Whitney

06/27/05 "ICH" - - "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". (06-17-05) 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 cov
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9307.htm
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
So what? Napalm is hella effective. Just because the U.N. bans something, that doesn't mean every nation in the U.N. has to abide by it. In fact, napalm is a hefty force multiplier. Anyone that rules out the use of that weapon in warfare is a fool. Used in the right circumstances, it can cause heavy enemy casualties and minimize allied ones. The perfect scenario.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
So what? Napalm is hella effective. Just because the U.N. bans something, that doesn't mean every nation in the U.N. has to abide by it. In fact, napalm is a hefty force multiplier. Anyone that rules out the use of that weapon in warfare is a fool. Used in the right circumstances, it can cause heavy enemy casualties and minimize allied ones. The perfect scenario.

I would imagine that poison gas is a hefty force multiplier. Nuclear weapons are a force multiplier. Because a weapon is a force multiplier does not mean that it should be used. DU rounds are effective, but does that justify spreading a toxic, radioactive, poison around the country where it will continue to be toxic and radioactive, and deadly for literally billions of years?
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
I would imagine that poison gas is a hefty force multiplier. Nuclear weapons are a force multiplier. Because a weapon is a force multiplier does not mean that it should be used. DU rounds are effective, but does that justify spreading a toxic, radioactive, poison around the country where it will continue to be toxic and radioactive, and deadly for literally billions of years?

Actually poison gas is NOT a force multiplier, it's too unpredictable, as we saw during World War I. Nuclear weapons are more than a force multiplier, they're the final word. DU rounds are extremely effective. You do realize that you're refering to weapons right? These aren't things that are suppose to have a friendly aspect. Weapons are designed to kill, and frankly, if using napalm in Iraq means that U.S. soldiers can come home to their families, I saw drop away boys. War is not pretty, War is horrific, and singling out a method as abhorrent ios ridiculous. Did you know that techincally, you're not suppose to use a .50cal machine gun on humans? However we do, because it's effective, even thoug the U.N. says otherwise. So if you're going to pick on napalm, then i'll get the list of other "awful weapons" rolling:

-Napalm
-Nuclear weapons
-.50cal's on humans
-20mm on soft targets
-Incendiary grenades
-Hollow-point rounds
-Airburst artillery rounds
-30mm GAU-8 Gattling Gun
-SABOT Rounds
-Depleted Uranium Rounds
-Cluster bombs
-Bunker Busters
-MOABB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb)

I could go on and on with a list of weapons and munitions that are horrific in the damage they do. As I said above, weapons are used to kill, get over it.

Hey Mogz maybe someday you'll remember what you wrote and feel about napalm when you're danceing arround with a dose of it stuck to you.

Highly unlikely that'll ever happen there buddy. The people we're at War with lack the ability to deploy napalm in any effective manner. Then again, I could be hit by a .50cal in Afghanistan and feel just as awful as if I were hit with napalm. You can't deem one weapon outrageous, then let others still exist. A weapon is a weapon.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Hey buddy maybe you'll get to a war with people who have all the good killer weapons, remember this war on terror is to
be a long slog Mogz, plenty of oportunity for a slew of metals. You are right about the machines of death Mogz, they are built to kill. I just wish you had different thoughts about targeting civilians. I hope you get more combat, I think maybe it would be good for you, maybe expand your mind a bit.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Unlike one of the members above (guess who), I would rather hope that Mogz need not engage in combat in the future. The perfect scenario would be one where we don't need to debate which weapons are, and are not, appropriate for use in warfare, because weapons would not be needed abroad, period. Unfortunately, this is not the case. (And Mogz, while I am sure you are an effective member of the Canadian Forces, I wish, with due respect, that you were out of a job, hehe.)

I think that some weapons, such as the massive destructive power that is nuclear weaponry, should be banned for use in warfare. However, one must keep in mind that a nation is going to need to be a peaceful signatory to some sort of weapons treaty or agreement, such as some of those of the United Nations, for such a ban to have any force or effect, anyway. To ban one's use of certain types of weapons is a dangerous game, in particular when one knows that one's opponent has the capacity to engage in the use of those very banned weapons.
 

MagnoliaApples

Electoral Member
Apr 26, 2006
383
0
16
My biggest question is WHY are the U.S using those weapons? It's totally underhanded!! As if Iraq has the ability to equally do that kind of damage?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I don't think that is the way wars are fought.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
War fighting is not supposed to be fair. If a country has better and more effective weapons they should (and do) be able to use them. Just because an opposing nation doesn't have the same capabilities doesn't mean we should dig into our ancient weaponry stock piles and fight at their level.
 

thomaska

Council Member
May 24, 2006
1,509
37
48
Great Satan
Re: RE: Incinerating Iraqis

MagnoliaApples said:
My biggest question is WHY are the U.S using those weapons? It's totally underhanded!! As if Iraq has the ability to equally do that kind of damage?


Hi, welcome to Life's not fair 101. Today we'll be discussing taxes, people who never win the lottery, American Idol losers, and having to share toys with siblings..

Sorry had to do that..
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Good point Thom...

Why should people who do not have good voices be excluded from American Idol? The people who can sing should sing to the level of the people who cannot.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
You don't think Democrats are going to fight anything do you?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Re: RE: Incinerating Iraqis

Mogz said:
I would imagine that poison gas is a hefty force multiplier. Nuclear weapons are a force multiplier. Because a weapon is a force multiplier does not mean that it should be used. DU rounds are effective, but does that justify spreading a toxic, radioactive, poison around the country where it will continue to be toxic and radioactive, and deadly for literally billions of years?

Actually poison gas is NOT a force multiplier, it's too unpredictable, as we saw during World War I. Nuclear weapons are more than a force multiplier, they're the final word. DU rounds are extremely effective. You do realize that you're refering to weapons right? These aren't things that are suppose to have a friendly aspect. Weapons are designed to kill, and frankly, if using napalm in Iraq means that U.S. soldiers can come home to their families, I saw drop away boys. War is not pretty, War is horrific, and singling out a method as abhorrent ios ridiculous. Did you know that techincally, you're not suppose to use a .50cal machine gun on humans? However we do, because it's effective, even thoug the U.N. says otherwise. So if you're going to pick on napalm, then i'll get the list of other "awful weapons" rolling:

-Napalm
-Nuclear weapons
-.50cal's on humans
-20mm on soft targets
-Incendiary grenades
-Hollow-point rounds
-Airburst artillery rounds
-30mm GAU-8 Gattling Gun
-SABOT Rounds
-Depleted Uranium Rounds
-Cluster bombs
-Bunker Busters
-MOABB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb)

I could go on and on with a list of weapons and munitions that are horrific in the damage they do. As I said above, weapons are used to kill, get over it.

Hey Mogz maybe someday you'll remember what you wrote and feel about napalm when you're danceing arround with a dose of it stuck to you.

Highly unlikely that'll ever happen there buddy. The people we're at War with lack the ability to deploy napalm in any effective manner. Then again, I could be hit by a .50cal in Afghanistan and feel just as awful as if I were hit with napalm. You can't deem one weapon outrageous, then let others still exist. A weapon is a weapon.

I know about all those weapons. I've used the 50 cal. and the 20mm myself and I know what they can do. The point I was attempting to make was that weapons that could have a serious health effect on the world should not be used by any ciivilized country. It is left to civilized countries to be responsible. If we aren't responsible who will be? Spraying a country with tons of toxic radioactive material that has a half life of billions of years, is not responsible.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
It's not responsible nor is it civilized, niether really apply to war, though we here much about it. All these weapons are the products of a civilized responsible nation and all have been used in many other nations by that responsible civilized nation. IMO we ain't seen nothing yet, the stage is set for total war with weapons we have only hints about. No method of murder will be forbidden if it gives the pricks a win. They have used the most cowardly despicable means of human disposal that there are, but what can we expect from a nation of cowards and thieves and liars.