U.S. uses napalm gas in Fallujah

Shad0hawK said:
i bet your one of those people who say fox news is "propaganda" but believe everything aljazeera says ROFL!!
Click to expand...

You really need to stop making non-existent enemies for yourself. Your pre-emptive nature is really bordering on the paranoid.

Any way, the United States has been using napalm in Iraq since 2003. They said they destroyed their napalm arsenal in 2001. I guess that was bull.
 
Shad0hawK said:
it does not "melt" human bodies as the article claims, it simply burns them
Click to expand...

Because torching whole families is a-ok.
 
Shad0hawK said:
and we know this is going on becuase al jazeera says so?

ROFL!!
Click to expand...

This proves you didn't even read the article.

I was actually commenting on the likelihood of high civilian casualties if they use this method of destruction.
 
It wouldn't suprise me if it was being used.

Using a weapon like that in a civilian district is disgusting. (Because let's not forget males of fighting age aint allowed out of the city)
 
Absinthe said:
You really need to stop making non-existent enemies for yourself. Your pre-emptive nature is really bordering on the paranoid.

Any way, the United States has been using napalm in Iraq since 2003. They said they destroyed their napalm arsenal in 2001. I guess that was bull.
Click to expand...

pre emptive? what is pre-emptive about debunking an article that is obvious BS(from al jazeera no less ROFL!!) my post was a direct reaction to the OP ,nothing pre-emtpive about that.

do you really think an article that claims napalm is a gas that melts humna bodies, then claims "witnesses" to this has any credibility? ROFL! or are you simply latching onto it because it is critical of the US?

"BLAME AMERICA™"
 
It looks like bullshit to me. Which isnt the opinion I came into the thread with.


I was about to go on about how horrible a crime it was..

But if you read the article it seems to me like its bs.


Just my opinion.
 
Kangy, all he does is accuse his opponent of watching Al Jazeera, regardless of wether or not this is true.
 
Kangy said:
Because torching whole families is a-ok.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I thought: It "simply" burns them. Well that's a relief. I though that napalm did something worse than cook you alive whilst everything around you turns into a vision of Hell in flames.
Short of going around and burying each individual of the opposing forces alive, or using mustard gas to melt their lungs from the inside out, I can't think of a method of combat more heinous. Whoever uses it.
 
marksmanHL2 :) said:
It looks like bullshit to me. Which isnt the opinion I came into the thread with.


I was about to go on about how horrible a crime it was..

But if you read the article it seems to me like its bs.


Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

It should definately be looked into, and if they are using it, I really want no part in the war anymore. If they are using it, I'd like the UK to remove troop support right now.
 
Kangy said:
This proves you didn't even read the article.

I was actually commenting on the likelihood of high civilian casualties if they use this method of destruction.
Click to expand...


i did read the article. that is how i know it is BS. it is saying napalm is a "poisonous gas"

quote from article.

"Residents in Fallujah reported that innocent civilians have been killed by napalm attacks, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel which makes the human body melt."

""Poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah," 35-year-old Fallujah resident, Abu Hammad said. "They used everything -- tanks, artillery, infantry, and poisonous gas. "

here is what napalm really is.

http://tchester.org/fb/issues/napalm.html

quote from article

""Napalm" is actually now a general term for jellied gasoline. There are many prescriptions for how to jelly the gasoline, and hence the resulting products can differ dramatically. In particular, napalm made poorly or with incomplete mixing can end up being very similar to gasoline, with its attendant hazards.

Gasoline, being a volatile, easily ignited compound with a high energy density, was immediately used as a weapon in war. In World War I, both Germany and the Allies used it in flame throwers, but it burned itself too quickly to be very effective at igniting the target of the flame throwers. As you might imagine, intensive research to slow down the burning was funded by the U.S. government, and in 1942 Harvard University scientists and the U.S. army chemical warfare service found a way to jelly gasoline that worked quite well.

They found that mixing an aluminum soap powder of naphthene and palmitate (hence na-palm), also known as napthenic and palmitic acids, with gasoline produced a brownish sticky syrup that burned more slowly than raw gasoline, and hence was much more effective at igniting one's target. The napalm was mixed in varying concentrations of 6% (for flame throwers) and 12-15% for bombs mixed on site (for use in perimeter defense)."
 
Kangy said:
It should definately be looked into, and if they are using it, I really want no part in the war anymore. If they are using it, I'd like the UK to remove troop support right now.
Click to expand...


Well yeah, It should be investigated. You're right.

But I don't see it happening unfortunatly. They would never admit it and would never let a third party investigate anything to do with it. So I don't think it would get far.



Meh, maybe I am wrong. I hope so, it would be nice for someone to prove they are doing something right for a change.
 
Kangy said:
It should definately be looked into, and if they are using it, I really want no part in the war anymore. If they are using it, I'd like the UK to remove troop support right now.
Click to expand...


and leave the whole country to the US?

Simply running away from this won't help. You can't abandon the Iraqis now.
 
Farrowlesparrow said:
and leave the whole country to the US?

Simply running away from this won't help. You can't abandon the Iraqis now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I kinda forgot to mention that...
 
Shad0hawK said:
i did read the article. that is how i know it is BS. it is saying napalm is a "poisonous gas"
Click to expand...

It probably is poisonous if you live past the initial destruction of your Earthly coil. But that isn't the point. My point is: you expect a standard Middle Eastern citizen to know English well enough to go into chemistry? I think not.
 
el Chi said:
Exactly what I thought: It "simply" burns them. Well that's a relief. I though that napalm did something worse than cook you alive whilst everything around you turns into a vision of Hell in flames.
Short of going around and burying each individual of the opposing forces alive, or using mustard gas to melt their lungs from the inside out, I can't think of a method of combat more heinous. Whoever uses it.
Click to expand...

and you know this because al jazaeera says so?

riggghhhhttt.

this just proves my ealrier assertion about the "BLAME AMERICA™" crowd, they will latch on to ANYTHING.... no matter how ridiculous...as long as it critical of america.
 
Kangy said:
It probably is poisonous if you live past the initial destruction of your Earthly coil. But that isn't the point. My point is: you expect a standard Middle Eastern citizen to know English well enough to go into chemistry? I think not.
Click to expand...

you would think al jazeera could use google. but i am surethey know what it is. i am not achemist but i know what napalm is. they are just feeding the idiots who beleive whatever they say.

you have to remember, this is al jazeera we are talking about here...
 
On the flipside that can be said about fox aswell.
 
^Ben said:
Oh yeh, I forgot America can do no wrong.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


america can do plenty wrong(just like france), but to accept what al jazeera says in a obvously sensationalist article is well...stupid.
 
^Ben said:
On the flipside that can be said about fox aswell.
Click to expand...

really? can you show me some articles on foxnews.com that are blatently false like this one? i would dearly love to see them.


links please, back yourself up.
 
Shad0hawK said:
you would think al jazeera could use google. but i am surethey know what it is. i am not achemist but i know what napalm is. they are just feeding the idiots who beleive whatever they say.

you have to remember, this is al jazeera we are talking about here...
Click to expand...



My dear Shad0whawk:

1. Napalm, or gasoline if you would like, is poisonus.
2. Contrary to what FoxNews would do, Al Jazeera would NOT change quotes.
3. I DO remember it's Al Jazeera we're talking about here, and I also remember that they, contrary to FoxNews, is an objective and unbiased news source.

Thank you for your time


Ps. Since you wrote such a nice question to ^Ben, I'd like to ask one of you too: Can you give me evidence that Al Jazeera is unobjective?
 
Shad0hawK said:
and you know this because al jazaeera says so?

riggghhhhttt.

this just proves my ealrier assertion about the "BLAME AMERICA™" crowd, they will latch on to ANYTHING.... no matter how ridiculous...as long as it critical of america.
Click to expand...

Good grief.

The good man never even quoted Al Jazeera, nor was he actually talking about it. He was talking about the destructive properties napalm has. As for the whole blaming America thing...who'd blame them ( ;) ) with people like you trying to defend it at every turn. Your extreme aggressive ignorance really does embody the stereotype many people have.
 
Shad0hawK... All you ever seem to do is bash Al Jazeera, then pre-emptively mock anybody that might believe the source or perhaps may distrust Fox News (even if such people haven't even made their presence in the topic), and then quickly toss in your horribly dull and unfunny "Blame America" shtick, regardless of how irrelevent it may be to the subject matter. Do you honestly expect people to take you seriously?

I would not completely discredit this article. The US has used napalm in Iraq before, and I don't see why they wouldn't use it again. The article could be the truth, an exaggeration, a misinformed piece of writing, or an outright lie. But I'm of the opinion that if there's smoke, there's probably a fire.

Also, you have no grounds to claim that this "blatently false". I've seen no evidence point to it being so. So maybe you'd like to take your sweet time and back it up.
 
MAx said:
My dear Shad0whawk:

1. Napalm, or gasoline if you would like, is poisonus.
2. Contrary to what FoxNews would do, Al Jazeera would NOT change quotes.
3. I DO remember it's Al Jazeera we're talking about here, and I also remember that they, contrary to FoxNews, is an objective and unbiased news source.

Thank you for your time


Ps. Since you wrote such a nice question to ^Ben, I'd like to ask one of you too: Can you give me evidence that Al Jazeera is unobjective?
Click to expand...

why dont we start a thread to keep from hijacking this one?

:)

regarding al jazeera's reporting we can cite the article in the OP as obviously sensationalist, even reporting information that is un true, it took about 3 minutes to debunk.

in the new thread you can answer the question i posed asking for examples before you simply throw the question back into my lap. :)
 
Absinthe said:
Shad0hawK... All you ever seem to do is bash Al Jazeera, then pre-emptively mock anybody that might believe the source or perhaps may distrust Fox News (even if such people haven't even made their presence in the topic), and then quickly toss in your horribly dull and unfunny "Blame America" shtick, regardless of how irrelevent it may be to the subject matter. Do you honestly expect people to take you seriously?

I would not completely discredit this article. The US has used napalm in Iraq before, and I don't see why they wouldn't use it again. The article could be the truth, an exaggeration, a misinformed piece of writing, or an outright lie. But I'm of the opinion that if there's smoke, there's probably a fire.
Click to expand...

all i ever seem to do? this is the first thread where i even talked about al jazeera...ROFL!!!

let me guess...another witch hunt is about to start....
 
ROFL!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shad0hawK
that is one of the more ignorant statements i see on this board.

it is usually made by people who think cnn, bbc, abc, cbs etc. are actually "objective".

Quote CptStern
really? compare these 2 headlines from the same day (Thursday, April 3, 2003) :

foxnews: Report: Lynch Was Shot, Stabbed in Fierce Struggle With Iraqi Captors


now compare it an article on the CNN website from that same day:


Rescued POW has first surgery No evidence of gunshot or stab wounds found


how is fox"news" headline not propaganda? was lynch "shot" and "stabbed"? at this point there was no evidence that she was, actually german doctors who first saw her reported saying she appeared to have sustained her injuries in a vehicle accident
 
Shad0hawK said:
all i ever seem to do? this is the first thread where i even talked about al jazeera...ROFL!!!
Click to expand...

I was speaking in terms of the context of this thread. And really, that does seem to make up the bulk of your attitude.

let me guess...another witch hunt is about to start....
Click to expand...

Would this be similar to your "AHAHHAHAHAH OMFG AL JAZEERA LIBERAL PINK COMMIE SO BIASED OMFGOMFGOMFOMG" one?
 
MAx said:
My dear Shad0whawk:

1. Napalm, or gasoline if you would like, is poisonus.
2. Contrary to what FoxNews would do, Al Jazeera would NOT change quotes.
3. I DO remember it's Al Jazeera we're talking about here, and I also remember that they, contrary to FoxNews, is an objective and unbiased news source.

Thank you for your time


Ps. Since you wrote such a nice question to ^Ben, I'd like to ask one of you too: Can you give me evidence that Al Jazeera is unobjective?
Click to expand...
Note for reality: All news channels and websites are biased in some ways...it's just up to you decide which one is right and true in your own mind.
 
Actually, the BBC is more likely to defend the government now, ever since important folks were fired for doubting what the government had to say.
 
^Ben said:
Oh please shadowhawk you are blatently starting to clutch at straws. I think Stern has been putting links up about a soldier named Jessica Lynch that where blatantly false and sensationalist aswell.

http://www.homepages.dsu.edu/huenersd/ENGL101/photo essay project/photographs/vietnam_napalm.jpg

This is the reason we banned napalm.
Click to expand...

because a naked girl is crying (and please dont tell me she was burned by napalm because shes not)???......wow shes naked..lets ban napalm....

this whole conversation is rediculous.....lets ban the use of knives next because a soldier can cut an oponents leg off ......war is an ugly thing..get used to it....its pussies like you guys who give war a bad name.....if our forefathers hadnt slit the throats of the Brits and burned them alive on stakes way back in the day, there wouldnt even be a United States...you (americans) are where you are because of war....either get over it or move the **** out
 
Al Jazeera= in absolut terms worse than FOX, in relative, comparing the culture in which the company's were started, FOX is worse. Lest be honest nor the folk nor the government give that much freedom to press in ME countries. The only relativly obective media scource in the ME I know of is Al Arabiya.
Anyway does someone have a link of this napalm bombing by an relativly objective site or not, cause I won't go in to an argument with the only scource for it Al Jazeera.
 
ryanmw said:
this whole conversation is rediculous.....lets ban the use of knives next because a soldier can cut an oponents leg off ......war is an ugly thing..get used to it....its pussies like you who give war a bad name.....if our forefathers hadnt slit the throats of the Brits way back in the day, there wouldnt even be a United States...you (americans) are where you are because of war....either get over it or move the **** out
Click to expand...

Oh yes, we are such pussies because we would prefer it if we didn't burn our enemies alive.

It's already been admitted that napalm's been used more as a form of psychological warfare. I wonder why that might be. Maybe watching the people around you erupt in flames and begin screaming due to excruciating pain has some kind of effect on some guys.
 
Tr0n said:
Note for reality: All news channels and websites are biased in some ways...it's just up to you decide which one is right and true in your own mind.
Click to expand...


Of course all news sources are biased to some degree, the difference between a good news source and a bad news source is HOW biased they are.

Fox-Extremely biased
BBC- Not so Biased
Al Jazeera-Not sure, but fox is worse.

And I think you understand what makes a news source good or not. More biased or less biased?

...That's right, the less biased one.
 
Well they all suck in my opinion...so GG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

-smash-
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive dedicated servers in beta; Patched
Replies
0
Views
9K
-smash-
-smash-
Dandan
FBI/DEA thwart terror plot in U.S. involving Iran
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Escaep
6 days in Fallujah update
Replies
7
Views
1K
BirdKiller
B
The Monkey
Obama conducts "one of the greatest attacks on working people in U.S. history"
Replies
26
Views
2K
Kadayi
Kadayi
Combine Hybrid
Konami's new title: Six Days in Fallujah
Replies
23
Views
2K
Gargantou
Gargantou
Back
Top