U.S. uses napalm gas in Fallujah

[^Ben]

ryanmw, let the big boys talk.

The picture is a symbol.

Please put a NWS on those Stern.

 

[Kangy]

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

Heh, you truly are an idiot. Do you want to see images of scorched babies still in their cribs to finally see that war isn't the answer. How the heck are you comparing this to the Revolutionary War anyway? If you're going to do that, surely us Brits are your example, since we were the invader back then.

I guess you don't like France, either.

 

[el Chi]

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.

No! I was simply saying that I was shocked at your use of the word "simply" when referring to killing people with napalm. That's a f*cking awful way to go and that was my point. Nothing to do with the article - I said it burns you. Alive. It does. I never said it melted you.
Whether it's true or not, it ought to be investigated - you can't just simply say: "Oh well, they'll say anything."
Better safe than sorry, wouldn't you say?

And please stop with this ""BLAME AMERICA™" crowd" bollocks. You make yourself sound like such a victim whilst these evil liberals storm all around you and make pre-emptive and unfounded attacks on your views. Because you'd never do that, now would you?
Stop whining - it doesn't do your arguments any good, you sound like a petulant child.

 

[Javert]

It's gruesome stuff, but doubt it's the nape we used in 'Nam (TRULY gruesome stuff).

Now if we can only target the insurgents and not civilians, that'd be alot better. That's the problem with these WMD's, the blast radius is too high for current situations, in this case cities with innocent civilians.

 

[Shad0hawK]

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

Would this be similar to your "AHAHHAHAHAH OMFG AL JAZEERA LIBERAL PINK COMMIE SO BIASED OMFGOMFGOMFOMG" one?

actually i did not say "AHAHHAHAHAH OMFG AL JAZEERA LIBERAL PINK COMMIE SO BIASED OMFGOMFGOMFOMG"

i said "the al jazeera article was BS" and demonstrated how...but since facts do not concern al jazeera...and apparantly some posters on this board either i am sure you share the same attitude as long as the smear attack is done and the "BLAME AMERICA™" dogma is preached.

 

[CptStern]

jeez you're pushing this "liberal conspiracy/blame america" nonsense a little too far :rolling:


oh and I proved the US used incendiary bombs in the first gulf war, why wouldnt they use them this time around?

 

[Absinthe]

i said "the al jazeera article was BS" and demonstrated how...but since facts do not concern al jazeera...and apparantly some posters on this board either i am sure you share the same attitude as long as the smear attack is done and the "BLAME AMERICA™" dogma is preached.

And your ignorance becomes more and more apparent with each post you make.

Seriously, on what grounds can you claim that I'm part of this "Blame America" crowd, hmm? I'm eager to hear.

 

[MAx]

You never demonstraded how the article was bs. You just said that because some eye vitnesses said something POSSIBLY wrong, Al Jazeera was lying. It isn't so.

 

[Absinthe]

You never demonstraded how the article was bs. You just said that because some eye vitnesses said something POSSIBLY wrong, Al Jazeera was lying. It isn't so.

Don't expect him to come up with much of anything except "Al Jazeera is biased".

 

[el Chi]

jeez you're pushing this "liberal conspiracy/blame america" nonsense a little too far :rolling:

Isn't he just? I do so love how he's coined a phrase that hasn't picked up at all, no matter how lavishly he sprinkles it through thread after thread. Wonderful.

And your ignorance becomes more and more apparent with each post you make.
Seriously, on what grounds can you claim that I'm part of this "Blame America" crowd, hmm? I'm eager to hear.

The Blame America crowd, as he so wittily puts it, is simply anyone who has issues with America and its policies.

 

[CptStern]

Isn't he just? I do so love how he's coined a phrase that hasn't picked up at all, no matter how lavishly he sprinkles it through thread after thread. Wonderful.

Ya I know, it's starting to get a bit annoying. Especially when he paints anyone who disagrees with him in one single brush: that of the anti-american. I really hate the "you'e either with us or against us" mentality.

 

[Eg.]

lies, all lies

the closest thing this could be is an air burt bomb, which spreads gasoline over a larger area, and it then ignited. the bomb is meant to creat a heat vaccum that sucks all the air up and burns it out, thus sufficating those within a raduis of the inition explostion

unless i see the times or cnn sayning this, i say aljeezera is lying

 

[seinfeldrules]

Isn't he just? I do so love how he's coined a phrase that hasn't picked up at all, no matter how lavishly he sprinkles it through thread after thread. Wonderful.

I find it quite catchy. Its good to have a slogan. Liberals use "Bush's Fault", while Shad0whawk uses "Blame America".

The Blame America crowd, as he so wittily puts it, is simply anyone who has issues with America and its policies.

Once and awhile is understandable, everybody disagrees occasionally, but on every issue posted on this board regarding the US? Thats crossing the line.

PS. If Al Jazeera is entirely unbiased, then why didnt they include the US and UK's response to these charges? Where is the picture evidence? One man's word is all it takes to make these charges true? If it was as widespread as it sounds it shouldnt be too hard to dig up some visible evidence. Also, the white gas could have easily been tear gas, if the charges are true.

 

[el Chi]

Ya I know, it's starting to get a bit annoying. Especially when he paints anyone who disagrees with him in one single brush: that of the anti-american. I really hate the "you'e either with us or against us" mentality.

Ah "Anti-American" - the "Communist" for the new millennium. And "terrorist" - it's fine when it's used fairly, but when it's misused it's just irritating. Like calling Iraqi insurgents terrorists. That gets my goat.
Not that I had a goat to start with...
And yes it's sad that a black-and-white for-or-against mentality has started to creep back from the depths of the Cold War.

I find it quite catchy. Its good to have a slogan. Liberals use "Bush's Fault", while Shad0whawk uses "Blame America".

Fair enough
Personally I find it annoying and a tad puerile. Ah well, different strokes...

Once and awhile is understandable, everybody disagrees occasionally, but on every issue posted on this board regarding the US? Thats crossing the line.

Yes well, as debating on the internet goes, almost everyone is far too stubborn to admit that they're wrong and so rushes to the defensive which is what makes it so exciting/enfuriating.
But, it's also worth pointing out that there is a group of people who will always rush to the defensive of the US, never admitting any wrong-doings and lambasting the liberals, etc.
It's just the same thing from a different side of the fence.

 

[seinfeldrules]

But, it's also worth pointing out that there is a group of people who will always rush to the defensive of the US, never admitting any wrong-doings and lambasting the liberals, etc.

That is the catch of course, but if you look over the topics on this board, most are aimed at the US. Also, in most cases the blame goes to the wrong party. Example- Iraq. Sure, the US made the mistake about WMD in Iraq, but was it Bush's fault? No, if you look back you see Clinton and Kerry both said many times that Iraq was a threat and possessed WMD. The fault wasn't the President's, it was the bad intel. gathered by the CIA and the MI5 (mainly, Russia played a role too). Blaming Bush for believing and acting on this intelligence is foolish.

 

[Eg.]

lies, all lies

the closest thing this could be is an air burt bomb, which spreads gasoline over a larger area, and it then ignited. the bomb is meant to creat a heat vaccum that sucks all the air up and burns it out, thus sufficating those within a raduis of the inition explostion

unless i see the times or cnn sayning this, i say aljeezera is lying

hello, science here

 

[el Chi]

That is the catch of course, but if you look over the topics on this board, most are aimed at the US. Also, in most cases the blame goes to the wrong party. Example- Iraq. Sure, the US made the mistake about WMD in Iraq, but was it Bush's fault? No, if you look back you see Clinton and Kerry both said many times that Iraq was a threat and possessed WMD. The fault wasn't the President's, it was the bad intel. gathered by the CIA and the MI5 (mainly, Russia played a role too). Blaming Bush for believing and acting on this intelligence is foolish.

Yeah but herein lies the debate of whether the Bush administration used that to their own ends and that they had designs to go into Iraq already. All of it boils down to a war for oil.
But all that is a different topic and one we should leave alone for the moment

 

[MadHatter]

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.

I wouldn't wager on that.

 

[MAx]

I wouldn't wager on that.

Nope, I wouldn't either

As I wrote, I'm not really sure, it's just what I think.

I think I'm right though, but hey...I'm not sure.

The only thing I'm unsure about, is wether Al Jazeera is as biased as FoxNews is, or not. However, when it comes to other News Sources, they usually refer to Al Jazeera, which leads me to believe that it's a reliable source. Do you agree with me on that one?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Max: If Al Jazeera is entirely unbiased, then why didnt they include the US and UK's response to these charges? Where is the picture evidence? One man's word is all it takes to make these charges true? If it was as widespread as it sounds it shouldnt be too hard to dig up some visible evidence. Also, the white gas could have easily been tear gas, if the charges are true.

 

[MadHatter]

Nope, I wouldn't either

As I wrote, I'm not really sure, it's just what I think.

I think I'm right though, but hey...I'm not sure.

The only thing I'm unsure about, is wether Al Jazeera is as biased as FoxNews is, or not. However, when it comes to other News Sources, they usually refer to Al Jazeera, which leads me to believe that it's a reliable source. Do you agree with me on that one?

How 'bout this:

Fox News reports and provides what they believe their audience and perspective want to hear. Al-Jazeera reports and provides what they believe their audience and perspective want to hear.

A little black and white? Eh, yes... but still tangible to a degree.

 

[Tinneth]

About that time eh chaps?
Righto.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Kangy, all he does is accuse his opponent of watching Al Jazeera, regardless of wether or not this is true.

Eh, the article is on Al Jazeera dot com. Look at the URL.

The article is major BS. Not throwing around any accusations here, but read it and then get some info on the various things that happen, and things that have happened. You'll see quite clearly then.

 

[gh0st]

haha... cute article. too bad the whole drivel can be discredited with this quote

Since the U.S. offensive started in Fallujah earlier this month, there have been reports of “melted” bodies which proves that the napalm gas had been used.

not only is napalm not a gas, and is incapable of being both a gas and an effective weapon, it doesnt "melt" bodies by any stretch of the imagination. in fact, had any pictures been posted by al jazeera, we could have proved or disproved this right away: the burned area of the corpse would be covered with a rather thick, but still viscous tarlike substance. the victim is much more likely to die from carbon monixide poisoning than the fire effects itself. either the reporter has no knowledge of the weapon (possible) or its a load of shit. that they give so many labels to a simple weapon is laughable. first its a gas, then its made from jetfuel, yada yada. crock of shit.

oh and stern. posting a random picture of an apparantly burned corpse (which could have been an auto fire, basically anything) probably from a google image search of "napalm" is just sad. thats almost as sad as al jazeera shit reporting. also, there were many differences between the 1st gulf war and this war. in the 1st, napalm would have made a vastly more effective weapon because most of the fighting was not done in an urban setting.

oh, and also: i really dont give a rats ass what we use over there. frankly i think we should just level fallujah and leave the country.

 

[IchI]

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

You utter wanker, simple... I have never heard a statment so stupid, thick and retarded in my whole life.

For this thread, Well... lets just say they are a lot of retarded people I think you could bring this down to a simple competition of truth:

Fox vs Al Jazeera = Al Jazeera

Also Napalm causes a lot of... whats the word... I can't remember the word, but over the years of it been used even the solider that have handled in have suffered. Now... If thats just haddeling it. Imagen how you would suffer if I exploded all over your city and you had to live there for the rest of your life... I rest my case...

 

[gh0st]

For this thread, Well... lets just say they are a lot of retarded people I think you could bring this down to a simple competition of truth:

Fox vs Al Jazeera = Al Jazeera

i dont know why people are bringing fox up, this is a thread about the US using napalm gas in fallujah. if you think al jazeera is better than fox... well, i'm sorry, but you are a ****tard.

I rest my case...

just like al jazeera did. :thumbs: you all think alike.

 

[seinfeldrules]

For this thread, Well... lets just say they are a lot of retarded people

Well, by making that comment you joined the lot of us. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

 

[Revisedsoul]

as for discrediting it because of the gas meaning. it could be a slight translation error. i know there are plenty of words from different languages that mean the same thing, but point to another word incorrectly.

just could be, not saying it is

 

[gh0st]

as for discrediting it because of the gas meaning. it could be a slight translation error. i know there are plenty of words from different languages that mean the same thing, but point to another word incorrectly.

just could be, not saying it is

al jazeera has english speaking employee's as well, not everything is translated. i doubt such a big mistake would have been made, makes their quality and standards look like shit.

 

[CptStern]

oh and stern. posting a random picture of an apparantly burned corpse (which could have been an auto fire, basically anything) probably from a google image search of "napalm" is just sad. thats almost as sad as al jazeera shit reporting. also, there were many differences between the 1st gulf war and this war. in the 1st, napalm would have made a vastly more effective weapon because most of the fighting was not done in an urban setting.

oh gh0st time and again you make an ass of yourself ..random photo? at least have the decency to read past the headline. The charred body is from the Highway of Death and is evidence of the use of napalm ..read the article

here's more proof (warning disturbing imagery)

notice the bodies are still intact? only a high heat could have done that ..consistant with the use of napalm

oh, and also: i really dont give a rats ass what we use over there. frankly i think we should just level fallujah and leave the country.

then dont be so outraged when americans are beheaded

 

[seinfeldrules]

notice the bodies are still intact? only a high heat could have done that ..consistant with the use of napalm

What if the vehicle had caught fire?

 

[gh0st]

oh gh0st time and again you make an ass of yourself ..random photo? at least have the decency to read past the headline. The charred body is from the Highway of Death and is evidence of the use of napalm ..read the article

here's more proof (warning disturbing imagery)

notice the bodies are still intact? only a high heat could have done that ..consistant with the use of napalm



then dont be so outraged when americans are beheaded

so you admit it was a random photo, thanks. id like to see the site where you dug it up from actually, maybe i'll learn something. what headline? at least i have the denency to read the captions of the photos i post.

A few days after the end of the Gulf ground war

oops. turns out stern posted "evidence" for the war i wasent even disputing. i seem to recall saying i thought it much more likely that we'd use napalm during the first gulf war - which isnt even what the thread is about. really, well done stern, youve done much to further al jazeera's credibility. in a desperate attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about you say

only a high heat could have done that ..consistant with the use of napalm

interesting, i didnt know human flesh disentigrated or fell apart at low heat. id have thought it was the other way around. but ill give you the benefit of the doubt, you did post evidence for the wrong war.

What if the vehicle had caught fire?

thats what i was thinking. it seems illogical to assume it was napalm simply because the corpse seems burnt. more than likely their tank was hit by something and exploded, and burned them alive inside. NOES IT WAS TEH NAPALM LOL FUK U AMERIKA HITLER. not only that, the author doesnt confirm or deny sterns assumption. exactly what it is, a bad assumption.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I also find it odd that the napalm singled out that single vehicle. All the others stranded along the road dont seem charred and burned..

 

[gh0st]

I also find it odd that the napalm singled out that single vehicle. All the others stranded along the road dont seem charred and burned..

laser guided napalm gas? let me google that and see if i can get a totally illogical picture to represent that.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Actually, charred and burned would be an understatement.

Napalm burns at 5,000 degrees F.
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Napalm-Recycled.htm

Most cars are made up, in large part, of aluminum. Aluminum melts at 1220 degrees F. The only other major metal I could think of, included in consumer cars, would be steel. That melts at around 2500 degrees F.

laser guided napalm gas? let me google that and see if i can get a totally illogical picture to represent that.

hahaha that would be a sight to see.

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

If we used napalm in Iraq, trust me, youd know it..

I, being in the Air Force, know for a fact we do not use napalm anymore.

The Media, not just Al Jizz-eera, can't even help eating up small things like a Marine killing a terrorist faking dead, let alone ignore the fact weve been using Napalm dispensers.. absolute bullshit.

 

[Shad0hawK]

And your ignorance becomes more and more apparent with each post you make.

Seriously, on what grounds can you claim that I'm part of this "Blame America" crowd, hmm? I'm eager to hear.

well if rational thinking for oneself and taking things with a critical eye is "ignorance" i think the world needs more of it, as opposed to some who simply attack others that disagree with them.

what grounds? that appears to be the only thing you talk about.

You never demonstraded how the article was bs. You just said that because some eye vitnesses said something POSSIBLY wrong, Al Jazeera was lying. It isn't so.

actually i did, the article tried to make it appear that the US was using some kind of gas that made people's flesh melt and did everything to encourage that idea.

jeez you're pushing this "liberal conspiracy/blame america" nonsense a little too far


oh and I proved the US used incendiary bombs in the first gulf war, why wouldnt they use them this time around?

actually it does not appear so to me. tell me, did you meet this report with the same critical eye you did the report of french shooting unarmed people? the simple answer is no you did not. you say you "proved the use of incendiary bombs in 91 and make the extrapolation that since the US used them then they "MUST" be doing so now..yes that is real "objective"...

some of you guys try your best to paint me as "paranoid" when i say many liberals tend to judge the US and everyone else with a double standard, but in the end you prove me right and these words are not mere braggadocio...in the film with the french soldiers one is clearly seen shouting at and firing rounds from a leveled weapon aimed directly at the crowd but many of you said it was "inconclusive" it was looked with skepticism and scorn. however when al jazeera makes an unproven accusation in an obviously sensationalist manner, it is taken as truth without question..except by myself and a few others.

 

[Korgoth]

haha... cute article. too bad the whole drivel can be discredited with this quote


not only is napalm not a gas, and is incapable of being both a gas and an effective weapon, it doesnt "melt" bodies by any stretch of the imagination. in fact, had any pictures been posted by al jazeera, we could have proved or disproved this right away: the burned area of the corpse would be covered with a rather thick, but still viscous tarlike substance. the victim is much more likely to die from carbon monixide poisoning than the fire effects itself. either the reporter has no knowledge of the weapon (possible) or its a load of shit. that they give so many labels to a simple weapon is laughable. first its a gas, then its made from jetfuel, yada yada. crock of shit.

oh and stern. posting a random picture of an apparantly burned corpse (which could have been an auto fire, basically anything) probably from a google image search of "napalm" is just sad. thats almost as sad as al jazeera shit reporting. also, there were many differences between the 1st gulf war and this war. in the 1st, napalm would have made a vastly more effective weapon because most of the fighting was not done in an urban setting.

oh, and also: i really dont give a rats ass what we use over there. frankly i think we should just level fallujah and leave the country.

Yeah lets do that, lets level Fallujah, lets kill everyone there. I got it, we can nuke them, yeah that will be good. Lets kill em' all, innocent or not...

Then we will turn around and say we are doing it for the iraqi people, a majority of which we just killed, but uh, no one will know the difference.


:rolling:

 

[Shad0hawK]

If we used napalm in Iraq, trust me, youd know it..

I, being in the Air Force, know for a fact we do not use napalm anymore.

The Media, not just Al Jizz-eera, can't even help eating up small things like a Marine killing a terrorist faking dead, let alone ignore the fact weve been using Napalm dispensers.. absolute bullshit.

i read the accounts by the eyewitnesses, it seems to me that they wwere describing white phosphorous grenades i had experience with those when i was a combat engineer in the army.

 

[gh0st]

Then we will turn around and say we are doing it for the iraqi people, a majority of which we just killed, but uh, no one will know the difference.

since when do the majority of iraqi's live in fallujah? and no, i wouldent say were doing it for the iraqi people id just go ahead and say "**** you," and level it...

...if you hadnt noticed the ironical nature of this post my previous post, please kill yourself.