A bunch of useless crap
The Truth About It
Published on June 27, 2005 By MasonM In Current Events
Ok, a recent article by one of the more hateful and very much anti-US members stated that the US violated the law by using napalm in Iraq. Instead of responding on that member's blog, as I don't post any comments on that person't blog as I consider that person a hate monger and less than credible, I thought I would research it myself and present some real facts without the obvious spin and absurd lies that were added to the story.

First of all, yes it's true. the US did use napalm. Secondly, it wasn't in violation of any laws in spite of what our friendly neighborhood hate monger would like us to believe to the contrary.

"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."

The treaty, which the US didn't sign bans the use of napalm against civilians. Notice it says nothing about being banned against enemy troops?

"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 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"

"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.'"

Hmmm, imagine that. Our military is using weapons to kill enemy troops.

Ok, now for some of the rest of the story. Yes, the Pentagon did in fact originally deny using napalm.

"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.

Ok, they were splitting hairs in an obvious PR move. It was a mistake they shouldn't have made for obvious reasons. But it still does not constitute "war crimes" or the use of any illegal weapons.

Once again someone takes a true story and twists the facts, adds some ourageous rhetoric, and seasons liberally (pun intended) with lies.

It only took a little googling to come up with several news stories from around the world that contained all of the information I have presented here, both good and bad, without the absurd anti-US lies and rhetoric to go with it.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 27, 2005
The anti US side just loves to overblow a story! Unfortunately, with the hair splitting the government does, sometimes they make it all too easy for the haters of freedom to make the U.S. look bad.

Thank you for bringing the truth out.
on Jun 27, 2005
No problem Ted, nothing like a few facts to take the wind out of the sails of a...let's say, less than factual story.
on Jun 27, 2005
how about some nice Ivory snow flakes, 9944/100% pure mixed lovingly with some plain ordinary white gas then dropped on the heads of the anti us crowd, thats not napalm or a firebomb, just some love from me to them.
on Jun 27, 2005
Actually that works quite well. Nothing like a little home chemistry
on Jun 27, 2005
Excellent article, Mason.

I didn't read the article you're refuting because the author doesn't provide courtesy paragraph breaks to make his writing readable and he's generally belligerent and rarely, if ever, factual in his writing.

I have mixed feelings about our use of Napalm. I don't like the idea of using Napalm because it seems like an incredibly cruel tactic, and I would loathe to see something like this used on our own troops.

However, I'm no military strategist, and far be it from me to condemn legal military methods those in command feel are appropriate in a given situation.

Ok, they were splitting hairs in an obvious PR move. It was a mistake they shouldn't have made for obvious reasons.


This is a problem that Americans have to watch for (and it's not limited to the Bush Whitehouse)...we wouldn't allow that type of lying or misleading information from our children or our spouses, and we certainly shouldn't condone or accept it from our government.

Again, excellent article, Mason. Thank you for taking the time to research the facts and for offering them in a very even-handed, unbiased manner.
on Jun 27, 2005
Thanks TW, I'm the first to admit that our country is far from perfect, but I don't like to see such obviously twisted stories from hate-filled people without a shred of honesty.

As far as the use of napalm, as long as it's used against enemy soldiers and not civilians, I don't see much difference between that and dropping other bombs on them. Most are killed instantly, just like "normal" bombs, some aren't, just like "normal" bombs. They are used as much for psychological effect to demoralize the enemy as anything. And they work in that regard.
on Jun 27, 2005
when you're sitting on a jury and you're presented with testimony that is demonstrated to be intentionally evasive--say something along the lines of 'i didnt cut anyone with a buck knife'--would you be more likely to question that person's veracity?

how about if the testimony included more than a single instance of that kinda nonsense?


i'd be likely to conclude the reason for such equivocation was to try to mislead the jury and minimize or mitigate culpability.
on Jun 27, 2005
when you're sitting on a jury and you're presented with testimony that is demonstrated to be intentionally evasive--say something along the lines of 'i didnt cut anyone with a buck knife'--would you be more likely to question that person's veracity?

how about if the testimony included more than a single instance of that kinda nonsense?


i'd be likely to conclude the reason for such equivocation was to try to mislead the jury and minimize or mitigate culpability.


True Kingbee, but if the jury was made up of people who have all shown that they are in bed with the prosecution against you, how forthcoming would you be?

The press are the bed buddies of the terrorists. They have shown time and time again that their allegiences lie with those they call "freedom fighters".

While I don't like the political doublespeak of any administration, the press uses their own double speak when they figure bare facts won't do.

Face it, politicians, press and even bloggers are going to do what they can to say what they want people to hear.

Was Napalm used? Not technically, but something awfully close. Was a war crime commited? NO, and that is the real question here.
on Jun 27, 2005
kingbee: you'll note that nowhere did I say that the Pentagon was correct in not admitting up front that these firebombs were used, quite the opposite in fact.

It's really irrelevant to the article anyway as the issue is that they were used legally, not in violation of any international laws as the "other" version of the story flatly claimed.
on Jun 28, 2005
They have shown time and time again that their allegiences lie with those they call "freedom fighters".


if you're referring to the iraqi insurgents (not the term i woulda chosen if i'd been given the job of coming up with one-word descriptor for them) i dont believe i've seen anyone callin them anything close to freedom fighters.

i know you gotta thing about journalists so i'm guessing youll be able to provide some examples of bona-fide professional news people who express or even hint at allegiance or sympathy for terrorists (like network correspondants or reporters employed by any big city or national publication-other the guy who wrote the newsweek thing).
on Jun 28, 2005
kingbee: you'll note that nowhere did I say that the Pentagon was correct in not admitting up front that these firebombs were used, quite the opposite in fact


duly noted. my comment was inspired by what i perceive to be several years of this sorta hair-splitting (which is the kindest term that comes to mind). for as much as yall go on and on about the arrogance of the left, the thing that really frosts my ass about about the adminstration is my perception, based on exactly that kinda 'aint i too cute' equivocation, they think everyone in this country--especially me--is so blind, stupid and easily scammed.
on Jun 28, 2005
i know you gotta thing about journalists so i'm guessing youll be able to provide some examples of bona-fide professional news people who express or even hint at allegiance or sympathy for terrorists (like network correspondants or reporters employed by any big city or national publication-other the guy who wrote the newsweek thing).


That is why I put "freedom fighters" in quotes. Glad you caught the double speak I used (ever so stealthily). Afterall, I did point out that, along with politicians and the press, "bloggers" are not above a little double speak ourselves.

Truth be known, the only time I've ever seen the term "freedom fighters" used in connection with the terrorists were bloggers.

See my point now? ;~D
on Jun 28, 2005
Personally i really don't care(well, as long as it got rid of terrorists, and few or no innocents...[war kills so...]) pfft...its almost 1 am here...Ciao everyone!
on Jun 28, 2005
"f you're referring to the iraqi insurgents (not the term i woulda chosen if i'd been given the job of coming up with one-word descriptor for them) i dont believe i've seen anyone callin them anything close to freedom fighters. "


Actually today I saw them referred to as "rebels" in the LA Times. Not sure if that was a holdover from the wire service or something that orginated there, but said it they did.
on Jun 28, 2005
Here is the article I saw:

U.S., Rebels in Iraq Talking


Not earthshattering, but it is the first time I have heard them referred to as such by a major publication.
2 Pages1 2