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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 28, 2005
Rebels? Maybe they were talking about the terrorists in Southern Iraq!! ;~D
on Jun 28, 2005
is the first time I have heard them referred to as such by a major publication.


the washington times ran a frontpage story on September 8, 2004 titled: "Rumsfeld: Iran aids rebels". it also appears as if syndicated coverage of his remarks on sunday was headlined all over the place with: 'Iraqis may fight rebels for years, says Rumsfeld'

rebel is less positive than insurgent (which carries with it the connotation of patriotic resistance); the difference is that rebels are sorta low-rent insurgents who may or may not be working towards the best interest of anyone but themselves.

insurgency implies a unified enterprise whereas rebels may or may not be working in concert with other groups of rebels (as is the case in colombia).

i get the sense 'insurgent' is used by iraqi government and coalition officials to refer to iraqi nationals, while foreign fighters are more often considered to be islamic fanatics, militants and terrorists.

had it been my call, i woulda gone with renegades which is less positive than either rebel or insurgent.
on Jun 28, 2005

Excellent Article.  As for the equivocation, I guess I do understand it.  If they were to tell the truth (usually) the press would run with it and many more americans would die.  So they have learned how to speak the truth, without revealing anymore than absolutely necessary.

Remember Falujah, and how the press was so pissed that they were not given the time table of the operation?  Would you tell those clowns anything that you did not have to?

on Jun 28, 2005
The reason I link to this article in my favorites on my site is for everybody to make up their own mind on what to think of this. The author has
done good research work, relaying FACTS still LEGAL?, while people think this is a Vietnam mistake you should forget about by now
just like germans want you to forget about Nazi crimes committed by their ancestors. Now to all my german neighbors out there where I live,
I AM still a US citizen ONLY so GERMAN or US armies dont draft me, which they cant since 1972, unless theres a big conventional war.
You germans find it cool still to be drafted or do underpaid civil work, while americans wont let you take off your bikini, drink or vote before
youre drafted. No country seems much better than the other. In the german state of Hessen, with skyscrapers in Frankfurt, etc. death penalty is
still legal as far as state law is concerned, but not executed because Federal law breaks state law, as lawyers call it here. No Frankfurt broker
wearing a tie knows about this and scorns americans for death penalty - another topic not to talk about too long.

Hope Im not soldier x one day inventing weapons like this so soldier y wont kill my country first.
on Jun 28, 2005
A lie is A lie no matter who spews it, be it bush or the left.

Now having said that bush lies get much more press than leftylies.
on Jun 29, 2005
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.

I understand what you're saying, but let's be honest here. When was the last time we've had an administration that didn't "split hairs", withhold information of some sort, or outright lie about some issues? If you're even reasonably honest you have to admit that all of them operate in this manner. And that, to me, is the real problem regardless of who's in office.

And it isn't just our less than honest politicians either. The media is also guilty of presenting less than honest, straightforward facts. They often intentionally choose certain words or phrases to put a spin on the facts, downplay things that don't represent their views, and at times are guilty of actually fabricating "facts". What ever happened to the idea of journalism?

As MM said, " A lie is A lie no matter who spews it,", and I agree completely. I would be all for a Constitutional amendment forbiding anyone in an elected or appointed government position from lieing to the people or misrepresenting the facts to the people. Of course that would put a lot of politicians out of work.

I would also love to see just one news media outlet dedicate itself to reporting FACTS without any sort of political or editorial bias whatsoever. Wouldn't that be refreshing?
on Jun 29, 2005
would also love to see just one news media outlet dedicate itself to reporting FACTS without any sort of political or editorial bias whatsoever. Wouldn't that be refreshing?


Yes it would be refreshing. Unfortunately it will NEVER happen!
on Jun 29, 2005
I would also love to see just one news media outlet dedicate itself to reporting FACTS without any sort of political or editorial bias whatsoever. Wouldn't that be refreshing?


Heh. I'd love to see one news outlet report on something that is currently taking place (which we can see on the screen behind the talking head) and not hem and haw around the subject by using the word "allegedly".

That all goes back to the "can't report the facts, someone might actually take us literally" attitude that is too prevalent.
on May 01, 2006
I like what you do, continue this way.
on May 17, 2006
I do not know which article you refer. It is not clear to me. Surely you will agfree on: Proposition 1 There are no WMD in Iraq. Proposition 2:USA and UK waged war on patently false grounds. Proposition 3: The civillian casualities of this War are beyond acceptable limits and USA diduse banned chemiczals in several ares even in civilians sectors. Proposition 4:The violence in Iraq and the abuse of human rights both byu the USA, and the insurgents is breaking the fabric of Iraqi society. Proposition 5: The war is not helping the Iraqis and is only hurting the USA more.
2 Pages1 2