News So, the question is: Are US Forces Using Illegal Chemical Weapons in Iraq?

[Art]

You need to read what you post a little more closely. Your Iraqi "official" is claiming that the US used "gases". "In factone news source quoted Dr. ash-Shaykhli as stating, "I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses." Then it goes on to say that some analysts have made the assumption that descriptions of scenes from the attack resembled napalm.

The US has stated that they did use Mark77 in the attack on Bahgdad, they have denied using it in Fallujah. I think there would be pretty concrete evidence if Mark77 had been used.

The report meets the criteria you set out to establish credibility ie it is an official gov't report so what precisely is your point? The US have denied it so that's it, case closed? Have you considered the possibility that the US gov't just might be lying? Don't you think it is a tad hypocritical to demand official gov't reports as the only credible sources and then to dismiss them out of hand when you don't like the contents?

 

[Evo]

The report meets the criteria you set out to establish credibility ie it is an official gov't report so what precisely is your point??

Official government report?? Your link is to "politicalaffairs.net "Marxist thought online", you call that an official government report? Oh come now.

The US have denied it so that's it, case closed? Have you considered the possibility that the US gov't just might be lying? Don't you think it is a tad hypocritical to demand official gov't reports as the only credible sources and then to dismiss them out of hand when you don't like the contents?

You're the one that jumped the gun and started a thread accussing the US of

US forces are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis. The US gov't lied to their allies last January when asked by the British gov't if allegations of it's use of Napalm or similar substances

and created a sensationalist type tabloid heading. You did no research to verify if your allegations were correct. What you claimed as "proof" of a US government lie turned out to be nothing more than a misunderstanding by a single person.

Where is this official government report you claim to have provided proving your allegations are true that you are now claiming that I am dismissing? I don't see one, please repost it so I may read it.

 

[Art]

Official government report?? Your link is to "politicalaffairs.net "Marxist thought online", you call that an official government report? Oh come now. Where is this official government report you claim to have provided proving your allegations are true that you are now claiming that I am dismissing? I don't see one, please repost it so I may read it.

He communicated his findings and suspicions at a press conference in Baghdad on Mar 3rd following which several newsagencies ran the story.

Aljazeera reported that the press conference "was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as Sabah newspaper, the US Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service".
However, the only US news outlet to carry even a mention of the press conference was the Christian Science Monitor's website.

His official report was no doubt communicated in Arabic or possibly Kurdi neither of which I speak and so the English translations available from several sources on the web seems perfectly acceptable.

You're the one that jumped the gun and started a thread accussing the US of and created a sensationalist type tabloid heading. You did no research to verify if your allegations were correct.

Until Aug 10th 2004 the US gov't consistantly denied using napalm in the invasion of iraq against a wall of accusations. After a mountain of evidence they eventually changed their story and admitted to using the Mark 77s. They claimed that their earlier denials were true because they had not actually used a thermobariatic munition called napalm (but a new improved version called Mark 77s). Yeah right.
It would seem that the US gov't confused itself regarding what they had publically admitted and what they hadn't and so when the British gov't requested information the old denial was issued to them.

What you claimed as "proof" of a US government lie turned out to be nothing more than a misunderstanding by a single person.

A misunderstanding? Let's follow this, the British Defense Minister contacts his counterpart in the USA and explains he needs to respond to a question as to whether or not the US has used napalm or mark 77s in Iraq. The reply is "yes we have used mark 77s" but this is interpreted as "no we haven't" The British press certainly doesn't seem disposed to accept this as a "misunderstanding"

Now if you go back to the OP for this thread you will notice the hypocrisy I cited was that the US was using internationally banned weapons against a country on the grounds that that country had internationally banned weapons. The 'lying' part is just an interesting aside to the main issue.
Now again, some people have claimed that as America never ratified the treaty banning these disgusting weapons they are not illegal but in that case as Saddam never signed ANY of these treaties his (if he had actually had any ) were by the same token not illegal. Thus we have a serious case of double standards which = Hypocrisy.

 

[brewnog]

Let's follow this, the British Defense Minister contacts his counterpart in the USA and explains he needs to respond to a question as to whether or not the US has used napalm or mark 77s in Iraq. The reply is "yes we have used mark 77s" but this is interpreted as "no we haven't" The British press certainly doesn't seem disposed to accept this as a "misunderstanding"

This is how you assume it went. For all we know, Mr Ingram may have asked "have you used Napalm?", and was truthfully given the answer "no". He may then have gone to his MoD chaps and said "they've said they haven't used Napalm", and they all understood this to mean "they haven't used any napalm, or any other incendiaries".

It's easy to see how the confusion between napalm and MK77 bombs (and there IS a distinction) which has become apparent in this thread, could have clouded the discourse between the US, Mr Ingram, the MoD, and the press.

Now if you go back to the OP for this thread you will notice the hypocrisy I cited was that the US was using internationally banned weapons against a country on the grounds that that country had internationally banned weapons.

While napalm has been widely banned, there is nothing in any sources posted here to say that MK77 bombs have been globally banned. Remember that incendiaries have only been banned in civilian concentrations, their use is still legal.

The 'lying' part is just an interesting aside to the main issue.

I think it's been determined that we're not dealing with "lying", but a "misunderstanding". If it was lying, I doubt Mr Ingram would still hold his job, and a full inquiry would currently be underway. This is not the case.


I ask again, what's the problem? Once the misunderstanding had been realized, it was corrected and apologised for.

 

[Art]

This is how you assume it went. For all we know, Mr Ingram may have asked "have you used Napalm?", and was truthfully given the answer "no". He may then have gone to his MoD chaps and said "they've said they haven't used Napalm", and they all understood this to mean "they haven't used any napalm, or any other incendiaries".

It's easy to see how the confusion between napalm and MK77 bombs (and there IS a distinction) which has become apparent in this thread, clouded the discourse between the US, Mr Ingram, the MoD, and the press.



While napalm has been widely banned, there is nothing to say that MK77 bombs have been banned. Remember that incendiaries have only been banned in civilian concentrations, their use is still legal.



I think it's been determined that we're not dealing with "lying", but a "misunderstanding". If it was lying, I doubt Mr Ingram would still hold his job, and a full inquiry would currently be underway. This is not the case.


I ask again, what's the problem? Once the misunderstanding had been realized, it was corrected and apologised for.

The difference between napalm and mark 77s is a like a country being asked did you drop a 70 megaton nuke on so and so and them denying it because they had actually dropped a 75megaton nuke.
Read this thread post #23. Mark 77s are specifically referenced both in the question to him and in his reply. I don't know whether you are aware or not but written questions to parliament are not something ministers answer off the top of their heads or guess at. It is an extremely important part of the democratic process and if any minister is found to have deliberately mis-led parliament it means instant dismissal. Because of this all answers are rigorously checked for accuracy.
The reason Mr Ingram is still in a job is because he was not the one who had lied.

FYI Refering to the about-turn the US gov't made in Aug 2004

It Is Still 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.

John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The U.S. is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it."

Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie," he said.

And the difference between these two devices? According to the Pentagon, while the new mixture still coats its victims bodies in fuel gel before igniting, causing untreatable third degree burns, a la Vietnam, it's less harmful to the environment.

 

[Evo]

Official government report?? Your link is to "politicalaffairs.net "Marxist thought online", you call that an official government report? Oh come now. Where is this official government report you claim to have provided proving your allegations are true that you are now claiming that I am dismissing? I don't see one, please repost it so I may read it.

He communicated his findings and suspicions at a press conference in Baghdad on Mar 3rd following which several newsagencies ran the story.

That's right, it was NOT a government report. You won't gain credibility here unless you are able to admit when you made a mistake, it's human to make mistakes, it's bad not to admit it. You also accused me of dismissing a government report that you never even furnished. You accused me of disregarding information if I didn't agree with it concerning the same non-existant report. You are making false statements.

His official report was no doubt communicated in Arabic or possibly Kurdi neither of which I speak and so the English translations available from several sources on the web seems perfectly acceptable.

He's in the Health Ministry, and it was an informal press conference, not a government report.

Until Aug 10th 2004 the US gov't consistantly denied using napalm in the invasion of iraq against a wall of accusations.

Wrong, I have right here an article from August 5th 2003, where it says the Pentagon admitted that although they hadn't used napalm, they used Mark 77 firebombs. War is about killing, unfortunately. The military's goal is to get the job done with the least amount of casualties to the troops. Incendiary bombs are not illegal when used against military targets, which is how they were used.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030805-firebombs01.htm

Now if you go back to the OP for this thread you will notice the hypocrisy I cited was that the US was using internationally banned weapons against a country on the grounds that that country had internationally banned weapons.

And you've been proven wrong, repeatedly, as has been presented several times in this thread already "international law does not prohibit their use against military forces".

 

[Art]

That's right, it was NOT a government report. You won't gain credibility here unless you are able to admit when you made a mistake, it's human to make mistakes, it's bad not to admit it. You also accused me of dismissing a government report that you never even furnished. You accused me of disregarding information if I didn't agree with it concerning the same non-existant report. You are making false statements.

He's in the Health Ministry, and it was an informal press conference, not a government report.

This is ridiculous you are playing semantics. He was sent by the Iraqi gov't in an official capacity to review health consequences of the battle in Fallujah. When he returned he reported via a press conference his alleged findings to the world. Are you saying because he didn't publish it on form 2b/a or whatever it's invalid?
If you remember in my earlier post I didn't suggest he should be believed without question, maybe he's a total fruitcake but I said before and still think it warrants investigation.
And again going back to my earlier mail it is simply ridiculous in any case to state that only Official Gov't reports have credibility as that completely negates the work of the world's entire press corp in contributing to debate. Strangely though I have never seen you make similar demands of pro-Bush posters Can you confirm if this is a usual condition you request and provide evidence as if it is not then do you not think you are being a little hypocritical in having 2 standards?
In fact in the past couple of days I have had one person instructing me on how to formulate my arguments another telling me what threads I should post and you telling me where I should source my information from. And all from the land of Freedom and free speech.

Wrong, I have right here an article from August 5th 2003, where it says the Pentagon admitted that although they hadn't used napalm, they used Mark 77 firebombs. War is about killing, unfortunately. The military's goal is to get the job done with the least amount of casualties to the troops. Incendiary bombs are not illegal when used against military targets, which is how they were used.

Agreed mea culpa I mistakenly put 2004 instead of 2003. Which doesn't change one iota the fact the US gov't argued semantics to justify their earlier denials. Ref quotes in my later mail detailing similarities between Napalm and Mark 77s. BTW It's interesting your contention re war is about killing as a justification for using these weapons. I find it hard to reconcile that with the US gov'ts stated reaons for America's attack on Iraq though, ie Iraq's imaginary terrible weapons of destruction.

And you've been proven wrong, repeatedly, as has been presented several times in this thread already "international law does not prohibit their use against military forces".

Check google practically EVERY article written about the USA's use of this weapon (including British) other than those from the US gov't refers to Napalm (and son of Napalm - Mark 77s) as banned weapons! Perhaps they are correct or perhaps it is because decent people view such weapons with such revulsion that they assume they are banned. Incidentally if it was used in Fallujah then you will note Fallujah is a city not a military base.

On March 17, 2005, Al Jazeera reported on the wholesale killings of civilians by U.S. forces in Fallujah, including through the use of napalm. In that story, Al Jazeera provided eyewitness accounts of U.S. forces killing entire families, including women and children. Likewise, Al Jazeera reported that the U.S. raided the only hospital in Fallujah at the beginning of the assault in order to prevent reports of civilian casualties.

The U.S. has yet to attempt to discredit the story published by Al Jazeera.

Furthermore, U.S. denials about using prohibited weapons in Fallujah, particularly napalm, lack credibility inasmuch as the U.S. was forced to retract previous denials of similar accusations. On March 22, 2003, following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that U.S. forces had used napalm. Noting that napalm had been banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 (a convention never signed by the U.S.), U.S. military spokesmen denied using napalm in Iraq. On August 5, 2003, however, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that U.S. officials confirmed using "napalm-like" weapons in Iraq between March and April 2003.

In a feat of semantic hair-splitting of which Bill Clinton would have been proud, the U.S. claimed the incendiaries used in Iraq contained less benzene than the internationally-banned napalm and, therefore, were "firebombs" and not napalm.

Another quote

The US has already admitted that it used napalm during the siege of Baghdad. The truth was reluctantly confirmed by the Pentagon after news reports corroborated the evidence. The military has tried to conceal the truth by saying that there is a distinction between its new weapon and “traditional napalm”. The “improved” product carries the Pentagon moniker “Mark 77 firebombs” and uses jet fuel to “decrease environmental damage”. The fact that military planner’s even considered “environmental damage” while developing the tools for incinerating human beings, gives us some insight into the deep vein of cynicism that permeates their ranks.

The Pentagon’s hair-splitting has done little to obfuscate the facts. Marines returning from Iraq call the bombs napalm and napalm it is. Journalist Simon Jenkins of the British Sunday Times describes the incidents in Falluja like this: “Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.” It is an excruciatingly painful way to die.

Independent journalists have been reporting for some time now that the US has been using banned weapons in Falluja. Iraqi doctors have noted that many of the bodies they have examined have been “swollen, yellowish and have no smell.” Asia Times online has reported that “Americans used chemical weapons in the bombing of Jolan, ash-Shuhada and al-Jubayl neighborhoods. They also say the neighborhoods were showered with cluster bombs”; an allegation that refutes the Pentagon’s claim of “precision bombing”.

While on the subject of WMD the USA also brought MOABs to Iraq which are 9.5 ton Fuel Air Bombs, the largest explosion you can get without going nuclear and stated their intention to use them if deemed necessary. So it seems USA WMD = Good; Iraq (non-existant) WMD = Bad . Sure stinks of hypocrisy to me. or is that just oil I can smell?

 

[Evo]

This is ridiculous you are playing semantics. He was sent by the Iraqi gov't in an official capacity to review health consequences of the battle in Fallujah. When he returned he reported via a press conference his alleged findings to the world. Are you saying because he didn't publish it on form 2b/a or whatever it's invalid?

He was concerned about the possible use of gas.

Strangely though I have never seen you make similar demands of pro-Bush posters Can you confirm if this is a usual condition you request and provide evidence as if it is not then do you not think you are being a little hypocritical in having 2 standards?

I'm not Republican, didn't vote for Bush, don't like Bush, the religious right in this country frightens me. You guessed that one wrong. My only standard is if you're wrong, I'll point it out, it doesn't matter which side you're on.

If you are opposed to the use of incendiary devices on a humanitarian basis, then you have an arguable position, but that wouldn't fall under the topic of this thread. Since the US doesn't appear to have violated any international laws, I guess that argument is dead, the US admits to using incendiary devices and the use was in line with International law. The fact that you don't agree with the use doesn't make it illegal.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And again going back to my earlier mail it is simply ridiculous in any case to state that only Official Gov't reports have credibility as that completely negates the work of the world's entire press corp in contributing to debate. Strangely though I have never seen you make similar demands of pro-Bush posters Can you confirm if this is a usual condition you request and provide evidence as if it is not then do you not think you are being a little hypocritical in having 2 standards?

Art, the original claim (one of them) here is that the US government officially denied using napalm. If you (or any one) were to tell me such a thing then I too would want to have a source for this "official" claim and ofcourse the best would be to site the specific official claim which would be detailed by an official government source's report. An official report is not an interview with the media even if it is from the mouth of a government official. Do you believe that when this gentleman returned to the US to file his report that he just handed in the media transcripts? Now, on top of this, if I do have an official report that does not concur with your accusations I would probably be even less inclined to believe the second (or third) hand statements of individuals regarding such reports. There's a kids game called telephone, perhaps you have heard of it?, and the premise of the game is that more than likely from one iteration to the next communicated information will tend to break down. That is why there are such things as official reports.

 

[Art]

Art, the original claim (one of them) here is that the US government officially denied using napalm. If you (or any one) were to tell me such a thing then I too would want to have a source for this "official" claim and ofcourse the best would be to site the specific official claim which would be detailed by an official government source's report. An official report is not an interview with the media even if it is from the mouth of a government official. Do you believe that when this gentleman returned to the US to file his report that he just handed in the media transcripts? Now, on top of this, if I do have an official report that does not concur with your accusations I would probably be even less inclined to believe the second (or third) hand statements of individuals regarding such reports. There's a kids game called telephone, perhaps you have heard of it?, and the premise of the game is that more than likely from one iteration to the next communicated information will tend to break down. That is why there are such things as official reports.

The US gov't unquestionably DID officially deny using napalm during it's initial invasion of Baghdad I don't think even EVO is arguing that point. They justified their denial later, when an avalanche of evidence was accumulated against them, that they were asked the wrong question because they had in fact used Mark 77s which even their own inventory records describe as napalm. They also, much later, according to the British gov't denied using either napalm or Mark 77s in response to an enquiry from the British defence minister for which I have provided a source, Hansard, which is as impeccable a source as you can get. see post #23.

 

[Art]

He was concerned about the possible use of gas.

Don't you agree this warrants investigation?

I'm not Republican, didn't vote for Bush, don't like Bush, the religious right in this country frightens me. You guessed that one wrong. My only standard is if you're wrong, I'll point it out, it doesn't matter which side you're on.

I must have missed the part where you provided examples of your insistance to pro-Bush supporters that only official gov'ts reports are credible sources. Would you show me where these examples are?

If you are opposed to the use of incendiary devices on a humanitarian basis, then you have an arguable position, but that wouldn't fall under the topic of this thread. Since the US doesn't appear to have violated any international laws, I guess that argument is dead, the US admits to using incendiary devices and the use was in line with International law. The fact that you don't agree with the use doesn't make it illegal.

The thread is about hypocrisy

While on the subject of WMD the USA also brought MOABs to Iraq which are 9.5 ton Fuel Air Bombs, the largest explosion you can get without going nuclear and stated their intention to use them if deemed necessary. So it seems USA WMD = Good; Iraq (non-existant) WMD = Bad . Sure stinks of hypocrisy to me. or is that just oil I can smell?

I'm surprised as a 'neutral' you don't see the duplicity here.

 

[sid_galt]

note my comment.

These allegations should at least merit investigation by independant 3rd party countries

That is what I mean. You need to have more proof than just one official "claiming" something to even start investigations on a country like USA or even France for that matter because aside from Abu Ghraib, US has no virtually no history of abuse.

It is also worth pointing out that the "ONE official" happens to be the person assigned by the coalition friendly Iraqi gov't to lead a team to visit Fallujah to report on the health issues there following the battle.

There are nutjobs everywhere.

 

[sid_galt]

The thread is about hypocrisyI'm surprised as a 'neutral' you don't see the duplicity here.

The USA is not a dictatorship like Iraq was.

 

[arildno]

The USA is not a dictatorship like Iraq was.

A dictatorship is something quite different from a hypocritical regime.

Nazi Germany, for example, was wholly unhypocritical; Hitler said "we will exterminate the Jews", and he went on with doing just that.
There were no double standards in ideals and practice in Nazi Germany, or for that matter, in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

This discussion seems to have spiralled into semantic sophistry for the sole purpose of one-upmanship, and to be honest Art, the tone you laid out in the OP made this inevitable. If you want people to debate the news itself, and not argue their stance on your appraisal of it, you should be a little more objective, at least in the OP. I'm not dissing you or arguing against your position, but starting the thread with accusations of hypocrisy and lies is more likely to generate debate on your wording than on the actual topic in hand.

On the other hand, I think the lengths people are going to in the cause of denial are pretty pathetic. The call for official government statements is naive at best, since if any are forthcoming they will come with all the usual spin, propaganda and tactical omissions. An amount of cynicism is healthy. Also, a lot of the links posted by both sides of the debate are either laughable (Sunday Mirror?!?) or don't really provide the reposte the posters think they do.

On the other other hand, bear the following in mind:

1. The BBC site, the only link posted so far I'd assign any credibility, does not say these weapons are used in Fallujah, but in the campaign as a whole. The intention is stated to determine WHETHER the weapons were used in Fallujah. On the other other other hand (I am a chimp), this means that posting US govt-sourced articles stating that they are NOT used in Fallujah does nothing to contradict the BBC story. This question is pending.

2. Napalm and the Mark-77 are not illegal weapons. Their use is restricted under UN protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention. The US has NOT signed the protocol. There is obviously a moral issue here, but it seems at present the US is not breaking any international law by using napalm or its ilk even in the most heavily populated areas - such as Baghdad, where it seems it has been used, or used near. Iraq, on the other hand, DID sign UN treaties banning several weapons it had stockpiled and CONTINUED to stockpile long after the first Iraq war. There is no evidence that they were used, but certainly Iraq did break ratified treaties while the US did not. Therefore accusations of hypocrisy are not accurate.

3. The US government denied using napalm. The US government did NOT deny using firebombs in general. The term 'napalm' is used in the US military to describe MK-77. The US military have used the word 'napalm' in its inventory of weapons dispatched. The US military has used the word 'napalm' to describe a weapon that has been used in Iraq. The term 'napalm' is clearly used by the international community to describe MK-77. In fact, the only body who does not describe MK-77 as 'napalm' is the US government, AFTER accusations of using napalm were made (though the UK government, keen on spin as it is, will no doubt follow suit). Kind of like describing prisoners of war as 'enemy combatants' after accusations of breach of the Geneva conventions were made. It seems a typical tactic of the Bush administration to rename things that have negative connotations and think this excuses their actions. Let's call a spade a spade - MK-77 is a type of napalm. The US denial of napalm use is irrelevant - it's just spin. It doesn't make them liars - just a**holes.

As I see it, the real issues here are:

1. Once again the Bush administration has left it's closest allies hanging out to dry. By denying the use of napalm, when the US military has referred to weapons that HAVE been used as napalm, the US government has not considered the repurcussions in other countries, or did and simply did not care. There's no way to prove that the US were, when denying the use of napalm, also denying the use of MK-77, so I don't see much point in arguing over it. However, it is blatently obvious that after the accusations of napalm use were made, the US government started making distinctions that no-one else, including it's own military, the UN and its allies, make. We already know attitude adopted by the Bush administration when it gets it's allies in trouble, following it's admission that Iraq 'probably' did not have WMDs, a statement it made without bothering to give the rest of the coalition a prior heads-up on. So the Bush administration can go poke it. But the only people who will see this disgusting unloyalty are the ones who already thought Bush administration could go poke it. POKE IT!

2. There is a judgement to be made on the US for using what amounts to napalm not only at all, but in populated areas in or close to Baghdad and, if it transpires they were used in Fallujah also, all the more so. But this is the government that has always continued to use methods and tools thought barbaric to the rest of the world and/or supports their past, present and future use by denying the side-effects they have (agent orange, depleted uranium, cluster bombs). What's new? Only the American people can put its government in line, and 52% of them can't be wrong. Can they?

 

[Evo]

Excellent synopsis on both sides El Hombre Invisible.

The military is always going to release a version of the truth which is their truth, that doesn't mean there's not "more truth" they haven't told. It's politics.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't believe extremes on either side of the news, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

People will be more likely to listen to your point when it is made calmly and when good questions are raised.

Again, very good post.

 

[Astronuc]

Excellent synopsis on both sides El Hombre Invisible.

Again, very good post.

Agreed.

While I am skeptical of just about anything coming out of the Bush administration, I am also cautious about what is reported by any news organization these days. I prefer other independent sources, if I can't verify it myself. I know my local newspaper has misquoted people in the past and taken things out of context, which sometimes produces a story completely in contradiction with the truth.

As for napalm, that being the original formulation of naphtenic and palmitic acids, is no longer used. Other compounds are used instead.

As for chemical weapons - checking the facts, one finds -

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

from http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the international organisation that was established in 1997 by the countries that have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to make sure that the Convention works effectively and achieves its purpose.

Napalm and its successors are not 'chemical weapons', nor do incendiary devices constitute weapons of mass destruction (WMD).