The Ultimate In Hypocrisy

  • News
  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
  • #1
Art
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,711
7
Where does that article state that the US are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis, and what does napalm (which wasn't used) have to do with chemical weapons anyway?
 
  • #3
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,066
8
The firebombs are pretty much napalm. It's a combustable gel munition. I had no idea they were treated as a chemical weapon though. I see no reason for them to be trated any differently than, say a cluster bomb. I fail to see what the big to do is with the Brits other than someone not knowing we used some.
 
  • #4
Art
brewnog said:
Where does that article state that the US are using illegal chemical weapons against Iraqis, and what does napalm (which wasn't used) have to do with chemical weapons anyway?
Mark 77 firebombs which are the new improved form of napalm.
The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidizers, which make it harder to extinguish than Napalm-B. But Mark-77s are referred to as 'napalm' in some current US inventories and public affairs documents.
As I stated the UN (yes that same group who the US govt says it's rulings are sacrosanct providing they concur with the US gov't opinions of course) declared fuel-gel mixture munitions illegal in 1980.

FALLUJAH NAPALMED

Nov 28 2004

US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?
By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor

US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/...694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6772 [Broken]

Chemical weapons such as mustard gas, nerve gas and napalm have been banned by international convention since the 1980s. The main justification made by the US, British and Australian governments in March 2003 for their invasion of Iraq was the claim — since proven to have been a complete fabrication — that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed stockpiles of these banned weapons and was preparing to use them, via the al Qaeda terrorist network, to attack the United States.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm [Broken]

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
691
1
Art said:
Mark 77 firebombs which are the new improved form of napalm.


As I stated the UN (yes that same group who the US govt says it's rulings are sacrosanct providing they concur with the US gov't opinions of course) declared fuel-gel mixture munitions illegal in 1980.



http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/...694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6772 [Broken]


http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm [Broken]

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??
Chemical weapons are 'usually' defined as those causing damage upon contact with the gaseous, solid, or liquid form of the weapon. In this case, Napalm does not do the damage by itself. The combustion of the napalm does the damage---the fire is what hurts not the isolated chemical.

Napalm would be a horrendous way to bite the bullet IMO and I see no reason to use it in Iraq. There are too many horror stories concerning the use of Napalm as a weapon and a defoliant in Vietnam. Granted death from above instead of send GI's into the heat of battle is preferred. Kill the bad guys but don't give them the same opportunity is the standard OP. Call be crazy, if we have a good enough clue as to the location of the bad guys then it seems a conventional munition would suffice.

The use of Napalm here is kind of funny though (ironic funny not ha ha funny) because it does apparently violate UN mandates(I'll look into this when I get a chance). The question becomes is the US a signatory on the particular treaty banning the use of Napalm?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,711
7
Art said:
As I stated the UN (yes that same group who the US govt says it's rulings are sacrosanct providing they concur with the US gov't opinions of course) declared fuel-gel mixture munitions illegal in 1980.
Sorry, I missed you stating that!

Art said:
BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??
Weapons whose primary method of action do not involve explosive force (nerve agents, like sarin and VX, blood agents like HCN, lachrymatory agents like tear gas, blister agents like mustard, plus a few other classes.) I had no idea that napalm was considered to be a chemical weapon, I just thought it was an incendiary.


Edit: I've just seen that napalm is not classed as a chemical weapon according to Wiki:

Wiki said:
There are other chemicals used militarily that are not technically considered to be "chemical weapon agents," such as:

- Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by the United States in Vietnam, or dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct chemical action.
In any case, nobody's disputing the rather nasty effect of napalm (and its relatives which don't appear to have been specifically banned).
 
Last edited:
  • #7
63
0
Art said:
Mark 77 firebombs which are the new improved form of napalm.


As I stated the UN (yes that same group who the US govt says it's rulings are sacrosanct providing they concur with the US gov't opinions of course) declared fuel-gel mixture munitions illegal in 1980.



http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/...694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6772 [Broken]


http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm [Broken]

BTW What do you think chemical weapons are??
i never heard any of this stuff on a major news station, not even the liberal ones. are you sure that this stuff is true? some of your sources look like radical liberal mags/tabloids. i am sure that if it was true, it would be all over newsweek CNN BBC the NY times etc.

fibonacci
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Art
1 said:
i never heard any of this stuff on a major news station, not even the liberal ones. are you sure that this stuff is true? some of your sources look like radical liberal mags/tabloids. i am sure that if it was true, it would be all over newsweek CNN BBC the NY times etc.

fibonacci
Quite sure. The BBC is hardly a liberal rag. It is the British National Broadcasting Corp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
691
1
1 said:
i never heard any of this stuff on a major news station, not even the liberal ones. are you sure that this stuff is true? some of your sources look like radical liberal mags/tabloids. i am sure that if it was true, it would be all over newsweek CNN BBC the NY times etc.

fibonacci
Let Google News become your friend:

http://news.google.com/news?q=NAPALM&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&sa=N&tab=wn

Top story is from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4116262.stm
this was posted in the opening post of this thread.
 
  • #10
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,066
8
I do remember hearing this a while back. It was something that didn't last for very long for whatever reasons. I remember not thinking anything of it because I didn't realize that the use of napalm was a no-no. I wonder what our military's reason for going against that ruling is...Do we even recognize it? I am sure that there was a reason to use it over other conventional munitions. The situation must have dictated it's use.

Also, why is this being brought up now? I could have sworn that napalm was used in the first gulf war and I don't remember any kind of backlash then.
 
  • #11
Art
FredGarvin said:
I do remember hearing this a while back. It was something that didn't last for very long for whatever reasons. I remember not thinking anything of it because I didn't realize that the use of napalm was a no-no. I wonder what our military's reason for going against that ruling is...Do we even recognize it? I am sure that there was a reason to use it over other conventional munitions. The situation must have dictated it's use.

Also, why is this being brought up now? I could have sworn that napalm was used in the first gulf war and I don't remember any kind of backlash then.
The reason it is an issue now is because when rumours of it's use circulated late last year and it was raised in the House of Commons the US gov't assured T. Blair they had not used this weapon. This information was then communicated to parliament. The British Defense Minister has now had to tell parliament he inadvertantly misled them back then, as he was lied to by the US.
 
  • #12
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,711
7
FredGarvin said:
I do remember hearing this a while back. It was something that didn't last for very long for whatever reasons. I remember not thinking anything of it because I didn't realize that the use of napalm was a no-no. I wonder what our military's reason for going against that ruling is...Do we even recognize it? I am sure that there was a reason to use it over other conventional munitions. The situation must have dictated it's use.
Some seem to think that napalm carries such a stigma purely because of its use in Vietnam.
 
  • #13
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,690
FredGarvin said:
I do remember hearing this a while back. It was something that didn't last for very long for whatever reasons. I remember not thinking anything of it because I didn't realize that the use of napalm was a no-no. I wonder what our military's reason for going against that ruling is...Do we even recognize it? I am sure that there was a reason to use it over other conventional munitions. The situation must have dictated it's use.

Also, why is this being brought up now? I could have sworn that napalm was used in the first gulf war and I don't remember any kind of backlash then.
There are always two sides to every story, to believe in either extreme is to be foolish. Let's not be foolish.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Art
Evo said:
There are always two sides to every story, to believe in either extreme is to be foolish. Let's not be foolish.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html [Broken]
So are you suggesting that the US were telling the truth back in January when they denied using napalm (or it's modern equiv.) and are now lying when they say they did?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Art said:
So are you suggesting that the US were telling the truth back in January when they denied using napalm (or it's modern equiv.) and are now lying when they say they did?
Did you read the link? They've denied using any incendiary weapons in Fallujah or against any insurgents. They admit to using mark-77 against the initial Iraqi defense forces in 2003, a usage which the site says is not illegal. It doesn't seem that there has been any wavering on either of these claims.
 
  • #16
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,690
Art said:
So are you suggesting that the US were telling the truth back in January when they denied using napalm (or it's modern equiv.) and are now lying when they say they did?
I must have missed the link you posted to the official US announcement of this, can you repost the link to the official US government announcement?
 
  • #17
Art
Evo said:
I must have missed the link you posted to the official US announcement of this, can you repost the link to the official US government announcement?
No you didn't miss it as I didn't post one?? However I did provide a British link. Are you suggesting the BBC are wrong or that they fabricated the Defence Minister's address to parliament?
 
  • #18
Art
loseyourname said:
Did you read the link? They've denied using any incendiary weapons in Fallujah or against any insurgents. They admit to using mark-77 against the initial Iraqi defense forces in 2003, a usage which the site says is not illegal. It doesn't seem that there has been any wavering on either of these claims.
Excerpt from the BBC article;
Mr Cohen asked in January whether the firebombs had been used by coalition forces in Iraq.

Mr Ingram replied in a written answer: "The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time.
 
  • #19
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,690
Art said:
No you didn't miss it as I didn't post one?? However I did provide a British link. Are you suggesting the BBC are wrong or that they fabricated the Defence Minister's address to parliament?
The BBC is just posting stories, like any other news media, they are not a government source. So, you have no official government source.
 
  • #20
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Some little details that haven't yet surfaced in this thread, if Wikipedia is to be believed (emphasis mine):

"Use of incendiary bombs against civilian populations was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US has not signed this agreement although they did retire use of napalm."

Dunno if they matter, but complete pictures are usually better pictures.
 
  • #21
691
1
Evo said:
The BBC is just posting stories, like any other news media, they are not a government source. So, you have no official government source.
That's a rather high bar to set now don't you think? All news has to be channeled through big brother now for it to be legit and likewise all news from big brother is automatically factual? Need I bring up Armstrong Williams and the other 'propoganda' news reports?

Even so, from your own link Evo is was stated the Mark-77 munitions were used---Napalm canister weapons.

Just playing the devils advocate on this one. haven't looked into it myself yet. No access to Lexis at the moment.
 
  • #22
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,690
faust9 said:
That's a rather high bar to set now don't you think? All news has to be channeled through big brother now for it to be legit and likewise all news from big brother is automatically factual? Need I bring up Armstrong Williams and the other 'propoganda' news reports?

Even so, from your own link Evo is was stated the Mark-77 munitions were used---Napalm canister weapons.

Just playing the devils advocate on this one. haven't looked into it myself yet. No access to Lexis at the moment.
Mark 77 is different from napalm in that it doesn't cling to the skin as napalm does, and there are other differences. In the instances that Mark 77 was used, it was never denied by the US government and is not in violation of any terms of use, which I believe for such incendiary devices are not for use in civilian populations or military within heavily populated civilian areas. The US has not violated either of these as far as I can find.
 
  • #23
Art
Evo said:
The BBC is just posting stories, like any other news media, they are not a government source. So, you have no official government source.
I am frankly incredulous that you do not see the BBC as a credible source. However here is the official trancription from Hansard;
Firebombs/Napalm
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Mark 77 firebombs have been used by Coalition forces (a) in Iraq and (b) in or near areas in Iraq where civilians lived; whether this weapon is equivalent to napalm; whether (i) the UK and (ii) the US has signed the UN convention banning the use of napalm against civilian targets; and if he will make a statement. [207246]

Mr. Ingram: The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time. No other Coalition member has Mark 77 firebombs in their inventory.

The United Kingdom is bound under Protocol III to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) not to use incendiary weapons (which would include napalm) against military targets located within concentrations of civilians.

US policy in relation to international conventions is a matter for the US Government, but all of our allies are aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law.
 
  • #24
Evo
Mentor
23,141
2,690
Art said:
I am frankly incredulous that you do not see the BBC as a credible source. However here is the official trancription from Hansard;
Any news source is questionable, see my previous post and cite where the US's use of Mark 77 is in violation.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Art
Evo said:
Any news source is questionable, see my previous post and cite where the US's use of Mark 77 is in violation.
I am glad to note that you now appear to acknowledge that the US did lie to the British gov't in January as reported by the BBC. And certainly on the basis of this the US gov't official reports are highly questionable news sources.
As for violations it has only been recently officially established (today) that they did use Mark 77s (following their prior denial) and we haven't yet been told where in Iraq they used them so it is impossible to answer the second part of your post at this time. Hopefully the inquiry being demanded by British MPs will happen and then we might find out.
p.s. Would you provide the source which said Mark 77s are less sticky than napalm please?
 

Related Threads on The Ultimate In Hypocrisy

  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
848
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
491
  • Last Post
3
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
Top