It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Napalm used in Iraq by USA.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Operation on Safwan Hill

There is a lookout there, a hill referred to as Safwan Hill, on the Iraqi side of the border. It was filled with Iraqi intelligence gathering. From that vantage point, they could look out over all of northern Kuwait.

It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.

Then this morning they airlifted in U.S. military forces that now hold that vantage point. So, all last night there was an intense artillery, air and missile bombardment throughout the southern part of Iraq. And that is what paved the way for the ground forces to begin pushing in.


edition.cnn.com...

www.nathannewman.org...

That the use of Napalm was declared illegal in 1980 appears not bother the Bush Administration.

Conventions that were signed up to halt mankinds fall into barbarity are seen now as hurdles between the USA and World Domination.

I will be sickened if any member here tries to justify the use of Napalm,a sticky imflamable material designed to cling to everything and burn violently.Victims are incinerated.Death is not always quick or even assured.



[Edited on 29-3-2003 by John bull 1]




posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 05:07 AM
link   
One can scarcely imagine anyone's advocating the use of napalm, were this not an actual war. The images of burning children in Vietnam still evoke the horrors of this weapon of incineration and asphyxiation.
There is nothing specific against napalm as such (it is much the same with landmines: there wasn't even anything specific about the use of herbicides in Vietnam), only the usual principles of excessive suffering, indiscriminate reach and so forth.In fact, over a decade ago, Tam Dalyell raised this in the House in the context of US use of the weapon in the Gulf War, and the Attorney General no less made the same observation. If you go rummaging through Hansard you'll find it.
It is true that one can trace a line of agreements from the 1925 gas conventions to the Third Protocol of Geneva in 1977 that all suggest this weapon should be banned, even in flamethrowers on the battlefield. But it is not specifically illegal under international law.
It is a matter of military choice: napalm looks good on CNN; but it is barbarous. On the other hand, so is war, and some will say that the end always justifies the means.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 05:58 AM
link   
So is shooting women and children trying to flee a city, so is gassing a town because they are of a different race.
I don't care what they do to Hussein and his sick, twisted henchmen, it can't be bad enough.
Ever heard first-hand accounts of the horrors of the Kurdish town the Iraqi military used several types of chemicals on? Seen the pictures of little childrfen, women, innocent people, dead in gotesque forms? If you don't cry you have no heart.
I want to see these people pay, not just for the training, funding and logistical support for terrorism but for the horrors they visited upon the children. As far as I'm concerned theycan't reach the fires of Hell fast enough.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I'm sure, Thomas, that many posters share your wish to see a fitting retribution descend upon "Hussein and his henchmen".
However, others might point out, in this context, the possibility of inflicting upon civilians precisely what you accuse Saddam of having inflicted on his own people.
It is this difficulty of avoiding indisciminate slaughter that lies at the heart of most opposition to napalm. The argument about unnecessary suffering seems a little woolly: I imagine a bayonet can cause as much "unnecessary" suffering as napalm or DU or any of the other "high-tech" advances in butchery.
Perhaps there is no high moral ground in war and we must resign ourselves to ends that justify all and any means.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Well John bull 1, if they used napalm against a civilian target, I agree with you. But if it was an hardened military target......



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Whatever the target, those are banned, and if those are not illegal, that could convince a lawyer, but not anyone with brains.

As it doesn't convince me the use of Carnivore in your e-mails and *my* emails.
As it doesn't convince me the change of laws to 'make easier to find terrorist' and at the same time 'make easier to anyone' to break into ur house with only a 'suspicion' that you are doing something wrong (no need of proofs).



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Its not liek we were using the napalm to kill civilians it was used on millitary targets. But I see no one complaining when Saddam gassed Kurdish towns, his soldiers are killing their own people, and killing the POWs. That seems to be fine with you.

I'm with TC. I have seen those photos and videos of the civialins Saddam has killed. Tears welled in my eyes and I vomited. I dont care if we do the most illegal thing to Saddam and his army as long as they die a horrible death. Babies are dead clung to their mother's arms, children are dead holding their toys and cowering with their family. Saddam and his men deserve to die for these sick crimes they have commited against children of all people.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
...But I see no one complaining when Saddam gassed Kurdish towns, his soldiers are killing their own people, and killing the POWs. That seems to be fine with you.
Simple not true, I blame Saddam as well. I'm only yelling: *'Are you going to be degrade yourselves to the same level?'*


I'm with TC. I have seen those photos and videos of the civialins Saddam has killed. Tears welled in my eyes and I vomited. I dont care if we do the most illegal thing to Saddam and his army as long as they die a horrible death. Babies are dead clung to their mother's arms, children are dead holding their toys and cowering with their family. Saddam and his men deserve to die for these sick crimes they have commited against children of all people.

I have seen images of hospitals full of childrens with amputations caused in the first hours of the joint attack against Irak. I see you are really willing to degrade yourself to the same level as Saddam.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MakodFilu

Originally posted by JediMaster
...But I see no one complaining when Saddam gassed Kurdish towns, his soldiers are killing their own people, and killing the POWs. That seems to be fine with you.
Simple not true, I blame Saddam as well. I'm only yelling: *'Are you going to be degrade yourselves to the same level?'*


I'm with TC. I have seen those photos and videos of the civialins Saddam has killed. Tears welled in my eyes and I vomited. I dont care if we do the most illegal thing to Saddam and his army as long as they die a horrible death. Babies are dead clung to their mother's arms, children are dead holding their toys and cowering with their family. Saddam and his men deserve to die for these sick crimes they have commited against children of all people.

I have seen images of hospitals full of childrens with amputations caused in the first hours of the joint attack against Irak. I see you are really willing to degrade yourself to the same level as Saddam.


Oh come on. First of all I was exargerating when I said no one cared, the majorty of the site does not vocaly say that.

Second of all, it was not our intention to injure people mainly civilians. We did go to a town and on purpose kill children. The bombings that are realted to the deaths of children are accidental.

We do not our intention to kill innocents, Saddam does that. And for his crimes he deserves to be shot a dozen times. If you are comparing American to Iraq's regime you are sadly informed.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 12:14 PM
link   
USA and Irak are clearly different...

...but for how much time?

As willing as I saw USA to enter a war against a dictator..., why USA didn't tried with Pakistanian one first? At least, *_compared_* with the countries of its neighborhood, Irak was 'almost liberal' and enjoyed a 'fairly amount of freedom'.

I hope USA would not come to EU 'trying to liberate us of the tirannity of the EU rulers'. I surely don't want you to 'liberate' me. I don't feel under a tirannity either.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Just over a week ago, it was the 35th anniversary of My Lai. Let us not be in a rush to cast the first stone. Modern warfare is appalling.
On tactics and strategy, informed debate is possible but on the "morality': I suspect there is very little moral high ground, all things considered, for anyone. And we can be sure that civilian casualties are going to get much, much higher.
I would recommend a little diligent research before one accepts unquestioningly all that is said about Saddam and the gassing of the Kurds. But even then, moral questions have a habit of dissolving into strings of accusations and improbable comparisons.
Was Waco entirely different? A little similar? How similar? Why? Why not?
We get lost.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 12:40 PM
link   
35th aniversary of First lai?hee hee.

Seriously,Surely there has to be a line somewhere.After the replies here I'm curious where that line is.

Depleted Uranium shell?
Cluster bombs?
Napalm?
Mustard Gas?
Anthrax?
Smallpox?
Sarin?
Tactical Nuclear?
IBM Nuclear?

I'm not just being facetious.It is important that we know where that line is.If we don't then we will not notice when we have crossed it.

Unless Some are saying that ,put simply,there is no line.In that case we can not only fear the worst but expect it.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The line is plain enough, J-B. It's there in international law and conventions, in military law, in national laws, in a history of military honour, in common decency, in scriptures and holy books.
If the line were not clear, politicians woudl not spend as much time as they do denying that they have crossed it.
It was crossed long ago.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 01:07 PM
link   
But if they crossed the line, it doesn't matter, because USA don't allow USA citizens to be judged by an International Court. USA didn't signed that treaty...


About disarming Irak of weapons of mass destruction...

Cold war ended in 1989? I don't remember exactly. The world has waited even more for USA to destroy its Nuclear/ Biologycal/ Chemical weaponry.

If I were Bush, I would give you 2 weeks to do so. No, I think 10 days should be enough. If you don't comply in the given time you would face the consequences... er... I forgot I was not Bush and don't have that *huge* 'defense' Strike groups of Carriers and Assault vessels to back my menaces with real means.

[Edited on 2003-3-29 by MakodFilu]



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I have said this before.I am not a pacifist.I acknowledge that occasionally war can not be avoided.

It is a philisophical truth that there can never be a war in which both sides are justified.It may take the wisdom of Solomon in some circumstances but generally the party that is defending itself is right.

One only hopes that war never loses it's brutality.God save us from the humane war where warriors just fall sleep.Give me blood and guts and aweful horror only when man looks at this will he think twice before starting a war.

But for many,my dear Estragon,the question of the line is more pertinant.If a Bullet,bayonet,or grenade is exceptable but an attack by IBM Nuclear is not .Then at what point do the means cease to be morally justifiable and become barbaric,objectionable,and depraved?

Are there two lines?one for Americans and one for Iraqis?



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 01:44 PM
link   
they probably think there are two lines, J-B: dictated perhaps by culture, religion and history.
If there must be war: I guess when only volunteer armies fight only volunteer armies, war might have some purpose, if all else has failed. When civilians are killes, or when the risk of killing cvilians is taken, the line goes.
I accept that being in a war may distort one's vision: no doubt, had I been alive in 1939-a945, I'd have thought Bomber Harris a great chap and I'd have applauded Hiroshima. ( and cursed Goering for the Blitz and Tojo for Pearl Harbour)
I think the simple answer is that war is always a failure of morality -on at least one side. All values are lost save expediency.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Yes, I am familiar with the articles with respect to the use of Napalm. I also just spent a substantial time today listening to the news and heard absolutely nothing which would confirm the allegation. Fact of
the matter is........

In 1996, the UN Commission on Human Rights Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities produced a resolution (96/16)
urging states to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium.

Furthermore such statements were denied by the US

www.theage.com.au...

Fascinating thing though while reviewing these two articles:

This from the second.....



The destruction of Safwan Hill was a priority for the attacking forces because it had sophisticated surveillance equipment...the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.


And the first.....


The destruction of Safwan Hill was a priority for the attacking forces because it had sophisticated surveillance equipment...the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.


OK guys which Herald are they talking about?


Who is the officer? Neither one of the articles mention
his name or for that matter rank?

What qualifies this alleged officer to know what napalm is??

Estragon exactly what is the price of Tea in China??

Then we have this.....



Murdoch's report was based on information from two marine officers, who said napalm was used in the air strike on the hill. One of the officers repeated that napalm was used when Murdoch was asked by The Age foreign editor to confirm the story on Friday.



So again is respect to this issue why is the article in respect to the frist two quotes citing a source from the
"Herald"???

Keep in mind this qlast quote is part of a link which can be accessed from the second.


[Edited on 30-3-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The "Herald" is of course the Sydney Morning Herald. I shall U2U you on the price of tea in China.



posted on Mar, 30 2003 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Fascinating have never actually even thought about giving someone $1.65 to read 591 words, its apparent that 57 of them have been made clear. An officer, not "the" officer presents that, no actual data on what type of officer is apparent.

Unless someone can come up with something more specific than this. Would site that I know of some great land, just off the everglades and well worth the investment of $1.65.



posted on Mar, 30 2003 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Did you read my original post Toltec ?

The source I quoted was from an eyewitness working for CNN.

How would he know?
Well he was told for one.It's not the sort of thing somebody would accidently say.I mean the soldier said Napalm but he really mean't What??

Secondly he eyewitnessed it.Now I'm not a military expert but even I could recognise a napalm attack when I saw one.It is fairly distinctive.He also describes the aftermath.

His writing style is very Hemmingway-esque.The brutality of war and all that. but the style lends itself to this medium.

Here is the link again.

edition.cnn.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join