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.

 

US uses banned Chemical Agents in Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The United States military has admitted it used napalm-type weapons in Iraq.

A Pentagon spokesman had told the Herald it did not have any stocks of napalm, but it seems the denial was a quibble.

The Pentagon no longer officially uses the brand-name Napalm, a combination of naphthalene and palmitate, but a similar substance known as fuel-gel mixture contained in Mark-77 fire bombs was dropped on Iraqi troops near the Iraq-Kuwait border at the start of the recent war.

www.smh.com.au...

and :

www.informationclearinghouse.info...



[changed title into Chemical Agent ]



[Edited on 9-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Moku,

Napalm is an incindiary agent. To title your thread in a manner that insinuates the US used chemical weapons due to the use of napalm, is disingenuous at least, and down right deceptive IMO. The article you linked to is, in fact, interesting and indicting as to the allegation that the US said they did NOT use napalm, but may have. So why didn't you just use it at face value instead of incorporating hyperbole and misinformation in your post?

I have noticed you doing this before.

Not good...



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Valhall, Napalm qualifies as a chemical weapon in case you didnt know. read the articles throughly and also take a look at the extensive interviews :

www.wdr.de...
( RealVideo of the MONITOR-Report in German language)

www.informationclearinghouse.info...






[Edited on 9-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Sure, its a chemical, and so is gunpowder. The thread title is dishonest.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Thomas, i'll say it again, more explicitly : Napalm qualifies as a chemical weapon and is banned from use. Read the stuff before commenting. Napalm Bombs possess the scope, the nature, and the inhumanity of death of a chemical weapon. There is no point in arguing over the definition (that remark also targets myself)



[Edited on 9-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Is that a picture of you with your dog ?.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 11:59 AM
link   
A chem weapon is defined as anything containing deadly chemicals - get past the partisanship and on to the meat.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 12:06 PM
link   
For thourough information on legal aspects of the use of Napalm, the following link provides good info :

www.deoxy.org...

Also, for a list of definitions of chemical agents, chemical weapons and toxic chemicals :

arch.foxcitieskurgan.org...

[Edited on 9-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 12:36 PM
link   
So what; A burnt Iraqi army is a good thing.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I care little about semantics, the thread is misleading. The general concept when people think of chemical weapons is chemicals that, are dispersed in liquid or gaseous states, that form toxic clouds of poison that kill people in massive numbers. Mustard gas, sarin, VX, nerve gas, ect, go in that. Napalm is generally considered a convential weapon by many, a firebomb, used since world war 2. Chemical weapon it is not, by the normal reckoning of things. In that case, as has been stated, rockets, bullets, anti tank missles are all chemical wepaons too. hell, bleach is a chemical weapon too, so stop using it in your laundry.

They used napalm? Ok.......its illegal, you say? How is that? Napalm is used for fire bombings. What is the problem here? Its part of warfare. I still fail to see what is so bad about it. it has been used alot. Illegal by whose standards?

No, technically, we did not use chemical weapons. if we had nerve gassed bagdad, then yeah, but I would hardluy consider the use of napalm to be chemical attack. Its sticky smelly gasoline based stuff that sticks to everything and burns. And smells.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

They used napalm? Ok.......its illegal, you say? How is that? Napalm is used for fire bombings. What is the problem here? Its part of warfare. I still fail to see what is so bad about it. it has been used alot. Illegal by whose standards?


Well, Napalm doesnt conform to the chemical weapons ban treaty definition of chemical weapons. It is nevertheless a chemical agent causing "unnecessary harm" to those affected, and is therefore a war crime, as the above link on international law amply demonstrates. Your definition of "chemical weapons" emcompasses the scope of decimating an entire city. I'd say that 500 napalm bombs, as used in GW1 f.ex. totally fulfill this condition, given that each Mk.77 bomb contains 750lb, which equals to more than 40000 gallons of highly dispersive and inflammable liquid. Sorry for the above confusion.



[Edited on 9-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Well, no one said Napalm was nice. Just ask the 400,000 people of Dresden who got slow roasted to death from the firebombing that occurred there, hell, my ex boyfriends father survived Dresden......he painted a pretty picture of the lower levels of hell.

Napalm is nasty, true. What was it used on though? Military targets? Villages? terrorist, or assumed terrorist camps? Remeber, Saddam DID use chemical agents on us in the first Gulf war, thats part of Gulf War Syndrome. I need to knwo what was hit and why before maikig judgements.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Well, the reports seem to indicate, that Napalm was used primarily against strategically important military targets like the Tigris/Euphrat bridges for psychological impact. (and of course probably for not damaging the precious bridges) "Shock and Awe"




[Edited on 9-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Well, theres the answer then. Bridges dont matter, they are fair game. Villages now, villages say with no real threat to them, would be different, napalming a village that didnt have rebels or wasnt working to attack us would be barbaric.

But napalming a bridge, well, bridges dont care if they get incinerated. No reral harm done, just a strateigic descision, thats all.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
But napalming a bridge, well, bridges dont care if they get incinerated. No reral harm done, just a strateigic descision, thats all.


Well these bridges used to be heavily guarded, also, the iraqi soldiers didnt intend any harm on American since they were attacked, not the opposite..



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Misleading thread title.


That is all.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 03:36 PM
link   
By this same logic, practically every bomb is a chemical weapon...



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 03:41 PM
link   
"Chemical Agents" are used by every military in existence today......no one is exempt Moku.

regards
seekerof



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Well .. i corrected chemical weapon to chemical agent and i'm sorry for the confusion. A conventional bomb relies on it's explosive power while Firebombs, rely on the massive dispersion of a gas/fluid to bring a painful death to humans alone, leaving stone or metallic structures intact. The essential point however is that because of this difference, Napalm is banned under international humanitarian agreements.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi


Well, Napalm doesnt conform to the chemical weapons ban treaty definition of chemical weapons. It is nevertheless a chemical agent causing "unnecessary harm" to those affected, and is therefore a war crime, as the above link on international law amply demonstrates.


using this logic war itself is a "war crime". even the firing of one shot can be considered a war crime.

again trying to using logic in an illogical situation it foolish. one kind of killing in a war is acceptable and another is not? i dont get that! either its all bad and wrong and we outlaw it all or we stop putting these ignorant notions of right and wrong in these "rules of how to conduct a war" manuals.

war itself lends to "unecessary harm" in general if you want to view it that way.

open ended logic is rather humorous to say the least.


bad wording on your part, try again.

ebert gives this a thumbs down. for shame!




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join