it's not napalm, it's an incendiary gel. just as gas and oj concentrate isn't napalm, and gas and packing peanuts isn't napalm, it has a comperable affect. likewise, a nail gun and air soft gun are the same principle, but different applications.
bleeding to death isn't a great way to go either for that matter, nor is burning to death in a compromised armoured vehicle, or being burned/punctured/exploded by a grenade.
war frankly is NOT supposed to be a pleasant business, it's a matter of killing or breaking the will to fight of the opponent before they do the same to you.
they used incedenary bombs. that's not napalm. it's darn close, but it's semantics.
i am a pacifist to a point. i've studied a lot of martial arts, foremost aikido. if someoen attacks me i step aside. they do again, i set them down on the ground. again? i toss them on the ground. the pull a knife, i take it away and remove their threat to those around me and myself. a nutso meth head charges me i'll just stop them from moving very fast.
if the choice is hurt one of my men vs napalm the other guys, it's a pretty clear choice. not at all a pretty one, but morally defensible as it's causing the least ammount of harm to accomplish a very unpleasant goal. |
