|
US uses napalm in Iraq -- do you think it's true? | by Esteis | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Not napalm. something else. (n/t) | by joecrouse | 2005-02-08 11:59:05 |
|
like using kerosene instead of "petrol"? | by dire_lobo | 2005-02-08 12:12:03 |
|
Body bags -- "transport tubes"?! | by Esteis | 2005-02-08 12:16:32 |
|
In your own link, there's a clear denial | by romandas | 2005-02-08 12:24:30 |
| They're playing a word game. |
by Esteis |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
"claiming US forces are using napalm in Iraq, is patently false." (Emphasis added.)
Then, from the Global Security article:
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.
Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage.
So they're denying vanilla napalm, but admit to using a similar weapon.
"Did you attack him with a hammer?"
"No. I used a mallet."
The might validly deny the question literally; but they are ignoring the spirit of the question. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Handheld firearms and artillery are similar too, | by romandas | 2005-02-08 12:36:56 |
|
Is that meant as a serious answer? | by Esteis | 2005-02-08 12:40:39 |
|
I have little else in the way of proof except for | by romandas | 2005-02-08 12:45:42 |
|
Hey! My opinion IS likely to change | by Esteis | 2005-02-08 12:58:51 |
|
i have to disagree about sick weapons. | by unjust | 2005-02-08 13:18:18 |
|
To quote a few great military commanders | by DesertRat66 | 2005-02-08 13:34:04 |
|
Powedered lye | by joecrouse | 2005-02-08 13:42:10 |
|
it's quite bad whenyou inhale a fine air borne | by unjust | 2005-02-08 13:49:25 |
|
The lime spreader used to run all day, | by joecrouse | 2005-02-08 13:53:58 |
|
i'm afraid i mispoke, but you're still wrong. | by unjust | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
well, not wrong per se, but it has, and can be | by unjust | 2005-02-08 14:20:23 |
|
I never said it wasnt dangerous | by joecrouse | 2005-02-08 19:04:38 |
|
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... | by swisscheese | 2005-02-08 15:58:01 |
