Faux News tries to scare viewers with U.N. seating chart [Archive]

yg17

Sep 22, 2009, 01:11 PM

Did anyone watch the video? Its clipped footage of them saying "he is going to be sitting 5 chairs away from Qadaffi". There was tension surrounding the recent lockerbie celebration in Libya. President Obama even said that the move was a mistake. Its like sitting a few chairs down to the guy who ****ed your girlfriend.

Once again mountain out of a mole hill. I don't even see the correlation between the video presented and the article written. In fact I think it shows a very big disconnect from recent goings on in the world and the response from the US surrounding this issue.

Why even bring it up? They're all going to be in the same room anyways. What does it matter if Obama sits next to him or across the room from him. And why no mention from Faux when McCain went to Lybia to meet with Qadaffi? This was right before the Lockerbie bomber came home but it was still in the news and it was all but certain that Scotland would release him.

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 01:12 PM

Did anyone watch the video? Its clipped footage of them saying "he is going to be sitting 5 chairs away from Qadaffi". There was tension surrounding the recent lockerbie celebration in Libya. President Obama even said that the move was a mistake. Its like sitting a few chairs down to the guy who ****ed your girlfriend.

Once again mountain out of a mole hill. I don't even see the correlation between the video presented and the article written. In fact I think it shows a very big disconnect from recent goings on in the world and the response from the US surrounding this issue.

OK- given this response, I went to a computer in the office that was a bit more private. Watched the video, and I have to say this should embarrass the hell out of Fox News. "Is the seating arrangement embarrassing for the White House?" WTF? What are they exactly trying to say here? I think it's quite clear.

A mountain out a molehill indeed- on the part of Faux News.

Dont bother with your logic. Many people are to blind to see that this is taking one line clips and trying to make fox look bad.

While yes Fox is bad this little blog entry is even worse. It is yet another example of the problem with how the internet has ruined the news.

No one has to try to make Fox look bad.

Shivetya

Sep 22, 2009, 01:20 PM

obeygiant

Sep 22, 2009, 01:22 PM

Like OMG! When I first saw this seating chart I was all "AHHHHHHHHH!" and very scared. But THEN I turned on MSNBC and surfed over to dailyKOS and I felt soooo much betterer. :cool:

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 01:22 PM

oooh... so your saying that news organizations don't all sensationalize their presentations? I would put it more on the presenter than the company as a whole. I have some real whack job friends down here that work at CNN... and they like to see what they can get away with... sometimes calling me to give me a heads up. I expect the same at Fox.

If it were one presenter, you'd have a point.

Like OMG!... saw this seating chart I was all "AHHHHHHHHH!" and very scared.

Apparently, so was everyone at Faux News.

obeygiant

Sep 22, 2009, 01:25 PM

Apparently, so was everyone at Faux News.

I thought Obama was more disappointed that he didn't get to sit next to the little red headed girl. *sad face*

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 01:25 PM

Why even bring it up? They're all going to be in the same room anyways. What does it matter if Obama sits next to him or across the room from him. And why no mention from Faux when McCain went to Lybia to meet with Qadaffi? This was right before the Lockerbie bomber came home but it was still in the news and it was all but certain that Scotland would release him.

Because they are covering the event and it might be a little awkward sitting next to someone who basically just took a **** on your doorstep a few weeks ago. I personally wouldn't want to sit anywhere near him.

On a side note does anyone know off hand if they let Qadaffi set up his "tent" in the area that was protested?

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 01:29 PM

Because they are covering the event and it might be a little awkward sitting next to someone who basically just took a **** on your doorstep a few weeks ago. I personally wouldn't want to sit anywhere near him.

On a side note does anyone know off hand if they let Qadaffi set up his "tent" in the area that was protested?

Excuse me but, didn't Scotland release the bomber? If anyone s*** on anybody, it's Scotland (not that they did, and it's their business). Libya just got their guy back. That's all. Good god, how do people make the most convoluted things out of this?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 01:32 PM

If it were one presenter, you'd have a point.

Apparently, so was everyone at Faux News.

Like most news stories (G20)/stations they have a set list they cover every hour, the broadcast will be about the same no matter who is hosting.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 01:33 PM

Excuse me but, didn't Scotland release the bomber? If anyone s*** on anybody, it's Scotland (not that they did, and it's their business). Libya just got their guy back. That's all. Good god, how do people make the most convoluted things out of this?

Perhaps you forgot about the celebration in Libya. Im sure the families of those killed understand though.

yg17

Sep 22, 2009, 01:35 PM

Because they are covering the event and it might be a little awkward sitting next to someone who basically just took a **** on your doorstep a few weeks ago. I personally wouldn't want to sit anywhere near him.

On a side note does anyone know off hand if they let Qadaffi set up his "tent" in the area that was protested?

And my point still stands. Why didn't they freak out about McCain visiting Qadaffi as he had his pants down and was squatting over the doorstep preparing to squeeze one out?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 01:47 PM

And my point still stands. Why didn't they freak out about McCain visiting Qadaffi as he had his pants down and was squatting over the doorstep preparing to squeeze one out?

They probably weren't covering a story about a senator who failed to be elected president as closely as a G20 meeting with the president of the US. They have to have information to use as filler or it would be a pretty quiet news day on G20 coverage, this just happens to be part of it. Whats wrong with reporting who the president is going to be sitting next to anyways? They mention Gordon Brown sitting near him also, am I supposed to be scared of him now too? Is that a fear tactic? OHNOEZ ZE ENGLISH!

abijnk

Sep 22, 2009, 01:58 PM

Looks like cherry picking quotes on the part of Daily Kos to me...

Although, I do have a new nutjob pundit to add to my list (as if it isn't already long enough). WTF is John Bolton trying to prove around the :40 mark? :rolleyes:

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 02:22 PM

Perhaps you forgot about the celebration in Libya. Im sure the families of those killed understand though.

What were they supposed to do? Execute the guy on arrival? This in no way is s***ing on us at all. If the situation were reversed, what do you think we would be doing? And IIRC, there wasn't even enough evidence to keep the guy in the first place. Don't you think that a lot of people would be celebrating the release of someone wrongly accused? Christ- this isn't black and white here.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 02:31 PM

What were they supposed to do? Execute the guy on arrival? This in no way is s***ing on us at all. If the situation were reversed, what do you think we would be doing? And IIRC, there wasn't even enough evidence to keep the guy in the first place. Don't you think that a lot of people would be celebrating the release of someone wrongly accused? Christ- this isn't black and white here.

The only reason he was released was medical reasons.

If my family had been killed by a terrorist and his home country celebrated his re-arrival which should have never happened I don't think I would be able to describe the level of pissed off I would be for the country who was celebrating. Its a blatant show of disrespect towards the US people who were killed.

abijnk

Sep 22, 2009, 02:33 PM

What were they supposed to do? Execute the guy on arrival? This in no way is s***ing on us at all. If the situation were reversed, what do you think we would be doing? And IIRC, there wasn't even enough evidence to keep the guy in the first place. Don't you think that a lot of people would be celebrating the release of someone wrongly accused? Christ- this isn't black and white here.

The Lybian government was specifically asked to be sensitive about his return and to not rub it in the faces of the victims (by Gordon Brown).

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 02:54 PM

The Lybian government was specifically asked to be sensitive about his return and to not rub it in the faces of the victims (by Gordon Brown).

Again- this is not a black and white issue:

Al-Megrahi's conviction was largely based on the testimony of a shopkeeper who identified him as having bought a man's shirt in his store in Malta. Scraps of the garment were later found wrapped around a timing device discovered in the wreckage of the airliner. Critics of al-Megrahi's conviction question the reliability of the store owner's evidence.

A letter published Thursday showed that Libya had invoked human rights concerns in appealing to Scotland for al-Megrahi's release.

Abdulati Alobidi, Libya's Secretary of European Affairs, said under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — a U.N. treaty — all those deprived of liberty must be "treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person."

Gadhafi engineered a rapprochement with his former critics following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He renounced terrorism, dismantled Libya's secret nuclear program, accepted his government's responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid compensation to the victims' families.

Western energy companies — including Britain's BP PLC — have moved into Libya in an effort to tap the country's vast oil and gas wealth.

Al-Megrahi was a well-known figure in the Scottish community near his prison, receiving regular treatment at the hospital and visited often by his wife and children, who lived in Scotland for several years.

Briton Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on Flight 103, welcomed the Libyan's release, saying many questions remained about what led to the bomb that exploded in the cargo hold.

"I think he should be able to go straight home to his family and spend his last days there," Swire told the BBC. "I don't believe for a moment this man was involved in the way he was found to be involved."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32487856/ns/world_news-terrorism/page/2/

The only reason he was released was medical reasons.

If my family had been killed by a terrorist and his home country celebrated his re-arrival which should have never happened I don't think I would be able to describe the level of pissed off I would be for the country who was celebrating. Its a blatant show of disrespect towards the US people who were killed.

Again, you refuse to put the shoe on the other foot. How do you think many people in Iraq feel when they see us celebrate our soldiers' return?

skunk

Sep 22, 2009, 02:59 PM

The only reason he was released was medical reasons.No, the pretext for his release was compassionate/medical reasons. The conviction was dodgy as hell, and vital evidence was withheld at both trial and appeal. The conviction was political, the release was engineered to avoid a further appeal.

If my family had been killed by a terrorist and his home country celebrated his re-arrival which should have never happened I don't think I would be able to describe the level of pissed off I would be for the country who was celebrating. Its a blatant show of disrespect towards the US people who were killed.No it is not. The man was in all likelihood innocent. I would be pissed off at the US government for conniving in the convenient fiction of Libyan guilt instead of pursuing the Iranian/Syrian connection which made far more sense, except that the Syrians were being courted to be part of the "Coalition" against Iraq in GW1 and were let off the hook. The Iranians had every reason to want to bring down a US civil airliner, since the US had shot down Iran Air 655 a couple of months earlier.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 03:08 PM

Again- this is not a black and white issue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32487856/ns/world_news-terrorism/page/2/

Again, you refuse to put the shoe on the other foot. How do you think many people in Iraq feel when they see us celebrate our soldiers' return?

I can't believe you just paralleled a deliberate terrorist action to our troops trying to instill democracy into Iraq and to liberate the people, even if you don't agree with the war it was still a far cry from terrorism on the part of the troops.

abijnk

Sep 22, 2009, 03:13 PM

Again- this is not a black and white issue:

I never said it was black and white did I? I merely pointed out that it was indeed a slap in the face given at least one direct request.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 03:13 PM

The conviction was political, the release was engineered to avoid a further appeal.

Evidence?

No it is not. The man was in all likelihood innocent.

Evidence?

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 03:14 PM

I can't believe you just paralleled a deliberate terrorist action to our troops trying to instill democracy into Iraq and to liberate the people, even if you don't agree with the war it was still a far cry from terrorism.

I can't believe you don't understand what I'm saying. The comparison wasn't between war and terrorism, the comparison was loss of loved ones. And the Iraqis have lost a lot. Do you think they're happy when they see us celebrating? Do you think they don't feel a slap in their faces?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 03:16 PM

I can't believe you don't understand what I'm saying. The comparison wasn't between war and terrorism, the comparison was loss of loved ones.

Theres a big difference between celebrating someone who deliberately killed innocent people and celebrating troops who may have accidentally killed innocent civilians during war actions.

skunk

Sep 22, 2009, 03:17 PM

Evidence? There have been other threads where this has been gone over in some detail. I do not propose to do so again.

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 03:20 PM

skunk

Sep 22, 2009, 03:21 PM

Theres a big difference between celebrating someone who deliberately killed innocent people and celebrating troops who may have accidentally killed innocent civilians during war actions."May have"??? "Accidentally"??? The assault on Fallujah was hardly either in doubt or accidental, nor was the routine and wholesale flouting of the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions, nor was the use of napalm, white phosphorus, B52s over Baghdad, and hundreds of thousands of deaths in an illegal war. Incidentally, the crew members on the USS Vincennes who shot down Iran Air 655 were given medals for doing so. How do you suppose the relatives of those victims felt?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 03:22 PM

Really? Do think it makes a difference to the families of the victims?

Yeh, intent is everything. Much like if someone accidentally ran a family member over it would be a different issue than if they deliberately did it.

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 03:24 PM

Yeh, intent is everything. Much like if someone accidentally ran a family member over it would be a different issue than if they deliberately did it.

See above.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 03:29 PM

"May have"??? "Accidentally"??? The assault on Fallujah was hardly either in doubt or accidental, nor was the routine and wholesale flouting of the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions, nor was the use of napalm, white phosphorus, B52s over Baghdad, and hundreds of thousands of deaths in an illegal war. Incidentally, the crew members on the USS Vincennes who shot down Iran Air 655 were given medals for doing so. How do you suppose the relatives of those victims felt?

Iran Air 655 did not respond and it wouldn't have been shot down if it were known to be an airliner, it was thought to be an attack jet. We did not intentionally shoot down the air craft knowing it was a passenger vessel. Terrorists target passenger vessels knowing that they carry innocent passengers.

I am going to have to see evidence of napalm usage on civilians in Baghdad I had never heard of that before, white phosphorus is usually used in war times, it just depends how you use it.

skunk

Sep 22, 2009, 03:40 PM

Iran Air 655 did not respond and it wouldn't have been shot down if it were known to be an airliner, it was thought to be an attack jet. We did not intentionally shoot down the air craft knowing it was a passenger vessel. Terrorists target passenger vessels knowing that they carry innocent passengers.Perhaps you should read up about the incident, and about the captain of the Vincennes and his penchant for aggressive behaviour in sensitive situations.

I am going to have to see evidence of napalm usage on civilians in Baghdad I had never heard of that before, white phosphorus is usually used in war times, it just depends how you use it.Napalm and white phosphorus were used in Fallujah, not Baghdad. WP is only permitted as a smoke screen, not to be dropped over civilian areas by helicopter as a terror weapon.

195707
White Phosphorus over Fallujah

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 03:55 PM

Perhaps you should read up about the incident, and about the captain of the Vincennes and his penchant for aggressive behaviour in sensitive situations.

Napalm and white phosphorus were used in Fallujah, not Baghdad. WP is only permitted as a smoke screen, not to be dropped over civilian areas by helicopter as a terror weapon.

195707
White Phosphorus over Fallujah

I read up on the incident, it was an accidental shooting.

Secondly provide evidence that the WP in the picture was used on civilians, it has been denied by the US military. Secondly there is nothing to say that it wasn't being used as a smoke screen at the time it was being dropped, they may have dropped and then had infantry clear the area. I know they also sometimes fire into hunkered down enemy combatants to clear the area (and then kill them with regular weapons).

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 03:57 PM

I am going to have to see evidence of napalm usage on civilians in Baghdad I had never heard of that before

You've got to be joking. I thought this was old news:

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to surrender.'"

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," it said.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Mr Musil said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration]".

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.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-admits-it-used-napalm-bombs-in-iraq-589508.html

I read up on the incident, it was an accidental shooting.

Secondly provide evidence that the WP in the picture was used on[B] civilians, it has been denied by the US military. Secondly there is nothing to say that it wasn't being used as a smoke screen at the time it was being dropped, they may have dropped and then had infantry clear the area. I know they also sometimes fire into hunkered down enemy combatants to clear the area (and then kill them with regular weapons).

Of course, but they lied about using napalm in the first place too. Do you really think it was never dropped on civilians? Please tell me you aren't that naive.

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 03:59 PM

Jesus, why the hell is this country so friggin backward when it comes to treaties? It's absolutely disgusting!:mad:

yg17

Sep 22, 2009, 04:00 PM

Iran Air 655 did not respond and it wouldn't have been shot down if it were known to be an airliner, it was thought to be an attack jet. We did not intentionally shoot down the air craft knowing it was a passenger vessel. Terrorists target passenger vessels knowing that they carry innocent passengers.

I am going to have to see evidence of napalm usage on civilians in Baghdad I had never heard of that before, white phosphorus is usually used in war times, it just depends how you use it.

The Vinceness never made any attempt to contact 655 on air traffic control radio frequencies. Besides, radio contact or not, anyone who can't tell the difference between an F-14 and an Airbus shouldn't be in the military. The shooting down may not have been intentional, but it did happen because of complete ignorance on our part.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:00 PM

You've got to be joking. I thought this was old news:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-admits-it-used-napalm-bombs-in-iraq-589508.html

Looks to me like they nailed some soldiers, not civilians.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:01 PM

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:02 PM

Looks to me like they nailed some soldiers, not civilians.

With napalm! WTF is wrong with this country?!!?

skunk

Sep 22, 2009, 04:03 PM

I read up on the incident, it was an accidental shooting.It was an act of culpable negligence verging on mass murder.

Secondly provide evidence that the WP in the picture was used on civilians, it has been denied by the US military. Secondly there is nothing to say that it wasn't being used as a smoke screen at the time it was being dropped, they may have dropped and then had infantry clear the area.You clearly know little about White Phosphorus. It was dropped on a city of 700,000 people. You can see clearly that this was no smoke screen. The injuries caused to civilians were horrific: reports spoke of empty sets of clothes with the occupants almost entirely consumed.

Try this for size:
http://mosquito-blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/white-phosphorus-in-iraq-burning-truth.html

As for believing US military denials, perhaps you should realise that they are not likely to be 100% candid on such matters.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:03 PM

With napalm! WTF is wrong with this country?!!?

Because bombs are so much better. :confused: Im sure the guy laying with his arm blown off/dieing really care that someone used that instead of napalm.

yg17

Sep 22, 2009, 04:05 PM

Have you ever seen an airplane in the sky? Not real distinguishable at high altitudes. From the sounds of it they were going by radar hits anyways. It was similar to another instance they had ran into with tomcats.

Because of it's short flight, IA655 was assigned a cruising altitude of 14,000 feet, less than half of what longer flights are assigned. That's low enough that you could probably tell that it's a commercial jet and not a fighter plane with the naked eye alone, or definitely with a good set of binoculars.

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 04:05 PM

Because bombs are so much better. :confused: Im sure the guy laying with his arm blown off/dieing really care that someone used that instead of napalm.

Keep your head in the sand then. I'm really tired of presenting people like you with evidence you ask for, only to have it ignored. If you honestly think you can drop something like napalm on a city and not take out civilians, I don't know what to say. It was used in Baghdad, for god's sake.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:06 PM

It was an act of culpable negligence verging on mass murder.

You clearly know little about White Phosphorus. It was dropped on a city of 700,000 people. You can see clearly that this was no smoke screen. The injuries caused to civilians were horrific: reports spoke of empty sets of clothes with the occupants almost entirely consumed.

Try this for size:
http://mosquito-blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/white-phosphorus-in-iraq-burning-truth.html

As for believing US military denials, perhaps you should realise that they are not likely to be 100% candid on such matters.

I am not reading a blog for evidence. :rolleyes:

I know what WP is used for and what it can be used for. How can you clearly see that this was no smoke screen from one picture? Im sure the streets were smoky as hell. I am sure the enemy also wouldn't want to report false claims of civilian casualties (which are inevitable) either.

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:06 PM

Because bombs are so much better. :confused: Im sure the guy laying with his arm blown off/dieing really care that someone used that instead of napalm.

While yes, either is horrible, Id think a quick death/chance of survival would be much better than having your flesh burned off of you as you stand there.

You don't know much about napalm do you? There is a reason why the rest of the civilized world (i sometimes think we don't belong in that group anymore) doesn't use it anymore.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:07 PM

Keep your head in the sand then. I'm really tired of presenting people like you with evidence you ask for, only to have it ignored. If you honestly think you can drop something like napalm on a city and not take out civilians, I don't know what to say.

They dropped it on 2 enemy locations according to your article, they didn't sheet the entire city with napalm. Lets get real here, its one payload drop not a constant stream of napalm that consumes the whole city.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:08 PM

While yes, either is horrible, Id think a quick death/chance of survival would be much better than having your flesh burned off of you as you stand there.

You don't know much about napalm do you? There is a reason why the rest of the civilized world (i sometimes think we don't belong in that group anymore) doesn't use it anymore.

Ive actually made napalm before.

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:08 PM

I am not reading a blog for evidence. :rolleyes:

I know what WP is used for and what it can be used for. How can you clearly see that this was no smoke screen from one picture? Im sure the streets were smoky as hell. I am sure the enemy also wouldn't want to report false claims of civilian casualties (which are inevitable) either.

News agencies are the enemy now? Do you think that we are actually at war with these countries and their people? We are at war with small groups.

Oh, youve made napalm, ok. Surely that means its not a sick and disgusting thing to use on a human being right? Because a slow burning flesh type death is so much more preferable over a quick explosives related one right? Also, it was done "because of its psychological effect on an enemy". Hmmm, whats it called when we use terror to get the attention of people? The word escapes me.....

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:10 PM

News agencies are the enemy now? Do you think that we are actually at war with these countries and their people? We are at war with small groups.

If I was anti-war in those countries I would report more casualties than were claimed without a second thought, its a psychological war.

skunk

Sep 22, 2009, 04:10 PM

I am not reading a blog for evidence. :rolleyes:

I know what WP is used for and what it can be used for. How can you clearly see that this was no smoke screen from one picture? Im sure the streets were smoky as hell. I am sure the enemy also wouldn't want to report false claims of civilian casualties (which are inevitable) either.

They dropped it on 2 enemy locations according to your article, they didn't sheet the entire city with napalm. Lets get real here, its one payload drop not a constant stream of napalm that consumes the whole city.
Zombie Acorn, your willingness to excuse War Crimes is nothing less than obscene.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:11 PM

Zombie Acorn, your willingness to excuse War Crimes is nothing less than obscene.

Its not a war crime, perhaps you should reread lee's article. We signed nothing restricting the use of napalm.

skunk

Sep 22, 2009, 04:13 PM

Its not a war crime, perhaps you should reread lee's article. We signed nothing restricting the use of napalm.Just because you refuse to acknowledge it does not make it less of a War Crime.

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:14 PM

If I was anti-war in those countries I would report more casualties than were claimed without a second thought, its a psychological war.

As usual, you try to worm out of the facts with YOU personally would do.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:15 PM

Just because you refuse to acknowledge it does not make it less of a War Crime.

The UN doesn't override the US unless we sign onto a treaty. We do not acknowledge it as a war crime because it isn't one anymore than dropping a bomb on someone would be, throwing a frag into a group of soldiers or laying down high caliber suppressive fire into troops.

As usual, you try to worm out of the facts with YOU personally would do.

Its the obvious thing to do for someone who doesn't want support for a war. Obviously.

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:16 PM

Its not a war crime, perhaps you should reread lee's article. We signed nothing restricting the use of napalm.

HAHA

Again the ignorance of my country astounds me, we will continue to do things even though the rest of the world has deemed it illegal and inhumane, simply because WE REFUSE TO SIGN THE TREATIES. How f'ed up is that?

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:17 PM

Its the obvious thing to do for someone who doesn't want support for a war. Obviously.

"I think that way, therefore thats what happened" <---Pretty much sums up a majority of your posts on these forums.

Reality is sooo annoying right?:rolleyes:

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:21 PM

HAHA

Again the ignorance of my country astounds me, we will continue to do things even though the rest of the world has deemed it illegal and inhumane, simply because WE REFUSE TO SIGN THE TREATIES. How f'ed up is that?

Not really ****ed up at all. Using that napalm probably caused the war effort and troop morale to drop substantially more than a high explosive weapon. I am not for the war in Iraq, but as for war in general, ill use the napalm.

Our constitution doesn't extend to any international laws that we do not sign onto. Unless some other country wants to force us into signing there really isn't much to be said.

"I think that way, therefore thats what happened" <---Pretty much sums up a majority of your posts on these forums.

Reality is sooo annoying right?:rolleyes:

Its happened in reality before, where do you think I got the idea?

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:23 PM

Its happened in reality before, where do you think I got the idea?

When you make claims, the burden of proof is on you. "It's happened before" is not proof.

As for napalm, its use is disgusting. Troop morale has something to do with BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE??? I don't want anything to do with troops that get their kicks out of such sick actions.

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 04:24 PM

They dropped it on 2 enemy locations according to your article, they didn't sheet the entire city with napalm. Lets get real here, its one payload drop not a constant stream of napalm that consumes the whole city.

Umm..according to the article, there are three. I'm sure if I keep looking around the net I'll find more. Let's see- the pentagon lied about using napalm in three instances. Do you really think that's all there were? Honestly?

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:26 PM

Our constitution doesn't extend to any international laws that we do not sign onto. Unless some other country wants to force us into signing there really isn't much to be said.

I can say all I want about the ignorance of this statement. There is a reason when the rest of the world reaches a consensus. Why are we the only ones that continue to say "F$$$ OFF" to the world? (as we continue to try and control it)

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:38 PM

I can say all I want about the ignorance of this statement. There is a reason when the rest of the world reaches a consensus. Why are we the only ones that continue to say "F$$$ OFF" to the world? (as we continue to try and control it)

When the rest of the world surrenders as many troops as we do to a worldly cause they can start making more decisions that effect the lives of those troops. Psychological war saves lives.

I am more than happy to pull out of the world and let them deal with their own issues, I can guarantee it wouldn't be a couple years before we were called back in for aide though.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:40 PM

When you make claims, the burden of proof is on you. "It's happened before" is not proof.

As for napalm, its use is disgusting. Troop morale has something to do with BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE??? I don't want anything to do with troops that get their kicks out of such sick actions.

Enemy troop morale, for some reason when you see your fellow soldiers burned alive it puts a downer on the cause. Usually leading to fractures in the hierarchy and defectors. Consequently saving American lives.

freeny

Sep 22, 2009, 04:41 PM

First off, what did Qadaffi do? Wasnt it the Scottish govmt that released the bomber? Arent we angry with them or did i miss something?...

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:42 PM

Enemy troop morale, for some reason when you see your fellow soldiers burned alive it puts a downer on the cause. Usually leading to fractures in the hierarchy and defectors. Consequently saving American lives.

In simpler terms, terrorism. But its ok, cuz were america! Hell yea!:rolleyes:

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:42 PM

First off, what did Qadaffi do? Wasnt it the Scottish govmt that released the bomber? Arent we angry with them or did i miss something?...

The Libyan government was asked to keep it toned down on his arrival, there was a celebration instead.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:43 PM

In simpler terms, terrorism. But its ok, cuz were america! Hell yea!:rolleyes:

Its not an act of terrorism if you are at war with a country. If that were the case then every action taken out during war times would be considered terrorism.

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 04:47 PM

Its not an act of terrorism if you are at war with a country. If that were the case then every action taken out during war times would be considered terrorism.

War is terror.

leekohler

Sep 22, 2009, 04:47 PM

I am more than happy to pull out of the world and let them deal with their own issues, I can guarantee it wouldn't be a couple years before we were called back in for aide though.

There's a difference between asking for aid, and pre-emptive war.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 04:59 PM

War is terror.

Easy to say, not so easy to live with. If war is terror we shouldn't have got involved in WW2.

abijnk

Sep 22, 2009, 05:03 PM

Its not an act of terrorism if you are at war with a country. If that were the case then every action taken out during war times would be considered terrorism.

Well then, by your reasoning here 9/11 wasn't a terror attack.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 05:05 PM

Well then, by your reasoning here 9/11 wasn't a terror attack.

If there had been a declaration of war from a country previous to 9/11 we would have one less country on the world map today.

abijnk

Sep 22, 2009, 05:10 PM

If there had been a declaration of war from a country previous to 9/11 we would have one less country on the world map today.

The group who bombed us has been saying for many years that they are at war with us.

Also, has there been a declaration of war? From anyone?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 05:10 PM

The group who bombed us has been saying for many years that they are at war with us.

Yeh, little problem, they aren't a country and cannot declare war.

abijnk

Sep 22, 2009, 05:17 PM

Yeh, little problem, they aren't a country and cannot declare war.

Why not? We are a country and yet have waged a war without a formal declaration. Why not the contrapositive?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 05:21 PM

Why not? We are a country and yet have waged a war without a formal declaration. Why not the contrapositive?

You have to be a recognized country to declare war on another country. I cannot declare war on Russia tomorrow on a whim or representing the US.

We have continually voted to fund this war, thats enough of a declaration for me. I personally wouldn't be over there to start with.

abijnk

Sep 22, 2009, 05:22 PM

You have to be a recognized country to declare war on another country. I cannot declare war on Russia tomorrow on a whim or representing the US.

We have continually voted to fund this war, thats enough of a declaration for me. I personally wouldn't be over there to start with.

In case you didn't get it, I was just throwing out outlandish stuff. Kinda like you dismissing war crimes, it seemed like fun...

Eraserhead

Sep 22, 2009, 05:25 PM

HAHA

Again the ignorance of my country astounds me, we will continue to do things even though the rest of the world has deemed it illegal and inhumane, simply because WE REFUSE TO SIGN THE TREATIES. How f'ed up is that?

What are the relevant treaties. I'm curious as to who else has signed them. And whether any "bad" countries have.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 05:47 PM

What are the relevant treaties. I'm curious as to who else has signed them. And whether any "bad" countries have.

I can't find any information on it, I tried searching 1980 UN treaty napalm.

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 06:03 PM

You have to be a recognized country to declare war on another country. I cannot declare war on Russia tomorrow on a whim or representing the US.

We have continually voted to fund this war, thats enough of a declaration for me. I personally wouldn't be over there to start with.

Oh you mean we have to adhere to international law? Or can we pick and choose like with the Geneva convention? :rolleyes:

skunk

Sep 22, 2009, 06:04 PM

Here you are, then.International law does not necessarily prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets,[9] but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, (often referred to as the CCW) in 1980. Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of incendiary weapons (not only napalm), but a number of states have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), states are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, if they ratify at least two of the five protocols. The United States, for example, is a party to the CCW but did not sign protocol III.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 06:10 PM

Oh you mean we have to adhere to international law? Or can we pick and choose like with the Geneva convention? :rolleyes:

We only have to adhere to international laws that we sign onto, this really isn't that tough of a concept. If we chose we could have withheld our signature to the Geneva convention, its in our power to do so.

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 06:12 PM

We only have to adhere to international laws that we sign onto, this really isn't that tough of a concept. If we chose we could have withheld our signature to the Geneva convention, its in our power to do so.

I'm saying the laws we choose to not sign reflect horribly upon this nation. As for the geneva convention, we violated it, but hey who the hell cares we're the US, we're above the laws we choose to ignore! :cool:

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 06:57 PM

I'm saying the laws we choose to not sign reflect horribly upon this nation. As for the geneva convention, we violated it, but hey who the hell cares we're the US, we're above the laws we choose to ignore! :cool:

Our international presence is higher than any other country that I know of, sometimes its easier to shelf ideas when you don't have to sacrifice because of the shelving. Many other countries can give up on a plethora of activities that seem barbaric such as bombing, shooting, etc because we are the ones out there dieing. If I can napalm a hostile enemy and end a week war in a day then I am going to do it.

skunk

Sep 22, 2009, 07:01 PM

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 07:14 PM

Eraserhead

Sep 22, 2009, 07:43 PM

What would you say to using germ warfare with the same rationale?

Or what about nuclear weapons?

Eraserhead

Sep 22, 2009, 07:56 PM

Zombie Acorn

Sep 22, 2009, 10:18 PM

We've signed up and we get involved internationally...

Your budget: ~$54 Billion

Our budget: ~$515 Billion

NT1440

Sep 22, 2009, 11:22 PM

Your budget: ~$54 Billion

Our budget: ~$515 Billion

So because we pay more we shouldn't be held up to societal standards?

Oh you guys and your "the rich can do anything they want" mentality. :rolleyes:

Iscariot

Sep 23, 2009, 12:03 AM

Our international presence is higher than any other country that I know of, sometimes its easier to shelf ideas when you don't have to sacrifice because of the shelving. Many other countries can give up on a plethora of activities that seem barbaric such as bombing, shooting, etc because we are the ones out there dieing. If I can napalm a hostile enemy and end a week war in a day then I am going to do it.

Your budget: ~$54 Billion

Our budget: ~$515 Billion

Seriously? You're going with this line of argument? Are you aware of how ridiculously geocentric, arrogant, ignorant and disrespectful it is? You do realize that the coalition in Afghanistan has lost as many men as the Americans have? That your allies have bled as much as you have, have seen as many young men sent home in coffins, including over 200 Brits and 130 Canadians? Or that Canada have contributed more men to peacekeeping than your nation, despite having 1/10th the population, while you withhold your dues?
We've signed up and we get involved internationally...

Perhaps you're not beating your chest hard enough. A little war will put hair on it!

hulugu

Sep 23, 2009, 12:39 AM

The Vinceness never made any attempt to contact 655 on air traffic control radio frequencies. Besides, radio contact or not, anyone who can't tell the difference between an F-14 and an Airbus shouldn't be in the military. The shooting down may not have been intentional, but it did happen because of complete ignorance on our part.

To be fair, both aircraft may have similar radar profiles when approaching at speed. In the case of an attack by a F-14, by the time you can see the aircraft using a pair of binoculars you've already been hit, such is the long-range and confusing nature of modern warfare.

That said, it appears that the crew of the USS Vincennes may have been dealing with a psychological lapse called "scenario fulfillment" in which training overrides a person's ability to properly evaluate a situation. In such a circumstance, the crew may have thought they were going through a logical set of procedures without actually considering that the aircraft could be an Airbus carrying 290 people rather than a single F-14 on an attack run. The Wiki article mentions this.

This isn't an excuse, but an important aspect of what happened. The men on the USS Vincennes weren't looking to shot down an airliner, but they did. Learning why is an important part of the story.

What is accomplished by using napalm over a bomb other than being barbaric?

Against certain concrete and brick structures, napalm may be more effective as a weapon. The heat sucks up all the oxygen and can suffocate people in closed spaces even if they are actually protected against the flames. But, for the psychological effects, napalm (and various derivatives) is a powerful psychological weapon.
It shouldn't be used.

Our international presence is higher than any other country that I know of, sometimes its easier to shelf ideas when you don't have to sacrifice because of the shelving. Many other countries can give up on a plethora of activities that seem barbaric such as bombing, shooting, etc because we are the ones out there dieing. If I can napalm a hostile enemy and end a week war in a day then I am going to do it.

On the other hand, if the most powerful nation on Earth with one of the largest and the most technologically advanced militaries cannot refrain from using the most barbaric of tactics, why should anyone else?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 02:56 AM

Seriously? You're going with this line of argument? Are you aware of how ridiculously geocentric, arrogant, ignorant and disrespectful it is? You do realize that the coalition in Afghanistan has lost as many men as the Americans have? That your allies have bled as much as you have, have seen as many young men sent home in coffins, including over 200 Brits and 130 Canadians? Or that Canada have contributed more men to peacekeeping than your nation, despite having 1/10th the population, while you withhold your dues?

Source on Canada having more men in peacekeeping and what your definition of peacekeeping is.

Also this isn't an argument about who bled more (we have more than any other one country and I think you know that) its an argument of whether we should have to shelve things like napalm just because other countries have.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 02:57 AM

On the other hand, if the most powerful nation on Earth with one of the largest and the most technologically advanced militaries cannot refrain from using the most barbaric of tactics, why should anyone else?

Blowing someone up or shooting/wounding them and leaving them to die isn't barbaric, but napalming them is. Hmmmmm

Iscariot

Sep 23, 2009, 06:56 AM

Source on Canada having more men in peacekeeping and what your definition of peacekeeping is.

UN peacekeeping missions.

Also this isn't an argument about who bled more (we have more than any other one country and I think you know that)

In what greater context? If you consider it on a per population basis, then no, we've bled far more. Historical basis? Us again (1/10 of our population fought in WWI, 1/20 of our population lost their lives), which says nothing of the losses of Russia during WWII. If it's a pure loss of life issue, than armies have nothing on civilians, which is precisely the point. How many civilian lives do you trade for improved troop safety? How many foreign lives equal one American life?

Eraserhead

Sep 23, 2009, 08:08 AM

That said, it appears that the crew of the USS Vincennes may have been dealing with a psychological lapse called "scenario fulfillment" in which training overrides a person's ability to properly evaluate a situation. In such a circumstance, the crew may have thought they were going through a logical set of procedures without actually considering that the aircraft could be an Airbus carrying 290 people rather than a single F-14 on an attack run. The Wiki article mentions this.

This isn't an excuse, but an important aspect of what happened. The men on the USS Vincennes weren't looking to shot down an airliner, but they did. Learning why is an important part of the story.

Then why were they given medals when they screwed up?

On the other hand, if the most powerful nation on Earth with one of the largest and the most technologically advanced militaries cannot refrain from using the most barbaric of tactics, why should anyone else?

Especially against US troops.

How many foreign lives equal one American life?

1

hulugu

Sep 23, 2009, 10:30 AM

Then why were they given medals when they screwed up?

Politics. Alhoguh does anyone know what medal was given to the crew? There's a difference between a combat medal and say the Navy Cross.

Blowing someone up or shooting/wounding them and leaving them to die isn't barbaric, but napalming them is. Hmmmmm

There's an argument that even war has rules and that certain tactics (i.e. total war) should be avoided. Maybe it's an ideal more suited to medeival knights and ransoming, but if we're going to push the idea that our enemies can commit war crimes, and even punish men like Saddam for them, we must be willing to apply the same standards to our own conduct. Again, if the biggest guy on the block uses every weapon at his disposal how can we then decry the use of asymmetric weapons, including a biological or chemical attack on civilians?
Does war have rules or is war a matter of bloody and heinous attrition?

Gelfin

Sep 23, 2009, 10:37 AM

How many foreign lives equal one American life?

1

Hey, now, don't be too quick with that math. ZA's central argument (accurate or not) seems to be that our massive buying power and low overhead allows us to offer you top quality human lives at the lowest everyday prices. Why pay more?

And if some small number of your American-brand humans think there's a valid tactical reason to prefer spraying people with lit gelatinous gasoline up close instead of shooting them from afar, or can't tell the difference between a tent containing a terrorist training school and a tent containing a wedding, you should just remember what a bargain you're getting.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 11:30 AM

UN peacekeeping missions.

In what greater context? If you consider it on a per population basis, then no, we've bled far more. Historical basis? Us again (1/10 of our population fought in WWI, 1/20 of our population lost their lives), which says nothing of the losses of Russia during WWII. If it's a pure loss of life issue, than armies have nothing on civilians, which is precisely the point. How many civilian lives do you trade for improved troop safety? How many foreign lives equal one American life?

And if after losing 1/10 of your population you wanted to use napalm to further reduce life consumption I would have no qualms with it.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 11:33 AM

There's an argument that even war has rules and that certain tactics (i.e. total war) should be avoided. Maybe it's an ideal more suited to medeival knights and ransoming, but if we're going to push the idea that our enemies can commit war crimes, and even punish men like Saddam for them, we must be willing to apply the same standards to our own conduct. Again, if the biggest guy on the block uses every weapon at his disposal how can we then decry the use of asymmetric weapons, including a biological or chemical attack on civilians?
Does war have rules or is war a matter of bloody and heinous attrition?

That all sounds good until you have an enemy who doesn't give a crap about your rules. It reminds me of guerrilla tactics against soldiers who thought the proper way to fight a battle was to stand in front of each other and take turns shooting volleys at each other. "Thats not the proper way to wage war", uhh.. too bad.

There really is only a small difference between napalming an enemy platoon and blowing them up. That is way different then spreading disease to civilians.

NT1440

Sep 23, 2009, 01:02 PM

There really is only a small difference between napalming an enemy platoon and blowing them up. .

I guess its small if you don't give a damn about human suffering. Those killed by blasts die much quicker (even if its by blood loss) than someone BURNING ALIVE.

obeygiant

Sep 23, 2009, 01:46 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/22/784853/-Fox:-U.N.-seating-chart-reveals-Obama-terror-agenda

(yes, I know that's not exactly an unbiased site, but the video on the link speaks for itself)

So at the U.N. Security Council meeting on Thursday, President Obama will be seating a few feet away from Lybian leader Moammar Qadaffi and Faux News is trying its usual scare tactics with viewers. They're making a huge deal out of absolutely nothing. Not to mention the fact that all you heard from Faux News was crickets when McCain met with Qadaffi in Lybia shortly before the Lockerbie bomber was released.

Can someone remind me how they're able to call themselves "fair and balanced" without breaking any laws and regulations regarding false advertising?

FTA: OMFG, this is terrifying news: President Obama might actually be sitting "just a few feet away" from Libyan leader Moammar Qadaffi on Thursday.

Thanks to our friends at Fox, we now know that when President Obama attends Thursday's U.N. Security Council meeting on nuclear non-proliferation, Qadaffi will be there -- in the same room! They might even be sitting a few seats apart. It's almost like they are best friends!

And it's all the proof you'll ever need to spread the message that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim Kenyan thug from Chicago hell-bent on terrorizing America.

Speaking of making a big deal out of nothing! I think its actually the dailyPOS that's pushing the idea that "Obama is a secret Muslim Kenyan thug from Chicago hell-bent on terrorizing America" Faax Noos didn't say anything like that. LOL, what a crock of ****!

Sophism is alive and well!

Macky-Mac

Sep 23, 2009, 01:55 PM

OK! OK! if nobody wants to sit next to Qadaffi, then I'll sit there.....sheesh :p

Does anyone know? Did he end up pitches his tent on The Donald's lawn?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 02:35 PM

I guess its small if you don't give a damn about human suffering. Those killed by blasts die much quicker (even if its by blood loss) than someone BURNING ALIVE.

Let me assure you that you die fairly quick from napalm burns, you would go into shock within a few seconds. Probably much quicker than a rifle wounding, although you've probably never killed anything with a gun before and think its like hollywood portrays.

NT1440

Sep 23, 2009, 03:10 PM

Let me assure you that you die fairly quick from napalm burns, you would go into shock within a few seconds. Probably much quicker than a rifle wounding, although you've probably never killed anything with a gun before and think its like hollywood portrays.

So first we're comparing bombs to napalm and then you throw rifles into the mix. Where is your field, let alone the goalposts? :rolleyes:

As for your last line, don't talk to me like I'm a moron who can only absorb information from movies just because I don't go hunting on the weekends.

Edit: A survivor of a napalm attack: "Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phúc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a famous Vietnam War photograph. "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Napalm generates temperatures of 800 to 1,200 degrees Celsius."

Edit: Here's the picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg I had no idea that was the the same person from this iconic picture until I read up on it.
I hate to involve wiki, but everything else I've searched for comes up with a crappy metal band.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 03:14 PM

So first we're comparing bombs to napalm and then you throw rifles into the mix. Where is your field, let alone the goalposts? :rolleyes:

As for your last line, don't talk to me like I'm a moron who can only absorb information from movies just because I don't go hunting on the weekends.

Edit: A survivor of a napalm attack: "Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phúc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a famous Vietnam War photograph. "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Napalm generates temperatures of 800 to 1,200 degrees Celsius."

I hate to involve wiki, but everything else I've searched for comes up with a crappy metal band.

I included rifle wounds in my list of barbaric things earlier, you are the one who cherry picked bombs, I didn't move the goal posts.

Secondly if he survived napalm he didn't get a direct hit, 1200 degrees Celsius melts flesh.

Lastly I know that you've never killed anything with a rifle and had to put it out of its misery or you'd think it were just as barbaric as I do.

NT1440

Sep 23, 2009, 03:19 PM

I included rifle wounds in my list of barbaric things earlier, you are the one who cherry picked bombs, I didn't move the goal posts.

Secondly if he survived napalm he didn't get a direct hit, 1200 degrees Celsius melts flesh.

Lastly I know that you've never killed anything with a rifle and had to put it out of its misery or you'd think it were just as barbaric as I do.

The discussion was the use of napalm vs. bombs. Rifles had nothing to do with the discussion.

There are only direct hits when napalm is involved? Silly me :rolleyes: Part of its problem (aside from the horrid things it will do to you) is that it isn't anywhere near an accurate weapon. We've been getting (somewhat) better with bombs from killing civilians, napalm just destroys an area and anyone near.

As for your last sentence, theres a huge difference between going out to shoot and putting something out of its misery, though I have no idea what bearing that comment has on the discussion at hand.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 03:30 PM

The discussion was the use of napalm vs. bombs. Rifles had nothing to do with the discussion.

There are only direct hits when napalm is involved? Silly me :rolleyes: Part of its problem (aside from the horrid things it will do to you) is that it isn't anywhere near an accurate weapon. We've been getting (somewhat) better with bombs from killing civilians, napalm just destroys an area and anyone near.

As for your last sentence, theres a huge difference between going out to shoot and putting something out of its misery, though I have no idea what bearing that comment has on the discussion at hand.

Bomb shrapnel is just as inaccurate. I imagine having some metal lodged in your chest probably won't feel too super either. Either way my point stands, napalm can be used if it will save war efforts or lives. If you choose not to use it fine, I will trust the generals discretion on this since they are out there.

NT1440

Sep 23, 2009, 03:33 PM

Bomb shrapnel is just as inaccurate. I imagine having some metal lodged in your chest probably won't feel too super either. Either way my point stands, napalm can be used if it will save war efforts or lives. If you choose not to use it fine, I will trust the generals discretion on this since they are out there.

Brace yourself, its, The Ultimate Cop Out!

What does being in a place have anything to do with the fact that napalm burns people alive, which is barbaric by any stretch of the mind?

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 03:57 PM

Brace yourself, its, The Ultimate Cop Out!

What does being in a place have anything to do with the fact that napalm burns people alive, which is barbaric by any stretch of the mind?

Every act of killing is barbaric. Stop sensationalizing.

NT1440

Sep 23, 2009, 04:02 PM

Every act of killing is barbaric. Stop sensationalizing.

Yet most of the rest of the civilized world has deemed napalm as too barbaric to use. Whatever though, we're america, screw the rest, whatever we choose is the best!

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 04:15 PM

Yet most of the rest of the civilized world has deemed napalm as too barbaric to use. Whatever though, we're america, screw the rest, whatever we choose is the best!

They didn't complain when it was convenient for them, the first drop was against nazi germany.

NT1440

Sep 23, 2009, 04:16 PM

They didn't complain when it was convenient for them, the first drop was against the germans.

And the rest of us have grown up......

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 04:17 PM

And the rest of us have grown up......

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Macaddicttt

Sep 23, 2009, 04:21 PM

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

It's hypocritical to learn from one's mistakes? :rolleyes:

"Let's ban slavery."
"Well, since we've had slavery for so long, it'd be hypocritical of us to get rid of it now."

NT1440

Sep 23, 2009, 04:22 PM

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

It's called LEARNING from the past. I know we don't really like that here....

Gelfin

Sep 23, 2009, 04:28 PM

Every act of killing is barbaric. Stop sensationalizing.

So why stop at anything? Is that what you're saying?

Some people would infer from that observation that we should make our most important priority to avoid doing it at all.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 04:30 PM

So why stop at anything? Is that what you're saying?

Some people would infer from that observation that we should make our most important priority to avoid doing it at all.

Why would anyone want to go to war? I thought saving lives was the priority.

It's hypocritical to learn from one's mistakes? :rolleyes:

"Let's ban slavery."
"Well, since we've had slavery for so long, it'd be hypocritical of us to get rid of it now."

Why does it always go back to slavery for you guys? Ive noticed this.

Scenario A. I save your ass with a high powered machine gun, days later you vote to ban high powered machine guns. I refuse to sign, you call me an *******, I call you a hypocrite.

NT1440

Sep 23, 2009, 04:35 PM

Why does it always go back to slavery for you guys? Ive noticed this.

Scenario A. I save your ass with a high powered machine gun, days later you vote to ban high powered machine guns. I refuse to sign, you call me an *******, I call you a hypocrite.

Why slavery? Because its an issue that everyone (who is rational) can understand, and its a prime example.

As for your scenario, i like how you always rely on your own silly black and white situations to try to get your point across. WE HAVE BETTER WEAPONS THAT KILL LESS UNINTENDED PEOPLE NOW. If you think we should live in the past, as it seems you do on almost every issue we debate on, then I have nothing left to say to you.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 04:37 PM

Why slavery? Because its an issue that everyone (who is rational) can understand, and its a prime example.

As for your scenario, i like how you always rely on your own silly black and white situations to try to get your point across. WE HAVE BETTER WEAPONS THAT KILL LESS UNINTENDED PEOPLE NOW. If you think we should live in the past, as it seems you do on almost every issue we debate on, then I have nothing left to say to you.

We dropped napalm on enemy soldiers, they were all intended targets.

NT1440

Sep 23, 2009, 04:41 PM

We dropped napalm on enemy soldiers, they were all intended targets.

And i'm entirely sure there were no civilian casualties or injuries right? :rolleyes:

Gelfin

Sep 23, 2009, 04:54 PM

Scenario A. I save your ass with a high powered machine gun, days later you vote to ban high powered machine guns. I refuse to sign, you call me an *******, I call you a hypocrite.

Even if we stipulate your notion that America is to the world as Superman is to Metropolis, look at it this way: Suppose I'm being mugged at knifepoint. As I'm handing over my wallet, you appear from the shadows, taser the mugger and he falls to the ground. Then just as I'm about to thank you you pull out a ten pound sledgehammer and begin crushing the unconscious mugger's skull to jelly.

Am I an ingrate when I testify at your murder trial, or am I allowed to say, "glad as I am not to have been successfully mugged, that's a little too ****ing far and I cannot support it."

Peterkro

Sep 23, 2009, 05:12 PM

Brace yourself, its, The Ultimate Cop Out!

What does being in a place have anything to do with the fact that napalm burns people alive, which is barbaric by any stretch of the mind?It's worse than that,theuse of napalm,WP and other weapons of modern warfare are aimed at not to kill large numbers of people but to incapacite large numbers and thereby tie up resources.The fact that nearly all these people will die eventually is a bonus.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 07:24 PM

It's worse than that,theuse of napalm,WP and other weapons of modern warfare are aimed at not to kill large numbers of people but to incapacite large numbers and thereby tie up resources.The fact that nearly all these people will die eventually is a bonus.

If napalm or WP simply incapacitates you then you must be a machine off of terminator.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 07:25 PM

Even if we stipulate your notion that America is to the world as Superman is to Metropolis, look at it this way: Suppose I'm being mugged at knifepoint. As I'm handing over my wallet, you appear from the shadows, taser the mugger and he falls to the ground. Then just as I'm about to thank you you pull out a ten pound sledgehammer and begin crushing the unconscious mugger's skull to jelly.

Am I an ingrate when I testify at your murder trial, or am I allowed to say, "glad as I am not to have been successfully mugged, that's a little too ****ing far and I cannot support it."

If he was holding you at knife point and about to stab you then I smashed him with the sledge I think it would be alright. It would be a dick move to say that your life wasn't in danger/saved.

Eraserhead

Sep 23, 2009, 08:52 PM

If he was holding you at knife point and about to stab you then I smashed him with the sledge I think it would be alright. It would be a dick move to say that your life wasn't in danger/saved.

I was robbed at gunpoint with a real gun. My life wasn't under threat at any stage only my posessions were. They weren't going to turn a mugging (from
which they'd probably get away with) into murder (which they probably wouldn't.)

hulugu

Sep 23, 2009, 10:42 PM

That all sounds good until you have an enemy who doesn't give a crap about your rules. It reminds me of guerrilla tactics against soldiers who thought the proper way to fight a battle was to stand in front of each other and take turns shooting volleys at each other. "Thats not the proper way to wage war", uhh.. too bad.

There really is only a small difference between napalming an enemy platoon and blowing them up. That is way different then spreading disease to civilians.

I'm not sure, but I think you're referring to British complaints that American soldiers (really Minuteman and various irregulars) engaged British troops in short fights and then retreated, essentially classical guerilla warfare—although if we're going to talk about who started it, we might find a good start in antiquity when Germans wiped out a Roman legion in the Teutoburg Forest. Of course, the British also complained about the American's use of sniper fire against officers and assaults on supply lines.

What I think might be illustrative of my point is the Battle of Waxhaw Creek (or Buford's Massacre) when British troops under the command of Banastre Tarleton attacked and ended up slaughtering nearly all of Buford's men. The battle became a rallying cry for the Americans and helped to drive public opinion which had been vacillating between the revolutionaries and the British towards the colonies.
The lack of mercy was called "Tarleton's quarter."

In the modern age, the use of weapons that are perceived to be brutal and unnecessary helps to move the course of a war. Using napalm, WP, or for that matter torture, breaks down the effort and drives the civilians away from their users.

You say that using germ warfare against civilians is "way different" proving there's a limit, a line that shouldn't be crossed. If you accept that total war, or kill everything that moves to protect your guys—the neutron bomb would be an ideal weapon—is wrong, then you've just agreed that there are limits to war. If there are limits, then there are limits to what weapons should be used when.

One of the things you seem to misunderstand is how napalm acts when dropped. It doesn't stick like the jelly you can make at home, instead it aerosols and spreads in fine droplets everywhere. People who are at safe distance from a similar explosive weapon can be sprayed with jellied gasoline. That's what happened to the girl in the picture during Vietnam and that's what appears to have happened in Iraq. There are also thermobaric effects and secondary fires.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 23, 2009, 11:08 PM

What I think might be illustrative of my point is the Battle of Waxhaw Creek (or Buford's Massacre) when British troops under the command of Banastre Tarleton attacked and ended up slaughtering nearly all of Buford's men. The battle became a rallying cry for the Americans and helped to drive public opinion which had been vacillating between the revolutionaries and the British towards the colonies.
The lack of mercy was called "Tarleton's quarter."

It was used 3 times on enemy personnel by military admission. Most likely part of a "shock and awe" type tactic to destroy enemy morale (probably did a pretty good job). At the time the defenses were weak and at their breaking point, there's no reason to risk ground troops to get people to defect.

In the modern age, the use of weapons that are perceived to be brutal and unnecessary helps to move the course of a war. Using napalm, WP, or for that matter torture, breaks down the effort and drives the civilians away from their users.

You say that using germ warfare against civilians is "way different" proving there's a limit, a line that shouldn't be crossed. If you accept that total war, or kill everything that moves to protect your guys—the neutron bomb would be an ideal weapon—is wrong, then you've just agreed that there are limits to war. If there are limits, then there are limits to what weapons should be used when.

The reason germ warfare isn't acceptable is because it inevitably enters the civilian populace. A tactical strike on an enemy brigade doesn't necessarily effect civilians (the article said they napalmed bridges IIRC).

In the same manner a nuke isn't acceptable unless there isn't any other choice.

One of the things you seem to misunderstand is how napalm acts when dropped. It doesn't stick like the jelly you can make at home, instead it aerosols and spreads in fine droplets everywhere. People who are at safe distance from a similar explosive weapon can be sprayed with jellied gasoline. That's what happened to the girl in the picture during Vietnam and that's what appears to have happened in Iraq. There are also thermobaric effects and secondary fires.

Like I said, Ive made napalm before (we didn't have much to do around here as kids). It would need to be a tactical strike on an open location. I have already stated that I don't find it acceptable to wound civilians (which is almost inevitable in war times no matter what weapons you are using).

hulugu

Sep 23, 2009, 11:24 PM

It was used 3 times on enemy personnel by military admission. Most likely part of a "shock and awe" type tactic to destroy enemy morale (probably did a pretty good job). At the time the defenses were weak and at their breaking point, there's no reason to risk ground troops to get people to defect.

Well, first the WP and napalm was used after the "shock and awe" days, and were deployed in Fallujah. The defenses weren't weak, in fact, the insurgency had taken the time to create a series of interwoven defenses, including booby-trapped buildings full of LP tanks on remote detonators.
The use of WP and napalm was designed to break enemy positions, but inevitably civilians were in harm's way and were killed by both weapons. The realty of war is that civilians will be killed, but there's a responsibility to mitigate this.

Like I said, Ive made napalm before (we didn't have much to do around here as kids). It would need to be a tactical strike on an open location. I have already stated that I don't find it acceptable to wound civilians (which is almost inevitable in war times no matter what weapons you are using).

So, there are limits. If there are limits, then we can argue about whether a napalm strike or WP is necessary in combat.