US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

McTag wrote:

Definition: A terrorist is a man with a bomb, but no airforce.

Nonsense. A terrorist is a man who preferentially attacks non-combatants as the primary, intended target. That's why we're not terrorists, but many of our adversaries are.

Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. Under the second definition, the targets of terrorist acts can be anyone, including civilians, government officials, military personnel, or people serving the interests of governments.

Through intimidation or by instilling fear, terrorism can be used as a form of blackmail to apply pressure on governments for goals the terrorists could not achieve by other means. Civilians are usually held to be "innocent" victims of terrorist violence if they are unarmed and not in uniform when it occurs. Intentional violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action most widely condemned as "terrorism".

Guerrilla warfare is sometimes confused with terrorism, in that a relatively small force attempts to achieve large goals by using organized acts of directed violence against a larger force. But in contrast to terrorism, these acts are almost always against military targets, and civilian targets are minimized in an attempt to increase public support. For this reason, guerrilla tactics are generally considered military strategy rather than terrorism, although both terrorism and guerrilla warfare could be considered forms of asymmetric warfare. Regardless, the perpetually unresolved argument of whether the use of terrorism is a valid form of warfare can be summed up by the infamous quote that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," although as Furedi notes: "Anybody can call anybody a terrorist... however, it is those designated 'terrorist' by the great powers who suffer the consequences of living with the label."

source-Wikipedia

You yourself have pretty much agreed with my objection to McT's designation of anyone with a bomb but not an air force as terrorists when you admitted that the word is most aptly applied to people who attack non-combatants deliberately. This is also, my definition, and, therefore, the "perpetually unresolved" argument as to whether one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is not the slightest bit unresolved to me. Anyone who targets non-combatants as the primary target is acting immorally. The US does not do that on purpose. The designation of who is a terrorist by "the great powers" is usually dead on correct, so it is fitting that it is those people who suffer the consequences of the description.

Brandon, you seem to pick and choose what you actually read and what you actually pick out of it. I did NOT agree with what you said. If you go back and look at the first paragraph you will see that it says

Quote:

Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. Under the second definition, the targets of terrorist acts can be anyone, including civilians, government officials, military personnel, or people serving the interests of governments.

The difference is intent. Someone who straps a nail bomb to his chest and kills himself in a marketplace is trying to kill non-combatants as his primary intended target. To equate that with the civilian losses that always occur in war, even by an army trying not to kill civilians is ridiculous.

Here's an earlier (Aug 2003) report and, just for Brandon, it include names.

Quote:

The Independent August 10, 2003

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

In-Depth Coverage By Andrew Buncombe

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 [bridge] 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.

Global Security Source

Brandon9000 wrote:

The difference is intent. Someone who straps a nail bomb to his chest and kills himself in a marketplace is trying to kill non-combatants as his primary intended target. To equate that with the civilian losses that always occur in war, even by an army trying not to kill civilians is ridiculous.

Not too many bombs blowing up in "marketplaces" in Iraq. Most of them are in areas that have govt officials of some kind, police headquarters, recruiting areas for military etc. Lots of bombs targetting soldiers. I am curious how you know "intent" of the bombers in Iraq. Is it only a guess based on what you want to believe?

The difference is intent. Someone who straps a nail bomb to his chest and kills himself in a marketplace is trying to kill non-combatants as his primary intended target. To equate that with the civilian losses that always occur in war, even by an army trying not to kill civilians is ridiculous.

I am making an abstract statement about terrorism in answer to an abstract statement about terrorism. An army that tries to avoid hitting civilians but intentionally does, is not morally in the same category with someone whose sole purpose is to kill non-combatants.

McTag wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

McTag wrote:

Definition: A terrorist is a man with a bomb, but no airforce.

Nonsense. A terrorist is a man who preferentially attacks non-combatants as the primary, intended target. That's why we're not terrorists, but many of our adversaries are.

I tell you what, Brandon. If I'm sleeping at home, and there are maybe some dubious militant types in our village, or maybe in a village nearby, who knows how the information gets out and how reliable it is, and the USAF target their bombs on me, or even in my general area to make sure, then I'm going to be terrified. Really scared witless. These big bombs have a a hellova bang, man. Terrifying.

The difference is intent. Someone who straps a nail bomb to his chest and kills himself in a marketplace is trying to kill non-combatants as his primary intended target. To equate that with the civilian losses that always occur in war, even by an army trying not to kill civilians is ridiculous.

.50 caliber pillows perhaps?

"Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets"

According to the article, they were used against military targets. What's your problem???

Maybe we should use rubber bullets???? No..better yet, let's use feathers.

"Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets"

I do a fair amount of work in what is called contract or salvage archaeology. There is a rule of thumb. Youn can discuss and come to an agreement with all the project engineers and managers, but the guy who makes the final discission is the bulldozer operator. It may well be that the discisson to not use napalm was made at the management (Pentagon, theater command) but was circumvented at the operational (combat) level. In this case the denials by the US government would be understandable if still not acceptable. They are supposed to know what is going on.

woiyo wrote:

"Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets"

According to the article, they were used against military targets. What's your problem???

Maybe we should use rubber bullets???? No..better yet, let's use feathers.

The problem is that the govt LIED about its use. It is part of an ongoing pattern. When asked if used, the military very specifically DENIED it was ever used.