Smells like NAPALM

Well... almost.
Gasoline, polystyrene and benzene.

:m: Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wasnt one of the reasons for attacking Iraq to get rid of Sadams chemical weapons??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

my dad is over in fallujah right now, and hes told all of us back home that there is no napalm, but they do use white phos. because its quite demoralizing to see the guy next to you melting. Just to let you all know. :m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thanx for the info, hotsexyangelprincess!

no shit?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

weapons of terror, am i the only one that finds that funny in a morbid way

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I trust he must find that very convenient, hotsexyangelprincess, very convenient. Does it also occur to him he's no better than a war criminal?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

War is war and you don't chose a knife over a machine gun if you have the possibility and you are being shot at.

 

So then America would no better than a country of opportunistic hypocrites.

Hearts and mind, indeed. Way to go, Avatar. See you in The Hague.

 

K: ( weapons of terror, am i the only one that finds that funny in a morbid way)

NO! Oviously we resorted to fighting "terror" with "terror". kind of ironic, ain't it?

G.

 

Do you mean 'polystyrene'?

Not quite. 'burning' is the process of oxidation, and so burning requires O2. White phosphorous is just more active than Hydrogen, so breaks up water into Hygrogen, and Oxygen, and then reacts with the Oxygen. For very active metals etc (check out the reactivity series) water is an oxidising agent.

 

"I trust he must find that very convenient, hotsexyangelprincess, very convenient. Does it also occur to him he's no better than a war criminal? ", Mercurio

So how effective the weapon is determines whether it qualifies to make one a war criminal. I am not sure what the big deal about napalm is anyway, considering in Afghanistan they have used bombs so large they practically have the explosive power of a small nuclear weapon. Is that any more humane?

The whole point of a weapon, is indeed, to be able to kill as many of the enemy as possible. If the side unleashing the weapon is deliberately targeting civilians, then that is a war crime.

To call hotsexyprincesses father a war criminal is just sad. I assume that you consider all soldiers criminals, justification or not.

 

[Sigh]. The inability of people to read correctly is sad.

Read about categories of war crimes.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/war-crimes-categories.html

The list is long, the categories not always clear-cut. But the idea is clear: and if you for convenience sake willingly use 'overkill', for lack of a better word, you're

NO BETTER THAN

a war criminal.

 

with the use of napalm and torture, they are no better than Saddam.

Of course they're better...

If you don't believe me just ask one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dee Cee

 

"and if you for convenience sake willingly use 'overkill', for lack of a better word, you're

NO BETTER THAN

a war criminal.", Mercurio

Capable weapons are not overkill, they are simply EFFECTIVE. Napalm is highly effective, and does the job it is meant to do. War is killing, and how you are killed does not really matter. As for saying that someone is NO BETTER THAN a war criminal, you put them at the same level. Your comparison is sad whether you are calling him one, or simply comparing the two....

 

hmm nukes are also high effective, maybe, could it be, could it be there is another reason napalm type weapons are thougth of as bad.

 

Hmmm....I wonder if those Palestinians who blow themselves up on buses werent trying to kill the Israeli citizens but maybe just kill a couple of Israeli cops or an off duty Isreali soldiers on the bus?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It seems to me that if you drop a bomb in a crowded area where you KNOW there is going to be civilian casualties then you are commiting a war crime

 

The winners don't get under trial.
Just count the bombs that were dropped on Germany during the WWII.
And one can argue that the destruction of the civil population is needed to win the war , because the warleaders of the opposing side lose support. Same happened in Japan. Then there is the hard choice wether to win the war or to kill a few or more thousands of enemy country based civilians. If each side hates each other then the choice is apparent, harder when the war is based on cold calculations.
Of course killing civilians for whatever reason is morally wrong, but few care about morals during the war. That's reality, all else is just in theory.

 

Ammunition finds its way from Kuwaiti port to Marines' hands
Submitted by: 3d Marine Aircraft Wing
Story Identification #: 20032111136
Story by Sgt. W. A. Napper Jr.
KUWAIT (Feb. 2, 2003)

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/4F127CC5663C837785256CCA002228BE?opendocument

 

Columbus barely discovered America in the end of the fifteenth century (1492). The Brits didn't show up until the 1500's. I have heard of the US calvary giving smallpox infected blankets to Indian tribes.


Burning to death has to be the worst way to die, ever. Just putting a cigerette out in my hand hurts; I'd hate to think about everything melting off me. I'd much rather be killed by an explosion than turn into a torch.

Poison gas is really bad, too, especially the kind that melts your tissue and you drown in your own dissolved lungs.

 

Well spotted ... here's a more detailed and correct version:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://entropy.brneurosci.org/smallpox.html