Fallujah Being NAPALMED?

Wanna bet all the deep thinkers who visit this site swallow this hook like and sinker?

Jerry Jay, quit trolling. If you disagree, post actual counter-arguments or proof to the contrary.

---
Jesse

They are called M77 firebombs. The US claims this is isn't Napalm because they don't call it "napalm" any more.

How would you react if you were to hear that the US also drops another banned weapon, clusterbombs, on Iraqi cities?

You don't deny that the US hasn't stopped using clusterbombs, so why do you refuse to acknowledge that the US has never stopped using naplam as well?

Yes, I'll believe it, because it's all consistent with USUK's established historical character (Vietnam...Dresden and other nonmilitary German cities...Japan...Churchill's gassing of the "uncivilised tribes", Kurds and Afghans, about 80 years ago...) It's the "democracy and liberation" stories that lack substance.

They probably used flame-throwers as well.......my question is, why? To experiment? Or because they are desperate? Or are they deliberately setting up their own troops.

Unlikely. Despite 'eyewitness' accounts that have had no credibility in the past. Napalm is quite useless in urban combat, especially since the houses are mostly stone structures and coalition troops are going house to house.

These stories are simply designed to deflect Arabic/Islamic anger away from their Islamic 'brothers' - those brothers that send them hostage-takers and suicide bombers.

Actually, they still call them NAPALM, even in Caps, ref: this US Air force doc, page 10: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/pacaf/21/pacafi21-202/pacafi21-202.pdf">http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/pacaf/21/pacafi21-202/pacafi21-202.pdf</a> <br />
<br />

Well, since the US has used depleted uranium, what would stop them from using more napalm, especially when the US is the only country to NOT sign the treaty banning its use!

---
Dave Ruston

Oh yeah. This is clearly anti-propaganda by the Muslin hordes, so i can click off my critical thinking skills and go back to my consensus trance that everything is ok.

Likely, it is a planted misinfo story by the AMERICANS to get more US media and bloggers distracted. Thanks to Vive for posting so at least we could have a discussion about whether or not it, and the videos at jihadunspun are really a hoax.

Naw, the Americans wouldn't lie about using napalm, would they?.....I mean they were more than upfront about weapons of mass destruction being presentin Iraq, Colin Powell's fantasy presentation of "evidence" in front of the UN, or the uranium yellow-cake from Niger. And the International Red Cross are totally off base as to the goings on at Guatanomo. <br />
<br />
C'mon....They have already admitted to using napalm in the fall of Baghdad. <br />
<br />
See attached link to article at Znet.org <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6772">http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6772</a> <br />
<br />
rcd <br />
<br />

Evidence? Everything is opinion here at vivelecanada. And in my experience uninformed or ignorant opinion. Do the Canadian asylums have internet?

"Counter-arguments or proof to the contrary." OK, here's a counter-argument: nobody's using napalm in Iraq. Proof? Why should I be held to a standard nobody else is? It's all nutty opinion at Vivelecanada. Fellow paranoids reinforcing each other's delusions.

I see links to 2 british, and 2 arab newspapers that report eyewitness accounts that weapons were used, which show characteristics of M77 firebombs.<p> <blockquote>The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.<br> The United States, which didn't endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon. </blockquote><p> You've seen the picture. The little Vietnamese girl mentioned above is now a Canadian Citizen.<p> Here's more links:<p> <a href='http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=5066&grp=21&cat=94'>Another Link</a><p> <a href='http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5875'>Still Another</a><p> <a href='http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&ie=UTF-8&q=napalm+Fallujah&btnG=Search+News'>A whole metric assload of links</a><p> There's the proof. Where is yours? There is very little opinion involved in this. Or do you just discount the stories because it's the 'towelheads' saying so, and not the almighty Fox News spoon feeding you what Scott Peterson had for lunch in the 3rd grade? Look out! You have a little news dribble on your chin!<p> <p>---<br>"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill <br />

Jerry Jay, don't get too worked up over what these people believe. Logic escapes them completely. To them, the use of depleted uranium automatically means that the US will use nerve gas, poisons, and everything else under the sun. They believe that the CIA is totally incompetent, unless a powerful CIA explains the pro democracy movement in Ukraine. They believe that any government is better than Bush - including dictatorships, fanatics and communism. They believe that the CIA and the US economic elite orchestrated 9/11. And they will grasp at any and every posting on the internet that "proves" their wild theories.

If someone posts that US soldiers shoot a tiger, they go for it. If someone posts that Margret Hassan was killed by the CIA to cover over the marine shooting of an unarmed Iraqi, they go for it. No matter what proof you lay at their feet, they will counter with obscure postings from the worst sources imaginable. So don't bother. They don't want education that does not agree with their agenda. They do not want discourse, they want compliance. If they had a viable arguement, why wouldn't even the massively popular (on this site anyway) Carolyn Parrish be making headlines with these accusations? Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that she owned by the US elite as well.

Let these people live with their heads in the clouds. These postings are excellent entertainment value only. For postings and news that are generally (not always) a bit more grounded in reality, may I recommend freerepublic.com? Absolute opposite of this site. Makes for some excellent contrast.