This is over a week old, but I didn't see where it had already been posted. I also can't seem to find a sensible rebuttal. I would certainly consider something that walked and talked like napalm to BE napalm, even if it didn't have the exact same chemical formula.

I am under the impression that the (UK) Sunday Mirror is halfway reputable, but perhaps that is not the case? Also, "napalm gas?" I thought it was a gel?

Finally, would napalm even BE effective when you're not going to be deforesting anything?



LINK (http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14920109&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html)

FALLUJAH NAPALMED

Nov 28 2004


US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?

By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor


US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh

Napalm doesn't sound like the weapon of choice for many reasons. I'm sceptical.

I am under the impression that the (UK) Sunday Mirror is halfway reputable, but perhaps that is not the case?You have linked to the Sunday Mirror website and you are still under the impression that it's halfway reputable?!?!?!? Did you look around that website?!?!?

Let's have a look at the latest front page...
http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/sunday_mirror/nov2004/0/2/000BF34F-A56C-11A9-91EF80BFB6FA0000.jpg
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/

The Sunday Mirror currently has it's 7 top stories listed on it's homepage. 5 of the stories are about reality TV show contestants, 1 is an "in her own words" story of a girl gang-raped by football players and the last is a spurious article about how a phone call between two politicians has suposedly put Blair's relationship with George Bush on ice.

Do you still need to ask whether your assumption about the mirror is correct?


...on the subject of Napalm gas, I did a search and read a few articles. I would need to see some more credible articles with more fact and less anonymous "eyewitness reports" for me to take this more seriously.

In agreement with GM
not the most credible source around I daresay, let's wait for other sources ...
though I don't buy this story as it is for now : such ciolating of geneva conventions ? nay, for now .

The only other source I could find was al-Jazeerah.... :|

Banned by who?
this is such a crock.. i googled this so-called information, and only place i could find such trash was on iraqi news sites.. aljazeera.com and other such terrorist sites.. cant believe u people are going to believe such rubbish.....

here is one comment i snagged from the aljazeera site..
the us military does not use napalm. you might me wondering how i can say that with such certainty, well i was a air combat controller. we went behind enemy lines and called in air strikes. we have to know every type of monition that is available for combat use so that we can make sure we use the right one for the right target. i did this during the 1991 war. we learned the uses and effects of every monition in the us nal including nuclear. we do not use napalm. it was never even mentioned during our training. if we cannot call for it then it does not even exist. we could even call for a fuel air bomb, although it needs special approval. these reports are nothing but lies to damage the us militaries image in iraq. the insurgents know that they are losing, so they are trying to turn everyone against the us. it is not going to happen. the majority of the people in iraq see the good work the us is doing

many people are also saying the baby's picture that is on most of those 'news' reports.. is the same baby they used last year in other propaganda reports of people being gassed etc in baghdad.. and damm, the kid hasnt aged a day.. give me some of that gas , it seems to have a fountain of youth affect! LOL......

Banned by who?



hmm ...
the signatories of this (http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/gst/KVR/e/e-PRotIIincendweap.htm) ?

hmm ...
the signatories of this (http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/gst/KVR/e/e-PRotIIincendweap.htm) ?

I don't think the US is a signatory to that, but I could be wrong. I'm skeptical of the story in the first place, though.

I don't think the US is a signatory to that.
You imply the US is a rogue state ?! :eek:
:p

You imply the US is a rogue state ?! :eek:
:p

Yes, the US is the only nation in the world that hasn't banned the use of napalm.

wow !
:eek:

I also found it a bit fishy at first. But a little digging gets results...

The only other source I could find was al-Jazeerah.... - I found several. I think "Iraq" is spelled with a "k" in many western languages.

I found it in three of Norway's biggest news sources:

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2003/08/08/375419.html

http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=70897

http://www3.nrk.no/nyheter/utenriks/irak_konflikten/2968604.html

The two last ones say that it was indeed not napalm but something with a similar effect:

"Marinesoldater og offiserer som har vendt tilbake fra krigssonen i Irak bekrefter at det er blitt sluppet flere titalls brannbomber av typen Mark 77 mot bruer over Saddam-kanalen og Tigris-elven.

Eksplosjonene utløste enorme branner, skriver avisa San Diego Union-Tribune. "

"Marine soldiers and officers who've returned from the war zone in Iraq confirm that there have been dropped several tens of firebombs of the type Mark 77 on bridges over the Saddam-canal and the river Tigris.

The explosions released enourmous fires, writes newspaper San Diego Union-Tribune."

Googling "Mark 77" brought me this:

"New, improved and more lethal: son of napalm

[...]
The Pentagon no longer officially uses the brand-name 'Napalm', but a similar sticky, inflammable substance known as 'fuel-gel mixture', contained in weapons called Mark-77 fire bombs, was dropped on Iraqi troops near the Iraq-Kuwait border at the start of the war.

"I can confirm that Mark-77 fire bombs were used in that general area," Colonel Mike Daily of the US Marine Corps said. "
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html?oneclick=true

Even wikipedia has a text on it:
"The Mark 77 is a US 750-lb (340-kg) air-dropped incendiary bomb that carries a fuel gel mix that is the direct successor to napalm. Mk-77s were used by the US Marine Corps during the Gulf War.

The chemical used differs from napalm of the Vietnam war era in that it is based on kerosene and reportedly contains an oxidising agent. This will make it even more difficult to put out once ignited.

The US Military has issued denials against articles claiming the use of napalm in cases where it seems that Mk-77s had actually been deployed (see referenced articles)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

scary .

Yeah man, I've got this sweet napalm/flamethrower in my backyard. You should see what it did to the neigbors cat!

hmm ...
the signatories of this (http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/gst/KVR/e/e-PRotIIincendweap.htm) ?
And who sighned it and defined it?

You imply the US is a rogue state ?! :eek:
:p
A smart state that does not fall victim to PC idiocy.

Kinda like the jack@sses that want to disarm the citizes so they can be at the mercy of the criminal........you know the type.

I also found it a bit fishy at first. But a little digging gets results...

- I found several. I think "Iraq" is spelled with a "k" in many western languages.

I found it in three of Norway's biggest news sources:

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2003/08/08/375419.html

http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=70897

http://www3.nrk.no/nyheter/utenriks/irak_konflikten/2968604.html

The two last ones say that it was indeed not napalm but something with a similar effect:

"Marinesoldater og offiserer som har vendt tilbake fra krigssonen i Irak bekrefter at det er blitt sluppet flere titalls brannbomber av typen Mark 77 mot bruer over Saddam-kanalen og Tigris-elven.

Eksplosjonene utløste enorme branner, skriver avisa San Diego Union-Tribune. "

"Marine soldiers and officers who've returned from the war zone in Iraq confirm that there have been dropped several tens of firebombs of the type Mark 77 on bridges over the Saddam-canal and the river Tigris.

The explosions released enourmous fires, writes newspaper San Diego Union-Tribune."

Googling "Mark 77" brought me this:

"New, improved and more lethal: son of napalm

[...]
The Pentagon no longer officially uses the brand-name 'Napalm', but a similar sticky, inflammable substance known as 'fuel-gel mixture', contained in weapons called Mark-77 fire bombs, was dropped on Iraqi troops near the Iraq-Kuwait border at the start of the war.

"I can confirm that Mark-77 fire bombs were used in that general area," Colonel Mike Daily of the US Marine Corps said. "
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html?oneclick=true

Even wikipedia has a text on it:
"The Mark 77 is a US 750-lb (340-kg) air-dropped incendiary bomb that carries a fuel gel mix that is the direct successor to napalm. Mk-77s were used by the US Marine Corps during the Gulf War.

The chemical used differs from napalm of the Vietnam war era in that it is based on kerosene and reportedly contains an oxidising agent. This will make it even more difficult to put out once ignited.

The US Military has issued denials against articles claiming the use of napalm in cases where it seems that Mk-77s had actually been deployed (see referenced articles)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

More are reporting it now. What are their sources?

From Wikipedia:

The United States has reportedly been using napalm in the 2003 invasion of Iraq [2] . In August 2003, the Pentagon stopped denying the charge, admitting it did use "Mark 77 firebombs".

"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 smart state that does not fall victim to PC idiocy.

ok .. so you invaded Iraq for being too smart ?

More are reporting it now. What are their sources? - Looks like Randolph Alles (or James Alles as he's called in your quote.. odd...), John Pike (-Du kan gjerne kalle det noe annet enn napalm, men det er napalm, sier forsvarseksperten John Pike ved den uavhengige forskningsgruppen GlobalSecurity.org. -You can call it something else than napalm, but it is napalm, says defence expert John Pike from the independent research group GlobalSecurity.org ) and Michael Daily («Tilsetningene har betydelig mindre skadevirkninger for miljøet, og mange omtaler Mark 77 som napalm fordi effekten er svært lik når den treffer målet,» skriver oberst Michael Daily i en e-post til avisa. "Mark 77 has considerably less of a damaging impact on the envoronment, and many call it napalm because the effect is quite similar when it hits the target" colonel Michael Daily says in an e-mail to the newspaper.)

Looks bad so far. But then again, like one of them said; "there are no humane ways to kill your enemy" :(
"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." - That's word-by-word the same as at http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2003/08/08/375419.html , Dagbladet is a very leftist newspaper, though.

ok .. so you invaded Iraq for being too smart ?
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Mass graves, torture and wantant experimentation on population is smart.

MAN.....You are sick

- Looks like Randolph Alles (or James Alles as he's called in your quote.. odd...), John Pike (-Du kan gjerne kalle det noe annet enn napalm, men det er napalm, sier forsvarseksperten John Pike ved den uavhengige forskningsgruppen GlobalSecurity.org. -You can call it something else than napalm, but it is napalm, says defence expert John Pike from the independent research group GlobalSecurity.org ) and Michael Daily («Tilsetningene har betydelig mindre skadevirkninger for miljøet, og mange omtaler Mark 77 som napalm fordi effekten er svært lik når den treffer målet,» skriver oberst Michael Daily i en e-post til avisa. "Mark 77 has considerably less of a damaging impact on the envoronment, and many call it napalm because the effect is quite similar when it hits the target" colonel Michael Daily says in an e-mail to the newspaper.)

Looks bad so far. But then again, like one of them said; "there are no humane ways to kill your enemy" :(
- That's word-by-word the same as at http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2003/08/08/375419.html , Dagbladet is a very leftist newspaper, though.
Thankyou.

I still dont see the problem. War is not supossed to be humane. Trying to make it so is rather insane in itself.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Mass graves, torture and wantant experimentation on population is smart.

MAN.....You are sick


Err ...
it certainly doesn't fall into the PC craze ...
which is smart according to *you*, tbh .

I still dont see the problem. War is not supossed to be humane. Trying to make it so is rather insane in itself.
yeah for crucifictions!
Vae Victis !

I saw whole city blocks burned to the ground, and thousands upon thousands of bodies, all charred beyond recognition, resembling little more than bricks, littering the area. The devestation was unbelievable.

I don't know why getting cooked in a bus, humvee, truck, jeep or other as a result of a bomb is any more appealing than getting cooked by a bomb while on a bridge, but someone will tell me I am sure.

As napalm or the new type 77 is an area weapon, its use makes the claims of trying to avoid civilian casualties ring rather hollow. Or is this a magic fire that does not burn the innocent. Of course, after they have been incinerated it makes it wasy to claim that the corpse was that of a terrorist, nobody can identify the corpse to say otherwise.

As napalm or the new type 77 is an area weapon, its use makes the claims of trying to avoid civilian casualties ring rather hollow. Or is this a magic fire that does not burn the innocent. Of course, after they have been incinerated it makes it wasy to claim that the corpse was that of a terrorist, nobody can identify the corpse to say otherwise.

I agree, all those charred pieces look like bricks. AS to the terrorist bobming vehicles though, I hear a lot of civilians get killed. In fact I read somewhere that more Iraqis die as a result of bombings by terrorists than soldiers dying as a result of terror bombings.

I agree, all those charred pieces look like bricks. AS to the terrorist bobming vehicles though, I hear a lot of civilians get killed. In fact I read somewhere that more Iraqis die as a result of bombings by terrorists than soldiers dying as a result of terror bombings.


You really don't get it, do you? They (the Iraqis) are regarded as collaborators, you make a point of killing collaborators and pretty soon nobody collaborates. This leaves the enemy having to waste resources doing all those jobs the collaborators were doing. This was the tactics of most of the resistance groups in WW2, and most of the resistance/ insurgent/ terrorist groups in every war/uprising/revolution since, because it works.

Even if they are not collaborators as long as they are killed in the vicinity of US troops it makes the point that it is dangerous even to be near the troops thus isolating the troops even more.

I wonder how many "war is hell" guys here were vocal about Saddam having WMDs ...

Me. I was very vocal. I think this should have been dealt with since SH began violating the CeaseFire Agreement.

You really don't get it, do you? They (the Iraqis) are regarded as collaborators, you make a point of killing collaborators and pretty soon nobody collaborates. This leaves the enemy having to waste resources doing all those jobs the collaborators were doing. This was the tactics of most of the resistance groups in WW2, and most of the resistance/ insurgent/ terrorist groups in every war/uprising/revolution since, because it works.

Even if they are not collaborators as long as they are killed in the vicinity of US troops it makes the point that it is dangerous even to be near the troops thus isolating the troops even more.

I understand competely, what makes you think I don't? I know perfectly well why they are being killed. And you don't have to go back to WW2, it happens in Israel/Palestine now, INdia/Pakistan, and of course that old standby, Viet Nam.

Err ...
it certainly doesn't fall into the PC craze ...
which is smart according to *you*, tbh .
it does and why do I even bother fooling with a troll that deliberately misrepresents everything said?

http://pages.prodigy.net/bestsmileys1/signs/dontfeedtrolls.gif

Me. I was very vocal. I think this should have been dealt with since SH began violating the CeaseFire Agreement.

so you'll condemn this as well if it is proven true ?

it does and why do I even bother fooling with a troll that deliberately misrepresents everything said?

http://pages.prodigy.net/bestsmileys1/signs/dontfeedtrolls.gif
nice flight Cyllon ...
YOU said that not being PC in war is a smart thing to do .
WHY would that be restricted to the US' actions ?

nice flight Cyllon ...
YOU said that not being PC in war is a smart thing to do .
WHY would that be restricted to the US' actions ?

it was not. your tactic in other threads as well.

declare thyself victor oh small one.

it was not. your tactic in other threads as well.

declare thyself victor oh small one.

whatever .
Not my fault if you can't face your own contradictions .
Not my victory either . More like my loss too, as well as humanity's, since that behaviour seem to be rather generalized on yonder side of the Atlantic ...