Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops
Results are ‘remarkably similar’ to using napalm
By James W. Crawley
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
August 5, 2003
American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs - similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War - in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.
Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.
“We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches,” said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video…
Pretty interesting. Gotta say articles like this always make me laugh my tail off at those people who claim American media is bias and un-truhuthfull when in fact American media is one of the FEW in the world totally free to report WHATEVER they feel the truth is.
Yes, there are times that the media here is influenced by the government or biased or leaning toward “patriotic” but whether it’s uncovering the truth about a President’s “extracurricular” activities or some huge coverup our media is at least free to report the truth as they see it, unlike many other countries where the media is run by the regimes and governments. Proud of that aspect…
…don’t know about the Napalm use, but its use isn’t against any international laws like the article pointed out, war is war, and I don’t see a difference in loosing a loved one to a bullet vs. napalm vs. a bunker buster.
I do however see a difference in losing a loved one to a cruel regime, and losing a loved one in an effort to rid my country of that regime!
“Gotta say articles like this always make me laugh my tail off at those people who claim American media is bias and un-truhuthfull when in fact American media is one of the FEW in the world totally free to report WHATEVER they feel the truth is.”
I found out about this on an alternative-media site www.alternet.org so no I doubt that there is no bias. This would never be reported in much larger papers like the Washington Post or NYT (even though NYT is supposed to appear to be liberal).
“…don’t know about the Napalm use, but its use isn’t against any international laws like the article pointed out, war is war, and I don’t see a difference in loosing a loved one to a bullet vs. napalm vs. a bunker buster.”
Churchill wanted to find out the best & most efficient way to kill Germans & it turned out to be firebombing. Dresden was firebombed so heavily that the water in the river boiled & people were incinerated alive it was so hot. (just 1 example, you’ll have to ask a Vietnamese person for more) Like the US soldier says, ‘not a pleasent way to die.’ I’m sure if it happened in the USA it would be called terrorism.
If it were an attack by a type of opposition group (al qaida, hamas, etc.) aimed at civillians, yes, it would be terrorism. IF, on the other hand, it was a “military operation” (milatary as in an opposing govenrment/nations military) conducted for military purposes AND against military targets (opposition soldiers, military targets, etc.) then no, it would NOT be terrorism, but a military strike.
Like it or not monsierweakreply, there IS A DIFFERENCE in a “military operation” conducted by a government such as the war against Iraq or Isreali military actions (whether or not you support the reasons behind them) aimed at military targets and a “terrorist attack” aimed at civillians.
Yes, there are civillian casualties in military operations, but the INTENT is an opposition military target/soldier/etc.
Even if you don’t agree with US foreing policy, you do understand the difference correct?
OK but the USA didn’t seem to make sure that it was only Iraqi soldiers that were going to get burnt up. Anyway it’s still senseless killing, no doubt about that. I’m sure that the USA would have tried to accuse Saddam of being a war criminal if he firebombed US soldiers.
RE: Israeli military actions
During the 1st few DAYS of the intifada in 2001, the Israeli army fired 1000000 bullets & a high-ranking Israeli officer said that meant 1 bullet for every child. In the 1st month 70 people were killed using US helicopters & Clinton shipped more new ones once they were being used to attack apartment complexes. & you ‘good guys’ say that Saddam supported terror. LOL
“monsiour is right. We should have killed them in a kinder, gentler fashion. Something slower perhaps?”
Better yet, you should use tons and tons of agent orange like in Vietnam so future generations are born with congenital deffects for decades. Would that please you?
mq, you’ve consistently shown a rather unpleasant side of humanity to everyone here. I remember a month ago you tried to tell us that Ernst Zundel was a scholar when in fact he is a convicted hate mongerer involved in neo-nazi militant groups, among other things. Now you’re using an example of German citizens dying in World War Two to bolster your argument? Surely you jest.
“Churchill wanted to find out the best & most efficient way to kill Germans & it turned out to be firebombing. Dresden was firebombed so heavily that the water in the river boiled & people were incinerated alive it was so hot. (just 1 example, you’ll have to ask a Vietnamese person for more)”
Didn’t Germany start the war and didn’t they incessantly bomb the innocent civilians of London throughout the war? Sure, Dresden was horrible, but for God sakes, the Germans are responsible for everything that happened after they started the war.
You are a hate filled idiot. You should be ashamed of yourself.
“Now you’re using an example of German citizens dying in World War Two to bolster your argument? Surely you jest.”
Just because the allies won doesn’t make them innocent. I saw on the History channel that recent research found that Canada supplied the uranium for the A-bombs that were dropped on Japan.
“I remember a month ago you tried to tell us that Ernst Zundel was a scholar when in fact he is a convicted hate mongerer involved in neo-nazi militant groups, among other things.”
I said he was a holocaust denier & that he got deported for trying to publish a book that said so. That was a pretty neutral statement. I never said I supported his theses. I sort of think that even enetering into the arena of debate on the subject is already to lose one’s humanity.
“Sure, Dresden was horrible, but for God sakes, the Germans are responsible for everything that happened after they started the war.”
Germany wasn’t responsible for anything the Allies did. Only the Allies could have been responsible for what they did. 1 more time, just because they won doesn’t make them innocent. Admiral Gernetz (a German sub commander or something) was on trial for attacking & sinking Allied merchant ships, so he used [US war hero] Admiral Nimitz as a defence witness who testified that the Allies did pretty much the same thing, so Gernetz was off the hook because the accusers did the same thing.
“You are a hate filled idiot. You should be ashamed of yourself.”
I don’t know where you’re getting this, I only posted something that said that US military officials admitted to killing Iraqis in an extremely brutal way. Nothing hateful about that. I guess this is what I get for challenging favoured truths.
“monsiour, quit stirring up dust and go eat some poutine.”
Is that supposed to be a slur or what? Maybe I’m not the hateful one.
It’s obvious to even the most casual observer that MQ just hates killing of any kind. The words “sensless killing” are permanently bonded together in his vocabulary. I suppose we could have dropped tons of stuffed bunnies or feather pillows on the Iraqi troops but it’s just not very effective.
War is hell. Ever hear that before? Arms and legs get blown off, entrails are ripped out, every sort of gruesome damage you could imagine and some you probably can’t are common place when huge amounts of lethal force are brought to bear. This is not news to anyone with a modicum of common sense.
There was a way to stop the killing. It exists in any war the US is involved in. It’s called surrendering. It was an option that was well known to the Iraqis, they’d practiced it the last time we battled them.
“It’s obvious to even the most casual observer that MQ just hates killing of any kind.”
What’s wrong with that?
(sorry for the confusion, I actually love killing, as long as it happens 1000s of miles away & the media in my country keeps me from seeing the people who get killed by my country, or more generally, anything that’s happening in another country)
Do you workout or just like childhood arguements with people who don’t care what your opinions or your point of view is. My point of view is that you are a brainwashed liberal but then again if you have any brain cells left you would know not to care what I think of you.
In which way would you prefer to be killed in combat? Gunshot, artillery strike, bayonet, disease, angry mob? It’s a war, not euthanasia, people die horribly. Big deal. Just make sure it’s them, not us.
Restless, I was using sarcasm. I was trying to bring attention to the fact that death is death. Saying that we killed the Iraqis with the wrong kind of munitions is kind of, well, stupid.
Now arguing about whether or not the Iraqis in question should have been killed or not is an entirely different subject.
Also, I’m about tired of people moaning and bitching that America (and the nations joining it in the coallition) is dealing with the Iraqis brutally, and that we’re indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians. I assure you, if the number of people we slaughtered was no concern to us, that Iraq would be a parking lot right now. With oil fields.
Monsieur, I do see your opint - afterall it’s aunfair and we cheated because we didnt give the Iraqui Army - who wasnt surrendring - the chance to shoot us first before we sent in our close air support to Napalm them.
