Comments on: Napalm: Making it stick

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:33:00 +0000

Napalm is a WMD, by the definition of the Blair administration. It can only be used to indescriminately “mop up”, and massacre a weak opponent who cannot defend themselves from the ground. Its use is a war crime.

Heh! Describe how napalm is ineffective against a strong enemy.

By: goatchurch

goatchurch — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:28:00 +0000

The original question and lie is available here.

http://theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-01-11.207246.h

But then, the invasion was a crime too, which only differed from these other war crimes in that it contained within itself “the accumulated evil of the whole”.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:00:00 +0000

Fair enough, although I’m not sure the US ever claimed it was fighting a “humanitarian war”, using those words.

By its definition, all war is decidedly unpleasant and the use of napalm is unfortunately part of that. I can’t see any moral inconsistency between fighting a war, any war, and using napalm. I can see a moral inconsistency between fighting a war using napalm and lying about it to your allies, though.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 07:59:00 +0000

Hi Tim,

If you take a look around CY you’ll find plenty of indignation against the war.

I suppose at the end of the day I’m just (mock) confused at the moral inconsistency in fighting a “humanitarian” war with naplam and then lying to your alliws about it.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 07:54:00 +0000

>> In what way is the taking of lives by flying planes full of innocent civilians into buildings excusable

Mark, can you please point out where this assertion was made on this website.

Can you also refer me to the terrorist attack that Saddam Hussein and/or the Iraqi people visited upon America.

>> I am for whatever it takes to end the terrorist attacks against America and her citizens.

I don’t suppose you ever though of enlisting yourself?

Ta.

By: Rochenko

Rochenko — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:16:00 +0000

Is it just me, or is someone running a Yankee Troll Random Kneejerk Rant generator there? Quite a good simulation, admittedly: in particular, the reliance on crass non sequiturs is right on the money.

By: Mark Maness

Mark Maness — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:29:00 +0000

I am for whatever it takes to end the terrorist attacks against America and her citizens. If it takes napalm, so be it. But terrorism has to stop. period. There is always going to be loss of life in war. Even loss of innocent lives. That is an unfortunate product of war. We need to understand some loss of life is deemed “acceptable losses” that is unavoidable in war, in order to win the war. In what way is the taking of lives by flying planes full of innocent civilians into buildings excusable but the use of napalm to stop the reoccurance of an attack such as that is not?

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:21:00 +0000

Oh dear, I mispelled a word. No greater a crime than fogetting to re-press the Caps Lock button though.

I agree with the use of this particular evil weapon to the same extent as I agree to the use of all evil weapons, from the club and cross-bow to the general purpose machine gun.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:54:00 +0000

THEY CALL IT THE BANALITY OF EVIL DON’T THEY? THIS PERSON WHO AGREES WITH THE USE OF THESE WICKED WEAPONS CANNOT EVEN SPELL PHOSPHORUS PROPERLY – YECCCHHH!!!

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:24:00 +0000

I’m not sure what your problem is here. If the US lied, they shouldn’t have done.

But your objection seems to be against them using napalm. Is the use of napalm banned under international law? I don’t think so. The alternative, white phospherous, is – yet is still used by armies all over the world.

Napalm is the most effect means of killing large numbers of concentrated personnel from the air. It is a decidedly unpleasant way to die, but then few methods employed in war are not. Shelling by artilley, for instance, is no better. Any alternative that will do the same job is either no better or worse.

If whilst fighting a war the US used napalm against concentrated Iraqi soldiers away from civilians, then this is a legitimate act. If you believe it to be immoral, then you are in effect saying that all methods of legal warfare – including mortaring, shelling, and aerial bombardment – are equally immoral.

Either way your indignation should be aimed at the US for fighting a war, not their use of napalm per se.