On 4/9/17 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.



What kind of bull**** is that? You are really into splitting hairs.

On 4/9/17 4:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 4:14 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 4:13 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:57 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies."
What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are
not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but
the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear
weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead.
Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh,
and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not
technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned
but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm
is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis
Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

Napalm's "official" purpose in Vietnam was that of a defoliant.
Agreed, it's a incendiary mixture but is effective in clearing
cover in dense growth. The fact that it may have also been used to
target the enemy hiding in the growth is a misuse of it's official
purpose.


Oh. Napalm's "official" use. Well, that explains it. I hope you have a
pair of rubber hip boots. We are as guilty of using chemical warfare as
Syria.


Better watch out for some North Korean Tomahawks over your house tonight.



Someone on Facebook posted the coordinates of Mar-a-Lago...

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:19:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/9/2017 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.



John, where was napalm usually dropped?

If I say, "On the ground", will you be ****ed?

Napalm was effective against enemy that were dug in or under cover, or against what were thought to
be ammo/supply storage facilities.

We dropped it on areas where the land mines and booby traps were so prevalent that taking dozers
with Rome plow blades in to clear the area was a scary proposition.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:25:40 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.



What kind of bull**** is that? You are really into splitting hairs.

You see no difference between windborn and not windborn?

Again, you demonstrate your stupidity.

On 4/9/2017 4:39 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:19:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/9/2017 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but
nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as
napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people.
Sheesh.



Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is...

"Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a
gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was
initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later
primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes
severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret
laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser.
Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World
War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on
Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and
Vietnam War."

You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs.

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.



John, where was napalm usually dropped?

If I say, "On the ground", will you be ****ed?

Napalm was effective against enemy that were dug in or under cover, or against what were thought to
be ammo/supply storage facilities.

We dropped it on areas where the land mines and booby traps were so prevalent that taking dozers
with Rome plow blades in to clear the area was a scary proposition.



Then I retract as being in error that it was used primarily as a
defoliant. That was my understanding although I knew it was misused.
Still, it's not a banned "weapon" as nerve gases are.

On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 3:16:27 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 4:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 4:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:55 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies."
What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are
not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but
the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear
weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead.
Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not
technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.

You're gasping for air Harry.



Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other
substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the
attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from
being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and
millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange.

The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in
use of chemical weapons is pathetic.


Nobody said their use was "clean" or that they were not misused.

Greg posed the question as to why
napalm and phosphorus were "legal" for use but sarin (a nerve gas) is
illegal. The legality or illegality is governed by international law.

That was the question that started this thread. You've taken it off in
another direction entirely, as usual.



Not at all. The point is that "we" are not the innocents in the use of
chemical weapons. We've used them, and knowingly. Their use is
horrific, no matter who uses them. Our hands are not clean.


Who the **** said they were? Geezus Harry, if you are going to play,
pay attention, will you?

As long as Harry can throw the subject he'll always feel on top.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:38:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The difference is in their purposes and intended uses.
Although napalm and white phosphorous can certainly cause injury or
death, their primary purposes are not to kill people. Chemical weapons
like Sarin gas are.

Huh? Of course WP and Napalm are designed to kill people and in a
horrible burning alive type of death.
Weapons of war are designed to kill or cause grievous injury.
There are no "phasers on stun" weapons in anyone's arsenal.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:41:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.


I guess "ordinance" was not your forte in the Navy.
Napalm was developed in WWII to incinerate Japanese cities and in the
next 2 Asian wars it was used as an anti personnel weapon.
WP was purely a terror weapon, meant to cause wounds by chunks of
flaming phosphorus that would not go out. It simply has to be exposed
to air, at room temperature to burn.
I understand they were able to lie to themselves in Geneva in the 20s
and not outlaw WP but Napalm did not exist the last time this protocol
was updated. In the 60s they revisited it, there were some attempts to
include other things but it slipped away.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:44:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.

I suppose you could say the same thing about asbestos and PCBs

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:48:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi
and continued to bomb Iraq.
Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to
defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they
wanted help, call the Israelis.



Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most
don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major
role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not
something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of
WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the
rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\


How has that been working out?
We keep deposing these dictators for humanitarian reasons and ending
up with a far worse humanitarian problem than they had before.
We killed Saddam and we have the worst refugee problem since WWII. Now
we think it would get better if we take out Assad.
.... and then what?
Is there a muslim Thomas Jefferson hiding somewhere that we have not
seen or are we just going to let another radical anti-American cleric
take over?