10:13 AMKeyser Soze
On 4/10/17 11:04 AM, Tim wrote:
9:53 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
What is LOlL about using napalm in war?


LOIL is what you get when you type in on an iPhone without wearing your
reading glasses.
What is LOL about using napalm in war, Tim? You think napalm is funny?
......

Yes when you consider how efficient a defolient it is. LOL!

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.


Is tough on the victim but was not know to cause human problems. My
brother is an Agent Orange vet. He and others looked at it as what it was
advertised. A defoliant. Not a nerve agent. But you would not admit that
ever.

On 4/10/17 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?


That when we castigate other nations for using chemical warfare, we're
hypocritical.

On 4/10/17 1:14 PM, Bill wrote:
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.


Is tough on the victim but was not know to cause human problems. My
brother is an Agent Orange vet. He and others looked at it as what it was
advertised. A defoliant. Not a nerve agent. But you would not admit that
ever.


There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were ignored.

wrote:
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.


Napalm was not developed to incinerate Japanese cities. Neighbor growing
up was army in the South Pacific. He said when they got it, they first did
not realize how nasty it was, as they added the powder to gasoline and
mixed it in open barrels. They used it to root out Japanese in caves.

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 1:17:56 PM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?


That when we castigate other nations for using chemical warfare, we're
hypocritical.

BS. Napalm and AO are not, by definition, chemical warfare.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:17:53 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/17 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?


That when we castigate other nations for using chemical warfare, we're
hypocritical.

Hey you are castigating the Russians for a couple of leaks (of fact)
during the election and we have had a concerted disinformation
infrastructure for over 100 years. We lie to foreigners and we lie to
America to advance the political goals of whomever is in charge, Dem
or Rep.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:24:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were ignored.

"The military" had nothing to do with it.
Dioxin (2,4,5-T) was still in wide use in the US until the 70s and not
really outlawed until the 80s. You could buy it at Hechingers up into
the early 70s. It was the "go to" herbicide in agriculture.
The more dangerous TCDD (2,3,7,8) is a byproduct of 2,4,5-T,
particularly if it is burned. That may explain the spotty occurrence
of "Agent Orange" disorder and why farmers were not affected as much
as soldiers. There was also a dosage factor. Farmers use as little as
necessary because it is not cheap. DoD used it by the truckload.
The other component of Agent Orange, 2,4-D is still available anywhere
they sell weed killer. It is in most "lawn safe" weed killers like
"weed n feed".

I suspect anything with "killer" or "...cide" in the name is going to
come with human health dangers and is not good for you.
Most military chemical agents started as insecticides. That is why it
is hard to control them. A country can quickly switch their bug spray
factory over to making poison gas and it is not even a major change,
just a slightly different recipe. The application method is also
similar.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:28:59 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
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.


Napalm was not developed to incinerate Japanese cities. Neighbor growing
up was army in the South Pacific. He said when they got it, they first did
not realize how nasty it was, as they added the powder to gasoline and
mixed it in open barrels. They used it to root out Japanese in caves.

It was developed to burn German cities. Then LeMay figured out
Japanese cities were far more flammable and he used it by the ton.
If we had lost that war the Army Air force leaders would have been
hanged for war crimes. They had to spare 3 Japanese cities, just so
they would have a decent test of the atomic bombs. The rest of them
were already burned out shadows of their former selves. We killed a
lot more people in the fire bomb raids than the nukes killed. They
were virtually all civilians.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:44:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

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.


It is an 'incendiary' weapon, as is white phosphorous. Neither are chemical weapons, regardless of
what Krause says.