Well what do you know.....

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:45 pm

What story did Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena happen to be working on before she was shot at?

http://www.ilmanifesto.it/pag/sgrena/en ... e0ff0.html

Napalm used in Fallujah.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:46 pm

oh and she has more...

Post by **Cool Blue** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:16 pm

I think in this day and age of modern exposives, the average Joe Schmoe (or in this case Mu-hak-mabar), would not be able to tell the difference between some of the larger air to surface missiles, regular bombs, and fire bombs.

Example; the MK84 is a general all purpose bomb. It weighs 500KGs and does mucho damage to anything near it via is shear explosive force followed by it's plume of fire. No napalm though.

Post by **saturn** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:16 pm

lol, and the USA never wanted to pay ransom at all.

Post by **Nightshade** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:26 pm

Cool Blue wrote:I think in this day and age of modern exposives, the average Joe Schmoe (or in this case Mu-hak-mabar), would not be able to tell the difference between some of the larger air to surface missiles, regular bombs, and fire bombs.

Example; the MK84 is a general all purpose bomb. It weighs 500KGs and does mucho damage to anything near it via is shear explosive force followed by it's plume of fire. No napalm though.

Bull. You may not be able to tell the difference between a 500 and a 1000lb bomb, but there's no mistaking napalm.

Post by **Cool Blue** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:33 pm

Speaking of the after effects, it seems doubtful the untrained eye knows how to spot the difference.

:lol: Look what happened when untrained eyes viewed the evidence of the airplane crash into the Pentagon. Proof for sure the layman knows his ballistics!

*typo fixed for the anal retentive

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:34 pm

its layman you hymen

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:44 pm

Cool Blue wrote:Speaking of the after effects, it seems doubtful the untrained eye knows how to spot the difference.

:lol: Look what happened when untrained eyes viewed the evidence of the airplane crash into the Pentagon. Proof for sure the layman knows his ballistics!

*typo fixed for the anal retentive

You sure sound like an expert. What about military personnel? You think they would know the difference?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le4395.htm

The US journalist James Crawley was on the ground with US troops as an embedded journalist .
He too wanted to know , which kind of bombs exactly were dropped at this time .

James Crawley , US Military Journalist :

" I asked , what kind of bombs they've used , and they said laserbombs , satellite-guided bombs and Napalm." Napalm in the Iraq-War . The US Ministry of Defence rejected this announcements immediately : "We did not used Napalm in Iraq and we won't use it neither ."

Cockpit-pictures from an US combat-jet in Iraq . What exactly was dropped from the US-jets over Iraq ? Firebombs ? Napalm ?

We drive to San Diego , to the base of the US Marine Corps who were at service in Iraq . To us , the speaker confirmed the use of Napalm-firebombs .

Joseph Boehm , Colonel US Marine Corps :

" In the 30 wardays we used only 30 canisters . The marines used it on their way to Baghdad . Where it was exactly , I don't know . It is a lethal weapon and also a psychological weapon ."

These are the firebombs we're talking about : they are labeled MK 77 , an advanced and perfected version of the Napalm-bomb used in Vietnam . The US Military and armament-industry still uses the same name for it : MK 77(Napalm)

James Snyder , Physicians for Social Responsibility :

" There is absolutely no difference in the impact and use of MK 77 and Napalm . They're both made for the same purpose . The only difference lies in their fuel . But both are designed to kill as much humans as possible , attack bunkers and spread fire." We wanted to know from the Pentagon , if these MK 77 bombs were used in the Iraq-war .

A Pentagon-speaker told MONITOR :

" I can confirm , that MK 77 bombs were dropped at the Kuwaiti-Iraqi-border." And on the question , if the MK 77 bombs are indeed Napalm-firebombs , the speaker said : " MK 77 is called
Napalm due to the fact , that their impact on targets resembles remarkable to the use of Napalm."

Post by **Cool Blue** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:11 pm

I didn't say they didn't use napalm. I said I doubted civilians could recognize the difference in munitions after a bombing.

But nice try though guys.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:15 pm

So, me posting a report saying they used napalm, immediately followed by you saying that the people writing the report wouldn't be able to recognize it to begin with, isn't a form of you trying to discredit the story, and implying they don't know what they're talking about?

MAN! YOU SHOULD GO ON CROSSFIRE!

Post by **Cool Blue** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:37 pm

Actually you posted a link to a poorly written attempt at a news story that doesn't list a single person by name in reference to it's claims. In fact if you read you're own article, you would have read: "...No independent source could verify the facts, ..."

Why such a chip on your shoulder?

It's opening line and the ONLY accusation about napalm reads: "We buried them, but we could not identify them because they were charred from the napalm bombs used by the Americans». People from Saqlawiya village, near Falluja, told al Jazeera television,"

So... the 'report' you claim as fact, seems to be a reporter relaying what the civilians of the area had to say.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:38 pm

Cool Blue wrote:Speaking of the after effects, it seems doubtful the untrained eye knows how to spot the difference.

:lol: Look what happened when untrained eyes viewed the evidence of the airplane crash into the Pentagon. Proof for sure the layman knows his ballistics!

*typo fixed for the anal retentive

I could tell the difference between a napalm bomb and a regular bomb. Napalm rains from the sky.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:38 pm

It's pretty hard to mistake one for the other.

Post by **Cool Blue** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:39 pm

Kracus wrote:
Cool Blue wrote:Speaking of the after effects, it seems doubtful the untrained eye knows how to spot the difference.

:lol: Look what happened when untrained eyes viewed the evidence of the airplane crash into the Pentagon. Proof for sure the layman knows his ballistics!

*typo fixed for the anal retentive
I could tell the difference between a napalm bomb and a regular bomb. Napalm rains from the sky.

Actually it explodes upon contact with the ground.

Post by **4days** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:54 pm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... tnG=Search

Post by **inphlict** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:23 pm

I agree it would be easy for regular people to mistake different bombs, I mean the only way they could know what napalm looks like is from movies and we all know how accurate thous are.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:23 pm

Cool Blue wrote:Actually you posted a link to a poorly written attempt at a news story that doesn't list a single person by name in reference to it's claims. In fact if you read you're own article, you would have read: "...No independent source could verify the facts, ..."

Why such a chip on your shoulder?

It's opening line and the ONLY accusation about napalm reads: "We buried them, but we could not identify them because they were charred from the napalm bombs used by the Americans». People from Saqlawiya village, near Falluja, told al Jazeera television,"

So... the 'report' you claim as fact, seems to be a reporter relaying what the civilians of the area had to say.

It's a fact that we used Napalm in Iraq, whether you refuse to admit it is a different issue.

I didn't post that article for the reason of proving we used napalm in Iraq. If you had read the news about it, you would have recognized that.

I posted that article to make the point that this journalist who was shot at, was working on this type of story about Fallujah. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? I mean, aside from displaying your ignorance about munitions, and the fact that you don't believe Iraqi people can tell the difference between a blown up person, and a person running around with flaming liquid covering their body?

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:24 pm

inphlict wrote:I agree it would be easy for regular people to mistake different bombs, I mean the only way they could know what napalm looks like is from movies and we all know how accurate thous are.

I think they've become quite familiar with it since we used it on them the first time.

Post by **inphlict** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:25 pm

I'm not saying they didn't but I'm saying it's easy to mistake.

Post by **SplishSplash** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:27 pm

I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.

That's how I can tell what they used.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:32 pm

Well I'm not trying to imply that all these people can tell napalm by sight either, although I'm sure there are plenty of people there who can.

That wasn't really the point of the thread. :icon32:

Post by **Cool Blue** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:16 pm

R00k wrote: It's a fact that we used Napalm in Iraq, whether you refuse to admit it is a different issue.

I didn't post that article for the reason of proving we used napalm in Iraq. If you had read the news about it, you would have recognized that.

I posted that article to make the point that this journalist who was shot at, was working on this type of story about Fallujah. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? I mean, aside from displaying your ignorance about munitions, and the fact that you don't believe Iraqi people can tell the difference between a blown up person, and a person running around with flaming liquid covering their body?

I never said they didn't use Napalm in Iraq. I was quite aware of your point of the thread. Your choice to assume I was ignorant to it would appear to be your problem, not mine. All I said was...

Cool Blue wrote:I think in this day and age of modern explosives, the average Joe Schmoe (or in this case Mu-hak-mabar), would not be able to tell the difference between some of the larger air to surface missiles, regular bombs, and fire bombs.

As an opinion. I stand by that. We're speakin on terms visual accounts of the aftermath, not the visual accounts of the bombing itself.

You're chasing your tail.

Post by **blood.angel** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:27 pm

saturn wrote:lol, and the USA never wanted to pay ransom at all.

The US has never paid rewards either.
Just after the invasion they dropped thousands if not millions of leaflets offering bountys on Saddams and his henhmen's heads.
Saddams sons were not found by accident, some one told the US where they were. Each was something like $25 million each.
Did the guy get it? No, the US arrested him and threw him Abu Ghraib.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:31 pm

If you want to keep being anal about this, there are hundreds of people over there who lost family member to napalm nearly 15 years ago, and I guarantee you they can tell you exactly what victims of it look like.

Your opinion is nothing but a vague generalization. It's about the same as saying people from Texas have a hard time driving cars.

But thanks for sharing it.

Post by **Arkleseizure** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:33 pm

4days wrote:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=napalm+admits+iraq&btnG=Search

All from 3rd party sites. No CNN, Yahoo!, MSNBC, ABC, Fox. How the hell can you believe independent journalism?