DescentBB

shocking news documentary
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchi ... ah_ING.wmv
(other video formats, thx Grendel)

i did a quick search on the "MK 77" weapon and came up with this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk77.htm wrote:In March 2003 the Pentagon denied a report in The Age that napalm had been used in an attack by US Navy planes on an Iraqi position at Safwan Hill in southern Iraq. A navy official in Washington, Lieutenant-Commander Danny Hernandez, said: "We don't even have that in our arsenal." The report was filed by Age correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was attached to units of the First US Marine Division.

The Mk 77 Mod 5 firebombs are incendiary devices with a function indentical to earlier Mk 77 napalm weapons. Instead of the gasoline and benzene fuel, the Mk 77 Mod 5 firebomb uses kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, hundreds of partially loaded Mk77 Mod5 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

There was a report on Al-Jazeera on December, 14, 2001 that the US was using napalm at Tora Bora in Afghanistan. In response, General Tommy Franks said "We're not using -- we're not using the old napalm in Tora Bora."

The US Department of Defense denied the use of napalm during Operation Iraqi Freedom. A rebuttal letter from the US Depeartment of Defense had been in fact been sent to the Australian Sydney Morning Herald newspaper which had claimed that napalm had been used in Iraq.

An article by the San Diego Union Tribune revealed however, on August 5, 2003, that incendiary weapons were in fact used against Iraqi troops in the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Marines were fighting their way to Baghdad. The denial by the US DOD was issued on the technical basis that the incendiaries used consisted primarily of kerosene-based jet fuel (which has a smaller concentration of benzene), rather than the traditional mixture of gasoline and benzene used for napalm, and that these therefore did not qualify as napalm.

Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement

*no longer locked bump*

I think we have an answer to the age old question of: why do people hate america.

I think you are both naive. Consider the source ...

What's wrong with the source ? Don't trust your own troops ?

i'm just still so amazed that Napalm and ALL incendiary bombs were banned by the UN in 1980, but USA doesn't give a ★■◆● and continues to use them. They used them in the first Iraq war as well.

If you ask me, they are careful to not admit they are using "Napalm" purely because of the psychological impact that will have on the american public. Coz i'm sure we all thought we'd learned our lesson not to burn people alive in Vietnam, and our government would never presume to burn people alive in our names again. It's like the 1960s anti-vietnam demonstrations just plain never happened.

Iceman wrote:I think you are both naive. Consider the source ...

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

and this was reported at the start of the war in 2003. The reported Fallujah White Phosphorus (WP) incident was in 2004, so it's still going on.


Here's a historic reminder image (i wonder if it will be censored):



iirc, last time a war was STOPPED because the american populace was horrified when it found out that this was taking place.

Remember the female italian reporter, that was attacked near a u.s.a checkpoint killing her body guard? this was her story.

its clearly a "new" napalm (or not? INANPE). leaving cloths realativly untouched while destroying flesh.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12676
Pics. Not pretty. corpses etc.

bbc version of the story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

//E&C rule #308 attack the source.

Remember the female italian reporter, that was attacked near a u.s.a checkpoint killing her body guard? this was her story.

its clearly a "new" napalm (or not? INANPE). leaving cloths realativly untouched while destroying flesh.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12676
Pics. Not pretty. corpses etc.

bbc version of the story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

//E&C rule #308 attack the source.

Iceman wrote:I think you are both naive. Consider the source ...

heh.. like your own infantrymen would lie...


I don't like this 'If it doesn't come from a US news source, it's not to be trusted' tenent I've been seeing here lately.

The main reason I've turned away from US news sources is they're either 'war! war! war! rah! rah! rah!' or 'They're wrong, we're right' precedents. and people here are falling for it.

Open your eyes. See the Truth. The US media is NOT your friend.

I'd like to point out that the "stockpiles" of nerve agent here in Oregon, is being destroyed. It takes time and yea .. there is a lot. But I would rather they take thier time and do it right than make a mistake and ruin a lot of lives in the process. Mind you, this is junk from WAYYYyy back.

I don't know why this surprises everyone. Look at what's currently going on...then ask yourself if you're really surprised.

As for not signing the ban, it's laughable. Think about it, we don't allow nuke inspectors in America, no torture banning, using banned napalm, yet our govt claims to civil. I don't know.

Anyone in here ever make napalm? My brother and I soaked styrofoam in gasoline until it was like slush, we put it on a tree stump and lit it...couldn't get the thing to go out...had to wait for it to burn out.

Yeah, napalm...what God awful stuff. Unless you are a line grunt out in the open and pinned down by enemy fire coming from reinforced postions along a tree line.
Then you'll love the stuff.

woodchip wrote:Yeah, napalm...what God awful stuff. Unless you are a line grunt out in the open and pinned down by enemy fire coming from reinforced postions along a tree line.
Then you'll love the stuff.

glad to see you support the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.

Did I say indiscriminate?

right now you are no better than saddam, dude.

Ferno, stop with the rhetoric. No one's dumb enough to believe it but plenty are emotional enough to derail a topic over it.

Large scale motive completely aside, using nape as cover fire for your own men is not the same as gas shelling a random village to see what happens.

have you even watched the video Red?

As long as we're here, let's at least read a little bit about what White Phosphorous is and does from a former special forces soldier who actually knows it from experience.

a former special forces soldier who doesn't give a name, or any other supporting details? just an opinion..? and an opinion that attacks a source to boot.

I also find it interesting that no one here has said they have watched the video as of late. That's where my opinion stems from.

I watched the video when it was posted.

Blackfive is pretty well known across the military community. He doesn't give a name, but he's got plenty of credibility. Read the archives if you want to know why...

"It is good that war is so terrible, else we should become too fond of it"
- William Tecumseh Sherman

If you did, what's your thoughts on the helicopters just dumping all that WP on everything?

18:10 into the film is the footage i find the most interesting (that ferno is referring to). Perhaps a military buff can identify what those showers of sparks are, why it's being fired into the ground, and what would happen to you if you were under it.

This is what i take to be footage of WP used as a weapon.

Well, first of all, I think the video did a horrible job of:
1) explaining what WP is and what it's used for
2) demonstrating that the few (yes, few!) bodies shown were people who died as a result of WP

I've been doing some research, mostly of the accidental kind. WP is used for marking and creating smokescreens or smoking people out of areas. See, for example, Armor Geddon's post about 13 Nov. Scroll to the words "pop smoke when you're ready" and read from there... It's rarely used for its destructive power -- it's far less effective than conventional explosives. But it pours out a hell of a lot of smoke.

It just doesn't make sense to me that the military would drop tons of WP on people for the purpose of killing them, because most of the time it can be done more cheaply and effectively using other methods. It does make sense they'd drop it as a smokescreen, and possibly to smoke people out.

Those who say it was dropped indiscriminately simply don't understand the way the military works. They don't drop stuff at random; there's always someone on the ground picking out targets or target areas, either for direct destruction or to be illuminated or obscured. (For an example, follow the link above and go to Dec. 2004 and read the "fire for effect" story.)

What was shown in the video were a few bodies, and then some people SPECULATED about the cause of death. Yet we have no credible sources telling us that it's certain (or even probable) that those people died due to WP. Just FYI, the one troop (Englehart) who spoke the most in the video is a Known Idiot (TM) like Pat Robertson, so I trust nothing he says.

Would it surprise me if civilians died in Fallujah due to US-fired WP? Nope, not in the least. Remember the bumper sticker in Forrest Gump? The censored version is "it happens", and it definitely does in war zones. But I seriously doubt the accounts that say, essentially, that the city was indiscriminately firebombed, napalmed, or WP'ed. This is not Vietnam; we're not dropping crap on entire villages just for the hell of it. Again, read the "fire for effect" story on Armor Geddon and note what they had to go through to call for artillery fire.

Zuruck wrote:As for not signing the ban, it's laughable. Think about it, we don't allow nuke inspectors in America,...

Just an aside here. Zuruck are you trying to pile on a bunch of irrelevant charges to give your position more wieght or something?

We don't need inspectors to determine if we have nuclear weapons, the whole world knows we do! Washington will verify that publically and we are the only nation to actually use them in a war!
Inspectors?!? We don't need no steenkin' inspectors!
We got your nukes right here [america collectively grabs groin] swinging in the breeze baby!!

Actually I believe there are inspectors. Under SALT One and Two, Russian inspectors come in and "inspect" that we have destroyed our nukes as spelled out in the agreement...as our inspectors do with Russia's stock piles.

Now on to WP or more lovingly called Willy Pete by our soldiers. Got this excerpt from the liberal rag "Huffington Post":

"A rain of fire descended on the city. People who were exposed to those multicolored substance began to burn. We found people with bizarre wounds-their bodies burned but their clothes intact, relates Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji, a biologist and Fallujah resident."

First off WP is white and not multicolored like the Rainbow Coalition. Second thing is for you non chemistry types, WP is like the old Timex clock ad (though slightly rearranged), "WP takes a beating and it keeps on burning". In short if WP gets on you it burns until it extinguishes itself. It burns through clothing, it burns through flesh, it burns through flax jackets. So whatever was not burning clothes but burning the flesh underneath was not WP. Hey, I know...maybe it was a microwave gun.

Coolcat wrote:Remember the female italian reporter, that was attacked near a u.s.a checkpoint killing her body guard? this was her story.

its clearly a "new" napalm (or not? INANPE). leaving cloths realativly untouched while destroying flesh.

You know what napalm is?? It burns everything to a crisp. Its not a "chemical weapon". Its friggen jet fuel and tide detergent. When was mixed we used to play with it. Its kinda like crusty clear jello. Least the stuff we used back in CAX-8 was. The "bombs" look like kegs. They are hollow and you mix up a batch fill em up load em and drop them.

Whatever its hits it sticks to and burns. Not like WP that burns untill it is deprived of oxygen. Nap can be put out with water etc etc. WP is not a chemical weap either its just something else that is used to start fires. Bad way to die for sure.

*edit yes WP hitting you in the grape would burn to your toes and maybe not touch you clothes. Still a bad way to die.

*edit again sorry Coolcat I misread what you were posting.


They are calling WP the "new" napalm I guess. LOL @chemical weapons in those articles. By their term we all are using them. I am pretty sure the propellent in the bullets we/they are using are composed of chemicals too OMG!!

I think people are getting confused here. It's about two things. using napalm (which was banned by the UN) and using WP as the chemical weapon by dumping it all over the place.

The US never actually signed the protocol which bans incendiary weapons in warfare. White Phosphorous isn't actually banned.

I believe it's Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons.

Not making an excuse, mind you... but apart from everything, this war is ANYTHING but conventional.

You bit<h about incendiary weapons, but don't say a word about nutjobs blowing themselves up in crowds of hundreds.

And white phosphorous isn't NEARLY as bad as they make it out to be. Water and mud is all it takes to extinguish the reaction.

Sting_Ray wrote:And white phosphorous isn't NEARLY as bad as they make it out to be. Water and mud is all it takes to extinguish the reaction.

Kinda hard to make mud in the desert...no?

But it's an oxygen based ignition... smother it in sand to put it out and douse with water.

All's fair in war....

So this would be bad too?

"War is hell. But itâ??s worse when the Marines bring out their new urban combat weapon, the SMAW-NE. Which may be why theyâ??re not talking about it, much.

A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed." Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as "an awesome piece of ordnance."

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html

Remember this...every solder wants to come home alive and in one piece. They'll use any weapon they can to do so.

um.. correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't tracer bullets phosphrous? And BOTH "sides" use those.

I don't think so Duper..

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c ... ammunition

Tracers are special bullets that contain a powder in their base that burns very brightly during their flight. This enables the shooter to follow the bullets' trajectories. The shooter then, typically, "walks" his cone of fire onto the target by seeing where the tracer is going. Tracers have been used extensively in machine guns since World War I (1914-1918) and are usually loaded at a ratio of one tracer per four rounds in ground guns, and one tracer per every two or three rounds in aircraft guns.

A tracer projectile is constructed with a hollow base filled with a pyrotechnic flare material. In US and NATO standard ammunition this is usually a mixture of strontium salts and a metal fuel such as magnesium. This yields a bright red light. Russian and Chinese tracer ammunition generates green light using barium salts.

All's fair in love and war.