US attack on Fallujah
Nov 9th 2005, 8:56 am
#16
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,750
Re: US attack on Fallujah
My mistake, there was no video on that link. Here is the video (which some viewers may find disturbing). The source is apparently an Italian TV show. My previous comments may make a little more sense now 
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle10907.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle10907.htm
Nov 9th 2005, 12:21 pm
#17
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Chorlton
However, both napalm and cluster munitions are now frowned upon, and many countries have signed treaties to no longer deploy those weapons. Obviously, the US was not one of those countries. I think people confuse the treaties with the CWC.
Nov 9th 2005, 12:30 pm
#18
Not dead yet
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: In a world of my own where I know everyone
Posts: 15,042
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Chorlton
Also, troops were told that everyone in the city was an enemy combatant,
Oow Rah! don't you love the smell of napalm in the morning
Nov 9th 2005, 12:48 pm
#19
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Thydney
They work on the basis that those who run are the enemy and those who stand still are undercover enemy.
Oow Rah! don't you love the smell of napalm in the morning
Oow Rah! don't you love the smell of napalm in the morning
They have something very similar ....
I was listening to Randy Rhodes, she is about as far left as you can get on US radio, all about this.
I have not seen the photos but from what she was saying very unlikely to be phosphorous or 'napalm'.
I was thinking maybe FAE, but I do not know if this would cause these sort of injuries.
Or it could be a set up for the media, not exactly the first time.
Nov 9th 2005, 11:03 pm
#20
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,894
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Boiler
The US destroyed its stock of Naplam.
They have something very similar ....
I was listening to Randy Rhodes, she is about as far left as you can get on US radio, all about this.
I have not seen the photos but from what she was saying very unlikely to be phosphorous or 'napalm'.
I was thinking maybe FAE, but I do not know if this would cause these sort of injuries.
Or it could be a set up for the media, not exactly the first time.
They have something very similar ....
I was listening to Randy Rhodes, she is about as far left as you can get on US radio, all about this.
I have not seen the photos but from what she was saying very unlikely to be phosphorous or 'napalm'.
I was thinking maybe FAE, but I do not know if this would cause these sort of injuries.
Or it could be a set up for the media, not exactly the first time.
Seems Randy is the one left wing voice amongst the mass of right wingers out there.
Nov 10th 2005, 1:12 am
#21
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,750
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Boiler
The US destroyed its stock of Naplam.
They have something very similar ....
I was listening to Randy Rhodes, she is about as far left as you can get on US radio, all about this.
I have not seen the photos but from what she was saying very unlikely to be phosphorous or 'napalm'.
I was thinking maybe FAE, but I do not know if this would cause these sort of injuries.
Or it could be a set up for the media, not exactly the first time.
They have something very similar ....
I was listening to Randy Rhodes, she is about as far left as you can get on US radio, all about this.
I have not seen the photos but from what she was saying very unlikely to be phosphorous or 'napalm'.
I was thinking maybe FAE, but I do not know if this would cause these sort of injuries.
Or it could be a set up for the media, not exactly the first time.
I think there would be a hole where the town used to be! Every journalist for 50miles would know too.
Nov 10th 2005, 1:16 am
#22
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,750
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Boiler
What Treaty?
Ottowa treaty for landmines, admittedly not for cluster munitions as I thought, but my point still stands
Nov 10th 2005, 1:24 am
#23
.
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Where bad things rarely happen in movies
Posts: 8,933
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Chorlton
FAE??
I think there would be a hole where the town used to be! Every journalist for 50miles would know too.
I think there would be a hole where the town used to be! Every journalist for 50miles would know too.
FAE? Go on, enlighten us.
I'd got as far as "F**ks Anything and Everything", but I'm guessing thats not right.........
Nov 10th 2005, 2:10 am
#24
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,750
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Yorkieabroad
FAE? Go on, enlighten us.
I'd got as far as "F**ks Anything and Everything", but I'm guessing thats not right.........
I'd got as far as "F**ks Anything and Everything", but I'm guessing thats not right.........
Fuel Air Explosive - it creates a huge pressure wave, suck the oxygen out of the air and can create a nice mushroom cloud without the mess of nuclear weapons
Nov 10th 2005, 4:02 am
#25
.
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Where bad things rarely happen in movies
Posts: 8,933
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Chorlton
Fuel Air Explosive - it creates a huge pressure wave, suck the oxygen out of the air and can create a nice mushroom cloud without the mess of nuclear weapons
Nov 10th 2005, 5:17 am
#26
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Chorlton
1980 UN treaty for napalm
Ottowa treaty for landmines, admittedly not for cluster munitions as I thought, but my point still stands
Ottowa treaty for landmines, admittedly not for cluster munitions as I thought, but my point still stands
Only applies for use against Civillians anyway. So would not apply if they had.
Not even Randy was alleging that Civillians were deliberately targeted.
Nov 10th 2005, 5:29 am
#27
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Chorlton
Fuel Air Explosive - it creates a huge pressure wave, suck the oxygen out of the air and can create a nice mushroom cloud without the mess of nuclear weapons
They can have nasty side effects depending on the chemical make up.
New one is the BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon
Nov 10th 2005, 5:45 am
#28
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,750
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Boiler
They have smaller ones, I think the 'daisy cutters' were ten tons. Rolled out of the back of a Hercules, or is that fiction?
They can have nasty side effects depending on the chemical make up.
New one is the BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon
They can have nasty side effects depending on the chemical make up.
New one is the BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon
Daisy cutters exist, as at least 10 were used in one or both of the current conflicts. Though not FAEs, they do make rather a mess too.
The BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon is a bunker-busting FAE.
Now where were you going with the treaty thing
I said about 15 posts ago that the US didnt sign. Funnily enough, people think that the leader of the free world would have signed 
Last edited by Chorlton; Nov 10th 2005 at 5:47 am.
Nov 10th 2005, 5:56 am
#29
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Chorlton
Daisy cutters exist, as at least 10 were used in one or both of the current conflicts. Though not FAEs, they do make rather a mess too.
The BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon is a bunker-busting FAE.
Now where were you going with the treaty thing I said about 15 posts ago that the US didnt sign. Funnily enough, people think that the leader of the free world would have signed
The BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon is a bunker-busting FAE.
Now where were you going with the treaty thing
I said about 15 posts ago that the US didnt sign. Funnily enough, people think that the leader of the free world would have signed To target Civillians with Napalm, or its replacement, would be against proportionality etc anyway.
Nov 10th 2005, 6:05 am
#30
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,750
Re: US attack on Fallujah
Originally Posted by Boiler
False issue.
To target Civillians with Napalm, or its replacement, would be against proportionality etc anyway.
To target Civillians with Napalm, or its replacement, would be against proportionality etc anyway.
um, sure. I think you are the only one talking about targeting civilians. Its quite possible they didnt give a ***** that civilians were next to the enemy though.
