Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to OK, name a great way to die, and one that doesn't take up medical resources

Surely you jest
Robert — (archived)

People who aren't incinerated instantly by napalm tend to take a long time to die, in excruciating pain. Those who don't die are maimed horribly. Can I think of better ways to die? Gee, yeah.

After the US vividly demonstrated the joys of napalm in Vietnam, everybody knows what to expect from it. That knowledge, plus its very real effects, plus its indiscrimate way of inflicting pain and suffering on everyone within its range, is what makes it a terror weapon. The generals agree--they "love" its psychological effects.

It's weird that some people are having a hard time with the term "weapon of mass destruction", and dragging in shotguns and handgrenades and weapons of every type. Which word in that phrase is unclear? Napalm is a weapon, and its destruction is indiscriminate on a mass scale. It inflicts pain and suffering on a par with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Napalm is most definitely not a humane weapon.

The 9/11 hijackers in effect used napalm on the Pentagon and the Towers. Are all you defenders of napalm defending their choice of weapon? If its use by the US is moral and perfectly acceptable, was it moral and acceptable for the 9/11 hijackers to use a very similar weapon?

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (183 posts)