Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Surely you jest

Phycological effects
Justin Kelly — (archived)

I know that any point I make here will simply roll off you, but if you would stop scoffing at "phycological effects" for a second and think about what Phycological effects really does as far as acheiving victory with minimal casualties, you would realize a very important point.

just sit there and think about it. . . give it some time. . . you know the military has whole units devoted to this (Phy-Ops)

now: for the rest you said:

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.

See my response to Raoul, I agree, shotguns and handguns as WMD are silly, and so is Napalm. I explained why.

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.

name a humane weapon!!!! What about the Battle Axe? how would you like to die from being partially cleaved in half? How about a nice fat mini ball from the civil war tearing open your stomach so you can see your breakfast spilling out all over the floor and the HCL burning your skin? There are NO HUMANE WEAPONS. The very idea of trying to kill people humanely wreacks of pure idiocy.

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?

Give me a break! you are against 911 because the terrorist used jet feul to kill 3000 people? 3000 noncombatants killed in peacetime is wrong. What difference does it make which weapon they used? NONE.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (183 posts)