US admits using napalm on Iraqis

Not treason. Just a "high crime" to lie under oath, according to those who pursued it.

To me, it doesn't make the case that lying is bad to then turn around and lie. That can be said for people on the right-hand side of the aisle in government (or on the left-hand side from time to time, as well), as well as in other cases.

Of course, if it isn't called napalm, then I can excuse not saying they were using Napalm as they weren't. It would've been more honest to say "We were using something like Napalm that works the same but has a different classification", of course.

If I take a Tylenol and you later ask me if I've taken any aspirin today, it wouldn't be a lie, exactly, to say that I hadn't. Heck, if I use an Angel Soft-brand facial tissue to wipe my nose and you ask if I used a Kleenex, I wouldn't be lying if I said no.

Or if you ask if I dropped a bomb on some target when in reality I hit it with a cruise missile, it wouldn't really be lying if I just answered "no" to your question.

But they really should've elaborated and said they were using something very similar to Napalm, as they knew they were being asked a general question about incindiaries, not specifically about the specific chemical compound that is commonly called Napalm.

 

And that's why we call it being disingenuous.

Only females are intrigued by the differences between headache medicines... so when I ask you if you've used any 'Tylenol' today, of course I am throwing out a huge umbrella of a brandname. Kleenex likewise means tissue paper in the language of pragmatists.

'Napalm', 'firebomb', whatever. Whomever asked that question expected frankness, and they didn't get any. But then again, we all know that this administration is loaded w/ a bunch of lying sacks.

serious, sorry about your loss.

 

What do you expect from folks who want to make it acceptable for the our military to use tactical nukes...

 

I'm surprised napalm isn't illegal to use in war now. They said there's a weapon treaty banning using it on civilians (which the US hasn't signed), but not on military targets. I know why the Administration would rather call them firebombs -- it sounds a hell of a lot better than napalm, somehow.

 

A civilian casualty = collateral damage.

Napalm = 'New Fire Bomb'

If I say that there were 5,000 deaths that were collateral damage, but no civilian deaths, I would be lying. Just because I changed the name doesn't make it any less of a lie.

 

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

 

They didn't just change the name, though. The chemical compound is different. It's a different product that's very similar to Napalm.

If the military was asked if they used any Sherman tanks in the Iraqi war, would it be a lie to say no? Because they did use tanks. They just weren't Sherman tanks; they were the successors to Sherman tanks.

One could argue that all they did was change the name - a tank is a tank is a tank. Right?

I mean, it's not completely honest to not tell that they used a very similar product when asked about the use of Napalm, but had they said "We didn't use Napalm. We used a similar weapon." would you have also considered that a lie?

 

I see your point. Your answer above would have been a more honest one. I'll admit it probably wasn't an outright lie, if the weapon has a different chemical makeup. All the same it's dangerously close to semantics for my liking.

 

Oh, I totally agree with you. No matter what, they didn't tell the whole truth, and it was certainly misleading. No doubt about that.

 

MrP, it is a lie. They knew what the question was and appealed to semantics in order to deceive their audience. It doesn't matter if what you say is truthful -- if your intent is to deceive, you're lying.

 

What does that mean?

 

I respectfully disagree, but you are welcome to your own opinion, and I respect and see where you're coming from.

 

Liar!!

 

Don't you mean... I love the smell of firebombs in the morning?

 

It depends on what is meant by "is."