I found this link on overspun.com. Apparently, the US has used napalm or firebombs in Iraq.
Chemically killing people = bad.
Burning people alive = good.
Since when is fire more humane then mustard gas? Please explain. Like, on a scale of 1-10 where does burning people alive rate in comparison to chemical weapons, especially if the victims die in about the same amount of pain. Arent they both very horrible ways to die? No? Maybe the Sargeant will explain the use of napalm in Iraq But its isnt napalm. Its a different chemical weapon, I mean, not a chemical, but I mean its a different the fire doesnt hurt them because they die so incredibly fast in the searing flames that melt their flesh, I mean. They probably deserve some pain and suffering cause theyre a bunch of insurgent fucks shitting in buckets. And thats the truth. And you cant handle the truth!!!!! Yes. Thanks for that enlightening explanation. A firebomb is a chemical weapon: its a chemical, ignited, and its a weapon. The only difference between firebombs and chemical weapons is that with firebombs, the flesh is seared from the outside-inward. While with chemical weapons, the flesh is seared from the inside-outward. And on a scale of 1 to 10, they are the same in terms of total suffering in that ones flesh is seared while one is still alive. Its over the top. It should not be done. But apparently, liquid fire is awesome. Look at how effective it is.
The US Government: Burning people alive (for freedom) since 1965.
Chemically killing people = bad.
Burning people alive = good.
Since when is fire more humane then mustard gas? Please explain. Like, on a scale of 1-10 where does burning people alive rate in comparison to chemical weapons, especially if the victims die in about the same amount of pain. Arent they both very horrible ways to die? No? Maybe the Sargeant will explain the use of napalm in Iraq But its isnt napalm. Its a different chemical weapon, I mean, not a chemical, but I mean its a different the fire doesnt hurt them because they die so incredibly fast in the searing flames that melt their flesh, I mean. They probably deserve some pain and suffering cause theyre a bunch of insurgent fucks shitting in buckets. And thats the truth. And you cant handle the truth!!!!! Yes. Thanks for that enlightening explanation. A firebomb is a chemical weapon: its a chemical, ignited, and its a weapon. The only difference between firebombs and chemical weapons is that with firebombs, the flesh is seared from the outside-inward. While with chemical weapons, the flesh is seared from the inside-outward. And on a scale of 1 to 10, they are the same in terms of total suffering in that ones flesh is seared while one is still alive. Its over the top. It should not be done. But apparently, liquid fire is awesome. Look at how effective it is.
The US Government: Burning people alive (for freedom) since 1965.