Is this an ethical weapon?

[jellybean99]

"During a street battle in Baghdad on April 12, 2003, Al-Ghazali describes witnessing American troops unveil an oddly configured tank which suddenly let loose a blinding stream of what seemed like fire and lightning, engulfing a large passenger bus and three automobiles.

[FONT=&quot]Within seconds the bus had become semi-molten, sagging like a 'wet rag' as he put it. He said the bus rapidly melted under this withering blast, shrinking until it was a twisted blob about the dimensions of a VW bug. As if that were not bizarre enough, al-Ghazali explicitly describes seeing numerous human bodies shriveled to the size of newborn babies. By the time local street fighting ended that day, he estimates between 500 and 600 soldiers and civilians had been cooked alive as a result of the mysterious tank-mounted device.”

infowars(DOT)com/?p=4435
[/FONT]

 

[cantata]

Sounds like a pretty vile weapon to me.

 

[jcook922]

"During a street battle in Baghdad on April 12, 2003, Al-Ghazali describes witnessing American troops unveil an oddly configured tank which suddenly let loose a blinding stream of what seemed like fire and lightning, engulfing a large passenger bus and three automobiles.

[FONT=&quot]Within seconds the bus had become semi-molten, sagging like a 'wet rag' as he put it. He said the bus rapidly melted under this withering blast, shrinking until it was a twisted blob about the dimensions of a VW bug. As if that were not bizarre enough, al-Ghazali explicitly describes seeing numerous human bodies shriveled to the size of newborn babies. By the time local street fighting ended that day, he estimates between 500 and 600 soldiers and civilians had been cooked alive as a result of the mysterious tank-mounted device.”

infowars(DOT)com/?p=4435
[/FONT]

If the principle is based on napalm then it's not against the Geneva convention. Then again I'm biased, if it saves soldiers lives then I say use it.

Curious to say however, that I've never seen nor heard of us having or even experimenting with such a weapon.

 

[BobW188]

On its surface, this sounds like the unethical use of a weapon; but we don't know if this actually happened or, if it did, what the tactical situation.
I believe flamethrowing armored vehicles go back to the Pacific Theater of World War II.
Any weapon is designed to kill or cause bodily harm, so its use is always an ethical question.

 

[trunks2k]

The source is infowars.com. I believe that this event happened just as much as believe a small primate capable of flight will exit my rectum.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The source is infowars.com. I believe that this event happened just as much as believe a small primate capable of flight will exit my rectum.

This.

Put me in the "OP reads like a mediocre sci-fi novel" category.

 

[seeker777]

Let me just say that I had a friend 15 years ago who told me all about the top secret evil lazer like weapons that the U.S. military used in Grenada. I even knew then that this guy was fool of hot air.

These types of rumours have been around forever. Don't believe them.

If the U.S. was trying to keep a weapon secret, they would not use it in a common street battle for everyone to see, to film, document and photograph.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

"During a street battle in Baghdad on April 12, 2003, Al-Ghazali describes witnessing American troops unveil an oddly configured tank which suddenly let loose a blinding stream of what seemed like fire and lightning, engulfing a large passenger bus and three automobiles.

[FONT=&quot]Within seconds the bus had become semi-molten, sagging like a 'wet rag' as he put it. He said the bus rapidly melted under this withering blast, shrinking until it was a twisted blob about the dimensions of a VW bug. As if that were not bizarre enough, al-Ghazali explicitly describes seeing numerous human bodies shriveled to the size of newborn babies. By the time local street fighting ended that day, he estimates between 500 and 600 soldiers and civilians had been cooked alive as a result of the mysterious tank-mounted device.”

[FONT=&quot]infowars(DOT)com/?p=4435[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Uhm, yeeaaahhh.

 

[mont974x4]

The source is infowars.com. I believe that this event happened just as much as believe a small primate capable of flight will exit my rectum.

Pretty well sums it up.


Had this been a real weapon, I'd like to see pics, stats, video and all from reputable sites.

But then, I used to work on the MLRS, which is a really cool weapon in its own right.

 

[quatona]

I don´t like violence.

 

[seeker777]

I don´t like violence.

Controlled violence, consensual fighting, that's good entertainment and excellent athleticism.

In that regard, sometimes I like violence. Sometimes I dislike violence.

 

[mont974x4]

I don´t like violence.

Most people don't like violence. As a disabled vet I fully understand war and accept it as a necessary evil in a fallen world.

Jay (who believes we should pray for peace and prepare for war)

 

[quatona]

Most people don't like violence.

Well, in view of the fact that many of these same people use, advocate and defend violence I conclude that there´s something they dislike even more than violence.

As a disabled vet I fully understand war and accept it as a necessary evil in a fallen world.

I don´t understand it and I don´t accept it as necessary.

 

[seeker777]

Well, in view of the fact that many of these same people use, advocate and defend violence I conclude that there´s something they dislike even more than violence.


I don´t understand it and I don´t accept it as necessary.

If the allies had this attitude in 1939, I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't have the freedom to pontificate over the vexing nature of violence on an internet forum.

Thank those who gave their lives in a violent struggle, so that you may have the freedom to spend idle time on the internet, claiming that you do not accept violence as necessary or even understand its place in the world.

 

[B'alaam]

If the allies had this attitude in 1939, I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't have the freedom to pontificate over the vexing nature of violence on an internet forum.

Thank those who gave their lives in a violent struggle, so that you may have the freedom to spend idle time on the internet, claiming that you do not accept violence as necessary or even understand its place in the world.

I think you missed quatona's point.

 

[jcook922]

If the allies had this attitude in 1939, I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't have the freedom to pontificate over the vexing nature of violence on an internet forum.

Thank those who gave their lives in a violent struggle, so that you may have the freedom to spend idle time on the internet, claiming that you do not accept violence as necessary or even understand its place in the world.

Freedom is born from the blood of good men willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in.

 

[mont974x4]

He's right. I dislike terrorists more than I dislike war. I dislike child molestors more than I dislike fighting to save a neighbor. Those are just two real life examples I have personally experienced.



And I guess one could consider war an unnecessary thing..if you're willing to die in chains. Like it or not, in a fallen world we will always have the Hitler's and the Bin Ladens that good men will have to engage in war against on behalf of others.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

If the principle is based on napalm then it's not against the Geneva convention. Then again I'm biased, if it saves soldiers lives then I say use it.

Curious to say however, that I've never seen nor heard of us having or even experimenting with such a weapon.

I agree if it saves our boys from harm from insurgents I say its justifiable. Quatona's comments are very unrealistic. Most people don't like war, but because the nature of humans it is nessesary for our freedom. No soldier dies in vain.

 

[jcook922]

He's right. I dislike terrorists more than I dislike war. I dislike child molestors more than I dislike fighting to save a neighbor. Those are just two real life examples I have personally experienced.



And I guess one could consider war an unnecessary thing..if you're willing to die in chains. Like it or not, in a fallen world we will always have the Hitler's and the Bin Ladens that good men will have to engage in war against on behalf of others.

Better to die standing than live on your knees, as they say.

 

[quatona]

If the allies had this attitude in 1939, I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't have the freedom to pontificate over the vexing nature of violence on an internet forum.

So...?
This seems to confirm my statement: you´d dislike my lack of freedom to speak my mind more than the violence against those that presumably would prevent my freedom to speak my mind.

(On another note, I don´t think you can say (lest guanrantee) anything about how the world would be if history had been different - beyond that it would be different.)