Incendiary Weapons Are No "Allegation" 2007-06-12 | Times corrects a minor error, ignores the big one
Reviewing the London-based anti-Iraq War play "Fallujah", New York Times reporter Jane Perlez wrote (5/29/07), "The denunciations of the United States are severe, particularly in the scenes that deal with the use of napalm in Fallujah, an allegation made by left-wing critics of the war but never substantiated." She followed that complaint by reporting that the play's writer and director, Jonathan Holmes, "makes no pretense of objectivity", paraphrasing him as saying that he "strove for authority more than authenticity". Unfortunately for the Times, which does make a pretense of objectivity, the U.S. government did use the modern equivalent of napalm in Iraq. In a 2003 interview in the San Diego Union-Tribune (8/5/03), Marine Col. James Alles described the use of Mark 77 firebombs on targets in Iraq, saying, "We napalmed both those approaches." While the Pentagon makes a distinction between the Mark 77 and napalm--the chemical formulation is slightly different, being based on kerosene rather than gasoline -- it acknowledged to the Union-Tribune that the new weapon is routinely referred to as napalm because "its effect upon the target is remarkably similar." "You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm", military analyst John Pike told the paper. In a column that appeared before his play premiered (London Guardian, 4/4/07), "Fallujah" playwright and director Jonathan Holmes referred to it as a "napalm derivative". MORE http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3114 Source: http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=3617&blz=1 Now, about CS 'tear gas' as the 'Tailwind' poison gas.... You can call it something other than poison gas, but (in an enclosed environment) it's poison gas.
