petetheisen <> wrote: > Helio W. wrote: >> Pete, >> >> I believe more modern and efficient weapons were used in Afghanistan. >> >> You know, you just can't drop a napalm canister and expect that it >> will burn talibans inside their holes in the moutains. > > Hi Helio! > > Someone posted (Stephen?) about setting one side of the mountain on > fire with Napalm and bathing the other side in tear gas to bring them > out. > The draft from the fires would draw the tear gas into the caves. This > may be correct. > > Before the mountain caves were the hang outs, however, the Taliban > fighters were in trenches near the populated areas. In the trenches, > Napalm would have been the weapon of choice, but for some reason it > was not used.
Fire is better if there is a combustible environment around. Say woods, forests or wooden homes with paper walls. What napalm does is use all the available oxygen so your living victims can't breathe anything of value who survive the burning jelly. That is what I was after in my example. Stephen Russell DBA / Operations Developer Memphis TN 38115 901.246-0159 http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 7/18/2006 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
