che gli usa avessero usato bombe al fosforo si sapeva già rainews fa un'inchiesta scoop solo un anno dopo. ecco i link!

http://www.focolaio.com/newsweek/single.php?id=103

http://www.aljazira.it/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=425
http://www.disinformazione.it/falluja.htm
http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/po/ir/poir5a23.htm
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=67552&media_type=TEXT&results_offset=210
http://www.focolaio.com/newsweek/single.php?id=83

ma le inchieste si fanno quando vengono comodo?

Autobomba a Falluja.Vittime USA in 16 giorni gli Usa dichiarano 51 perdite per un totale di 2079. sappiamo tutti che si tratta del 20% delle perdite reali come sapevamo tutti di Falluja ma facevamo tutti finta di niente come facciamo tutti finta di niente su Al Qaim adesso.




Autobomba a Falluja.Vittime USA
http://notizie.supereva.com/det.php?id=89815

ma quanno ciarivamo a tremila?Spero prima de la fine der mese.Alea iacta est.

Ma pure gas, scudi umani, bombe su scuole ospedali ecc.
La solita tattica dei vigliacchi yankee: come soldati non valgono un c... e colpiscono i civili

The following comes courtesy of http://www.iraqnow.blogspot.com

"You may want to share this with your readers. This is not a professional work, but just an informal analysis.

I had this conversation yesterday regarding this news story about WP being used as a chemical weapon.

I am a former fire support officer, who was trained to travel with infantry and armor units and be the eyes of the artillery to call for fire.
I read the article from the Italian news source, and let me state unequivocally that what it claims is physically impossible. A white phosphorous round used for illumination is a base ejecting projectile that "opens" in the air and floats down under a parachute. The projectile casing does continue down range, but fire direction officers and fire support officers along with the maneuver commanders clear this impact area as part of the calculations. The projectile casing itself could kill a person, as any bullet would, but it is not possible to use it as a chemical warfare attack.
The flare itself floats down and you would pretty much have to chase after it and position yourself under where you project it will land to even get burned. It is possible although very unlikely that this flare could hit a building and could cause a fire, but the injury wouldn’t be a chemical burn, but a burn from the building fire. I have never seen anything close to this happen.
The flares come down slowly and usually burn out first, but since they are the brightest thing in the sky, it would be easy to avoid one if it landed while burning. I have seen a few flares land on the ground while burning, but this is much different than a chemical attack.
The only way you could purposely harm anyone with this is if you direct fired at a short range. The projectile most likely wouldn't eject the flare (it has a timed fuse) and it really wouldn't matter if you fired Cheetohs at someone at that range, the concussion would kill them.
An artillery unit wouldn't use direct fire unless it was being attacked. And even then it would use their organic direct fire weapons and if necessary, another type of projectile. To use a WP for direct fire would be entirely counterproductive to the security of the battery even in self defense.

This Italian news story is nothing but a lie.

After being asked repeatedly to analyze the “Italian News Story” (gag), I analyzed the video, here are my thoughts

I analyzed the video and am pleased to announce that it is junk. There are many things I could point out, but here is what sticks out.
1. The “fire raining down from the helicopter” was the part that concerned me. I had to watch it repeatedly to figure it out. At first I thought it was the backblast from a missile being fired the other direction. After a more thorough analysis, I realize it was an air burst of WP artillery rounds. Those are basically small rags that looked like balls of fire. This is because it is night and it is hard to get perspective at night, with or without night vision equipment. Taken out of context, it is easy to make it look like fire raining down on the city. The rag would certainly burn, but it would be like a cigarette and you would just need to brush it off, maybe take off clothes, and get away from it.
2. The voice over states "contrary to the claim by the state department that WP was used in open fields, this was not true because tracer rounds were used to illuminate the enemy" Nothing could have spelled out liar any bigger than that one statement. Tracy rounds are never used to illuminate the enemy. The glow from a tracer round lasts tenths of a second and travels hundreds of miles an hour; it could not possibly be used for this function, again a claim that defies all practicality. Tracer rounds are used to see where your bullets are going so your fire can be adjusted, flat out. And quoting the State Department about a military function?

3. The pictures of dead bodies while hideous provide no analytical value. Contrast the opening from Vietnam, with the burned little girl, running from a napalmed village. That is conclusive evidence. Nothing about these dead bodies looked any different to the many dead bodies I have seen analyzing other videos (of dead bodies) that were all made that way (dead) by Saddam’s regime and then by Jihadists. There is no way to determine what killed these people by looking at pictures, except maybe by a forensics expert.

4. The soldiers, this is more complicated:
I find the taller guy, I think his name was Garret, credible. His story rang true and is tragically repeated. But this is not a war crime or a chemical attack, but bad target identification and a complete human tragedy, assuming the "civilians" were indeed non combatants, it is very hard for the soldiers to tell. Although I do question his motives that is irrelevant to this analysis since he provides no “evidence” of chemical weapons.
The other guy Jeff was a liar, to the point I would need to see his orders to believe he was in Iraq. He states, (paraphrasing) "the orders unequivocally came from the pentagon to wait until after the election".
How does he know this? Was he CENTCOM commander at the time? Did the CENTCOM commander call him up and tell him that? Even if it was true, that fact in itself is not nefarious.
The re-election of Bush would be a crushing blow to the Jihadists in Fallujah, and let me tell you, I have seen their own videos recovered from there and the place was crawling with them. It would make tactical sense to wait, if you were pretty confident that Bush would win. They call this tactical patience.
Also, the timing of the attack was heavily influenced by the Iraqi Provisional Authority. The U.S. had just helped them form and wanted to get them involved with running their country as soon as possible. That is why the first battle of Fallujah was ended, because the new Iraqi government wanted more time to talk with the Jihadists. That is until the new Iraqi government officials figured out that they were now the primary target of the Jihadists and told the U.S. effectively, go get them (the Jihadists in Fallujah) as soon as you can.
Jeff states (paraphrasing), that the U.S. was using chemical weapons because we used WP. Hogwash. The video itself showed the flares floating slowly to the ground and the ground itself gave perspective. Now I am not saying I would want WP on my skin, but I wouldn't want Drano on my skin either and I am not declaring chemical warfare on my home. Now a person could make the argument that you could take that Drano and throw it on your neighbor and that would be a chemical attack. True, but, you can not spew WP from a deployed flare because if it is burning, it is burning the WP. You wouldn’t want to put your mouth over it, of course, and you wouldn’t want to purposely hold it to your skin, but you would have to go out of the way to hurt yourself with a flare.

c. He states (paraphrasing) when they used the stuff (WP) they would come over the net and say the WP is coming or "commence bombing" or something.
Commence bombing? Who was on the net giving this sitrep, Clark Gable? That’s about the last time anybody used this term. This guy is a clown. And notice he makes claims and then says, oh, I didn't see it, but I heard about it.

5. The real tip off about the credibility of this “news story” is the pictures of dead animals.
The voice over said, paraphrasing: that several animals were found dead with no visible sign of trauma.
First off, did they examine the animals? If so, they didn’t show it. Sure something is not visible, if you don’t look! Animals die everyday from natural causes, hunger, disease, or even getting hit by cars or possibly by conventional weapons.
And get this, they show people who appear burned and claim this to be a sign of a chemical weapon, then they show animals with no injuries in the context of this discussion to imply they died of a mysterious chemical weapon. Their “facts” not only fail to support each other, but they directly conflict with each other. Yet they choose to throw them at the viewer with full understanding of the emotional impact of these images.

6. A human rights group based in Fallujah? For crying out loud, that was Saddam's power base. That is were the people burned four contractors and hung them from a bridge.

By introducing these “facts” in the context of a chemical weapons discussion, yet not having any supporting evidence, I can only conclude that not only are these charges false, but this was done with the documentary creator’s full knowledge that they were baseless charges. In other words, they purposely lied, which goes to their credibility.


After I wrote this, I was informed of more “supporting evidence” linked on the http://www.Dailykos.com:


“"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
-- Field Artillery Magazine, via Steven D

My analysis:

I don’t mean to speak for the author, but this is evident

""WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition."

Very true and widely known among redlegs (artillerymen). Nothing interesting here.

"We used it for screening missions at two breeches ..."

The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it.

"and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE."

Notice he said psychological weapon and not chemical weapon. This is because the smoke would confuse the enemy and conceal our movements and would indeed, scare them.

"We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents"

A poor choice of phrasing because it is not technically accurate and does give the wrong impression, but this is a soldier and not a politician or a marketing strategist. (After further consideration, I think if the reference is to the projectile itself and not to the effect on flesh, it could be accurate. The HE would shake the ground and the material that creates smoke does so by burning (baking) but you would pretty much have to try to set yourself on fire by rolling around in it.)

"using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

This takes a little bit of imagination. Imagine you are in a fighting position and the enemy is dropping smoke near your position. You ask yourself "why are they dropping smoke here?" the answer "because they are coming right through here." So, you haul butt out of your defensive position and expose yourself to HE.

This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the “dual use” of smoke (WP) as a chemical weapon. It is stating that WP can have a psychological effect as well as a tactical use. That is the only “dual use” here.



-Ray Robison is a Sr. Military Operations Research Analyst with Scientific Applications International Corporation at the Aviation and Missile, Research, Development, Engineering Command in Huntsville Alabama. His background includes over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for
DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group.

prendete, merde

la velina della cia qui sopra e' gia' stata abbondantemente spammata in altri post. oltretutto il contenuto, per quanto garbato, e' sostanzialmente equiparabile al negazionismo sull'Olocausto.
hiddare grazie.

hehe

rode il culo quando la verità controbatte le tua propaganda, miserabile?

prendi anche questo, merda

Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims

Predictably, the "US used chemical weapons at Fallujah" story is spreading like phosphorus fire, and the Independent reprises its coverage today.

Interestingly, a careful reading of the latest Indy article (though not in the print edition, where the crucial section has been omitted, apparently due to a production error), especially when combined with a viewing of the RAI video that was the catalyst for the story (and a bit of research), casts grave doubt on the contention that the horrible injuries pictured were in fact the result of phosphorus bombs.

Writing for the Independent, Andrew Buncombe summarises the claim made by the video - which, as we saw yesterday, consisted solely of interviews with, and images produced by, prominent anti-war activists, but no independent scientists or military experts:

Quote:
"Photographic evidence gathered from the aftermath of the battle suggests that women and children were killed by horrific burns caused by the white phosphorus shells dropped by US forces."

And later:

Quote:
"Photographs obtained by RAI from the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, show the bodies of dozens of Fallujah residents whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised by the effects of the phosphorus shells. The use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by treaty."

The certainty of the statement "by the effects of phosphorus shells" is notable.

Yesterday's Independent article, following the lead of the RAI broadcast, made much of the fact that clothing was intact on many of the burned bodies:

Quote:
"Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

"A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq [in actuality, but as unreported by the Independent, the director of "the Studies Centre of Human Rights"], interviewed for the film, says: 'A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact.'"

The implication is that intact clothing constitutes a unique aspect of "appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon", as the lead paragraph put it.

Antiwar activist Jeff Englehart (who is, unbeknownst to Independent readers "the mouthpiece for a group of soldiers who are fighting in a war they oppose for a president they didn't elect while the petrochemical complex turns the blood of their fallen comrades into oil"), the only former soldier interviewed about phosphorus use, agrees:

Quote:
"It doesn't necessarily burn clothes, but it will burn the skin underneath the clothes."

Given the considerable stress laid on the non-burning of clothes by both the Independent and the RAI film, it seems odd that this statement, from today's Indy article, is passed over without comment:

"John Pike, director of the Washington-based military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said the smoke caused by the bombs could confuse or blind the enemy or mark a target. 'If it hits your clothes it will burn your clothes and if it hits your skin it will just keep on burning,' he said."

"If it hits your clothes, it will burn your clothes". Well, that certainly seems to undermine the assertions about intact clothes - it seems unlikely that a victim's face could be completely "caramelised" by the heat, while clothing just inches away was unscathed. Unfortunately, it's (intentionally?) not clear from context in the article whether Mr. Pike is talking about phosphorus, napalm, or both. So I asked him:

Daily Ablution: "Were you referring to white phosphorus or napalm?"

John Pike: "White Phosphorus."

Referring to another quote from yesterday's Independent story, I asked:

Daily Ablution: "Are burns caused by white phosphorus consistent with 'bodies burned but clothes intact'?"

John Pike: "No."

Here's more, from the Emergency War Surgery NATO Handbook:

Quote:
"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."

So ... most cutaneous injury caused by this commonly used weapon results from "the ignition of clothing". This, along with Mr. Pike's observation, casts grave doubt upon a key basis for the assertions that phosphorus was used.

It's not clear just what the images in the RAI video show, but, based on the intact clothing, this evidence suggests that it something other than charred phosphorus victims. While he hasn't seen the video, and so couldn't comment directly about it, Mr. Pike told me that the Indy's description of "clothes largely intact but skin dissolved, caramelised or turned the consistency of leather" sounded like "generic corpses" that had been exposed to the environment for a couple of weeks.

However, one doubts that this aspect of the story will get a great deal of coverage.

hai rotto
tornatene al pertagono
le tue palle e pergiunta in inglese sono inutili
sei contraddetto anche dai tuoi stessi capi

esaltatore di crimini contro l'umanita', nazista assassino, merda: morirai di cancro al cervello e di overdose, imbecille, come il tuo degno collega di Stay Behind, tale Andrea Ghira, pervertito violentatore, assassino, venduto e mercenario.

You, your brains, are already FUBAR, fucked up beyond ANY repair.

Beware "americano":

you are not the only one acting within the military and the intelligence community (not all of them are very ignorant losers and nazi jukies like you) and you've abundantly proved already to be an extremely low rank subject.

Someone above you could realize that your very low level of propaganda could backfire and not serve the purpose for which you were sent here.
And then, you'll find yourself impaled by your own disregard for the DoD rules for PsyOps.

You've been warned.

Here's another one for ya, my English speaking friend:


Quote:
Lies, damned lies, and the... BBC?

[J.D. Henderson, Wednesday November 16, 2005 at 12:07pm EST]
From the BBC:

Washington is not a signatory to any treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus against civilians.

White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III.
----------------------------------

Sadly, the BBC is not reporting the facts accurately, but is "spinning" them like Fox News in an election year. It is sad to see the BBC fall prey to such slanted, deliberately inaccurate coverage.

It is true that "Washington is not a signatory to any treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus against civilians." It is also true that Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

It is also true that the US has not signed Protocol III.

So the story is true, right? Wrong.

It is NEVER legal under international laws of land warfare to deliberately target civilians. You can not use WP - or any other weapon of any kind - against civilians. We don't "carpet-bomb" like in WWII, when civilian populations were viewed by some as legitimate targets. We do not fire WP or any other weapon at civilians.

Any weapon that is "legal" under the laws of land warfare can be used against enemy forces in civilian areas, as long as the use of that weapon fits the "proportionality" test - you don't kill 500 civilians to get one bad guy, etc.

This story makes it sound like the US is defending its right to use white phosphorus against civilians. That is not the case. The US is reiterating what is a legal and known fact - that WP is not a "chemical weapon" and that it is not a "banned" weapon. It is a conventional weapon like high explosive, bullets, bayonets, or hand grenades. The only restrictions on its use are those that apply to all other weapons - you don't target civilians. If civilians are harmed, by any weapon, it is either an accident or a crime. In combat zones people get hurt - even our own troops in friendly fire incidents - and it is even more likely that civilians, hiding in an enemy-occupied city and whose presence the soldiers are not aware of, will be accidently hit in the course of the battle. That is not the same as "targeting" civilians, and the US has never claimed WP or any other weapon can be used against civilian populations. Civilians are non-combatants and it is illegal to attack them. There are those who refuse to admit the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and accidently hitting them in a battle, but that doesn't make the use of WP in Fallujah a crime. The BBC should be ashamed for twisting the facts of this story to imply the US would target civilians deliberately.
http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/a...tml#1132160864

well that explains it.

Oh and drop the personal threats mr. internet warrior, that you can do with your teenager mates, ain't gonna work on me kid

"Oh and drop the personal threats"

No one has expressed any specifical (or non-specifical) threat against you.
You've been warned not to impale yourself, and that's all.
In fact, you are the worse threat to yourself, as per your own frequent and reiterated performances which do speak volumes by themselves about your complete lack of any hint of civilization and humanity.
Which, definitely, is NOT the image the US gov whishes to spread to the world and especially towards Italians, even through an imbecile servant like you.

"mr. internet warrior"

If there's someone pretending to be an internet warrior that's you. I can't see anyone else acting like a retarded kid like you do.

"that you can do with your teenager mates"

Only the fact that you've got the brains of a brainless amoeba can explain what makes you so sure that you are speaking to a teenager.

You're dead wrong.

Bye, idiotic moron.

ola gringo, hijo de puta
adelante a nueva orleans !!!

Besame el busho amigo.
Hahahaha!!

If you are not young in age, you must be in the mind. Your deductions are worthless.
You keep trying to insult me with an inner rage that - and that one does - speaks lenghts.
Remember that that kind of hate eats you inside first, largely more than you can spit out. And it shows.
We chose opposite sides. That doesn't make me less humane than you are. You should know this already by now, miserable one? Don't try to pull the pacifisct shit with me punk, as your evident hate precludes you form really desiring any real type of peace. Such things come a way longer distance you've proved to be conscious of to me.

I'm posting stuff written all over here, (and I haven't seen a single attempt on your side): you're only trying to insult and get to personal attacks, I see no other evidence posted by you? How come.
There's only a couple of punks puking insults, but that's no biggie.

Which again, is the usual attempt at changing the focus on things. Not a problem, I know all this already.

You also assume (this is a bestseller) that someone even sent me here. Stop that crap. You folks here are paranoid about this all too often here. It's gotten to a point where it's even pitiful.
I know you're already striving to speak those few English words so talking to me must feel like talking to the big enemy in your eyes, but you need get to get a better vision kid.

Not impressed.

Here's another one for ya.

I'll see ya...NOT.

haha,

"The American Pretender"

Qatar-based Internet site Islam Online was one of the first to spread the false chemical weapons claim. On November 10, 2004, it reported that U.S. troops were allegedly using "chemical weapons and poisonous gas" in Fallujah. ("US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah") It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation.

The inaccurate Islam Online story has been posted on hundreds of Web sites.

On November 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a denial of the chemical weapons charge, stating:

"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

To its credit, Islam Online ran a Nov. 25, 2004, story carrying the U.S. denial.

In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003. Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

The repetition of this story on Islam Online’s led to further misinformation. Some readers did not distinguish between what had happened in the spring of 2003, during the march to Baghdad, and in Fallujah in November 2004. They mistakenly thought napalm-like weapons had been used in Fallujah, which is not true. No Mark-77 firebombs have been used in operations in Fallujah.

On Nov. 11, 2004, the Nov. 10 Islam Online story was reposted by the New York Transfer News Web site, with the inaccurate headline "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah."

The headline was wrong in two ways. First, as explained above, Islam Online was incorrect in claiming that U.S. forces were using poison gas in Fallujah. Second, the New York Transfer News misread the Islam Online story to mean that U.S. forces were currently using napalm-like weapons in Fallujah. But Islam Online had never claimed this; it had only talked about napalm use in 2003.

The false napalm allegation then took on a life of its own. Further postings on the Internet repeated or recreated the error that the New York Transfer News had made, which eventually appeared in print media. For example, on Nov. 28, 2004, the UK’s Sunday Mirror inaccurately claimed U.S. forces were "secretly using outlawed napalm gas" in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror story was wrong in two ways.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror’s phrasing "napalm gas" is also revealing. Napalm is a gel, not a gas. Why did the Sunday Mirror describe it as a gas?

It may be that, somewhere along the line, a sloppy reader read the inaccurate New York Transfer News headline, "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah," and omitted the comma between napalm and gas, yielding the nonsensical "napalm gas."

Next, the Sunday Mirror’s misinformation about “napalm gas” was reported in identical articles on Nov. 28 by aljazeera.com and islamonline.com. These two Web sites, which are owned by the same company – Al Jazeera Publishing – are deceptive look-alike Web sites that masquerade as the English-language sites of the popular Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite television station al Jazeera and the popular Islam Online Web site, which is islamonline.net.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorous shells in Fallujah. Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."


A great deal of nothing can be made about giving a quick statment based on the best facts at hand. Facts are the statement was made by an individual who wasn't at the battle, and likely had only general knowledge of it.(State Dept)

WP is generally used as illum and screen, it can also be used to flush the enemy out of their position. The use of WP isn't illegal, the manner it's stated it was used is not illegal.

Use of incendiary weapons is prohibited for attacking civilians (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III, Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons. Geneva, 10 October 1980) Protocol III is not signed by the United States.

americANO, sei solo un patetico cialtrone.

VAFFANCULOOOOOO......!!!!

" americANO, sei solo un patetico cialtrone.

VAFFANCULOOOOOO......!!!!"

Glad to be on your nerves dude, yeah fuck you too