USA przyznaly sie do forforu w Falludzy

16.11.05, 01:26
"Amerykański rzecznik wojskowy w Bagdadzie oświadczył, że nie przypomina
sobie, aby podczas zdobywania Faludży użyto białego fosforu."
serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34180,3007893.html

"The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last
year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt
Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all."
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

Byla WMD --> nie bylo WMD.
Byla wspolpraca z Alkaida --> nie bylo wspolpracy z Alkaida.
Nie bylo bialego fosforu --> byl bialy fosfor.

No bo jak mawia pewien baca "Sa 3 prowdy - swinto prowda, tys prowda i g..prowda."

No to ktora prowda byla tym razem. :)))))))))))

Ale trzeba bylo dopiero tego filmu, aby prawda ujrzala swiatlo dzienne:
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

:((((((((((
    • jennifer5 facing a possible death sentence 16.11.05, 03:10
      Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture,
      false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on
      all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him.

      We were told that the war with Iraq was necessary for two reasons. Saddam
      Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and might one day use them
      against another nation. And the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from his
      oppressive regime, which had, among its other crimes, used chemical weapons to
      kill them. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, William Shawcross, David Aaronovitch, Nick
      Cohen, Ann Clwyd and many others referred, in making their case, to Saddam's
      gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. They accused those who opposed the war
      of caring nothing for the welfare of the Iraqis.

      Given that they care so much, why has none of these hawks spoken out against
      the use of unconventional weapons by coalition forces?

      www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1642832,00.html
    • pndzelek Re: USA przyznaly sie do forforu w Falludzy 16.11.05, 17:46
      wiesz moze wojskowi w iraku nie wiedza co uzwyaja za bron :)
      a moze to saddam z wiezienia im ja podrzucil
    • thannatos Re: USA przyznaly sie do forforu w Falludzy 16.11.05, 17:48
      Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
      Protocol III
      Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
      Geneva, 10 October 1980
      Article 1
      Definitions

      For the purpose of this Protocol:

      1. Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily
      designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the
      action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction
      of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form
      of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines,
      bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
      (b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
      (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as
      illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
      (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation
      effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing
      projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects
      munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause
      burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as
      armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
      2. Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it
      permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns
      or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
      3. Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object
      which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to
      military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or
      neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite
      military advantage.
      4. Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as
      defined in paragraph 3.
      5. Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or
      practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time,
      including humanitarian and military considerations.

      Article 2
      Protection of civilians and civilian objects

      1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as
      such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by
      incendiary weapons.
      2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective
      located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by
      air-delivered incendiary weapons.
      3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a
      concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons
      other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective
      is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible
      precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the
      military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental
      loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
      4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object
      of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to
      cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are
      themselves military objectives.
      www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm
    • samsone Przeciez nie tylko oni go uzywaja 17.11.05, 10:28
      a kamikaze mozna do chemicznej broni zaliczyc a co z flaszkami molotowa...
      • meerkat1 Co to je <FORFOR>??? 17.11.05, 10:32
        Nic nie moge w moim "Podreczniku Amerykanskiego Agresora" znalezc! :-(((

        Jest tylko fosfor, no ale to srodek uzywany tradycyjnie jako ZASLONA DYMNA i do
        broni z oczywistych powodow nie zaliczany.

        Podobnie jak NAPALM! (srodek do wypalania terenow pod ladowska dla smiglowcow)

        Wiec chyba nie o to ci chodzi??? :-)))
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja