Falluja WMD horror scoop aired tomorrow

Originally posted by informatu
See, the enemy knows that ours is an army which must answer to its people, and that is its greatest weakness. However, it is also that culpability that makes the US forces some of the most precision and life-sparing armed forces around. What do you think Fallujah would have looked like if it had been the imperialist Japanese of the 1940s who attacked it? Just food for thought. Do you think they would have warned the city weeks in advance that they were going to attack?

The whole crux of the matter is that the world feels that the coalition should never have invaded in the first place. The world now knows that the justification for the invasion was and continues to be the greatest lie ever told. And so because of that, the actions of the coalition in Iraq will be scrutinized and judged that much more harshly. The war was unjust and illegal, and any cruel or inhumanitarian actions will hence be met with continued outrage as this disaster continues, and continues to perpetuate itself.

So in light of this, any claims of "war is hell, get used to it" are simply meaningless semantics. If the US had been invaded, was seriously under imminent threat of such, or the justification for the war weren't a great pack of lies, people wouldn't be raising so many issues with the coalition's conduct in battle and occupation. In fact, the reaction would likely be the complete opposite and most would saying, "Hell yeah! They deserve all they get!" But that is simply not the case. It's not a case of anti-Americanism, or anti-Britishism, anti-Australianism, or whatever. It's purely a case of anti-WRONGism. So supporters of this unjust war...get used to it.

Where in my post did I say that I support the war? Where is this thread about whether the war was justified or not? Do not presume to know my mind on this subject. I was simply stating for a matter of record that the sequence of events relating to the invasion of Fallujah underscores the US unwillingness to engage and destroy civilians. That in itself throws doubt on the claims of the journalist that the US used WMDs on Iraqi civilians. Look, regardless of whether you support or do not support the war, you should be intellectually honest with yourself. I can say that I did not and do not support the invasion/occupation of Iraq. It is not incompatible to also believe that the US is NOT intentionally targeting civilians, especially not with sarin gas and the like. Such claims are only so much hyperbole to stir emotions. War is the nastiest thing we participate in as humans, and God help us if we EVER get used to it.

Originally posted by informatu
Where in my post did I say that I support the war? Where is this thread about whether the war was justified or not?

The justification, or lack thereof, for this war is the WHOLE issue. This thread is simply a smaller region of the larger picture, and many here have used it as a vehicle to argue broader issues regarding the war. If they can, then why can't I?

I don't pretend to know your mind, I simply go by what you type. You cited the imperialist Japanese invasion of China and other nations as a comparison to vindicate the actions of the coalition forces, which IMHO is an invalid argument since both invasions were unjustified and illegal, and therefore, any and every death, Coalition or Iraqi, which results from this disaster is a wrongful one. You also cited the warnings given to the people of Fallujah as vindication for the actions of the Coalition forces. Invading other countries, killing the inhabitants, and sacrificing your nation's sons and daughters without justification is wrong, whether you adhere to international rules of engagement or not.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by informatu
See, the enemy knows that ours is an army which must answer to its people, and that is its greatest weakness. However, it is also that culpability that makes the US forces some of the most precision and life-sparing armed forces around. What do you think Fallujah would have looked like if it had been the imperialist Japanese of the 1940s who attacked it? Just food for thought. Do you think they would have warned the city weeks in advance that they were going to attack?

The whole crux of the matter is that the world feels that the coalition should never have invaded in the first place. The world now knows that the justification for the invasion was and continues to be the greatest lie ever told.

I stopped reading there.

as posted by wecomeinpeace
The world now knows that the justification for the invasion was and continues to be the greatest lie ever told.

And if such is so emphatically true, the world is doing what exactly to have this world-known error corrected?

You soon to be starting a "Put back Saddam in power" advocacy group, wecomeinpeace?






seekerof

[edit on 10-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
And if such is so emphatically true, the world is doing what exactly to have this world-known error corrected?

Why, posting on ATS, of course.

You soon to be starting a "Put back Saddam in power" advocacy group, wecomeinpeace?

Now now, Seekerof, you know better than to put words in other people's...posts.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Seekerof
And if such is so emphatically true, the world is doing what exactly to have this world-known error corrected?

Why, posting on ATS, of course.

You soon to be starting a "Put back Saddam in power" advocacy group, wecomeinpeace?

Now now, Seekerof, you know better than to put words in other people's...posts.

Yet, thats exactly where all of this is going. Last night on chris matthews, they were calling Saddam "Our greatest allie against terror".

I wanted to reply to the guy in the locked thread:

Originally posted by trodas
It does no make me want to vomit that rather kill someone responsible

I wonder, how long it took that american citisens understand, that witchever politician come with the world "war" out of their lying mounths, deserve to be immediatelly removed from office...?

It was also a great, how the "reasons" to invade Iraq was envolved over time.

1. Iraq has WMD! Clear evidence! We know, where they are. They are into the triangle of Badgag, Tirk... bla bla bla - Rummy.
Bang! WMD was never found and we now know, that it was a lie to get other countries to participate (even only with mounths) on the unlawfull attack on Iraq.

2. Getting rid of Saddam and bringing peace and democracy for the Iraquis.
Bang! Damn Iraquis did not show a slight "thank-you" and rather asking US army when get the # out of Iraq. They consider them as occupants, rather that liberators. Why is that, unless we being flat-out lied to?


3. Even God itself telling George Walker Bush to attack Iraq. A new way of spreading the christianity, perhaps?
Bang! This speaks w/o witnesses belong to the psychoteraphy and GWBush file rather that to politics...

4. Removing regime that harbor and support terorists and support their attacks to USA.
Bang! The damn terrorists from other countries come now in Iraq in massive scale, after the invasion of US army took place. That is because of fighting against the aggressor. Even according to CIA, Iraq is now a "paradise for terrorists".

Somewhat I'm not quite sure if this is not exactly what the US goverment want to - if enemy does not exist, let's create it?!

1. I know there are many of you who would like to rewrite history, but prior to the invasion everyone thought there were WMD. The UN and most other countries really did belive it. You are looking at this from a hindsight perspective and this is why the dems and meida and repeating it over and over.

Proof of my allegation:
www.snopes.com...



2. At first the Iraqis did welcome us. If you remember your history, they were kissing us, throwing US troops roses and beating statues of saddam. Of course we know that it decends in chaos as insurgents from Syria and Iran flow into the country to help a suni resistance. At this point it has turned into a frontline of the Islam Vs West war Osama envisioned.

Proof Iraqis DID welcome us:
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.isn.ethz.ch...
www.portal.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2003/04/01/war101.xml

3. No one is this country pays attention to the president’s religious remarks unless they are trying to get dirt on him. I’m not religious but I don’t take much stock in his rare references to religion. The US isn’t the Christian breeding ground you think it is. At least, where I live.

4. English is obviously not your first language. After reading your post a few times I still cannot understand what you are getting at here.

Somewhat I'm not quite sure if this is not exactly what the US goverment want to - if enemy does not exist, let's create it?!

Oh, it exists. Everyone on this planet is going to slowly realize that. Jordan is the perfect example of why everyone should band together to fight these Islamo extremists.

The last U.S. "napalm" type weapon was destroyed in 2001. They are all gone, and have not been used since 1972-1973. (Incendiary chemicals were used as early as 1200 BC.)

Reports of use near Bagdad in 2003 were probably auxillary fuel tanks or Mk77mod5 "kerosene" dropped from aircraft. Approximately the same thing as napalm. It's jet fuel. It was used to ignite trenches of oil around Bagdad, that were set up as defensive barriers.

The photographs and videos above do not show "White Phosporous" weapons exploding. The photographs and videos show WP aerial illumination flares being dropped. Yes, they are too low to the ground.

There are no WP aerial weapons in the U.S. inventory.

There are WP grenades, mortar shells, and artillery shells.

WP artillery was used in the Battle of Fallujah, from 8 to 20 November 2004. It was used to make the enemy troops run, and then regular artillery was fired at them.

White Phosporous is found in everything from road flares to water glasses to toothpaste.

A WMD in Falluja would have destroyed the entire city with one single weapon.

The video shows no napalm, no white phosporous weapons, and no damage from them in Iraq. The interviews are with journalists, concerned citizens, and un-informed military personnel. There are no interviews with scientists, doctors, forensics experts, or knowledgable individuals. There are several parts of the video that are faked.

In the U.S. we call this "shock-jocks". Media types that will do anything and say anything for it's shock value and the resulting publicity. Truth has no meaning for these type people. I guess that also holds true for posts of this type.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

You soon to be starting a "Put back Saddam in power" advocacy group, wecomeinpeace?

Now now, Seekerof, you know better than to put words in other people's...posts.

wecomeinpeace, thats a nice deflection, but in no uncertain terms was I putting words into your mouth or anyone elses. If you will notice, what I mentioned, said, and asserted ended in a question mark, indicating that I was asking a direct question. In no way does asking *you* a direct question equate to me putting words into your or others mouths.





seekerof

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
WP artillery was used in the Battle of Fallujah, from 8 to 20 November 2004. It was used to make the enemy troops run, and then regular artillery was fired at them.

Err....why were they running? Were they afraid it would tickle them?

I am pretty sure they were running from it as if it touched them it would buuuuuuuurnnnn and everyone knows that is not pleasant.

So the logic being employed here is, as the weapo....whoops... nearly said weapon there,.....as the WP was just being used to flush out the enemy combatants (I think troops may be painting them up a bit) then it couldn't be a weapon......right!?!?

So if you don't intend for it to be a weapon, it's not a weapon right?

I am really confused now.

Originally posted by Seekerof
wecomeinpeace, thats a nice deflection, but in no uncertain terms was I putting words into your mouth or anyone elses. If you will notice, what I mentioned, said, and asserted ended in a question mark, indicating that I was asking a direct question. In no way does asking *you* a direct question equate to me putting words into your or others mouths.

Oops, my bad, I honestly read your "soon" as "seem", however the inference...and you know there was an inference, Seeker, you master of the rhetorical question you ...the inference that I would advocate for the reinstatement of Hussein as the Iraqi dictator simply because I hold objections to the invasion is just silly; I never said nor implied that, and I find the attempted blanket rendering amusing. 2+2 does not equal 7. The keyboard warriors will nod and grunt and mutter something about commie pinkos under their breath, but you and I know better, my friend.





[edit on 2005-11-11 by wecomeinpeace]

^^^ Seems like more BS to me.

What of these allegations of poison gasses used ? Why is there no empiracal evidence such as samples of these substances etc .

You know what I think would be more likely, the resistance/terrorists probably found a cache of Saddam era CW and used them on their own people to try an score a propaganda victory.
After all they have shown they like killing their own people, haven't they

I know deep down you know this to be the truth

Rogue, The americans have already admitted using white phospherous.

as for your "logical" statement.

if the resistance had such weapons, why don't they use them against the americans.

If the resistance used such weapons, why did they use them of fighters too.

If the resitsance had such weapons, do you really think they would use it on their own families, in the cities of their birth?

If the resistance where the ones who had the weapons, then why was it's effects after every arial assualt.

You know that your statements are ludicurous. Absolutely ludiciurous, but i think for the most part you are being sarcastic or being purposely inflammatory.

The sad thing is, your actually getting people to agree with your sarcasm.

As for your last statement that the resistance kills it's own people, that is the most ridiculous of all. Especially since those british spies where caught planting those bombs that kill civilians.

Complete and utter propaganda !!!

If it was even remotely true it would of already been aired by the Western media.

Oh and you folks who didnt realise it, the media and goverment and very seperate entities in most western countries (within reason, thats why you wont see this rubbish on TV), shame the same isnt true for so many other countrys/peoples in this world.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

^^^ Seems like more BS to me.

What of these allegations of poison gasses used ? Why is there no empiracal evidence such as samples of these substances etc .

You know what I think would be more likely, the resistance/terrorists probably found a cache of Saddam era CW and used them on their own people to try an score a propaganda victory.
After all they have shown they like killing their own people, haven't they

I know deep down you know this to be the truth

Rogue, The americans have already admitted using white phospherous.

as for your "logical" statement.

if the resistance had such weapons, why don't they use them against the americans.

If the resistance used such weapons, why did they use them of fighters too.

If the resitsance had such weapons, do you really think they would use it on their own families, in the cities of their birth?

If the resistance where the ones who had the weapons, then why was it's effects after every arial assualt.

You know that your statements are ludicurous. Absolutely ludiciurous, but i think for the most part you are being sarcastic or being purposely inflammatory.

The sad thing is, your actually getting people to agree with your sarcasm.

As for your last statement that the resistance kills it's own people, that is the most ridiculous of all. Especially since those british spies where caught planting those bombs that kill civilians.

Hmmm, your source stated that the US used nerve agents Obviously they didn't - try and stick to at least some facts in your posts. We can both agree that your sources were either incompetant or just plain lying

As for insurgents killing their own people, we see it everyday with their homicide bombings of innocent men, women and children. There is no room for manouver there

If it was even remotely true it would of already been aired by the Western media.

Firstly i would like to say that it was aired by a western media, the italian media. And that was only after a great amount of debate as to wether or not it should be allowed to be aired.

As for the rest of the media's.It's funny you seem to hold alot of faith in your western media, for you they are the 100% holders of truth, tragic. Well in the italian video (if you have watched it which i doubt) one of the first things they mention is how during the vietnamn war, only 3% of the media actually aired images of the effects of napalm on vietnamese civilians.

It also mentioned that the only media allowed in Iraq basically was the IMbedded media, or as i like to call them "imbed with" media, they report things as the video said "only from a key whole and through one point of view", the point of view of the US administration.

7 months ago , This article:

Global Eye

Filter Tips

By Chris Floyd
Published: March 18, 2005

U.S. President George W. Bush often complains about the "media filter" that distorts the true picture of his administration's accomplishments in Iraq. And he's right. For regardless of where you stand on Bush's policies in the region, it's undeniable that the political and commercial biases of the American press have consistently misrepresented the reality of the situation.

Here's an excellent example. Earlier this month, the American media completely ignored an important announcement from an official of the Iraqi government concerning the oft-maligned U.S. operation to clear insurgents from the city of Fallujah last November. Although the press conference of Health Ministry investigator Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli was attended by representatives from The Washington Post, Knight-Ridder and more than 20 other international news outlets, nary a word of his team's thorough investigation into the truth about the battle made it through the filter's dense mesh. Once again, the American public was denied the full story of one of President Bush's remarkable triumphs.


Dr. ash-Shaykhli's findings provided confirmation of earlier reports by many other Iraqis -- reports that were also ignored by the arrogant filterers, who seem more interested in hearing from terrorists or anti-occupation extremists than ordinary Iraqis and those like Dr. ash-Shaykhli, who serve in the U.S.-backed interim government vetted and approved by President Bush. But while the media elite turn up their noses at such riffraff, the testimony of these common folk and diligent public servants gives ample evidence of Bush's innovative method of liberating innocent Iraqis from tyranny:

He burns them to death with chemical weapons.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli was sent by the pro-American Baghdad government to assess health conditions in Fallujah, a city of 300,000 that was razed to the ground by a U.S. assault on a few hundred insurgents, most of whom slipped away long before the attack. The ruin of the city was complete: Every single house was either destroyed (from 75 to 80 percent of the total) or heavily damaged. The city's entire infrastructure -- water, electricity, food, transport, medicine -- was obliterated. Indeed, the city's hospitals were among the first targets, in order to prevent medical workers from spreading "propaganda" about civilian casualties, U.S. officials said at the time.

Eyewitness accounts from the few survivors of the onslaught, which killed an estimated 1,200 noncombatants, have consistently reported the use of "burning chemicals" by American forces: horrible concoctions that roasted people alive with an unquenchable jellied fire, InterPress reported. They also tell of whole quadrants of the city in which nothing was left alive, not even dogs or goats -- quadrants that were sealed off by the victorious Americans for mysterious scouring operations after the battle. Others told of widespread use of cluster bombs in civilian areas -- a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, but a standard practice throughout the war.

The few fragments of this information that made it through the ever-vigilant filter were instantly dismissed as anti-American propaganda, although they often came from civilians who had opposed the heavy-handed insurgent presence in the town. Rejected as well were the innumerable horror stories of those who had seen their whole families -- including women, children, the sick and the elderly -- slaughtered in the "liberal rules of engagement" established by Bush's top brass. Most of the city was declared "weapons-free": military jargon meaning that soldiers could shoot "whatever they see -- it's all considered hostile," The New York Times reported, in a story buried deep inside the paper.

Yet the ash-Shaykhli team -- again, appointed by the Bush-backed government -- confirmed the use of "mustard gas, nerve gas and other burning chemicals" by U.S. forces during the battle. Dr. ash-Shaykhli said that survivors -- still living in refugee camps, along with some 200,000 former Fallujah residents who fled before the assault -- are now showing the medical effects of attack by chemical agents and the use of depleted uranium shells. (American officials have admitted raining more than 250,000 pounds of toxin-tipped DU ammunition on Iraqis since the war began.)

REad the full article here "http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/03/18/120.html"

So let me ask you, why did your "independent" western media, ignore the words of their own puppet health minister? It's not a part of the Pro-american healths ministers agenda to say the americans did bad things in fallujah. So his words have credibility. Why did your independent media choose not to mention his words? Because it wasn't true?

Well the images speak otherwise.

Oh and you folks who didnt realise it, the media and goverment and very seperate entities in most western countries.

Its hard to belive people still exist in the world that think like this, especially since i was only 12 years old when i realised how controlled the media was.

It works like this, All major media's get their funding from either of two places.

A) the government.
or
B) businessmen / corporations.

obviously if a is the case then the media won't say things that the government doesn't like them saying.

If b is the case then it's actually worse than A if you can imagine that, because in capitalists countries like america, the corporations controll the government to a great extent (fund election campaigns and what not), Enron and the US administration have deep conections. And most of these companies have a real monatary stake in the way the war goes.

all media, or atleast 99% of media is controlled , 99% media distory and cover up the truth, the western media is no exception, infact they are a primce example.

But even then, even then, the truth wants to be known, and it always shines through in the end.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Look even if the militarys used this weopon the civillians hurt is the fault of the Terrorists using them as human sheilds.

This is to make the mighty coalition forces look terrible while performing the honourable act of freeing Iraq of the evil terrorists that want nothing more than civil war and a Iraq back in the hands of an evil dictator.

Iraq is well on the road of liberation.



btw.TV and Newspapers(reputable ones) in the west only publish the truth you need to go to the internet to find a combination of lies and the truth.

Look even if the militarys used this weopon the civillians hurt is the fault of the Terrorists using them as human sheilds.

So what your saying is, it's the fault of the Fallujan people that you used these banned weapons on them, because they dared to resist your occupation and defend their city from your invasion.

I think you have this the other way round, you attacked THEIR country, and you are currently in THEIR country. Are the CITY DEFENDERS to blame, or are the CITY ATTACKERS TO BLAME?

As for where Fallujah stands on this, Fallujah the honourable city that defeated the British occupation in the 1920's, and also resisted saddam's rule, the stance is clear by this letter fallujah sent out to the united nations right during the second siege by the americans while these bombs where dropped.

www.iraq-war.ru...

Message from the people of Fallujah (one year on...)
By: Bristol Stop the War on: 31.10.2005 [23:48 ] (8748 reads)
Article image
Message from the people of Fallujah
Yahoo News Groups
Bristol Stop The War News - U.K
31st October 2004
(4251 bytes) [nc] Print
This letter was sent by representatives of the people of Fallujah to the UN secretary general Kofi Annan

"IT IS more than evident that US forces are committing daily acts of genocide in Iraq. As we write, these crimes are being perpetrated against the city of Fallujah.

US war planes are launching their most powerful bombs against the civilian population, killing and wounding hundreds of innocent people. Their tanks are pounding the city with heavy artillery.

As you know, there is no military presence in the city. There have been no actions by the resistance in Fallujah in the last few weeks because negotiations are in progress between representatives of the city and the Allawi government.

The new bombardment by the US has begun while the people are fasting during the celebration of Ramadan. Now many of them are trapped in the ruins of their homes and cut off from any outside assistance.

On the night of 13 October a single US bombardment destroyed 50 houses and their inhabitants. Is this a crime of genocide or a lesson about US democracy? The US is committing acts of terror against the people of Fallujah
for only one reason to force them to accept the occupation.

Your excellency and the whole world know that the US and their allies have destroyed our country on the pretext of the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Now, after their own mass destruction and the killing of thousands of civilians, they have admitted that they have not found any.

But they have said nothing about the crimes they have committed. The whole world is silent, and even the killing of Iraqi civilians is not condemned. Will the US be paying compensation, as it made Iraq do after the 1991 Gulf War?

We know that we live in a world of double standards. In Fallujah the US has created a new and shadowy target ”Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi is a new excuse to justify the USAs criminal actions. A year has passed since this new excuse was dreamed up, and every time they attack homes, mosques and restaurants, killing women and children, they say. We have launched a successful operation against al-Zarqawi.

They will never say they have killed him, because he does not exist. The people of Fallujah assure you that this person is not in the city, nor probably anywhere else in Iraq.

Many times the people of Fallujah have asked that if anyone sees al-Zarqawi they should kill him. We know now that he is nothing but a phantom created by the US.

Our representatives have repeatedly denounced kidnapping and killing of civilians. We have nothing to do with any group that acts in an inhumane manner.

We call on you and the leaders of the world to exert the greatest pressure on the Bush administration to end its crimes against Fallujah and pull its army back from the city.

When they left a while ago, the city had peace and tranquillity. There was no disorder in the city. The civil administration here functioned well, despite the lack of resources.

Our offence is simply that we did not welcome the forces of occupation. This is our right according to UN Charter, according to international law and according to the norms of humanity.

It is very urgent that you, along with other world leaders, intervene immediately to prevent another massacre.
We have tried to contact UN representatives in Iraq to ask them to do this but, as you know, they are sealed off in the maximum security Green Zone in Baghdad and we are not allowed access to them.

We want the UN to take a stand on the situation in Fallujah.

Best wishes, in the name of the people of Fallujah, the shura council of Fallujah, the trade union association,
the teachers union, and the council of tribal leaders "

Kassim Abdullsattar al-Jumaily: President
The Study Center of Human Rights & Democracy
On behalf of the people of Fallujah and for:
Al-Fallujah Shura Council
The Bar Association
The Teacher Union
Council of Tribes Leaders
The House of Fatwa and Religious Education
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE

But you know despite all the horrible things you did to the fallujans, there spirit has not been broken, and they are STILL fighting!!!

Sniper hunts 2 US soldiers west of Baghdad
By: Xinhuanet on: 12.11.2005 [10:42 ] (802 reads)
Article image

(810 bytes) [nc] Print


FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov. 12 (Xinhuanet) — An insurgent sniper hunted two US soldiers in the flashpoint city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, on Saturday, a witness said.

"A sniper opened fire at a US military patrol in Souq al-Qadiem district, and picked off two soldiers before he fled the scene," Abdul-Rahman told Xinhua.

"Another insurgent hurled a grenade at a US patrol in the city damaging a US Humvee, but it was not known whether there was any casualty," he said.

US troops returned fire and cordoned off the area and searched for the attackers, he added.

Fallujah, some 50 km west of Baghdad in the restive Anbar province, has witnessed frequent attacks against US and Iraqi forces

Fallujah is the symbol for the Undying human spirit.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

Look even if the militarys used this weopon the civillians hurt is the fault of the Terrorists using them as human sheilds.

So what your saying is, it's the fault of the Fallujan people that you used these banned weapons on them, because they dared to resist your occupation and defend their city from your invasion.

I think you have this the other way round, you attacked THEIR country, and you are currently in THEIR country. Are the CITY DEFENDERS to blame, or are the CITY ATTACKERS TO BLAME?

we acuse you of propaganda because back when you started this BS about 'banned' weapons in falluja you could not give an example and im yet to hear of these 'banned weapons' you speak of.

# 1 as per treaty with the former soviet union the USA has destroyed 20%+ of its chemical weapons stockpiles.

The USA does not produce mustard gas and hasnt since the second world war. We do have nerve agent, but falluja would be a tomb if it were used.

the only 'banned' weapons we use are the good old USMC(Uncle Sam's Misguided Children lol) and other branches which have handled the falluja insurgents their own rear ends.

we acuse you of propaganda because back when you started this BS about 'banned' weapons in falluja you could not give an example and im yet to hear of these 'banned weapons' you speak of.

Propoganda is the propogation of ones idea, wether it's a good/true idea or a bad/false idea, wether you propogaate it through truth or fiction.

IT was your own puppet health minister that stated you used nerve agents. Your government does not agree.

Last March 3, an article in AlJazeera.com (a site different than the one for the more familiar Al Jazzera satellite TV channel) carried a report that alleged a Dr. Khalid ash Shaykhli, an Iraqi health ministry official, told a Baghdad press conference that the US military had used internationally banned chemical weapons, including nerve gas

However your government does agree that it used white phospherous.

An internationally Banned weapon, according to the United nations Under the geneva conventions.

Though the US is not signatory to that part of the convention.

The use of incendiary weapons against civilians is banned by an additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions that was added in 1980, however the United States did not sign this protocol and it does not directly cover the use of toxic smokes

en.wikinews.org...

but falluja would be a tomb if it were used.

For a while, Fallujah was indeed a tomb. But the fallujan people are not in the business of giving up.