Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » White phosporous on Falluja

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: White phosporous on Falluja
fizz
Member
Member # 1706

 - posted      Profile for fizz   Email fizz       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yesterday morning at an early hour rainews24, the satellite news agency of the italian national television, transmitted a special service on the Fallujah attack of last year. On the website of the news agency, together with the italian one, there's an eglish version downloadable movie of that service (Warning: it's a *big* file...also, it does contain strong unpleasant images). I think some people here could find it interesting, and I for sure would like to hear some comments on it.
rainews24

[ November 09, 2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: fizz ]

Posts: 153 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I saw something on this. Apparently, the U.S. didn't sign the right forms or something, so, technically it was legal to drop the stuff on 'em. The moral implications are something the current administration has no experience in exploring.

Iraq didn't have chemical weapons until we sold them to Saddam. We go in on the pretext he still had them. Then we go and use them against Iraqi civilians - the same crime we accused Saddam of to help try to justify our 'liberation'.

I wonder how much credibility will be left for the next administration.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tere's been some stuff in the British press about this, on the back of the Italian documentary.

US criticised for use of phosphorous in Fallujah raids

quote:

A leading campaign group has demanded an urgent inquiry into a report that US troops indiscriminately used a controversial incendiary weapon during the battle for Fallujah. 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.

The Pentagon has always admitted it used phosphorus during last year's assault on the city, which US commanders said was an insurgent stronghold. But they claimed they used the brightly burning shells "very sparingly" and only to illuminate combat areas.

But the documentary Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, broadcast yesterday by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, suggested the shells were commonly used and killed an unspecified number of civilians. 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.

Last night Robert Musil, director of the group Physicians for Social Responsibility, called for an investigation. He told The Independent: "When there is clear testimony that use of such weapons has done this, it demands a full investigation. From Vietnam onwards there has been a general condemnation of [the use of white phosphorus] and concern about the injuries and consequences."
The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of weapons such as napalm and white phosphorus against civilian - but not military - targets. The US did not sign the treaty and has continued to use white phosphorus and an updated version of napalm, called Mark 77 firebombs, which use kerosene rather than petrol. A senior US commander previously has confirmed that 510lb napalm bombs had been used in Iraq and said that "the generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

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.

Experts said that, if not removed, white phosphorus - known as Willy Pete - can burn to the bone. The fumes from phosphorus cause severe eye irritation.

There are a number of questions to be cleared up though.


Some facts : The military use of white phosphorous is allowed. The US claims it was used for illumination. Civilians apparently died due to the use of white phosphorous, having been burned by it (or 'caramelized' as one unpleasant description put it).

Targetting civilians with chemical weapons is banned by a treaty signed by the US. But then, so is targetting civilians with any weapons, as I understand it. I get the impression that the documentary is claiming that the US forces deliberately targetted civilians with white phosphorous. Now that would certainly be immoral (and hopefully illegal) on all counts. But what is the legality of targetting military targets and causing collateral damage to civilians? And is it any worse than doing it with white phosphorous than with high explosives or bullets?

The fact that civilians died due to the use of WP is not enough to make it criminal. It needs to either be deliberate targetting of civilians or serious irresponsibility.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kit
Member
Member # 1299

 - posted      Profile for Kit   Email Kit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I could very well be wrong, but I thought that pretty much all the civilians/non-combatants had left Fallujah well before the attack. If that is correct then I have a hard time seeing how the US could be accused of 'targeting civilians' if there weren't any civilians around.

This, however really ticks me off:
quote:
Iraq didn't have chemical weapons until we sold them to Saddam. We go in on the pretext he still had them. Then we go and use them against Iraqi civilians - the same crime we accused Saddam of to help try to justify our 'liberation'.

WP is no more a chemical weapon than normal explosives are. It BURNS, it is not poison, nerve gas, radiological, or biological, or any other reasonable definition of chemical weapon.

If you consider WP a chemical weapon then becarful the next time you are around a road flare, you might be arrested for possessing a weapon of mass destruction.

Posts: 704 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mdgann
Member
Member # 2572

 - posted      Profile for mdgann   Email mdgann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kit is correct. WP is a conventional weapon. It burns when exposed to oxegen. You can drop it in water and it will draw the oxegen from the water and continue to burn. It is used in all flares and most fuses for regular bombs. The only difference between WP and TNT is how volitile it is. It is set off easier and is often used as an initiator for other explosives, like homemade Improvised Explosive Devices.
Posts: 116 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kit, there were at LEAST tens of thousands of civilians still inside Fallujah, for a varity of reasons.

Some where the immediate family of insurgents, some where stubborn idiots who didn't want to walk away from all of their worldly possesions, some may have had other motivations I can't begin to imagine, and some may have been held by threats of tribal vegance if they fled.

Regardless of reasons, even our own pentagon admited on more than one occasion that there were still large numbers of civilians in the city during the final assault.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm aware that WP is not a chemical weapon, per se, and the distintion is clear to military-types and the educated, but it would be less clear to somebody watching their grandmother melt. A father with ash for children might contend that the U.S. was splitting hairs or plead semantics.

We cannot win the war in Iraq with bullets, WP, or whatever. Our enemies over there justify their actions by pointing to incidents like this (and the lies, and the torture, and the hypocracy, and so on) to show that we are evil and should be defeated at all costs. Using WP where civilians stood the remotest chance of becoming exposed to it was irresponsible at least. It lends credence to our enemies' arguments.

And it makes me ill.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kit
Member
Member # 1299

 - posted      Profile for Kit   Email Kit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, I sit corrected on whether there were any civilians left in the city, I wasn't sure about it anyway.

quote:
Using WP where civilians stood the remotest chance of becoming exposed to it was irresponsible at least.
The problem I see with your point Vance, is that the same thing could be said about ANY other weapon. Bombs explode and burn, bullets pierce and shatter, grenade blow little chunks of metal into things. You can argue that NO weapons should be used in the presence of non-combatants, but to single out WP seems very silly to me.

If anything the concern should be about AREA EFFECT weapons. Anything that affects an area has the possibility of hurting non-targets within that area.

But that brings up a whole different discussion of "accptable collateral damage" that I'd prefer not to get into right now.

quote:
Our enemies over there justify their actions by pointing to incidents like this (and the lies, and the torture, and the hypocracy, and so on) to show that we are evil and should be defeated at all costs.
I also just want to point out that there is a VAST difference between the accidental hitting of civilians in the area where the enemy if being fought, and the deliberate targeting of civilian targets away from enemy combatants. The first is effectivly unavoidable in any combat area with civilians. The second is what our enemies are doing.
Posts: 704 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's silly to talk about white phosphorous as a weapon our troops would readily use. Why use it when High Explosives are much more effective over a bigger radius?

About the only non-illumination purpose of white phosphorous (besides in fuses) is to drive people from trenches.

Although, I must say, this conversation is very entertaining because people generally shorten my forum name to the acronym "WP." Which makes sentences like these funny:

quote:
Using WP where civilians stood the remotest chance of becoming exposed to it was irresponsible at least.


[ November 10, 2005, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with your logic and your argument, Kit. The point I'm trying to make is that we have to be more careful with the population over there. Your average citizen of the planet is not going to believe a word our government says about anything any more. Our critics are not going to take the time to explain the nice distinction between WP and non-conventional, equally nasty ordinance to their audiences. Muslim extremists, born of opression and disposession, are telling each other that the crusaders are back again and evil is once again being visited upon the faithful.

It would be an understatement to say that the U.S. is having an image problem. It is one we have earned and should now be trying to fix instead of compound.

Greater pains could be taken to instruct our troops in the local customs and the Muslim faith. Troops who offend the locals should be punished and the consequences published. More effort could be made to safeguard the infrastructure of Iraq and its citizens. Any serious effort at all to win the hearts and minds of the population would be nice. And any insurgency should be carefully and ruthlessly put down.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Vance -

We need to be carful. We should do the right thing and let the military figure out how carful we should be. I (personally) am not in a position to say that using area-effect weapons was a bad idea. I do know that strategic concerns aside, blowing up a building is a damn sight better than trying to storm the same building.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kit
Member
Member # 1299

 - posted      Profile for Kit   Email Kit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unless the building is occupied by non-combatants as well.

But the US military has taken extraordinary care not to do things like that. They do happen, but IN SPITE of the precautions, not because of a lack of them.

Posts: 704 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those who are interested in this topic, there is a good thread at Battlefront.com on the subject. That's actually the website of a games company (they make 'Combat Mission' - which is excellent if little known), but since the game is considered the best combat simulator out there (versions have been ordered by some militaries for training purposes), they get an awful lot of military personnel posting on their forums. The thread is fairly long, and has several links to other articles of relevance.

The executive summary is that WP mortar rounds (60mm and 81mm) were used in Fallujah to clear houses and trenches with known enemy combatants. This is standard practice for many militaries around the world. WP is less lethal than HE, but has strong psychological effects (like fire): it is mostly used to flush enemy out of houses and trenches to expose them to HE fire to kill them.

The story about flesh being burned by WP whilst leaving the clothes intact is bunk - WP doesn't work like that. It simply generates heat (and is nigh on impossible to put out or get off).

Or in conclusion:
WP was used to target enemies. It's not a bit deal.

There's also some good discussion of the report and surrounding issues as well, so it's worth the time if you want to know more.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought this thread might be dead and then I found this:

The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. WP 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 [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

The second, in California's North County Times, was by a reporter embedded with the marines in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. "'Gun up!' Millikin yelled ... grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. 'Fire!' Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake'n'bake' into... buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".


I found it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1642832,00.html

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The same article says napalm was also used.

The invaders have been forced into a similar climbdown over the use of napalm in Iraq. In December 2004, the Labour MP Alice Mahon asked the British armed forces minister Adam Ingram "whether napalm or a similar substance has been used by the coalition in Iraq (a) during and (b) since the war". "No napalm," the minister replied, "has been used by coalition forces in Iraq either during the war-fighting phase or since."

This seemed odd to those who had been paying attention. There were widespread reports that in March 2003 US marines had dropped incendiary bombs around the bridges over the Tigris and the Saddam Canal on the way to Baghdad. The commander of Marine Air Group 11 admitted that "We napalmed both those approaches". Embedded journalists reported that napalm was dropped at Safwan Hill on the border with Kuwait. In August 2003 the Pentagon confirmed that the marines had dropped "mark 77 firebombs". Though the substance these contained was not napalm, its function, the Pentagon's information sheet said, was "remarkably similar". While napalm is made from petrol and polystyrene, the gel in the mark 77 is made from kerosene and polystyrene. I doubt it makes much difference to the people it lands on.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Were we targeting people, or were we targeting their shelter and/or objectives?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kit
Member
Member # 1299

 - posted      Profile for Kit   Email Kit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

WP does NOT depend on any toxic properties or "chemical action on life processes". It uses HEAT. Same with napalm, thermite, or any other incendiary.

If fire is not a 'chemical weapon' then none of these others are. We can argue wether using incendiaries should be prohibited, but if they aren't then there is no reason to complain the people are using such an effective tool.

Posts: 704 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kit:
WP does NOT depend on any toxic properties or "chemical action on life processes". It uses HEAT. Same with napalm, thermite, or any other incendiary.

As Kit says. chemical weapons depend on chemical action interrupting life processes. Essentially, poisons. WP uses a chemical reaction to generate heat, and the heat causes the harm - it's an incendiary weapon. To extend the definition of chemical weapons to cover WP is just daft - you might as well define high explosives as a chemical weapon - a chemical reaction generates a shock wave which sends fragments of metal in all directions, which kill things.

Certainly WP is unpleasent stuff, as is napalm of the Mk77. But then, so are all conventional munitions. If we think WP is bad because it produces burned bodies then we've been watching too many war movies where the dead people are all intact and lying face down on the ground, rather than the more realistics scattered in various sized burned pieces all over the local landscape.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's an interesting development in the White Phosphorous story. In 1991, the Department of Defence produced a report titled "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders." (You can google the title to find a few other copies of the report on the web, including at GlobalSecurity.org)

The report is pretty short, though written in ALL-CAPS, making reading it rather painful. The relevant section is below (edited only for capitalisation):

quote:

During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising, Iraqi forces loyal to president Saddam (Hussein) may have possibly used white phosphorous (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil (geocoord:3412n/04401e) (vicinity of Iranian border) and Dohuk (geocoord:3652n/04301e) (vicinity of Iraqi border) provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships (no further information at this time). Apparently, this time Iraq did not use nerve gas as they did in 1988, in Halabja (geocoord:3511n/04559e), Iraq, because they were afraid of possible retaliation from the United States (U.S.) led coalition.

So there you have it. When 99% of the world uses WP, it is a conventional incendiary weapon. When Iraq uses it, it becomes a chemical weapon...
Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is ridiculous. White phosphorus is a conventional weapon, and I do not find it out of line for us to be using it in Iraq. Neither are depleted-uranium munitions a problem with me.

God forbid we actually let our armed forces fight off insurgents with conventional weapons. We're having a hard enough time trying to win against the insurgency in Iraq without tying our arms behind our backs.

Whether or not we conveniently claimed that white phosphorus was a chemical weapon that Iraq used it is pretty much irrelevant. The fact is that today's consensus does not seriously consider white phosphorus anything more than a conventional weapon. Who cares what the Pentagon said about Iraq's white phosphorus back in 1991? That's already ancient history.

[ November 23, 2005, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WP is certainly a conventional weapon. It's been considered a ocnventional weapon for a great many years.

But there's a limit to how much outrage you can muster about people calling your use of WP 'chemical' when you've done the exact same thing yourself. And vey few people outside the US are going to care that it was a different administration.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, David, it's not ancient history. People remember. Words have meanings. You cannot say that X means X when it suits you, and Y when it does not. Not if you want to be respected.

As for depleted uranium - are you sure you know what that does? To the soil? The water?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Calling something a chemical weapon, and calling a weapon a chemical can actually be two different things, odd as it sounds.

Nice thing is, "chemical weapon" is a buzzword, and is therefore always phrased that way, when it's meant that way.

I don't see the problem.

[ November 23, 2005, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kit
Member
Member # 1299

 - posted      Profile for Kit   Email Kit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder of there is some way WP could be used as a "chemical weapon".

I think the report is most likely just making a mistake in calling WP a chemical weapon, but it got me wondering if there was some way to use as a chemical weapon rather than just an incinderary.

I also wonder who wrote that report, as in their expertise and what kind of editing/review it went through. I'd be curious to find out if this is a case of someone overstating the facts or just getting them wrong and the error not being corrected. The only info I can find is that it is a DoD Intel report. The way it is written makes me think it is more a report on what an intel source told them than a technical report, which may contribute to the error.

Posts: 704 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wonder of there is some way WP could be used as a "chemical weapon".
As I understand it, WP is used in three ways militarily. It is used as an incidiary to start fires, destroy material and other similar purposes. It is used on tracer rounds to produce the glow characteristic of tracers. It is used in smoke grenades to disperse the smoke particles. I suspect that it might be possible to use the principles of smoke dispersal to disperse chemicals in much the same way as smoke particles. I also suspect that the extreme heat of the WP consuming itself would pose a significant hurdle as it would likely affect the chemicals in some way.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am sure that all those having been burnt alive by WP would rejoice in knowing that it is so "conventional."
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just as all those shot to death by infantry rifles would rejoice in knowing that those are "conventional."
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, is it not glorius to know that you were killed legaly?
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1