Is it possible for you to stick on a single statement. Once you are criticising the misconceptioning atitude of media for highlighting the name of WP as a weapon used in Lal Masjid and pointing and highlighting WP as an ordinary smoke grenade, describing those burns on the dead bodies of victims of Lal Masjid massacre as caused by highly explosive weapons which are used in intensive battles and was not WP, so who used this highly explosive weapon in this intensive battle. When I asked you to name the other highly explosive weapon which caused severe burns if it was not WP, you again refered to WP. Now you stepped back to WP as a weapon used in long range battles. How come the long range weapon cannot impact as being made for short range???? Bottom line: WP was used as a weapon, and caused severe human damaged. If WP didn't caused casualities then there was any other chemical weapon of short range.