- Joined
- Mar 22, 2019
- Messages
- 10,605
- Reaction score
- 5,778
- Gender
- Male
And here is a bit more.
The US was screamed at by some for the use of White Phosphorous in 2016 in Syria.
Therefore if it is so horrible and wrong, then the same people screaming about Turkey using it had better start screaming that President Obama had better be brought up on War Crimes charges.
Funny, but I bet nobody screaming about the use of Willy Pete will say this is a good idea.
That is what I just said!
Thank you for agreeing with me, and stating I am wrong at the same time.
And BTW, white phosphorous is not an "Incendiary Weapon".
I present to you the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, UN addition to the Geneva Convention of 10 October 1980. Article 1, Protocol III:
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.[/quiote]
The above are weapons that are specifically not considered to be "incendiary weapons".
So please, give me the Laws of Land Warfare source that prohibits the use of WP.
And yea, I admit I have a big advantage here. I had my first class in the Laws of Land Warfare in 1983, and actually taught one just 2 days ago.
White phosphorus can certainly be used as an incendiary weapon, and when incorporated into a weapon system designed to start fires, it is definitely considered such. White phosphorus in a smoke grenade is not an incendiary weapon. White phosphorus in a firebomb is.
Noticed that there is much talk about how many Vets, past and present disagree with how we pulled out of Syria, so l thought it might be interesting to see what the Vets here think.
Thanks
I hope this is sufficient to satisfy your skepticism...
The use of white phosphorus is not banned under international convention when it is used as an obscurant – to make a smokescreen or to illuminate a target (white phosphorus glows green when exposed to oxygen). To use it for incendiary weapons in civilian areas is banned under the Geneva convention...."
What is white phosphorus and did Turkey use it against the Kurds? | WSB-TV
Nope I mean in Afghanistan and Iraq.
White phosphorus can certainly be used as an incendiary weapon, and when incorporated into a weapon system designed to start fires, it is definitely considered such. White phosphorus in a smoke grenade is not an incendiary weapon. White phosphorus in a firebomb is.
Afghanistan and Iraq are established American conflicts in the ME compared to new American conflicts in the ME.
Fine. Give me the International Document that recognizes it as such, along with the date, and specific article that makes such a claim.
The same document we're discussing right now, the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which bans ALL incendiary weapon use against civilian targets, whether they include white phosphorus or not.
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.
You mean the one I actually quoted and referenced just a few posts ago? The one that specifically excluded WP as an incendiary weapon?
The above are weapons that have "incendiary effects", but are specifically stated as not being "incendiary weapons".
The above is a list of weapons that are not considered to be "incendiary weapons". And WP falls under article I.
Funny how you reference a source, and you get it completely wrong.
And if there are enemy combatants in a civilian area, it is no longer a protected civilian area.
How many times am I going to have to repeat this? it is like trying to have a debate with a 2 year old.
Why are so many repeating exactly what I had already said?
And no, the use of this (or any weapon) is not prohibited in "civilian areas".
What is prohibited is the use of any weapon in civilian areas where there is no presence of enemy combatants. Hence, my example of soldiers fighting from a school. Because even under the Hague Protocols and Geneva Conventions, proscribed conflict areas loose their special protections the moment they are used for offensive military actions.
You can not fire weapons at a hospital.
You can not even fire weapons at a military hospital where enemy combatants are being restored to duty.
You can not fire at a hospital that has defensive weapon systems around it, like air missile defenses and infantry strongpoints.
You can however fire at a hospital if infantry troops that conducted an attack run to it as refuge, or are staging in it in preparation for offensive operations. Because at that moment it has lost it's protected status.
Please, at least make me try to think. These repeated rehashing of the exact same claims are already getting boring.
And once gain, not a single mention of the PKK in pages.
Sheesh, I swear that some of you have the reading comprehension of 3rd graders.
Geez, you're a hard nut to crack.
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.
Here, I am quoting your own reference:
And that is not White Phosphorous. It is primarily used for creating smoke or light. WP flares create fire, but their use is in illuminating a battlefield, not as an incendiary weapon.
This is the same kind of nonsense that pops up when CS gas is used for riot control. For some reason people try over and over to make the claim that CS is a "Chemical Weapon" and should be banned. Generally through nitpicking and with this amazing inability to find any actual legal reference that states so.
Oh, and BTW CS is recognized as a "chemical weapon" when it is used against troops as a way to render them ineffective or as part of a military action. It is not judged to be illegal when used as a means of reduced force against unarmed civilians.
Once again, you find an article written by a lawyer. Not presented or judged on by the Hague, or any other International body. You pick a single application of a weapon, and try to make it fit into an application that does not apply.
And you have yet to provide any factual reference. The closest is that of an Entertainment Lawyer in LA.
Technically by your claim, the use of tracer rounds is illegal because they are an incendiary. The use of CS gas is illegal because not only do they emit choking smoke, they are also an incendiary and can start fires (as the SLA discovered in 1974).
But factually, because the purpose of tracer rounds and CS gas is something completely different and the incendiary effect is secondary to your use, they are not "incendiary weapons".
So when are you going to push for the arrest and incarceration of President Obama as a war criminal?
Not true.
WP is not recognized as either a chemical weapon, nor as an incendiary weapon. It's use is in no way restricted under the laws of land warfare.
Now saying that, many countries (including the US) have made the choice to limit how it is used. But it is not illegal to use, nor is it restricted in how it can be used. Other than under the other laws of land warfare.
Afghanistan and Iraq are established American conflicts in the ME compared to new American conflicts in the ME.
They train us, then send us out into area denial missions just to show the enemy they can. You take casualties and there is no Geneva convention. They use the wounded as bait. Meanwhile the flyboys blow the crap out of the countryside destroying acres of “resistance” at a time. The flies and wild animals have a feast.
Then we pull back and do it again next year.
And that was in Vietnam. Not a hell of a lot has changed, but the generals probably still all smell like cheap pine after shave picked up in the PX by some dog-robber.
Afghanistan and Iraq are established American conflicts in the ME compared to new American conflicts in the ME.
Conventions forbid it's use on civilians as a primary target, and us manuals generally forbid it in theory, however doctrine and field manuals do not see eye to eye. The us and most nations consider willy pete to be forbidden for use on civilians, insurgents, or even enemy combatents unless it's use it deemed worthy where the human lives lost would be less than not using it, so in doctrine it is technically forbidden but also has some gray area.
It is no surprise that it is forbidden for many uses on state govt levels rather than through convention, as the stuff is completely inhumane when used intentionally on human targets, especially in cases where normal munitions complete the same task or exceed it.
I can you show you the evidence but I can't make you think. I give up...have it your way.
Adding thousands of additional troops is not pulling out, is there some reason you miss that fact?
Sometimes a president must 'go back' on his campaign wishes like troop reductions in foreign wars because of many reasons he hadn't foreseen when campaigning for office.
But the NBC report alludes to some serious friction between the State Department and the Pentagon over the timing of the withdrawal. "It's tense," said one former official briefed on the debate:
And you believe the media?
ABC recently announce a slaughter in Syria, using video of military training in Kentucky.
The fake news never ceases to amaze me.
Trump is lying about it. He hasn't withdrawn any US troops from the ME. Even more are there now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?