Afghanistan: White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty that the United States has signed.

[robdogbucky]

Is this really true? If so, I was not aware of it. I thought it was banned and that we were in violation whenever we used it. Wasn't that a factor in Iraq at Fallujah?

Is this story part of counter-insurgency tactics in light of the recent events where US/whatever troops fired upon and keep killing civilans in Afghanistan?


"...KABUL (AP) The U.S. accused Afghan militants Monday of using white phosphorus as a weapon in ''reprehensible'' attacks on U.S. forces and in civilian areas.

The accusation comes two months after an 8-year-old Afghan girl named Razia was wounded by white phosphorus in a battle between militants and NATO troops. Razia has received 10 skin grafts at the U.S. military hospital at Bagram. A U.S. military spokeswoman said her injuries could have been caused by either side.

U.S and NATO troops frequently use white phosphorus to illuminate targets and create smoke screens. But human rights groups denounce its use as a weapon, or over populated areas, for the severe burns it causes.

Also Monday, the Pentagon replaced the top U.S. and NATO general in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, as President Barack Obama tries to turn around a stalemated war. Replacing McKiernan will be Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has had a top administrative job at the Joint Chiefs of Staff for less than a year..."

http://www.kcbs.com/topic/ap_news.php?story=AP/APTV/National/a/i/AS--Afghanistan


I just thought it was an internationally banned weapon like napalm and/or land mines. Of course, the US has selectively entered and opted out of international agreements for a while now, so any in and out gambit by the US, of course using the WOT as an excuse, would be believed in this corner. Of course, things expire too, don't they, like assault rifle bans, etc.

Anyone know the answer to this, or was the article (see the last line) correct?


Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. WP is banned by the Geneva Conventions for use against personnel.

The U.S. has signed the Geneva Conventions.

It has not been banned when used as a pyrotechnic.

So a lot of war criminals use it against personnel, then claim it was just used for pyrotechnic purposes.

[ThirdWorldJohn]

2. Like those treaties are enforced anyway. N/T

[uppityperson]

3. Yup, darn those dead people for being where they wanted to light up

[NNN0LHI]

4. There were no formal laws against gas chambers and crematoriums in the 1940's either

From a common sense point civilized people understood it was sick and wrong to do it.

Same thing with dropping fire on top of people heads and letting them burn up in agony where they fall.

At least thats the way I understand it.

Don

[robdogbucky]

5. So,is it untrue?

or just a mistake by the AP?

Or deliberate disinformation disseminated without thinking about Geneva Convention, etc.?

Or is it a counter-terrorism tactic to discredit whatever side they choose to frame as using it?

Fog of war?

I see there is a big uproar about civilian deaths and rightly so per another thread re Afghan lawmakers walk out in protest. Is this just more psyops to counter that sentiment?

Is this for domestic consumption in US, or for the consumption of the Afghan populace, whom it actually effects?

Why are we in Afghanistan again? I know Karzai worked for Unocal on the pipeline before he was appointed president (puppet) by his US masters, but the uprisings by the Taliban and other warlord factions through the years is kind of the history of that country. Are we again inserting ourselves into another nation's civil war? Why can't people see through this? Why is Obama pursuing this policy? Do I need to go and read the campaign contributions list by oil companies again to remind which candidate took the most oil money?


robdogbucky

[NNN0LHI]

6. I didn't research the legality because I think it is meaningless

That was my point above.

Is it right or wrong? That is the real question.

Don

[liberalmuse]

7. Correction: It SHOULD be banned

I was an NBC NCO. This stuff just horrible. It continues to burn as long as it's exposed to oxygen. You can bury it and it will stop burning, but if you unearth it, or expose it to oxygen again, it will resume burning. Imagine this shit on skin.

[Statistical]

8. WP is NOT banned by any treaty.

WP is not banned by any treaty including Geneva convention.
WP is not classified as a chemical weapon by Geneva convention.
Using WP (or any weapon that destroys by primarily by fire) against personnel IS BANNED by Geneva convention.

The geneva convention does not name WP speficically but it does prohibit using weapons that destroy by flame against troops which clearly includes WP as it does flamethrowers and napalm.

Primary purpose of WP (Willie Pete or Willie P) is to create smoke.

Bad news is nothing comes close to WP for generating smoke.

1) Weight for Weight it produces the most smoke. Nothing else is even in the same ballpark.
2) WP absorbs water from air as it burn so a 35lb shell will generate as much as 100lbs of smoke.
3) WP burns extremely quick. While other smoke generating sources may take minutes to produce a field of smoke WP is pretty much instant.

I have personally seen WP as a Forward Observer. The speed that it produces smoke causes your brain to think your are seeing an optical illusion or bad TV special effect. It seems to grow geometrically from nothing.

As long as WP is the most effective artillery smoke round and everything else is so vastly inferior it will be used.

I have been in artillery for 6 years and personally the stuff still scares me. High Explosive (with no fuse attached) is pretty much inert unless it gets too hot. We have even had shells fall off the truck. Ir simply does not go bang unless you fuse it first.

WP on the other hand we handle with care. If you drop it and it cracks it will be a very bad day.