quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Back on track - There's a strong suspicion that WP was used, nothing more at present.  The US has denied using WP, and apparently the Taliban has not made any statements.  Note that the US used WP in Iraq as recently as 2005, but has denied that it used WP in last week's fighting.

quote:


US military: 44 Afghan cases of white phosphorus


KABUL – 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.

<snip>

The U.S. military declassified documents Monday showing at least 38 instances where militants had used white phosphorus in attacks or where weapons had been found in eastern Afghanistan, where the U.S. primarily operates. The NATO-led force supplied information on six other instances in the country.

The U.S. said militants used white phosphorus in improvised explosive attacks at least seven times since spring 2007, some in civilian areas. The documents showed 12 attacks where militants used white phosphorus in mortars or rockets, the majority of which came the last two years.


(Full article here).

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Did anyone actually read the article? There is no "enemy's shit" in Afghanistan. In fact they have been using villagers residences to fire out of, while keeping the residents in the house. In one scenario they did a small engagement from a village and then withdrew. The village was bombed after the miltary and Talibam militants had disengaged. This caused a huge PR issue there.

If WP is being used, then it is being used on the villager's shit. I understand about the problems with civilian casualties but why use WP on buildings and areas that are not militant strongholds?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

The Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit the use of incendiary weapons when any civilians might be in danger.

Legal Status of Incendiary Weapons

From GlobalSecurity.org

... The 1980 Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons deals specifically with the Use of Incendiary Weapons, and their use against civilians.

... President Clinton, in submitting the Convention to the Senate for consideration in 1994, recommended that the United States exercise its right to ratify the Convention accepting only the first two Protocols and not the Incendiary Weapons Protocol. As the President's transmittal message to the Senate indicated, there were concerns about the acceptability of certain of its restrictions from a military point of view that required further examination. After very careful study, a condition was developed that made the Protocol acceptable to the US Government from a broader national security perspective. The proposed reservation of the United States would revise the legal obligations of Article 2 on the United States so that the test of whether the use of an incendiary weapon is permitted in such circumstances would depend on whether it is judged that such use would cause fewer civilian casualties and less collateral damage than alternative weapons.

... Incendiaries, to include napalm, flame-throwers, tracer rounds, and white phosphorous, are not illegal per se or illegal by treaty. The only US policy guidance is found in paragraph 36 of FM 27-10 which warns that they should "not be used in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome

Yes "unnecessary suffering", and of course, that means that no general, no colonel, or no mechanized infantry squad commander would order any civilian to come under fire.  We here in the United States are above that. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome

Yes "unnecessary suffering", and of course, that means that no general, no colonel, or no mechanized infantry squad commander would order any civilian to come under fire.  We here in the United States are above that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

That wasn't a pertinent reply.

The Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit the use of incendiary weapons when any civilians might be in danger.

Edit to add:

We are talking about our own military, not the extremists we are fighting.  You know, that high moral ground thing that seems to have gotten lost after Bush took office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Let me explain Sanity's response.

There is a good chance that WP WAS used in Afghanistan.  However, the fact that the militant Taliban has used it makes it a very real possibility that the US did not use it at all last week, and that the Taliban did instead.